Thread: Agnosticism is more than you think

Although you say this is a Strong Agnostic, it is actually the original definition of Agnostic intended by its creator, Thomas Henry Huxley.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Although you say this is a Strong Agnostic, it is actually the original definition of Agnostic intended by its creator, Thomas Henry Huxley.

That's what I thought? I remember talking to agnostics years ago and that's what agnosticism was all about. I guess at some point people didn't understand and started using the term wrong. Too late now I guess, I guess people will always see the agnostic as simply a confused person

I would agree with everything you've said.

Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term
Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Most atheists are skeptical, people who use reason and logic so atheists almost universally accept that definition of agnosticism. Atheist's don't say there is no chance that a deity could exist, they just believe it just as unlikely as a number of random claims. Atheists don't really have a belief on the issue as such, since its a non-issue. Are you atheist to the idea of purple unicorns? So basically all atheists are agnostics. The problem lies in the fact that many atheists, consider themselves as agnostics, rightly, and yet don't understand that the beliefs they hold are also atheism, purely because they don't understand the true definition of atheism. Atheists also believe that we don't know if there is a God we just don't see any evidence suggesting there is.


An agnostic theist would have to believe in god and yet not "pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable"
This means one of two things, they either don't believe that god's existence is a certainty, yet they still believe in his existence. Or they believe that the existence of deity is "demonstrable". And i would think that most theists would come under one of these two categories. To summarize, nearly all atheists are agnostics and most theists are agnostics. The difference lying in the fact that most people claiming to be agnostic are the agnostic atheists as almost universally, agnostic theists identify as theists.

Theist: "I believe that at least one god exists. That does not mean I know it with 100% certainty."

Atheist: "I believe that no gods exist. That does not mean I know it with 100% certainty."

Agnostic: "I'm on the fence. I have not formed a conclusion either way, and I don't think anybody is in a position to do so."

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Theist: "I believe that at least one god exists. That does not mean I know it with 100% certainty."

Atheist: "I believe that no gods exist. That does not mean I know it with 100% certainty."

Agnostic: "I'm on the fence. I have not formed a conclusion either way, and I don't think anybody is in a position to do so."

I wasted quite a lot of time writing that post. This does the job quite nicely.

I hope a lot of people read this thread and realize that we "hard" agnostics aren't just confused about religion, we simply believe that no one can know if a deity or god of some kind exists.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Theist: "I believe that at least one god exists. That does not mean I know it with 100% certainty."

Atheist: "I believe that no gods exist. That does not mean I know it with 100% certainty."

Agnostic: "I'm on the fence. I have not formed a conclusion either way, and I don't think anybody is in a position to do so."

Your definition of agnostic is not exactly consistent with the original intent. It was not supposed to be a statement of being 'on the fence' but rather a positive statement of the fact that if a god were to exist it would necessarily be beyond the scope of human understanding and therefore no conclusion can be made.

Originally Posted by imran_p

I would agree with everything you've said.

Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term
Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Most atheists are skeptical, people who use reason and logic so atheists almost universally accept that definition of agnosticism. Atheist's don't say there is no chance that a deity could exist, they just believe it just as unlikely as a number of random claims. Atheists don't really have a belief on the issue as such, since its a non-issue. Are you atheist to the idea of purple unicorns? So basically all atheists are agnostics. The problem lies in the fact that many atheists, consider themselves as agnostics, rightly, and yet don't understand that the beliefs they hold are also atheism, purely because they don't understand the true definition of atheism. Atheists also believe that we don't know if there is a God we just don't see any evidence suggesting there is.


An agnostic theist would have to believe in god and yet not "pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable"
This means one of two things, they either don't believe that god's existence is a certainty, yet they still believe in his existence. Or they believe that the existence of deity is "demonstrable". And i would think that most theists would come under one of these two categories. To summarize, nearly all atheists are agnostics and most theists are agnostics. The difference lying in the fact that most people claiming to be agnostic are the agnostic atheists as almost universally, agnostic theists identify as theists.

What do you think about this Xaqaria? You've defined agnosticsm wrongly, if you are referring to its original context. Its original meaning is defined above. A
gnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

So agnosticism is not exclusive to the question of a deity, it refers to only accepting conclusions that can be demonstrated. I don't think I need to reiterate the entirety of my post. It seems people ignore posts that require some thought.
I thought I put across a decent argument; a response?

Originally Posted by imran_p

.

How are our posts in disagreement, exactly? My point was that it is a positive statement about what can be demonstrated, and what can't, not that it was exclusive to the matter of a deity. My understanding of Huxley's point is that one should be an agnostic about anything that is necessarily beyond the scope of demonstration in order to remain intellectually honest, and that to be agnostic is a firm position and not the lack of decision between two opposing positions.

By the way, you don't have to quote yourself, I read it just fine the first time you posted it.

It was not supposed to be a statement of being 'on the fence' but rather a positive statement of the fact that if a god were to exist it would necessarily be beyond the scope of human understanding and therefore no conclusion can be made.

This just confused me slightly
An agnostic doesn't claim that it is unknowable that God exists, they just claim that right now it is not demonstrable that God exists, therefore we can not "pretend these conclusions are certain." Therefore they do not claim either way that it is certain that God exists, or it is certain that he doesn't. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who disagrees with this. I think there are quite large differences between the definition you provided and the actual definition of Agnosticism, and thus the subsequent conclusions we can draw from it.

All agnosticism is, is normal, logical reasoning, that we should only treat things with certainty when things are demonstrable with proof. Therefore, all atheists are agnostics by nature. It just seemed you were in agreement with the original post, which seems to claim that agnosticism is some deep profound philosophy which is neither atheist or theist in nature, whereas in reality, agnosticism is more of a non issue, since almost every sound thinking person is an agnostic by nature.

Do atheists on this forum have a need to increase their numbers by calling every agnostic the same as an atheist?

1) Agnosticism is how you feel towards whether a proposition can be proven true or false. It is not an answer by itself. You are either an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. Regardless of what TYPE of agnostic atheist/theist you are.

2) We automatically disbelieve positive propositions until we actually believe them. Therefore anyone who doesn't believe in god, regardless of whether they reject it outright, don't know, haven't given it any thought, are completely confused, whatever, they are all atheists.

3) Agnosticism has nothing to do with the level of doubt. If you're 99% sure, you're still agnostic.

/thread

I have to ask, have you actually read Huxley's essay, Agnosticism?

In it, he describes how the idea of Agnosticism was first conceived in his mind:

Looking back nearly fifty years, I see myself as a boy, whose education has been interrupted, and who, intellectually, was left, for some years, altogether to his own devices. At that time, I was a voracious and omnivorous reader; a dreamer and speculator of the first water, well endowed with that splendid courage in attacking any and every subject, which is the blessed compensation of youth and inexperience. Among the books and essays, on all sorts of topics from metaphysics to heraldry, which I read at this time, two left indelible impressions on my mind. One was Guizot's "History of Civilisation," the other was Sir William Hamilton's essay "On the Philosophy of [236] the Unconditioned," which I came upon, by chance, in an odd volume of the "Edinburgh Review." The latter was certainly strange reading for a boy, and I could not possibly have understood a great deal of it;10 nevertheless, I devoured it with avidity, and it stamped upon my mind the strong conviction that, on even the most solemn and important of questions, men are apt to take cunning phrases for answers; and that the limitation of our faculties, in a great number of cases, renders real answers to such questions, not merely actually impossible, but theoretically inconceivable.(emphasis added)

He also references Kant and places his own views in line with Kant's, which is telling because Kant's assertion in his "Critique of Practical Reason" is that God, freedom, and immortality are unknowable.

Huxley argues not that he doesn't know the answers to these questions, but that it is impossible to know the answer to these questions. Therefore, agnosticism is most certainly a positive statement and not merely a lack of evidence. In fact, Huxley specifically states that Agnosticism is not merely a position of unbelief.

In the beginning of the essay, he starts by presenting a criticism of agnosticism that had been delivered by Dr. Wace, the Principal of King's College,to the Church Congress,

"But if this be so, for a man to urge, as an escape from this article of belief, that he has no means of a scientific knowledge of the unseen world, or of the future, is irrelevant. His difference from Christians lies not in the fact that he has no knowledge of these things, but that he does not believe the authority on which they are stated. He may prefer to call himself an Agnostic; but his real name is an older one–he is an infidel; that is to say, an unbeliever.(emphasis added) The word infidel, perhaps, carries an unpleasant significance. Perhaps it is right that it should. It is, and it ought to be, an unpleasant thing for a man to have to say plainly that he does not believe in Jesus Christ."

Much of the essay is spent refuting these statements.

I encourage those of you who identify with Agnosticism to study its roots. Huxley was an extremely intelligent man.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Your definition of agnostic is not exactly consistent with the original intent. It was not supposed to be a statement of being 'on the fence' but rather a positive statement of the fact that if a god were to exist it would necessarily be beyond the scope of human understanding and therefore no conclusion can be made.

How is that not being on the fence?

I think everything you've just said completely validates my point right? That agnosticism is a positive statement that we do not know. What I'm saying is that agnosticism is barely even a perspective since its almost universal. Would you disagree that atheists, almost universally are agnostics?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How is that not being on the fence?

Being on the fence is a phrase that usually means one has NOT DECIDED which side of the fence they are on. But from what I understand "strong" agnosticism isn't being undecided, they have decided. It's just semantics

Originally Posted by imran_p

I think everything you've just said completely validates my point right? That agnosticism is a positive statement that we do not know. What I'm saying is that agnosticism is barely even a perspective since its almost universal. Would you disagree that atheists, almost universally are agnostics?

Did you even read the post, let alone any of Huxley's essay? There is a pretty profound difference between saying that I do not know and I cannot know. One is a statement of fact (assuming it is true), the other is an assumption about the nature of the question and reality. I would not agree that atheists are almost universally agnostic. The atheists that I know, personally and otherwise almost universally think and behave as if they not only can know, but do.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How is that not being on the fence?

I already answered this pretty explicitly. Did you continue reading the thread after the post that you quoted? If one claims to be 'on the fence', then they are alluding to being in between two sides (the two sides of the fence). Agnosticism is not merely indecision between theism and atheism, or any other dualistic set of beliefs, it is another position entirely.

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist. Ask any atheist if truly, he knows that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real. Yet since there is no evidence to suggest there is they don't have a belief in it.

I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.
—Richard Dawkins

A lot of people would say we can't really know anything, so in essence we should all be agnostic in relation to everything to some extent. It's just a matter of using sound reason. No evidence to suggest it, so reason to believe yet we obviously don't actually know, as we know much

You're just using Huxley's argument to fit onto the typical 'proof' for an
atheist's open mindedness. I, too, read something else in his essay.

The 'cannot know' - notion is an entirely different view altogether. I'm not
sure I agree or not, I might, but I definately acknowledge that it is a view
that is detatached from the usual 'atheism vs theism' debate.

I surely don't suggest that atheists are not open minded, I am just saying
that the essay doesn't support your arguments, since it is not talking about
atheism. It sets agnosticism apart from it.

This is basically about the difference between 'believing not X' and 'not believing X'. Which is very little.

If I don't believe something exists, I believe it doesn't exist. That's really just a consequence of the scientific method.

Originally Posted by Xei

If I don't believe something exists, I believe it doesn't exist. That's really just a consequence of the scientific method.

"Not believing" is supposed to be neither belief nor disbelief. To say it makes one predisposed to "believing not" in something is to make the person biased against that something's existence if it were ever to be tested scientifically. That's a bad thing, isn't it? To have pre-formed conclusions about what it is one would be testing?

Can you give an example?

The problem with what you've just said is 'if it were ever to be tested scientifically'; there are logical or empirical tests for pretty much everything. I believe that something doesn't exist whenever there is no reason to believe that it doesn't exist.

For example, I believe that there isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun because there's no reason to believe that there is.

A good example would be wave particle duality. After Thomas Young demonstrated light as waves with the double slit experiment, but before Planck's work on black body radiation there was no evidence supporting a particle theory of electromagnetic radiation but there was (believed to be) evidence against. Because it was believed that these two models were mutually exclusive, even Planck himself was unable to accept the implications of his work.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I already answered this pretty explicitly. Did you continue reading the thread after the post that you quoted? If one claims to be 'on the fence', then they are alluding to being in between two sides (the two sides of the fence). Agnosticism is not merely indecision between theism and atheism, or any other dualistic set of beliefs, it is another position entirely.

You said this...

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Your definition of agnostic is not exactly consistent with the original intent. It was not supposed to be a statement of being 'on the fence' but rather a positive statement of the fact that if a god were to exist it would necessarily be beyond the scope of human understanding and therefore no conclusion can be made.

That is a description of being on the fence and believing that on the fence is the only place to be.

Experimenter bias is what I was referring to.

Originally Posted by Xei

For example, I believe that there isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun because there's no reason to believe that there is.

I agree. It is not connected to anything at all. When you have an effect, however (like the existence of the universe) one must be open to potential causes. The arrival of our universe was either the cause of something or the beginning of existence altogether, before which nothing would have existed. But one cannot rule out that which they can apply some form of reasoning to. The idea of an abstract "god-being" can more or less be argued as a possibility. The point is that no one should believe against what may end up being an observable truth, or proved impossible altogether.

In the recent past we could have believed against the sun being the center of our solar system because we lacked reason to, but it would have been better to remain neutral until it could be (dis)proven.