In my experience, it’s hard to tell just what somebody who is “agnostic” is uncertain about.
Do they mean that they think there’s a 50% chance that there’s a Christian God who hates homosexuals?
Do they think there’s a remote chance that an Abrahamic God exists, but probably not?
Do they think there’s got to be something supernatural, but they have no idea what it is, and it might not really be a god?
What I’m getting at is that within the whole banner of “agnosticism” there seems to be a full gamut of stances that are not all that similar. Some of them would seem reasonable to me, and some wouldn’t.
I myself call myself an “atheist” because I think there’s a 0% chance of an Abrahamic God existing. I think there might be some sort of other God that exists, but I find it ridiculous to think such a being would have a human-like mind.
Anyway, if you consider yourself an agnostic, just what is it you’re uncertain about, and how uncertain?
It’s the philosophical position that it’s impossible to know whether god exists. Whether an agnostic (or anyone else), in the absence of that knowledge, believes in a god or gods or anything else, is a separate matter.
I consider myself an ignostic, meaning that I don’t think any of these terms are sufficiently defined to even bother talking about. I can think of concepts of “god” that almost certainly don’t exist, and I can think of concepts of “god” that are vague enough that they certainly do exist. In the end, everyone who has something to say about “god” is probably talking about something different, so there just isn’t a way to talk about it and thus no point in talking about it.
Also, why is it ridiculous to think it could have a human-like mind? If it could exist, then it’s possible, even if you think it unlikely. We’ve yet to find a planet that supports life that doesn’t have a human-like mind on it, you know.
Why does it matter what one believes about God anyway, or whether one believes anything, or whether one ever even thinks about the question? One is not obliged, not intellectually, certainly not morally or spiritually, to have opinions on all subjects, nor to take an interest in any particular subject.
I have the same views, but I call myself an “agnostic” and don’t understand why you limit your scope to the Abrahamic God. I differentiate the two terms thusly:
Atheists: “Deities do not exist”
Agnostic: “I have not seen any evidence of deities.”
From what I understand, I’m an atheist- because when asked “Do you believe in god”, I say “no”.
Also, from what I understand, I’m an agnostic- because when asked “Is there a god”, I say “I don’t know”.
Now that doesn’t mean I think it’s 50-50. I would have the same answers if you replaced “god” in the above questions with unicorns, leprechauns, the flying spaghetti monster, or an invisible pink teapot orbiting the sun. For all of the above, I might even go farther than “I don’t know” on the second question towards something like “I haven’t seen any evidence for their/its existence”.
So I’m uncertain, but I don’t spend much time thinking about it. I don’t go so far as to say I don’t believe it’s possible to know- to put it glibly, I don’t know if it’s possible to know for sure- but I haven’t come any closer to knowing in many years (several of which I actually did ponder and “investigate” quite a bit, with pretty much nothing to show for it).
I’ve seen no evidence of of a deity. I’ve seen no proof that there are no deities. So, I take a wait and see approach until more evidence is forthcoming. My personal BELIEF is that there aren’t any deities, depending on how you define that term, so I remain uncertain. Certainty is for the faithful of whatever stripe…I’m merely human, so uncertainty abounds.
I think this is an idiotic statement, to be honest with you. It’s charged with the ridiculous.
I’ve seen no evidence that such a being exists. I’ve seen less evidence that such a being has ever made it’s will known to humankind such that his/her/it’s views on anything, including homosexuality, are known, even if such a being exists, which seems unlikely. Certainly some agnostics DO think that a deity or deities might exist, but being agnostics they remain on the fence until more data is presented. I’m on the other side of agnosticism, believing (that word again) that deities or an all powerful deity are unlikely, but since I’ve seen no definitive proof one way or the other I reserve judgement. I’m unsure why this sets off both atheists AND theists, but this seemingly simple stance does seem to have that effect.
Depends on what you mean by ‘supernatural’. If you mean ‘hasn’t been explained by the current understanding of science’, then to be sure there are…you could start with how the universe came into being. What set the preconditions for the Big Bang? What set it off? Did anything come before? What mysterious mass accounts for the majority of mass in the universe? What’s dark energy…does it exist? And so on. Certainty, as I said, is for the faithful…uncertainty, IMHO, is more the the path of wisdom, since knowing what you DON’T know can often be more insightful than thinking you know what you can’t possibly know. YMMV of course. AAR.
Certainly…why or how would it be otherwise? Surly you know that ‘within the whole banner of’ Christianity, there is a whole gamut of beliefs, understandings and thought. Same with the ‘whole banner of’ Islam…and pretty much everything else that humans participate. One exception to this is, IMHO, the banner that encompasses atheism, since to get into the club you have to KNOW that there are no gods, anywhere, ever. Full stop. If you aren’t faithful enough (as in, if you are one of those damned fence sitting agnostics, for instance) you aren’t worthy.
The difference between us is I don’t think that ANYTHING has a 0% chance of happening. It might be remote in the extreme, but I just don’t rate anything at absolute 0%…certainly with no more proof that you have that there is no God (or presumably gods or other deities). Certainly, I think the existence of a Yahweh or Christian (or Islamic…or any other type) God is pretty remote, but 0%? Where does your certainty come from? The only place it COULD come from is simple faith…and arrogance that you know something that even the best human minds out there haven’t definitively proven to be of a 0% probability.
This always worries me. How does the phrase “You can never know if X is true” differ from “X is false?” If you firmly believe that no evidence will ever be provided that confirms X… If you are certain that no one can ever possibly know X… Isn’t that a very strong disconfirmation?
Suppose I say, “You will never know whether or not there’s a Bigfoot.” How is that different, functionally, from saying, “There is no Bigfoot?” If there is one, then surely it is possible, no matter how unlikely, that eventually someone will take a picture or find a carcass, or capture one in a net. Only if there isn’t one at all can one state with certainty, “You will never know if there is one.”
Isn’t it a little like Goedel undecidability? If I can prove that “You can never prove proposition X,” haven’t I disproven X? Goedel proved that there were true propositions that are beyond formal proof…but doesn’t he stop short of identifying specific propositions of that nature, for that reason?
I can easily respect the viewpoint, “We don’t know if God exists.” But the claim, “You can never know” seems too close, logically, to a firm denial.
I call myself “agnostic” rather than “atheist” because I am open to mystery and things unknowable by scientific, empirical means. If I saw writing hovering in the sky–“MONSTRO, BELIEVE IN ME! I LOVES YOU, GIRL!”–I would strongly entertain the possibility that I had witnessed something supernatural. I would also consider that I may be having visual hallucinations, but that wouldn’t be my sole hypothesis. This would be the stance of an atheist, though.
I am a “strong” agnostic, however. Which means to me that I’m not actively looking for supernatural/spiritual experiences, nor do I expect that I will ever experience them. Not that long ago, though, I was a seeker of “things not seen”. I attended Quaker meetings for about a year, weakly hoping that I would experience the “inner light” and feel the presence of some Higher Power. Nope, nada. I was compelled to give testimony a few times, but I know they were not divine inspirations. Just my ego’s way of shaking things up and breaking the monotony of all that silence! (Really, everyone should go to at least one Quaker meeting. It is kind of creepy, but also a cool experience).
So I guess I’m alone in agnosticism in that I don’t care one way or the other?
I’m open to evidence of the supernatural, I don’t “believe” there are no gods I’ve just seen no evidence.
In fact fuck god/s, the further I stay away the less they can screw with my freewill.
There could be some entity behind the big bang, a cosmic clockmaker, but whatever plans if any I am a part of I am happy to remain ignorant about.
Agnosticism is merely a form of special pleading for theism.
I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in God.
However, there are lots of other things that I don’t believe in as well. I don’t believe that Atlantis is a real place, or that there’s a unicorn in my garage, or that George Washington was assassinated and replaced by an imposter named Adam Weishaupt. I can’t say ABSOLUTELY that my disbelief in these things is correct. It’s merely the conclusion I arrive at from examining the evidence at hand. But still, if you ask me if any of these things are true, I’ll say “No, they’re not.” I won’t feel the need to be weaselly about my beliefs, even though I will acknowledge that there’s a tiny chance that I might be wrong. I certainly won’t feel the need to use a special word to highlight the fact that I’m not entirely 100% certain that Atlantis is a myth, and that unicorns are imaginary, and that George Washington was the first President of the United States.
When someone calls themselves an agnostic, they’re putting “knowledge about God” into a different category than all other forms of knowledge. But if they were really “agnostic” about God, they wouldn’t make that distinction. They’d acknowledge that belief or disbelief in God is no different than any other epistemological claim, and so requires no special consideration.
In other words, agnosticism is a form of begging the question.
I’m a “Fair Witness” Agnostic - from what I’ve seen and experienced so far, there doesn’t seem to be a God at play in the world. I haven’t experienced everything, though, and I can’t know things that humans aren’t allowed to know if there is a higher power who is pulling the strings behind the scenes, so my jury remains out on the whole question.
I don’t think there’s much of a chance that the Bible should be followed word-for-word. I think it’s possible that there is a higher power in the universe, but I don’t see It as an old man with a flowing white beard.
There are plenty of things out there that we can never know…or we have such a slim possibility of knowing that we might as well say we can never know. For instance, we will never know if we are in a multiverse. We may be able to confirm that there are other dimensions, but we will never know that our universe is nested in a megaverse composed of multiple universes. How in the world would we ever be able to know this?
Yet it is possible that we are indeed stuck in a multiverse.
A person can say “Multiverses don’t exist!” But on what basis are they making that claim? Saying, “Multiverses could exist, but I don’t see the point of us talking about it since there’s no way we could ever know” is a much better, more thoughtful way of expressing an individual’s difficulty with the whole concept.
Do you know how hard it is to simultaneously roll your eyes AND break out into fits of uncontrollable laughter?
No…you KNOW there isn’t a God. That’s what being an atheist is all about. I’m an agnostic…I don’t BELIEVE there is a God. That’s the key difference.
Well, see, you are an agnostic about those other things, since you don’t know for sure. Someone who claimed that they DID know, for sure, would be making a faith based assertion of a fact that they can’t possibly know. If you claim categorically that there is no God, god or gods, and that there is a 0% chance that there could be, then you are making a faith based assertion of this as a fact…and you’d be an atheist. You have it backwards…agnostics are the ones who make the distinction, since we don’t really want to be associated with our more fervent brethren or sistren on this matter…thus, the special name to underscore the distinction.
No…I put your ridiculous examples in the same category. I don’t think there was an Atlantis, but there could have been…or, there could have been a city, town or something of the like that was destroyed by the sea and acted as a core of the story. There could be an (invisible pink) unicorn in your garage, though it’s highly unlikely…there is certainly the same non-evidence that there is that there is a God/god/gods or supernatural beings of any stripe. GW could have been assassinated and impersonated by Adam Weishaupt, a cabal of space squirrels or a time traveling Elvis…seems unlikely, but it could have happened in an infinite universe, let alone in a possible multiverse of infinite universes. I acknowledge that they are all unlikely, and that I don’t believe in any of them…but when someone says categorically that there is a 0% chance (such as the OP is doing) then they better have some major proof to back them up. I’d rate the chance of God/god/gods as above a time traveling Elvis and the IPU in your garage, and below that of the possibility of Atlantis. You, however, KNOW that none of these things are possible, based on your simple believe that you know everything there is to know on the subject. That’s the difference between us. Well, one of the differences I guess.
In the same way that atheism is a form of assertion of omniscience, right?
I just realized I didn’t really answer your question…
I think I’m uncertain in the way that scientists tend to couch their findings in a way that religion people tend to be certain of their faith. My #1 measure of belief systems is “Remarkable claims require equally remarkable evidence.” By that measure, I think the historicity of the Bible is hogwash. Since discussion of religion is almost always revolves around Abrahamic faiths (except here in Los Angeles where Xenu occasionally enters the mix), I would appear to be a functional atheist for all intents and purposes.
But it is an abhorrence of arms-crossed, closed-mindedness that shuts down inquiry — as well as a desire to use proper appellations — that I remain agnostic.
It would seem to hard-line atheists that I am a wishy-washy fence sitter that’s too wussy to Make A Stand and Join Their Ranks Against Religion; or that I think the probability of the case for God or against God must be 50/50. Rather, it’s a humble admission that I don’t understand the lion’s share of nature of things in my observable world, much less beyond my observable world. It would seem to me that an entity that could create existence must be so complex beyond my scale — that of an atom to a human, greater? — that it would be the definition of hubris to hand-wave the possibility away.
Agnosticism seems the only logically accurate description for what I am.
Join the faithful, ehe?