# What's the deal with agnosticism, anyway? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 27, 2003, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090 "2003-08-27T23:47:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/81 "2003-09-04T02:56:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RoundGuy \* > **Because there is 6000 years (at least) of human tradition that says God exists. That fact alone is, at the very least, worthy of my consideration.** But the reasons for that tradition are important, are they not? If the previous generation accepted that God existed because their ancestors did, and the generation before that for the same reason… then it’s entirely possible than the entire six-thousand-year tradition is based on nothing more than one mistaken generation and several dozen gullible generations. The idea that an idea is valid because it is held is quite self-reinforcing. It’s very easy to fall into a logical trap that way… ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/82 "2003-09-04T03:14:11Z")
> [@](#): > > then it’s entirely possible than the entire six-thousand-year tradition is based on nothing more than one mistaken generation and several dozen gullible generations. Well, of course. It could very well be that lightning struck a tree, and someone decided that this was “God” speaking. It is also “possible” that an alien in a shiny silver spacesuit decided to see how their “seed” was coming along. The point is, tradition has its basis in _something_ and that something is, at the very least, worthy of consideration – but not necessarily worthy of worship. ---
**Author:** ![ready29003](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/71e660/32.png) [@ready29003](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ready29003)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/83 "2003-09-09T17:18:31Z")
godzilla > [@](#): > > My point is that if you don’t think that anything – even God himself – could ever convince you as to the existence of God, then you are, for all intents and purposes, an atheist. I disagree. I don’t know whether God exists. I am pretty sure it is impossible to present me with any proof that God exists…and yes this is tightly related to the fact that there is very little in this universe you can prove. Being a theist or an athiest is to believe something without adequate proof. I am neither of these. > [@](#): > > If you truly think that it is not possible to ever know for sure whether God exists, due to the limits of human perceptions and reason, then I have to ask whether you apply this philosophy to all other aspects of existence? Would you claim that even eating a ham sandwich will not convince you that the sandwich is real, since a sufficiently advanced technology could be fooling you into thinking that it was there? Yes I apply this same reasoning to all aspects of my life. When I eat a ham sandwich I don’t know if it is “real”…but I do know it tastes good and makes me feel full and that is all I care about. Let’s go back to “God” appearing in my bedroom and doing all sorts of magical stuff. He turns night into day, changes the weather, takes me on a trip back in time to sight see…takes me to another planet…all in order to prove to me He is God. No I still would not believe He is God…am I an athiest? No. I don’t know who this amazing being is…but I will be impressed, and my beliefs and knowledge about the world will forever be changed. I will find this being astoundingly interesting and I would talk with them at legnth…I would ask questions…big questions…especially about why with all his powers he lets children get raped and tortured and killed… I would ask if He cares about human beings…animals…plants…life on other planets… I would ask if there was life on other planets and beg Him to show me… most importantly…I would ask Him “Are you happy?” This being claiming to be the God our Father with all these incredible powers…is He happy? What does he want? Would it make Him happy if I believed He was God? Why does He care if I believe He is God? If this guy stuck around long enough…and I got to know him…If I found his answers compelling and thought provoking… I might eventually start to suspect maybe he was who he said he was. But I would never really know. Imagine if you ever had a friend who told you something big about their past, which you have no way of knowing whether it is true or not. Do you believe them? A person says they were molested as a child…but there is no proof…no record…no evidence. Is it true or not? You cannot know. You talk to this person for hours it brings you no closer…they may believe it is true but you cannot know for sure. You may choose to believe or disbelieve them. Or you may accept the fact that you cannot know for sure. And then you will deal with the fact that whether it is true or not, this person has a past that they must find a way to emotionally deal with NOW. Back to the magical friend at the foot of my bed claiming to be God. “OK. You are God. What do you want from me? Do you want me to believe in you? Why? Do you want me to join a religion? Which one? Why one over the other? Why Christ and no Buddha? Wasn’t Buddha a great guy too? Have you noticed millions of people killing each other throughout history because they each believed different things about you? Couldn’t you have made things easier by being less subtle??” Ok God. Waiting for my answers. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/84 "2003-09-09T19:39:08Z")
Ready, It might be good if you reviewed the posts in this thread. Atheism (or even athiesm) does not mean you think you can prove god exists, just that you have no belief in any god. Someone is either a theist or an atheist - there is no middle ground. (And agnosticism is orthogonal to these.) You are wise to not believe in a god who shows up in your room - people do have dreams, after all. Not if this god gave you knowledge of something you couldn’t possibly know, which you can write down and check out the next day, the evidence becomes a bit greater, right? Even a burning bush outside your house would be pretty cool. Shouldn’t be too hard for a god to do. Reading back - RoundGuy, got a cite (nonbiblical) showing that anyone believed in Jehovah 6,000 years ago? I’m sure people did believe in gods back then - if you want to believe in those, time to start working on your idols and sacrifices. ---
**Author:** ![ready29003](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/71e660/32.png) [@ready29003](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ready29003)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/85 "2003-09-10T16:13:02Z")
Voyager, Of course there is middle ground. You can believe a, you can believe b, or you can withhold judgment. You can also believe there is some compelling evidence for both a and b…but not enough to prove one over the other. Do you believe George Bush will win the next presidential election? Some do. Some don’t. Some people don’t know. The same idea applies to Athiests, Thiests, and Agnostics. ---
**Author:** ![kelly5078](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/6f9a4e/32.png) [@kelly5078](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kelly5078)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/86 "2003-09-10T17:03:55Z")
The semitic god seems to have been designed, by humans, in such a way as to stymie efforts to prove or disprove his existence. If I set out to thwart the scientific method, in particular, this elusive god concept would be the way I’d do it. Give up. On the other hand, the universe is a really big place, even if there’s only one of them. As a dust spec, I can’t presume to rule out the existence of beings that we would classify as gods. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/87 "2003-09-11T03:26:09Z")
Let us consider the words for a minute. A gnostic, meaning without knowlege. A theist meaning without god. Now, it is true that people use words in ways that change their meaning, so you can’t rely on that. What is generally meant by without knowledge is not the absence of philosophic understanding of the concept, but rather knowledge in the sense of verifiable evidence based on observation of the universe. But, the previously cited hard and soft versions of agnostic and atheists cover a wide range of non theistic philosophy. Some Buddhists are even included in that range. Antitheists are included in that range. Those who despise the belief in God. So, it covers a lot of folks. But, let me show you how you might still be missing the breadth of that range. I am a Christian, but, according to my understanding, I am an Agnostic Christian. A Christian without knowledge. Knowledge, in the sense of proof, or reliable evidence have no part in my faith. I don’t think you can know God. But the human experience includes other aspects than this type of knowing, and proving. And within those aspects there can be many things. One of those is faith in God. And from faith in God can come a different sort of knowledge. That cannot be used as if it were proof, for it transcends the realm of objectivist logic. Theology is a dangerous thing. If you get too wrapped up in it, you could exchange your faith for argument, and proof. It’s a bad deal. Tris ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/88 "2003-09-11T03:58:35Z")
**Voyager** > [@](#): > > RoundGuy, got a cite (nonbiblical) showing that anyone believed in Jehovah 6,000 years ago? I’m sure people did believe in gods back then No, nothing non-biblical going back more than 6000 years. I never said Jehovah, specifically. I’m talking belief in god, or gods, in general – whether Israelite, or otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![SunTzu2U](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@SunTzu2U](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SunTzu2U)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/89 "2003-09-11T06:21:02Z")
[quote] What’s the deal with agnosticism, anyway? [/qoute] I don’t know and I don’t care. Oh wait I would be agnostic then? ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/90 "2003-09-11T07:09:15Z")
Deist checking in. Belief system: 1. There is definitely a God / divine being. 2. God’s nature is unknown and probably unknowable. 3. Most organized religious are laudable for trying to interpret God’s will/message/whatever, but at some point are just making shit up. 4. However, I completely respect people who want to interpret the nature of God, and who sincerely try to do good works based on thier interpretation. 5. Who can say which interpretation of God is the correct one ? Nobody. I would also cast this question at religionists who castigate followers of an opposing sect – who died and made you the judge of other’s religious beliefs? 6. Someday we’ll all find out if there is an afterlife (or not). Then we can each find out the correct answers about the nature of God, in person. I personally plan to demand an explanation for some events in the 90s. 🙂 7. Until that day, what’s the point in dancing angels on pinheads? Do good works based on your faith, ethics, and personal morals. If you need a Divine Being looking over your shoulder to act correctly, so be it. If not, go forth and do well. ---
**Author:** ![godzillatemple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/49beb7/32.png) [@godzillatemple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godzillatemple)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/91 "2003-09-11T10:56:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by squeegee \* > \*\*1. There is definitely a God / divine being. > > 1. God’s nature is unknown and probably unknowable.\*\* Am I the only one who finds these statements contradictory? Barry ---
**Author:** ![kelly5078](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/6f9a4e/32.png) [@kelly5078](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kelly5078)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/92 "2003-09-11T14:19:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Am I the only one who finds these statements contradictory? Item 1 seems to me to be a reach, but there’s no contradiction. I definitely exist, but my nature is unknown by others (even by me, I’m afraid, but I’d expect a god to be more enlightened). My actions are observable, perhaps largely predictable, but no one else can get inside my head and know what’s going on there. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/93 "2003-09-11T14:22:17Z")
Hey, it’s religion. _Everything_ is inexplicable. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/94 "2003-09-11T14:23:32Z")
And point 6 is the salient one. Someday we’ll all know the answer. Why sweat it ? ---
**Author:** ![godzillatemple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/49beb7/32.png) [@godzillatemple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godzillatemple)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/95 "2003-09-11T15:25:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kelly5078 \* > \*\*Item 1 seems to me to be a reach, but there’s no contradiction. I definitely exist, but my nature is unknown by others (even by me, I’m afraid, but I’d expect a god to be more enlightened). My actions are observable, perhaps largely predictable, but no one else can get inside my head and know what’s going on there. \*\* But existence _is_ “part of one’s nature.” If something’s nature is wholly unknowable, it is impossible to state that you know it exists. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/96 "2003-09-11T15:26:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by squeegee \* > \*\*1. There is definitely a God / divine being. \*\* Error. The universe exists. Everything else is negotiable. > [@](#): > > **2. God’s nature is unknown and probably unknowable.** Correct. See also Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems, modern information theory, the Tao Te Ching, and Zen Buddhism. Particularly the parable of the short staff. > [@](#): > > \*\*3. Most organized religious are laudable for trying to interpret God’s will/message/whatever, but at some point are just making shit up. \*\* The first point is uninterpretable (laudable by what standard?); the second is correct. > [@](#): > > **4. However, I completely respect people who want to interpret the nature of God, and who sincerely try to do good works based on thier interpretation.** Pointless. > [@](#): > > **5. Who can say which interpretation of God is the correct one?** God. > [@](#): > > \*\*I would also cast this question at religionists who castigate followers of an opposing sect – who died and made you the judge of other’s religious beliefs? \*\* His name was Naranek. He died because he was exposed to energy patterns of a form incompatible with his configuration, but I’m sure I can twist things so that he died for my sins, somehow. > [@](#): > > \*\*6. Someday we’ll all find out if there is an afterlife (or not). Then we can each find out the correct answers about the nature of God, in person. I personally plan to demand an explanation for some events in the 90s. 🙂 \*\* Irrelevant. There is no afterlife. There is no life. You are already dead. You are always alive. Timeless realities do not make for good conversation. > [@](#): > > \*\*7. Until that day, what’s the point in dancing angels on pinheads? \*\* It’s pretty entertaining. Better than a flea circus. > [@](#): > > \*\*Do good works based on your faith, ethics, and personal morals. If you need a Divine Being looking over your shoulder to act correctly, so be it. If not, go forth and do well. \*\* And my definition of “well” requires me to slaughter all unbelievers. Die, infidel! (Drat. Now where’d I leave that planetkiller?) ---
**Author:** ![ready29003](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/71e660/32.png) [@ready29003](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ready29003)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/97 "2003-09-11T18:11:35Z")
Godzilla: Some things can be proven and some things cannot. If you remember one of the most basic teaching’s of skepticism and Descartes: We cannot prove or disprove whether we are at this moment within a simulated Universe, such as in the Matrix. But assuming you are comfortable assuming you are in a real enough world… Is it possible to prove to my satisfaction the existence of psychic power? Yes. Simply demonstrate it allowing for exhaustive scientific scrutiny. Is it possible to prove to my satisfaction someone has “god like” power? Yes. Simply demonstrate it allowing for exhaustive scientific scrutiny. Is it possible to prove to my satisfaction Oswald killed JFK? No. We do not have direct access to the past…there will always be uncertainty. Is it possible to prove to my satisfaction some god like being at the foot of my bed created the Universe? No. We do not have direct access to the past…there will always be uncertainty. Maybe this guy did, maybe he has a brother or a sister or a cousin who did it. Maybe he was strolling along in nothingness and found our Universe laying the gutter one day? How can I ever know either way? How do you prove that the god like being at the foot of my bed is the divine wonderful one God of the bible and not simply a very powerful being like “Q” in Star Trek? How can I tell the difference? Will God look like Charleton Heston? A lot of things simply cannot be proven…but you can always lay on evidence. Each person must discern for themself when the evidence is enough to convince them to “leap” to a conclusion. Some people feel there is enough evidence to leap on the God bandwagon, some feel there is enough counter evidence to laugh at people on the God bandwagon. And some of us are simply far more stingy about the amount of evidence we need to even take a step one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/98 "2003-09-11T20:48:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ready29003 \* > \*\*Voyager, > Of course there is middle ground. > > You can believe a, you can believe b, or you can withhold judgment. You can also believe there is some compelling evidence for both a and b…but not enough to prove one over the other. > > Do you believe George Bush will win the next presidential election? Some do. Some don’t. Some people don’t know. > > The same idea applies to Athiests, Thiests, and Agnostics. \*\* This assumes that atheism is the belief that no god exists. If it were, your point would be correct. It is, however, the lack of a belief in any god. You either believe, or you lack belief - no middle ground. If Bushism were the belief that Bush will win the next election, then aBushism would be the lack of that belief. Strong aBushists believe he won’t, weak aBushists just don’t believe he will. (This is not such a good example, since there are only two possibilities. Theism has more. Some atheists can believe some gods do not exist, and only lack belief on others.) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/99 "2003-09-11T20:54:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RoundGuy \* > \*\ ***Voyager** > > No, nothing non-biblical going back more than 6000 years. I never said Jehovah, specifically. I’m talking belief in god, or gods, in general – whether Israelite, or otherwise. \*\* Got it. Typically, God (with a big G), refers to the Jewish/Christian/Islamic god. If you mean that there is a tradition that some god exists, then I totally agree - and probably back further than 6,000 years also. ---
**Author:** ![ready29003](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/71e660/32.png) [@ready29003](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ready29003)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090/100 "2003-09-12T16:15:53Z")
[merriam webster definition of Athiest](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=atheist) Main Entry: athe·ist Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist Function: noun Date: 1571 : one who denies the existence of God Now we are debating the definition of words, but so be it. Merriam Webster dictionary defines an Athiest as one who denies the existence of god, not as someone who simply lacks a belief in God. Athiesm and Thiesm in the way soceity uses them and defines them are not the only two category’s of religious belief. Belief in God is a controversial and hot issue, such as abortion. Their are people who believe abortion is right, and people who believe abortion is wrong, and there are those who do not know. To many people, belief in God is a moral question. To believe is right and to be an athiest is just as active a position: To be an athiest is to believe there is no God or to “deny” his existence. To be an agnostic is to neither deny or affirm His existence. Now many theists may categorize people into two sets: Believers and Non-believers, placing agnostics and athiest’s together, but only because theists tend to be a bit more anal about this position. There are probably athiests who categorize people into two sets, “sensible rational people” and “fools who either believe in God or are open to such a ridiculous idea”, placing agnostics in the same boat with thiests. I suppose it depends upon the person if you feel there really are only two meaningful categories related to belief in god, but I find it as absurd. Athiesm, and Thiesm, and agnosticism are each drastically different positions each well deserving of its own distinction. Thank goodness the world doesn’t try to reduce the categories of belief into simply theists and athiests. Because if there was a convention where one room was for thiests and one room was for athiests…I would have to sit in the lobby…cause I don’t feel any kinship with either group. Matt [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-agnosticism-anyway/198090.md?page=6)