Know, you can't know...

[Magisterium]

While reading posts and reflecting on the positions of agnostics, theists, and atheists, I came to an interesting thought which I'd like to share.

It seems to me that most of us understand by now what true objective "knowledge" is not attainable in matters of theism (there is a god, there isn't a god). However, it seems that here at the crossroads of understanding, theists (Christians, Jews, Muslim, pagans etc.) choose to believe, athiests choose not to believe, and agnostics seem to believe that they can somehow remain on the fence.

However, in matter of theism, there is no third option. One must either believe or not believe. Therefore, the agnostic is still simply one who will not believe. The fact that they say they "do not know" is only stating the obvious! Nobody "knows" (theistic of atheistic)! In fact, there is no pragmatic difference between the agnostic position and the atheistic. An athiest is simply one who commits fully to their decision come hell or high water (no pun intended).

I'm interested to hear from agnostics on this matter.. I sense from some agnostic posts, that the unwillingness to "take the plunge" one way or the other is somewhat consoling to some who seem to think it's not quite the same as being a "full throttle" athiest. However, apart from a mental assent, there is really no difference.

 

[seebs]

Well, there's something you've forgotten:

1. Many people claim to "know".
2. There are agnostic theists.

As a militant agnostic ("I don't know, and you don't either!") who is also a Christian, I guess I don't accept your interpretation. I think Huxley's point in coining the term was less one about position, and more one about methods.

He wrote:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

This does not preclude coming to hold a religious faith; it merely precludes claiming certainty without strong and compelling evidence. But who needs certainty? Certainty makes people arrogant, smug, and often insufferable! For me, I'll take a little bit of doubt, and a faith which grows the stronger for being tried a little.

 

[Magisterium]

Well, there's something you've forgotten:

1. Many people claim to "know".
2. There are agnostic theists.

Actually, I didn't forget it. I explicitly stated it. The fact is, we are all agnostics in that none can "know". The difference is that some agnostics choose to believe and others choose not to believe. In the case of theism, you can believe or not. There's no fence.

As for those who claim to "know" this is generally a lack of understanding or misplaced certainty. For this reason, I exclude this group from this discussion.

Effectively, I've drawn the conclusion that the idea that there are Theists, Atheists, and Agnostics, is a fallacy and the "fence riders" who refer to themselves as "agnostics" are actually atheists in practice.

 

[seebs]

Hmm. Maybe we agree after all. That said, I think there are more than two meaningful positions. Relevant ones include:
1. Belief.
2. Non-belief.
3. Active disbelief.
4. Non-cognitivism.
5. Non-sapience.

I don't think that rocks are "atheists", and I don't think that very young children are "atheists", even though neither seems to have any real concept of God - but I also think they're different kinds of non-atheist.

Just about all of these may coexist with agnosticism.

I think the popular shorthand of agnosticism as meaning, pretty much, weak atheism is admittedly probably wrong... but I don't agree that all fence sitters are atheists. Some are rejecting the question as ill-formed, which is not the same thing as taking a position.

 

[DXRocker73]

Agnostics don't deny the existence of a god or gods. They just simply state that they "don't know". Athesists deny the existence of anything spiritually above man, Theists believe in a set god or gods.

There can very well easilly be a middle ground for Agnostics because while they believe in something, they don't believe in the Christian God, or the Greek/Roman Zeus or Hera, and the Goddess of Wicca, so on and so forth.

 

[Fiendishjester]

Ahh I've been posting the "you can't know" all over this board lately. I'm glad to see that there are others who understand this. I don't feel as lonely now.

As for the discussion, I think you can still be agnostic because you do not believe that God exists or that God doesn't exist. When we all arrive at the point where we realize that we can never "know," some people decide to believe that God exists, and some people decide to believe that God doesn't exist. There are people who choose not believe either of these, and do not place their belief anywhere. They just stay at the "I don't know" point. These are what I would describe as agnostics.

 

[wryan]

It's a good point, and I can see where your coming from Magisterium, however I would look at it this way. Lets say their was a vote tommorrow to decide whether or not their is a God. The theists vote yes, the atheists vote no, and the agnostics don't vote at all. Would the agnostic's non-vote count the same as the athiest's vote of "no"? Bill

 

[Magisterium]

It's a good point, and I can see where your coming from Magisterium, however I would look at it this way. Lets say their was a vote tommorrow to decide whether or not their is a God. The theists vote yes, the atheists vote no, and the agnostics don't vote at all. Would the agnostic's non-vote count the same as the athiest's vote of "no"? Bill

In the case of a vote, indeed you'd be right. The Act of voting provides two "movements" from a default position. However, we all begin at the point of agnosticism (not knowing) and therefore not believing. The believer moves from the point of not knowing based upon belief which we will consider a positive motion to the "position" of belief. The Athiest in disbelief makes no such motion. Disbelief is the default state. The agnostic also makes no such motion thus remaining at the default position and simply stating that they are at the default position which is really a moot point.

In short, it seems to me, that agnostics and athiests are really the same. They don't want to "believe", they want to "know".

 

[Magisterium]

Ahh I've been posting the "you can't know" all over this board lately. I'm glad to see that there are others who understand this. I don't feel as lonely now.

As for the discussion, I think you can still be agnostic because you do not believe that God exists or that God doesn't exist. When we all arrive at the point where we realize that we can never "know," some people decide to believe that God exists, and some people decide to believe that God doesn't exist. There are people who choose not believe either of these, and do not place their belief anywhere. They just stay at the "I don't know" point. These are what I would describe as agnostics.

Here, we have a common error in logic due to difficult use of language. follow very carefully:

To not believe that God exists, is the same as to belive that God does not exist.

Stated positively = Stated negatively

This becomes more clear when you consider that one cannot believe that God exists, and at the same time believe that God does not exist. (In this case, both positions are stated positively)

It is also impossible for one to not believe that god exists, and at the same time believe that God exists.

However, when we mix up the method of stating in the same sentence, there appears to be a middle ground which is not truly there. Which is why an agnostic seems to believe that somehow "not believing", is different from "not believing".

 

[Nathan David]

While reading posts and reflecting on the positions of agnostics, theists, and atheists, I came to an interesting thought which I'd like to share.

It seems to me that most of us understand by now what true objective "knowledge" is not attainable in matters of theism (there is a god, there isn't a god). However, it seems that here at the crossroads of understanding, theists (Christians, Jews, Muslim, pagans etc.) choose to believe, athiests choose not to believe, and agnostics seem to believe that they can somehow remain on the fence.

However, in matter of theism, there is no third option. One must either believe or not believe. Therefore, the agnostic is still simply one who will not believe. The fact that they say they "do not know" is only stating the obvious! Nobody "knows" (theistic of atheistic)! In fact, there is no pragmatic difference between the agnostic position and the atheistic. An athiest is simply one who commits fully to their decision come hell or high water (no pun intended).

I'm interested to hear from agnostics on this matter.. I sense from some agnostic posts, that the unwillingness to "take the plunge" one way or the other is somewhat consoling to some who seem to think it's not quite the same as being a "full throttle" athiest. However, apart from a mental assent, there is really no difference.

That's the main reason I describe myself as an atheist instead of an agnostic. I don't know for sure that there is no god or gods, but I see no reason to believe there is, so I don't.

 

[seebs]

Here, we have a common error in logic due to difficult use of language. follow very carefully:

To not believe that God exists, is the same as to belive that God does not exist.

Not true.

You're assuming all people have opinions on the issue. I have a noun phrase in my mind right now. You do not believe this noun exists; you do not believe it does not exist. If I tell you what it is, you may or may not then form an opinion, but until I tell you, you neither believe it doesn't exist nor believe it does.

Since it's "the planet orbiting the seventh closest star to Alpha Centauri", unless you're an astronomer, I'd guess you still don't have a belief for or against, even now that you know what the words are.

However, when we mix up the method of stating in the same sentence, there appears to be a middle ground which is not truly there. Which is why an agnostic seems to believe that somehow "not believing", is different from "not believing".

You're quite mistaken here, because you're assuming that everyone holds positions on all issues. (You're also ignoring the very real case of theistic agnostics.)

There are people who neither believe nor disbelieve, and this is meaningfully different from people who actively disbelieve.

 

[Magisterium]

You're quite mistaken here, because you're assuming that everyone holds positions on all issues. (You're also ignoring the very real case of theistic agnostics.)

There are people who neither believe nor disbelieve, and this is meaningfully different from people who actively disbelieve.

Read this slowly and carefully...

Everyone who believes, is an agnostic believer. This is because though they believe, they can never know.

There is no practical or pragmatic difference between disbelief and active disbelief. The only difference between these two positions is in the mind of the disbeliever. Whatever the thought process may be, both choose disbelief.

One could possibly state that the "agnostic" is a passive disbeliver, while an athiest would be an active disbeliever. However, this only proves my original point that both are disbelievers the only difference is in their minds.

 

[placebo]

... Everyone who believes, is an agnostic believer. This is because though they believe, they can never know. ...

What do you label those who claim to have spoken directly with God?

 

[Magisterium]

What do you label those who claim to have spoken directly with God?

Even in this case, unless they could objectively prove this dialog (which would be physically impossible), it remains belief.

Again, people who claim "knowledge" one way or the other are excluded from this discussion. We've already established that "knowledge" is impossible due to a lack of the ability to irrefutably prove matters of theism.

 

[wryan]

Here, we have a common error in logic due to difficult use of language. follow very carefully:

To not believe that God exists, is the same as to belive that God does not exist.

Stated positively = Stated negatively

This becomes more clear when you consider that one cannot believe that God exists, and at the same time believe that God does not exist. (In this case, both positions are stated positively)

It is also impossible for one to not believe that god exists, and at the same time believe that God exists.

However, when we mix up the method of stating in the same sentence, there appears to be a middle ground which is not truly there. Which is why an agnostic seems to believe that somehow "not believing", is different from "not believing".

You made a point to seebs about how the difference between an agnostic and an athiest is only in their minds, and in reality is just an illusion for their is no middle choice. I believe that when we're talking about belief systems it seems strange not to take into account why an individual might try to make a distinction between themselves and an athiest.

When seebs points out the existence of theistic agnosticism your reply is that everyone is agnostic in the sense that they don't objectively know. However, as another poster stated their are many who would claim that they do know "without a doubt". Your response is that even though they think they know since they cannot prove it then that doesn't matter in this discussion. However, I would say that a persons own viewpoint is their belief whether proven or not, and the existence of proof one way or the other doesn't neccesarily have any bearing at all in that person's belief system.

In other words, how can one acknowledge that their is no way they can say without a doubt their beliefs are true, and then say that based on their beliefs something is definately real and something else is definately an illusion?

It would be like if three people had the choice of drinking either milk or orange juice. One person chooses to drink the milk, another person drinks the orange juice, and the third chooses not to drink anything at all. The person who drinks the orange juice claims that the only choice was to either drink the orange juice or not drink it, therefore the person who drank the milk is the same as the person who didn't drink anything at all. Logically, this isn't correct. You could say the person who didn't drink anything has similarities to the person who drank the milk in that neither drank the orange juice, however both are still decidedly different in their choices.(i know I'm opening a door here, but please... no drinking the kool-aid jokes )

Bill

 

[Fiendishjester]

Now that you mention it, I actually see the problem with the phrasing, thanks for pointing it out. However, say I rephrased it: an agnostic is someone that doesn't believe, after coming to the point where they realize "they can't know."

 

[Magisterium]

Now that you mention it, I actually see the problem with the phrasing, thanks for pointing it out. However, say I rephrased it: an agnostic is someone that doesn't believe, after coming to the point where they realize "they can't know."

My point exactly.

 

[Prometheus_ash]

Sorry to but into the arguement and thread somewhat late, but I thought I would thow my won two cents out here.

Agnostics cannot be theist! a theist is one that blieves in god, whether or not they believe they have adequet evidence for or against it, or none at all. An agnostic however, does not believe in god, nor does he disbelieve.

For exclusive religions like christianity, being an agniostic is in terms of consequences, exactly the same as disblieving (u go to hell either wya if they are right). So in temrs of consequences, disbeliefe and no beliefe at all are exactly the same.