I’m aware of two common definitions of “agnostic”:
[ol][li]An agnostic is somebody who does not know whether or not God exists. They are, essentially, “on the fence” and could go either way if shown sufficient evidence.[/li]
[li]An agnostic is somebody who believes it is impossible to ever prove or disprove the existence of God.[/ol][/li]Now, the first definition I understand. The second one mystifies me, however, and it seems to be the one that is used most frequently around here.
If we’re talking about God in the traditional sense (e.g., the God of the Bible), I would think it would be ridiculously easy for his existence to be proven. All he has to do is make an appearance, do a bunch of miracles, and state unequivocably that he is, in fact, God. That is, of course, if you accept the idea that it’s possible for him to exist in the first place. To an atheist, even this sort of demonstration would likely not be convincing.
If we’re talking about God in the sense of “a mysterious entity that perhaps created the universe but is immaterial and has had no interaction with the material world since the time of creation,” then I have to ask where such a notion of God comes from in the first place? To say that you reject the traditional notion of God but are “agnostic” with regard to this watered-down new agey notion is, in my opinion, the same as saying that you are, in fact, an atheist after all.
As far as I can tell, “agnostic” is often nothing more than a PC term used by people who don’t want to be perceived as overly dogmatic with regard to their lack of belief in God. At least with regard to the second definition mentioned above, that is. I have nothing wrong with people who simply claim that they personally don’t know if God exists or not.
I pretty much agree with your assessment. I’ve often seen agnostics claim that atheists have just as much faith as theists. I find this interesting, since the claim that knowledge of god is impossible is a claim that, IMHO, is in need of serious support.
I’ve also noted that some agnostics are defensive about what they percieve as being “redefined” into the athiest camp. However, I’ve seen more agnostics try to redefine self-proclaimed atheists into their camp than vice versa.
I used to spend quite a bit of time on the Internet Infidels’ message board. I’ve learned that having someone tell you that they are agnostic or atheist doesn’t really tell you that much, since there are at least two definitions for each and there are overlaps.
I must admit, I’m guilty of defining agnosticism with definition 2, mostly because I read it that way somewhere and I figure that’s more “correct”… but, frankly, I’m not sure what it’s supposed to mean.
My personal belief is that there’s no evidence that God exists, but there’s no way to prove that he doesn’t, so I’m agnostic. I think I’m enough of a skeptic that I’d still be agnostic even if I personally saw God, since people hallucinate all the time…
I would say I’m under the second definition, and my logic is this. It is impossible for us at our current state (or the reasonably near future, like my life time) to prove the existence of a God. Of course, if that God wanted to prove that he existed, that’s a totally difference story.
Oh, I should say: scientifically prove God. I am of the personality that could probably be swayed one way or the other during the course of a philosophical debate on the topic.
Any claim which amounts to “I know that it is impossible to know about the existence of X” is pretty suspect. If you can’t know about X, how did you manage to learn enough about it to know that it can’t be known?
See, I don’t see a problem here. If God does exist, then he is omnipotent. So the fact that it is impossible to prove that God exists doesn’t mean that God couldn’t prove that God exists, because things being impossible is irrelevant if you happen to be omnipotent.
jharmon, you say there’s no way to prove that he does or doesn’t exist - which is all very well if God is a non-interactive, immaterial, ineffectual being. If god is posited to actually do something, then you can test for its existence. Like the aether. Or you can test attributes of a particular god for logical consitency. (I find the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent atributes impossible to swallow.)
Assuming you go for the non-manifesting god, how do you define existence? Something that nominally exists but can’t be in any way detected seems very much like non-existence to me. “I don’t believe in god” and “I don’t believe in fairies” (or invisible immaterial inactive pink unicorns) are pretty equivalent sentences to me. i don’t see why we need to give god a special epistemological status.
Or are you also agnostic on the existence of invisible undetectable immaterial inactive pink unicorns?
I am an atheist, but as I understand the agnostic position (those of the definition 2 variety anyway), they believe that the god(s) that have been described by believers are impossible to verify or disprove given the sort of evidence and testimony that is usually presented. In other words, if there is an omnipotent being not motivated to show himself in any fashion beyond subjective impressions/feelings/revelations, then we have no hope of certain knowledge, since such things are unreliable. I’ve even heard some hardcore agnostics argue that no true knowledge is possible, since everything is filtered through our flawed senses and limited brains.
Personally, while I understand the argument, I don’t find it either desirable or practcable. I may not truly be able to “know” that the truck bearing down on me is not a hallucination, but in the end I still have to act as if it were real.
Definition 2 agnostic here. I don’t see what’s so difficult to understand about the way I see the world. Basically, anybody who claims knowledge of the unknowable (i.e. the existence/nonexistence of “god/God” or “an afterlife”) is talking through their ass, and isshowing evidence of “faith” (yes, even if they are atheists).
Sure g(G)od could appear in front of me in a puff of smoke, smack me in the face and say, “Hey dipshit, I exist”. My toaster could also one day suddenly sprout legs and run across the room. I venture to say that the chance of either of those events happening would be a longshot (and quite possibly a hallucination, like jharmon states), and also essentially irrelavent to this arguement… how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Who cares?
Essentially, the way I see it is that everyone is equally in the dark on these subjects, and anyone who says they have some special knowledge is trying to sell you something.
Well I “tend” to agnostic just because Atheism in terms of logic is extremist… to say God doesnt exist without “proof” is just as bad as saying he does.
In the end I really do feel he doesnt exist... that his existence or not is irrelevant to my daily life in a "direct manner". (Affects me indirectly thru "faithful" ones.) So to be completely honest to how I feel I usualy just say I am an Atheist.
I believe it is quite possible that a superior being (God) exists. I believe it is quiet possible there is a “creator”. I do not believe it is possible to know his nature based on current evidence.
An atheist believes there is no God, and an agnostic (my version) believes it is possible. The only difference is proof. An atheist would certainly change his/her opinion with sufficient evidence.
An athesist simply believes this evidence will never present itself, and an agnostic believes it might.
Well, I guess my personal brand of agnosticism is that I believe there’s something out there beyond our ken. Call it god, call it paranormal, call it extrasensory perception, call it divine guidance, or call it coincidence. But by definition, if it isn’t coincidence, it’s beyond our ken, so we can’t know that it’s coincidence, any more than we can know it isn’t. So given that, I’m not much into trying to figure out what it is, and I certainly don’t believe that your garden variety priest/ rabbi/ shaman/ whatever knows any more about it than I do, so I’m not going to take their word for how I should live my life.
But that means I’m definitely not atheist, because I think there probably is something out there, we just don’t and can’t know what.
That seems to me to be more the definition of a Deist – someone who absolutely believes in God, but doesn’t believe God fits into the mold of current religious beliefs.
A Deist usually believes that God created us, then left us to ourselves…
Which “God”? This is exactly the kind of statement that tells me most people don’t know tyhe first thing about atheism. Scratch that, they know all the negative connotations associated with the word.
**
Nope, nope. That’s not quite it either, not for all atheist. See, not everyone is a strong atheist. In fact, most of us aren’t. And again, which “God” are you talking about?
In any event, if anyone’s interested, you can get a basic primer of both atheism and agnosticism, as well as a plethora of relevant links, at the following site:
