Why aren't there more agnostics?

[Buddha Dharma]

Agnosticism isn't a bad position to take, but I'm going to be frank about why it isn't very large as a thought movement. Taking the position of 'I don't know' not only appears weak to most people, but the way agnostics treat it as a starting point or even a virtue is not intellectually useful.

'I don't know' isn't a virtue or a starting point, except if one is honest- a start toward trying to gain the knowledge they feel is lacking. Agnosticism has almost made a gospel out of 'I don't know', and some of them do actually behave like that's a place to remain. That one doesn't need to pursue any knowledge to try to 'know'.

There comes a point where agnosticism can be for an individual, a form of intellectual laziness.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I'm pantheist. I've arrived at that, after growing up theist, going through periods of agnosticism, back into theism, and then seeing "Jesus" through the universe, nature, and everyday people. It isn't for everyone. But the idea of atheism always felt like a con, and now that I understand my own faith, saying "I don't know" seems to me like a very intellectually honest position. "I don't know" may become "I don't care" which is still honest. It may also come to belief, but honestly, I don't care about belief or not, I care about honesty.

Suppose I were to proclaim, "I know there are no unicorns because I haven't seen them, and science says they shouldn't exist." This is very intellectually dishonest because firstly, I the theoretical person making this claim, has not been to other areas outside New Jersey. Not to remote regions of the Earth, not to hidden underground areas inside the Earth's crust with a gooey center where unicorns are just hanging out chilling, and not to different planets also capable of bearing life. And there is also the idea that unicorns exist but in a different time (long ago, or perhaps what horses will one day evolve into), are able to conceal themselves. And there are some who believe that the reason writers came up with such an idea is because they are attuned to alternate dimensions. Further, while pegasus is definitely out, because of laws of aerodynamics, there isn't a single law of science restricting animals from growing horns from their head. So the idea that science disproves it is also wrong. There also isn't a law of science disproving God, but there are rules of causality enough that a random uncaused universe is untenable as an idea. "I don't know" is a fine answer, since whatever did cause such order could be literally anything.

Why unicorns, btw? Because I'm a fan of the movie The Last Unicorn, of course.

"I don't know if unicorns exist," is honest. Just as "I don't know if God exists" is honest. But once you start getting into "I know that... isn't so" you get into a weird situation where you are expected to be omniscient yourself. That is, the only way you could disprove unicorns did not exist beyond all doubt, is if you were God yourself, and if we extended that idea to God, we'd run into a paradox.

Even theists only go so far as to say they "believe" something exists or not. So why don't there seem to be as many agnostics as atheists? I'd like to see far more of you guys.

Surely you understand that there is a huge difference between proclaiming that "I don't believe in unicorns" and "Unicorns do not exist". This first statement simply indicates that thus far no one has presented me with sufficient evidence for me to state that I believe unicorns exist. It does NOT preclude the possibility that at some point in the future sufficient evidence to believe in unicorns might be presented. The same holds true for god(s).

An atheists is NOT claiming that god(s) CANNOT exist... simply that there isn't sufficient evidence to believe that they DO exist. An agnostic on the other hand is stating that based upon the evidence they have been presented with they are not SURE if they believe it or not.

It's just like our justice system. When a jury finds a defendent NOT guilty, they are NOT claiming that the defendent is INNOCENT. It indicates that there simply not sufficient evidence presented during the trial to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that they are GUILTY.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Let's define agnostic as "someone who is uncertain as to whether or not god(s) exist" and atheist as "someone who disbelieves in god(s)." Most people who call themselves atheists are actually agnostics, and will readily admit so, but they just choose to identify with what they believe to be true "God's non-existence" rather than what they don't know. People (such as myself) who identify as agnostic are also typically atheists in the sense that we do believe in the non-existence of gods, but choose to place more emphasis on our uncertainty rather than our beliefs. In short, "atheist" and "agnostic" need not be mutually exclusive.

I diagree with your definitions. An atheist states that based on the evidence presented he/she has no reason to believe than any god(s) exist. Should new evidence be presented, that opnion might change. An agnostic states that based upon the evidence they have been presented he/she is not sure if they believe any god(s) exist.

The satement "I do not believe in any god(s)." is NOT the same as "God(s) do not exist."

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm pantheist. I've arrived at that, after growing up theist, going through periods of agnosticism, back into theism, and then seeing "Jesus" through the universe, nature, and everyday people. It isn't for everyone. But the idea of atheism always felt like a con, and now that I understand my own faith, saying "I don't know" seems to me like a very intellectually honest position. "I don't know" may become "I don't care" which is still honest. It may also come to belief, but honestly, I don't care about belief or not, I care about honesty.

Suppose I were to proclaim, "I know there are no unicorns because I haven't seen them, and science says they shouldn't exist." This is very intellectually dishonest because firstly, I the theoretical person making this claim, has not been to other areas outside New Jersey. Not to remote regions of the Earth, not to hidden underground areas inside the Earth's crust with a gooey center where unicorns are just hanging out chilling, and not to different planets also capable of bearing life. And there is also the idea that unicorns exist but in a different time (long ago, or perhaps what horses will one day evolve into), are able to conceal themselves. And there are some who believe that the reason writers came up with such an idea is because they are attuned to alternate dimensions. Further, while pegasus is definitely out, because of laws of aerodynamics, there isn't a single law of science restricting animals from growing horns from their head. So the idea that science disproves it is also wrong. There also isn't a law of science disproving God, but there are rules of causality enough that a random uncaused universe is untenable as an idea. "I don't know" is a fine answer, since whatever did cause such order could be literally anything.

Why unicorns, btw? Because I'm a fan of the movie The Last Unicorn, of course.

"I don't know if unicorns exist," is honest. Just as "I don't know if God exists" is honest. But once you start getting into "I know that... isn't so" you get into a weird situation where you are expected to be omniscient yourself. That is, the only way you could disprove unicorns did not exist beyond all doubt, is if you were God yourself, and if we extended that idea to God, we'd run into a paradox.

Even theists only go so far as to say they "believe" something exists or not. So why don't there seem to be as many agnostics as atheists? I'd like to see far more of you guys.

Most atheists are also agnostics, because they don't claim to know that there are no gods, only that there has not been presented sufficient evidence to believe one exists. The terms are not mutually exclusive.
Unicorns and gods share something in common in that neither have been demonstrated to exist. That does not mean a god or a unicorn cannot or does not exist. But it also means that there is no reason to think either one does. I see no problem with the logic. There are, however, versions of gods that one can be certain do not exist, as they are logically inconsistent.

 

[Katzpur]

I wound up pretty deist...

My husband (a Mormon like me) tends to have a few rather deist beliefs.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

My husband (a Mormon like me) tends to have a few rather deist beliefs.

IMO Deism makes the most sense within a monotheistic framework

 

[Katzpur]

IMO Deism makes the most sense within a monotheistic framework

I'm curious as to why?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I diagree with your definitions. An atheist states that based on the evidence presented he/she has no reason to believe than any god(s) exist. Should new evidence be presented, that opnion might change. An agnostic states that based upon the evidence they have been presented he/she is not sure if they believe any god(s) exist.

The satement "I do not believe in any god(s)." is NOT the same as "God(s) do not exist."

An atheist can also state that gods are an impossibility. Aka strong atheists. 'There will not be evidence for gods because gods are impossible.'
'I don't know for sure but I don't believe there are God' is a position usually called weak atheists or agnostic atheists. And there are far more agnostic atheists than strong atheists.
You can also be agnosic theist. 'I don't know for sure but I do believe god(s) exist.'

There's also whole other categories like ignostic or noncognitivist who think gods are too poorly defined a concept to weigh in on existence.

 

[blü 2]

But the idea of atheism always felt like a con, and now that I understand my own faith, saying "I don't know" seems to me like a very intellectually honest position.

I believe in imaginary gods, why not? They're whatever the individual imaginer wants them to be.

But real gods? I can't even find a workable definition of a real god, a god with objective existence, such that if we found a candidate we could tell whether it was a god or not. As for being spirit, or immaterial, or whatever, no test can distinguish that from the imaginary.

So I'm not an agnostic, and that's because I can't work out what exactly I'm supposed to be in doubt about.

Suppose I were to proclaim, "I know there are no unicorns because I haven't seen them, and science says they shouldn't exist."

Ahm, science doesn't say they shouldn't exist. Science says there's no evidence of their existence, and that's over thousands of years and all the vigor of archaeology and digging around since the 18th century.

Absence of evidence on that scale is evidence of absence. And it can be refuted for scientific purposes by the satisfactory demonstration of just one unicorn.

"I don't know if unicorns exist," is honest. Just as "I don't know if God exists" is honest.

But those two propositions are in difference categories.

In the case of the unicorn, we're looking for a white equine with a single straight horn naturally growing on its forehead, which is only tame in the presence of virgin human females. The quest has a clear goal but no results.

In the case of God, we don't even have a useful definition of what we're looking for, so the quest is incoherent, has no real goal. Nothing real has been specified so no demonstration in reality is possible.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I'm not really an atheist, but I like to believe I have a `spirit` within me.
I like to think my spirit came from the Cosmos and will leave me when I die.
With that in mind, there isn't any cognizence after one dies, your spirit goes on without.
Your gnosis is what your learned from life, and all that is left is memories of your life,
memories in other people of you when you were alive.
Soooo....I guess I'm kinda like an agnostic, with horns, and `spirit`.

Who created that spirit and of what substance is your spirit composed of?

 

[QuestioningMind]

An atheist can also state that gods are an impossibility. Aka strong atheists. 'There will not be evidence for gods because gods are impossible.'
'I don't know for sure but I don't believe there are God' is a position usually called weak atheists or agnostic atheists. And there are far more agnostic atheists than strong atheists.
You can also be agnosic theist. 'I don't know for sure but I do believe god(s) exist.'

There's also whole other categories like ignostic or noncognitivist who think gods are too poorly defined a concept to weigh in on existence.

An atheist simply says they do not believe in any god(s). An atheist CAN take it a step further and state there are no god(s), if they so choose, but that's not part of being an atheist. This idea that there are strong atheists and weak atheists is silly. You either believe that god(s) exist or you don't. If you're not sure if you believe that god(s) exist you're an agnostic.

Stating that I do not believe in Bigfoot simply means that I don't think their is enough verifiable evidence of Bigfoot to conclude that Bigfoot DOES exist. My belief that there isn't sufficient evidence for such a conclusion is STRONG. However, that does not mean that I'm saying Bigfoot does NOT exist. ONLY that there isn't sufficient evidence to say that I believe Bigfoot DOES exist. That doesn't make my lack of belief that Bigfoot DOES exist WEAK. It just means that I'm open to the POSSIBILITY that at some point in the future there might be sufficient evidence for me to believe that Bigfoot does exist.

I'm an 'atheist' when it comes to Bigfoot in the exact same way that I'm an atheist when it comes to god(s).

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I'm curious as to why?

I think Deism fits more with how the world is, if one accepted an all-powerful divinity as creator. One might look around at cosmic accidents, evil in the world, and such to easily conclude that God is not currently active in the world. That of course, is the usual Deist position. That God made a watch, wound it up and let it go.

 

[taykair]

I do see agnosticism as often leaning towards either theism or atheism

I do not.

I see theism and atheism on the "I know" side (or, if you like, the "I believe I know" side).

Agnostics are on the "I don't know" side.

Between those who know and those who do not, there is a great gulf fixed...

 

[taykair]

Agnosticism has almost made a gospel out of 'I don't know', and some of them do actually behave like that's a place to remain. That one doesn't need to pursue any knowledge to try to 'know'.

Could not have said this better.

"I don't know" should be our prime motivator for getting to "I do know".

Ignorance is not strength.

 

[taykair]

In the case of God, we don't even have a useful definition of what we're looking for, so the quest is incoherent, has no real goal. Nothing real has been specified so no demonstration in reality is possible.

Or it may be that there are too many definitions.

Is your God a single being? Or is there some kind of Council of Gods which acts, more or less, as a single being? Is He anthropomorphic? Is He a ball of energy? Is He even a He? Plus a thousand other questions, each of which is answered in a slightly (or greatly) different way by the codes, philosophies and traditions of the various belief systems.

 

[blü 2]

Is your God a single being? Or is there some kind of Council of Gods which acts, more or less, as a single being? Is He anthropomorphic? Is He a ball of energy? Is He even a He? Plus a thousand other questions, each of which is answered in a slightly (or greatly) different way by the codes, philosophies and traditions of the various belief systems.

Now you see the problem.

To be real, a god / God has to exist in reality, which is to say, has to have objective existence. If God doesn't have objective existence then the best [he] can be is imaginary. And if Gpd has objective existence then God has real qualities, and the outline of these real qualities would provide us with that useful definition.

But not only is there none, but no one seems to be looking for the answer either.

And without that definition, no one is talking about a real god, only their particular imaginary undefined one.

 

[taykair]

...no one seems to be looking for the answer either.

This is true. No one seeks the Objective God - the God Whom We Can All Agree Upon. But millions seek the Subjective God - the God of My Own Understanding. One would think that, by understanding, one would no longer need to seek. When we understand that our continued search is an indication that our definition of God is incomplete or faulty in some way, we take a step closer to the Objective God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm pantheist. I've arrived at that, after growing up theist, going through periods of agnosticism, back into theism, and then seeing "Jesus" through the universe, nature, and everyday people. It isn't for everyone. But the idea of atheism always felt like a con, and now that I understand my own faith, saying "I don't know" seems to me like a very intellectually honest position. "I don't know" may become "I don't care" which is still honest. It may also come to belief, but honestly, I don't care about belief or not, I care about honesty.

Suppose I were to proclaim, "I know there are no unicorns because I haven't seen them, and science says they shouldn't exist." This is very intellectually dishonest because firstly, I the theoretical person making this claim, has not been to other areas outside New Jersey. Not to remote regions of the Earth, not to hidden underground areas inside the Earth's crust with a gooey center where unicorns are just hanging out chilling, and not to different planets also capable of bearing life. And there is also the idea that unicorns exist but in a different time (long ago, or perhaps what horses will one day evolve into), are able to conceal themselves. And there are some who believe that the reason writers came up with such an idea is because they are attuned to alternate dimensions. Further, while pegasus is definitely out, because of laws of aerodynamics, there isn't a single law of science restricting animals from growing horns from their head. So the idea that science disproves it is also wrong. There also isn't a law of science disproving God, but there are rules of causality enough that a random uncaused universe is untenable as an idea. "I don't know" is a fine answer, since whatever did cause such order could be literally anything.

Why unicorns, btw? Because I'm a fan of the movie The Last Unicorn, of course.

"I don't know if unicorns exist," is honest. Just as "I don't know if God exists" is honest. But once you start getting into "I know that... isn't so" you get into a weird situation where you are expected to be omniscient yourself. That is, the only way you could disprove unicorns did not exist beyond all doubt, is if you were God yourself, and if we extended that idea to God, we'd run into a paradox.

Even theists only go so far as to say they "believe" something exists or not. So why don't there seem to be as many agnostics as atheists? I'd like to see far more of you guys.

You do realize that atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive, right? People can be both.

Personally, I probably technically qualify as an agnostic as well as an atheist, but I don't identify as an agnostic or refer to myself as one because I think it's misleading.

I find that typically, people interpret the "I don't know" of agnosticism as something like "I think the odds are about 50-50 that Gods exist." My position is actually something like this:

While I can't disprove the existence of all gods with absolute certainty, I see no reason whatsoever to presume that they do exist. I also see many reasons to presume they don't exist and reasons to presume that gods are fabrications. However, it's possible for a fabrication to end up being coincidentally true, so there's a small - but negligible for all practical purposes - room for doubt on the conclusion that gods do not exist... just like leprechauns, invisible dragons, or the unicorns you mentioned.

People tend to demand a ridiculous level of certainty about gods that they don't demand in pretty well any other circumstance. If I said "there are no malls in my small town," they wouldn't bring up any of these inane objections ("how can you be sure? Maybe they built one last night while you were asleep. Maybe your small town just annexed the big city nearby that has several malls." "My personal definition of 'mall' is 'place where you can buy stuff' so you're really saying that your town has no stores at all. How can your town have no stores? That's unreasonable!"). It seems to be only on the issue of God that people's standards change to this ridiculous degree.

 

[Katzpur]

I do not.

I see theism and atheism on the "I know" side (or, if you like, the "I believe I know" side).

Agnostics are on the "I don't know" side.

Between those who know and those who do not, there is a great gulf fixed...

So you don't see agnostics as potentially being on the "I don't know and I probably never will, but I'm kind of leaning towards the possibility that..."?

 

[taykair]

"I don't know and I probably never will, but I'm kind of leaning towards the possibility that..."?

No. I don't see agnostics in that way. I see everyone in that way.

Your quote is, I think, the most that anyone - if they really look within themselves honestly - can say on the subject.

It is said that there are two kinds of people in this world: Those who believe there are two kinds of people in this world and those who do not. No matter how contradictory it may sound, I am of the group which does not.

There are no sides. There is no gulf.