• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does "agnosticism" imply a special degree of uncertainty?

Do you think "agnostic" means the person is more uncertain about gods than about other things?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 37.5%
  • No

    Votes: 10 62.5%

  • Total voters
    16

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
When I see theists push back against someone calling themselves an atheist as opposed to an agnostic, they tend to bring up objections that would apply to empirical knowledge generally, not just to gods: things like the limitations of us as imperfect human beings, the idea that induction can't ever yield a perfectly certain conclusion, etc.

However, in other contexts, I see theists trying to make hay out of the "uncertainty" of agnosticism as if it's some sort of deeper doubt than just the everyday doubt around any sort of empirically-obtained knowledge... as if there's significantly more uncertainty, or a different sort of uncertainty, to declaring God non-existent than there is to, say, declaring a species extinct.

So a question, mostly for theists: how do you interpret "agnostic"? Do you presume an agnostic's attitude toward your god(s) is like the one we have toward extinct species (e.g. "I'd say we've pretty well ruled out that there are any passenger pigeons left, but I remember when they caught a live coelacanth after they were declared extinct, so call me only 99.9% sure... but that guy claiming to have a live passenger pigeon is definitely a crank") or do you presume that it's something else (e.g. "while we can't say for sure, I think there's real merit to those theists' claims about God that we shouldn't be quick to dismiss")?

Poll above, feel free to discuss below.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I have come to refuse to lend much significance or weight to any sort of claim or concept that is defined in reference to deities.

So no, agnosticism requires no particular degree of uncertainty.
 

Sand Dancer

Currently catless
When I see theists push back against someone calling themselves an atheist as opposed to an agnostic, they tend to bring up objections that would apply to empirical knowledge generally, not just to gods: things like the limitations of us as imperfect human beings, the idea that induction can't ever yield a perfectly certain conclusion, etc.

However, in other contexts, I see theists trying to make hay out of the "uncertainty" of agnosticism as if it's some sort of deeper doubt than just the everyday doubt around any sort of empirically-obtained knowledge... as if there's significantly more uncertainty, or a different sort of uncertainty, to declaring God non-existent than there is to, say, declaring a species extinct.

So a question, mostly for theists: how do you interpret "agnostic"? Do you presume an agnostic's attitude toward your god(s) is like the one we have toward extinct species (e.g. "I'd say we've pretty well ruled out that there are any passenger pigeons left, but I remember when they caught a live coelacanth after they were declared extinct, so call me only 99.9% sure... but that guy claiming to have a live passenger pigeon is definitely a crank") or do you presume that it's something else (e.g. "while we can't say for sure, I think there's real merit to those theists' claims about God that we shouldn't be quick to dismiss")?

Poll above, feel free to discuss below.

I get how people think their gods exist, but really, if it's all about belief, there's no factual evidence of deities. Agnostics, IMO, are not afraid to say that deities are not provable, but they may believe in them or not anyway.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
FWIW, while I have no issue with acknowledging limitations on my own knowledge, lately I've avoided calling myself an agnostic because it seems like people would assume this means I have a special, bigger sort of doubt that I reserve for God.

My position on gods is something like "everything I observe and measure supports - or is at least consistent with - the premise that gods do not exist, but I also know that it's possible for me to be mistaken sometimes." This isn't absolute certainty, but it also doesn't seem - to me, at least - captured by the word "agnostic."
 

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
So a question, mostly for theists: how do you interpret "agnostic"?
I met one agnostic in real life and asked him simple question "what is agnosticism?"
He told me this means it's belief there might be or is some force (ex. god) but we don't know.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Agnosticism implies a degree of humility. A much underrated quality, seldom seen anywhere in human affairs.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I am agnostic on the question of preternatural agency. I am no more agnostic toward specific gods (e.g., Ahura Mazda, Allah, Jesus, Odin, Shiva, YHVH, Vishnu, etc) than I am towards unicorns.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
When I see theists push back against someone calling themselves an atheist as opposed to an agnostic, they tend to bring up objections that would apply to empirical knowledge generally, not just to gods: things like the limitations of us as imperfect human beings, the idea that induction can't ever yield a perfectly certain conclusion, etc.

However, in other contexts, I see theists trying to make hay out of the "uncertainty" of agnosticism as if it's some sort of deeper doubt than just the everyday doubt around any sort of empirically-obtained knowledge... as if there's significantly more uncertainty, or a different sort of uncertainty, to declaring God non-existent than there is to, say, declaring a species extinct.

So a question, mostly for theists: how do you interpret "agnostic"? Do you presume an agnostic's attitude toward your god(s) is like the one we have toward extinct species (e.g. "I'd say we've pretty well ruled out that there are any passenger pigeons left, but I remember when they caught a live coelacanth after they were declared extinct, so call me only 99.9% sure... but that guy claiming to have a live passenger pigeon is definitely a crank") or do you presume that it's something else (e.g. "while we can't say for sure, I think there's real merit to those theists' claims about God that we shouldn't be quick to dismiss")?

Poll above, feel free to discuss below.

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

According to the above definition I'd say that agnostics are less skeptical than atheists. Both agnostics and atheists lack a belief that any god definitely exists... it's just that agnostics claim that it's impossible to know. As an atheist I leave the door open to the possibility that someday someone might possibly be able to provide evidence that some god being exists. An agnostic has certainty that it's impossible to know... I remain skeptical of that claim.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
When I see theists push back against someone calling themselves an atheist as opposed to an agnostic, they tend to bring up objections that would apply to empirical knowledge generally, not just to gods: things like the limitations of us as imperfect human beings, the idea that induction can't ever yield a perfectly certain conclusion, etc.

However, in other contexts, I see theists trying to make hay out of the "uncertainty" of agnosticism as if it's some sort of deeper doubt than just the everyday doubt around any sort of empirically-obtained knowledge... as if there's significantly more uncertainty, or a different sort of uncertainty, to declaring God non-existent than there is to, say, declaring a species extinct.

So a question, mostly for theists: how do you interpret "agnostic"? Do you presume an agnostic's attitude toward your god(s) is like the one we have toward extinct species (e.g. "I'd say we've pretty well ruled out that there are any passenger pigeons left, but I remember when they caught a live coelacanth after they were declared extinct, so call me only 99.9% sure... but that guy claiming to have a live passenger pigeon is definitely a crank") or do you presume that it's something else (e.g. "while we can't say for sure, I think there's real merit to those theists' claims about God that we shouldn't be quick to dismiss")?

Poll above, feel free to discuss below.
As an Agnostic, I define Agnosticism (in the philosophical sense, not just colloquial) as the ignorance of the existence or nature of god(s).
Or, in simpler words: "I don't know what a god is - and neither do you."
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
When I see theists push back against someone calling themselves an atheist as opposed to an agnostic, they tend to bring up objections that would apply to empirical knowledge generally, not just to gods: things like the limitations of us as imperfect human beings, the idea that induction can't ever yield a perfectly certain conclusion, etc.

However, in other contexts, I see theists trying to make hay out of the "uncertainty" of agnosticism as if it's some sort of deeper doubt than just the everyday doubt around any sort of empirically-obtained knowledge... as if there's significantly more uncertainty, or a different sort of uncertainty, to declaring God non-existent than there is to, say, declaring a species extinct.

So a question, mostly for theists: how do you interpret "agnostic"? Do you presume an agnostic's attitude toward your god(s) is like the one we have toward extinct species (e.g. "I'd say we've pretty well ruled out that there are any passenger pigeons left, but I remember when they caught a live coelacanth after they were declared extinct, so call me only 99.9% sure... but that guy claiming to have a live passenger pigeon is definitely a crank") or do you presume that it's something else (e.g. "while we can't say for sure, I think there's real merit to those theists' claims about God that we shouldn't be quick to dismiss")?

Poll above, feel free to discuss below.
I think a lot of people misunderstand the use of agnosticism a bit.

An atheist in their purest form is simply a lack of belief in God(s).

Its opposite is obviously that of a theist.

Agnosticism is related to knowledge.

So you can be an agnostic atheist. This means that your overall view is that God(s) don't exist, but that we can never know for certain, this is also called soft atheism, likewise, you have gnostic atheism or hard atheism, which is that one is convinced that there is no god and that we can know or eventually prove it.

Both positions are covered by the term atheism.

Equally, you can be a gnostic and agnostic theist, obviously opposite of that of an atheist's view regarding these.

So to put it simply:

Atheism/theist is ones overall view regarding the question about the existence of God(s)

Gnostic/Agnostic is a person's view in regards to the knowledge about this topic.

If someone refers to themselves as purely agnostic, at least in my opinion, they would be agnostic theists, because atheism per definition does not support the existence of God(s), regardless of whether one thinks we can know about it or not with certainty.

Atheism and theism are like true and false statements, they can't both be true at the same time.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Agnosticism is merely the rational acknowledgement that you can't falsify the unfalsifiable.

That's it.

I'm an agnostic atheist.
I don't believe in any gods because nobody has ever given me a sufficient reason to do so.
And I don't know if no gods exist, because gods are unfalsifiable and you can't falsify the unfalsifiable by definition.

I'm as agnostic about gods as I am about extra-dimensional undetectable poker playing dragons.


In my experience, just about every atheist you shall meet in life, with very few exceptions, will be an agnostic atheist.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I think a lot of people misunderstand the use of agnosticism a bit.

An atheist in their purest form is simply a lack of belief in God(s).

Its opposite is obviously that of a theist.

Agnosticism is related to knowledge.

So you can be an agnostic atheist. This means that your overall view is that God(s) don't exist, but that we can never know for certain, this is also called soft atheism, likewise, you have gnostic atheism or hard atheism, which is that one is convinced that there is no god and that we can know or eventually prove it.

Both positions are covered by the term atheism.

Equally, you can be a gnostic and agnostic theist, obviously opposite of that of an atheist's view regarding these.

So to put it simply:

Atheism/theist is ones overall view regarding the question about the existence of God(s)

Gnostic/Agnostic is a person's view in regards to the knowledge about this topic.

If someone refers to themselves as purely agnostic, at least in my opinion, they would be agnostic theists, because atheism per definition does not support the existence of God(s), regardless of whether one thinks we can know about it or not with certainty.

Atheism and theism are like true and false statements, they can't both be true at the same time.
Please don't get me started about this misuse of the term "gnostic" on the internet.
 
Top