The term "Agnostic", is it viable? Problematic?

[Sunstone]

In my experience, some folks cannot live with uncertainty. As C. S. Pierce more or less pointed out over 100 years ago, doubt is an emotionally uncomfortable position. Belief, on the other hand, is comforting, and thus humans have a natural tendency to prefer it to doubt, even when their beliefs are illogical, and/or wrong.

 

[Bunyip]

The reality is that all people of faith are agnostic. Faith does not infer knowledge, theists believe in a god - but it is not knowledge and therefore theists are agnostic.

One may claim gnosticism, but it is an empty claim. Whether or not a theistic deity exists is not knowable.

 

[paarsurrey]

What are your thoughts on the term agnostic, is it problematic, does it imply wishy-washiness?

Definition :wishy washy
1. Thin and watery, as tea or soup; insipid.

2. Lacking in strength of character or purpose; ineffective; weak in willpower.

Urban Dictionary: wishy washy

An Agnostic is neither certain of his existence nor of the existence of G-d; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

It is a fair term, and fulfills a necessary role.

It is also greatly abused IMO. I have a distinct feeling that it is used often when "atheist" would be a better, more accurate and more honest choice, solely because there is still such reluctance to accept atheism.

I agree with you.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

By itself it doesn't imply anything. It states either wishy-washiness or, alternatively, those people who have an understanding that god is unknowable.

Sure enough.

Regards

 

[gnostic]

It can be neither yes nor no, if it's, "I don't know." It's a declaration of ignorance.

That's one way you can put it.

But the alternative to "I don't know" is that agnosticism is - "I don't have to decide right now, one way or the other".

I think agnosticism is the most prudent approach to religion, or more specifically on the question of a deity's existence, hence theism. Both theism and atheism approach it from belief, but agnosticism approaches from knowledge or the lack of it.

To me, the only way to gain knowledge, is through logic, verification, observation or evidence...or the combination of some or all of the above.

 

[TheGunShoj]

No need to complicate things.

Q. Does god exist?

A.
 Theist: Yes
 Atheist: No
 Agnostic: Don't know.

It actually isn't that simple though. It's more like this.

Do you believe god exists?

Options are

A. Atheist (No)
B. Theist (Yes)

Do/can you know that God exists?

A. Agnostic (no/I don't know)
B. Gnostic (yes)

One question addresses knowledge and the other addresses belief and they aren't mutually exclusive. This is why I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I have a response to both of these questions.

 

[Prophet]

I bet a lot of agnostics are wishy-washy atheists who don't want a fight on their hands, but for the self-examined people using the terms strictly, they do have an appropriate difference in terms of rational defensibility. Atheism is a positive belief that there are no god(s). Agnosticism is a claim to ignorance of god(s). My impression is that many atheists would sensibly equivocate to agnosticism if their beliefs were subjected to skilled scrutiny. Then again, I have no problem with people labeling themselves whatever the hell they want.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

It actually isn't that simple though. It's more like this.

Do you believe god exists?

Options are

A. Atheist (No)
B. Theist (Yes)

Do/can you know that God exists?

A. Agnostic (no/I don't know)
B. Gnostic (yes)

One question addresses knowledge and the other addresses belief and they aren't mutually exclusive. This is why I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I have a response to both of these questions.

My view is that 'some'times agnosticism is mutually exclusive to atheism and theism. I have never claimed that agnosticism is a middle ground to atheism and theism but rather my point is about someone who does not fit the atheist and theist label. Agnosticism would just be an ALTERNATIVE label that is left to choose from. So if you ask me the question I would say I'm neither, I'm just agnostic.

I've already explained my position before but I'll reiterate it. It's one thing to ask if someone believes in God's existence but it's another thing for someone to know what they believe or to have it settled in their mind to be able to answer the question.

Example of belief forming:
1. Theist believe in X existence because of evidence to support X existing
2. Atheist don't believe in X because of no evidence/reasons to support X
3. Agnostics (in some cases) see evidence to both sides and may form some acceptance to both propositions

 

[Bunyip]

I bet a lot of agnostics are wishy-washy atheists who don't want a fight on their hands, but for the self-examined people using the terms strictly, they do have an appropriate difference in terms of rational defensibility. Atheism is a positive belief that there are no god(s). Agnosticism is a claim to ignorance of god(s). My impression is that many atheists would sensibly equivocate to agnosticism if their beliefs were subjected to skilled scrutiny. Then again, I have no problem with people labeling themselves whatever the hell they want.

You are mistaken, atheism makes no positive claim. Most atheists are agnostic and there is no 'skilled scrutiny' that can render atheism to be any less reasonable.

 

[Prophet]

You are mistaken, atheism makes no positive claim. Most atheists are agnostic and there is no 'skilled scrutiny' that can render atheism to be any less reasonable.

I was clearly not talking about atheists who have already equivocated from a position that no deities exist to a position that they are ignorant of deities. I agree that there is no scrutiny I can render in this case. However, in the case of a "strong" atheist who claims that no god(s) exist, a reasoned debate will demand they equivocate to a position of ignorance of god(s) or "weak" atheism.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

-opening line of atheism entry from wikipedia

 

[Skwim]

It actually isn't that simple though. It's more like this.

Do you believe god exists?

Options are

A. Atheist (No)
B. Theist (Yes)

Do/can you know that God exists?

A. Agnostic (no/I don't know)
B. Gnostic (yes)

So, what constitutes this "knowing" of the Gnostic that eludes any knowing by atheists and theists?

 

[Bunyip]

I was clearly not talking about atheists who have already equivocated from a position that no deities exist to a position that they are ignorant of deities.

There is no equivocation there, atheism is just the absence of belief in deities - not a claim of absolute knowledge regarding the non-existence of god.

I agree that there is no scrutiny I can render in this case. However, in the case of a "strong" atheist who claims that no god(s) exist, a reasoned debate will demand they equivocate to a position of ignorance of god(s) or "weak" atheism.

-opening line of atheism entry from wikipedia

Nah, forget about that 'strong' atheist, 'weak atheist' nonsense - it is a little trap apologists use to try to define atheism out of existence. Atheism makes no positive claim, it is essentially agnostic.

 

[s2a]

There is no equivocation there, atheism is just the absence of belief in deities - not a claim of absolute knowledge regarding the non-existence of god.



Nah, forget about that 'strong' atheist, 'weak atheist' nonsense - it is a little trap apologists use to try to define atheism out of existence. Atheism makes no positive claim, it is essentially agnostic.

Can't frubal you, but I kiss you on the mouth.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Can't frubal you, but I kiss you on the mouth.

I didn't quite go that far, but I did frubal him.

 

[Prophet]

There is no equivocation there, atheism is just the absence of belief in deities - not a claim of absolute knowledge regarding the non-existence of god.

Yet many people when asked if they were atheist would say, "actually I'm agnostic," to distance themselves from the anti-religious. In my experiences, there's been a clear accepted difference between atheism and agnosticism in our language.

Nah, forget about that 'strong' atheist, 'weak atheist' nonsense - it is a little trap apologists use to try to define atheism out of existence. Atheism makes no positive claim, it is essentially agnostic.

While atheists on both ends of the spectrum may be cowed into the "weaker" position philosophically, behavior tells the whole story. When Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or any other atheists openly mock religions and their followers, their behavior betrays a position much "stronger" than simple ignorance of god(s).

(NOTE: I use "weak" and "strong" with quotes in the context of atheism to express my belief that the "weak" atheist position is the much stronger one to hold. I have no problem with agnostics calling themselves atheists, yet I still believe the difference between the two positions is significant.)

 

[Prophet]

So, what constitutes this "knowing" of the Gnostic that eludes any knowing by atheists and theists?

This "knowing" has been called many things, Self-realization and spiritual enlightenment to name a few.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty. -Jesus

 

[lewisnotmiller]

While atheists on both ends of the spectrum may be cowed into the "weaker" position philosophically, behavior tells the whole story. When Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or any other atheists openly mock religions and their followers, their behavior betrays a position much "stronger" than simple ignorance of god(s).

Perhaps, but not necessarily, I think. It's quite possible to be staunchly anti-religious, and yet believe in god. Its aIso possible to be religious and yet disdain almost all religions.
A weak atheist can allow for a non-interventionist god (for example) and yet find the concept of revealed religions ridiculous, and contrary to all evidence.

People too often equate weak atheist with wavering or weak atheistic belief when there is no correlation.

 

[Bunyip]

Yet many people when asked if they were atheist would say, "actually I'm agnostic," to distance themselves from the anti-religious. In my experiences, there's been a clear accepted difference between atheism and agnosticism in our language.



While atheists on both ends of the spectrum may be cowed into the "weaker" position philosophically, behavior tells the whole story. When Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or any other atheists openly mock religions and their followers, their behavior betrays a position much "stronger" than simple ignorance of god(s).

(NOTE: I use "weak" and "strong" with quotes in the context of atheism to express my belief that the "weak" atheist position is the much stronger one to hold. I have no problem with agnostics calling themselves atheists, yet I still believe the difference between the two positions is significant.)

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive - atheism/theism speaks to what you believe, whilst agnosticism/gnosticism speaks tomwhat you know (or claim to know).

Atheism is atheism, forget about the weak/strong nonsense. I like most atheists am agnostic. Apologists label atheism 'weak' to diminish it, don't fall for it.

 

[Sunstone]

While atheists on both ends of the spectrum may be cowed into the "weaker" position philosophically, behavior tells the whole story. When Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or any other atheists openly mock religions and their followers, their behavior betrays a position much "stronger" than simple ignorance of god(s).

You seem to me to be confusing atheism as a truth claim with atheism as a belief. Dawkins, for instance, accepts that atheism as a truth claim -- that is, "It is demonstrable there is no god" -- is problematic and most likely false, while yet at the same time expressing his strong belief that there is almost certainly no god.