I count myself an agnostic partly because a awful lot of atheists seem to be arrogant nasties, and I don’t want to be associated with them. They belittle those who believe in God as ignorant or uncritical non-thinkers. And, yeah, they try to define agnostics into their camp – which I se lot ,more of than agnostics efining atheists into their camp. In fact, I’ve never seen that. But I have com across the atheists doing this (“You don’t believe that God exists. Therefore you’re an athesist. In fact, you’re a weak atheist, since you don’t believe that God doesn’t exist.” Gee, thanks. I’ll define and name my state of para-belief, thank you.).
But in essence, I go along with the econd definition – I don’t think it’s posible to prove the existence of a God or Gods. Yeah, if God manifesed Himself to me, I might give it serious consideration (although I might doubt my sanity as well, or wonder if I as hallucinating). But tha sort of thing doesn’t seem to happen to many people, so it doesn’t sem fair to say that it’s easy to prove he existence of Gad. It’s like saying that it’s easy to prove the existence of tektites – just wait until one falls at your feet.
I can’t help but hink that, were I God, with all th traditional attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. , I would find it pitifully easy to conceal my existence from humankind. And this seems to be what God, if He or She exists, has done. Despite what hey taught me in Catholic School, “proofs” of the existence of God seem woefully unconvincing.
Don’t we have exactly the same problem as with religion vs atheism?
Most believers are atheists about all other gods. They have no problem saying they don’t believe in Odin and Thor. An atheist agrees, and adds one more god to the list. So which gods are you agnostic folks not sure about, and which ones do you truly not believe in?
Herearesome links that give some definitions and discussion. (One of them is connected to RedFury’s link.)
The definitions that work best for me are quite simple: Weak (or soft) atheists have no belief in gods. Strong (or hard) atheists actively believe that gods don’t exist. Weak agnostics have no knowledge of gods, and strong agnostics claim that no one can have knowledge of gods. I consider myself both atheist and agnostic–in both cases, somewhere between strong and weak. I have no way of knowing what other people “know,” but when they claim absolute certainty, I always suspect that they are pretending a little.
Despite common misconceptions, atheists are not necessarily more dogmatic and arrogant than agnostics. A weak atheist is likely to be a lot less aggressive about not believing in gods than a strong agnostic, who may go far enough to tell you what you can and cannot know. Also, I’ve known a number of agnostic Christians, weak and strong. Despite not knowing one way or the other, they follow the Christian formula for salvation just to be safe.
Based on RedFury’s link, I guess I’m an agnostic theist.
I’m not sure about any gods, and I truly do not believe in any of them. Yet, I grant the possibility than any of them may exist – whether that be Odin, Thor, Jehovah, Zeus, Mother Earth, or the IPU.
I doubt, however, that if god exists, that any manmade religion has got the true essence of his nature correct.
I don’t believe that happens, even when I’m at work and the toaster is at home by itself.
I’m guessing, though, that agnostics such as yourself would maintain that while you’re at work your toaster could very well be running around the kitchen. Of course, it puts itself back in the same place before you get home, so how could you possibly know? In fact, how can you believe in anything unless you’re keeping tabs on it right now. There could be an undetectable sea-monster named Gladys that follows you around all the time. You can’t know that Gladys isn’t there. Surely Gladys is as plausible as god?
My completely groundless theory (and hence not worth very much) is that agnosticism is much more common in America. Perhaps it’s an attempt to reject IPUs without treading on the toes of a religious society.
You’re now much closer to my own position, which I would describe as “strong atheist towards manmade gods” and “weak agnostic towards all else.” By ‘all else’ I mean the origins of the Universe, spiritual claims, etc. While I see no reason to believe in gods to explain any of it, I don’t think anyone knows at this point in time with absolute certainty one way or another – which is not the same as “unknowable.”
But for the time being, I am perfectly content with saying “I don’t know.” And since my life is not knowingly affected in any way by these possibilities, I live under the (rational) assumption that there are no gods.
MrO, good post. Pretty much my stand as well. What I find particularly bothersome is the stigma still attached to the name ‘atheist’, much of it based on sheer ignorance.
In a nutshell, I think it might be helpful to say that theism and atheism concern themselves with beliefs, while gnostics and agnostics talk about knowledge. Thus making all sorts of combinations possible.
Definition #1 Agnostic here. Since I’m not sure one way or the other, I actually find myself engaging in conversations with those annoying LDS guys who come to my door. Boy do they get happy when they’re not immediately dismissed. I actually pray on occasion, but it’s usually just trying to confirm with a “senior executive of the universe” that we’re clear on which circle of hell I get to go to should he actually exist.
Definition #2 always seemed like mental masturbation to me – stuff we’d argue about endlessly in the middle of the night in college.
I debate about this all the time. I have friends who insist that by strict definition being an atheist means you feel the impossibility of God’s existence can be proven, so that if you allow even the slightest possibility of divinity you must by rights consider yourself an agnostic, not an atheist.
Without dredging up a series of dictionary entries and debating which one is “definitive”, I hold that this definition could use some serious overhauling. Very few so-called atheists I know hold that the nonexistence of God can be proven; they just don’t see any reason to give the concept credence until some sort of scientific reason for doing so comes up.
OTOH, this definition also includes what most people think of as agnosticism, which is someone who is open to the possiblity of God, up to and including one(s) from various organized religions, but doesn’t feel they’ve yet been presented with a cogent argument FOR any particular God’s existence (“yet” being the key word - these people are often accused by atheists of fence sitting).
So by this logic you’ve got two words here: atheist, which by the definition above the vast majority of certified non-believers don’t qualify for, and agnostic, which can range from “soft” atheism all the way up to and including someone who really wants to get down with the church but isn’t ready to throw out their rational mindset and hop aboard the faith bandwagon yet. Wouldn’t it be more useful to seperate the two (obviously disagreeing) groups and, say, define an atheist as anyone who has serious qualms over the likelihood of a supernatural deity (whether or not the nonexistence of said deity can be proven) and will not alter those qualms until compelling evidence dictates otherwise, and conversely we can call an agnostic someone who feels that the scientific evidence against God is sketchy and requires further analysis. I’m typing in a rush and I’m sure these could be put into more elegant and precise terms, but hopefully everyone gets the point. Thoughts?
I don’t like any of the definitions given thus far because they fail to address my key question:
What is “God”?
I think the anthropomorphic versions (the concepts of a jealous God that desires worship, for example–the divine cults of personality) are so unlikely as to be probablistically dismissed without overwhelming evidence. The more philosophical concept of a benignly indifferent “First Mover” is not out of the realm of rational possibility, though that version of the universe seems like it has no practical differences from the completely godless one.
So, for me, saying I’m an “agnostic” is both an admission of rational ignorance and a position of doubt regarding all human knowledge on the subject: I don’t know what God is, let alone whether or not he/she/it exists. I suppose it’s possible other people have “found God”, but the more conventional, meaning-filled version seems so highly improbable that I don’t feel compelled to explore the issue any further at the moment. And since it’s unlikely humanity will come to a concensus on the nature of God any time soon, there are probably much more important things to worry about.
Agnosticism is a form of skepticism, unlike atheism, which is a form of dogmatism. Thus, the agnostic says “I do not know.” Now, the “academic” agnostic would say “I do not know because that knowledge is impossible to know.”, just as an “Academic Skeptic” would say. A much more hardcore agnostic, one who truly holds to skeptical method, would not make such an incredible leap of faith and adopt the dogma that one cannot know. Such an agnostic admits to personally not knowing but is not so arrogant as to claim that nobody can know.
I’m with Barry. I don’t understand it either, and I still don’t.
Here are the arguments I gleaned from these posts. However, I’d like to assume that knowledge of god is like knowledge of anything else. If you claim we can’t prove or know anything, then you are indeed an agnostic, but not a very interesting one.
First reason to be an agnostic: those atheists claim they know god does not exist, I think that claim is absurd, so I’m an agnostic, since I don’t believe in any gods. There have been countless threads about this. Most atheists I’ve seen don’t believe it is possible to disprove all gods, so this person might be an atheist.
Second reason: I don’t believe in any gods, but atheists are obnoxious and get a bad press, and I don’t want to be associated with them. Not much we can do about this.
Third reason: You cannot prove the existence of the god I believe in (or have defined.) I’d say agnosticism has to be stronger than this, claiming that the existence of no god can be proven. This is similar to atheism in a way - to be an atheist you can’t just not believe in a subset of gods (which even Fundamentalists do,) you have to not believe in all of them. To these professed agnostics I ask - if Exodus really happened, and you were there, would you consider those events an adequate proof of the existence of god? I’m an atheist and I would.
I consider people the belief in god without going to any church an exteremely odd definition of agnosticism. I’d be interested in hearing some reasoning behind this. Is agnosticism getting so popular that theists are claiming to be agnostics? That would be encouraging.
sigh. Atheism is lack of belief in any god, and does not have to be dogmatic. I’d say that nobody “knows” about the existence of god in any real sense - does that make everyone agnostic. Theists believe, and have faith, but their claims to true knowledge are unsupported. Someone claiming to know there is no god falls into the same category, by the way.
Agnostic here.
This question depends heavily upon your definition of God, let’s presume you are talking about “God” as refered to in the Bible.
I definately consider myself agnostic.
I do not know whether or not God exists.
Do I believe the existence or non existence of God can be proven? Probably not. But I would love for someone to try and present me with compelling evidence either way.
Let’s say someone “magically” appeared before you in your house and said they were God. What exactly could they do to make you believe they were God? This brings to mind scenes from those old George Burns movies when he turns day time to night time…
A person with access to far superior technology than you will be able to perform seemingly miraculous deeds. To a more primitive society it is easy to make yourself seem to have godlike powers. For example C3P0 in Return of the Jedi.
Pretty soon we will be able to create 3D virtual reality environments indistinguishable from the “real” world. In such a world anything will be possible, especially God like powers.
So in short…God would have a very hard time convincing me he is who he claims to be by appearing before me wielding miracles…but I invite Him to try…
That’s a good question indeed. A theist needs do describe the god he or she believes in - not perfectly, of course, but at least describe how this god affects us. A deist describes a god who does not affect us. A strong atheist needs to describe all the gods that there can be in order to prove that none of them exist. Tha part of definition 2 saying you can’t know gods don’t exist does not depend on which god you like.
If a generic definition of a god involves any sort of omnipotence or great power, I have a hard time understanding why this god can’t do something to make us know he exists.
I am a “firm” atheist when it comes to the Big-G God – the one that is said to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, created the cosmos, knows the future, etc. To me, that package of concepts is logically self-contradictory.
But I’m only a “weak” or passive atheist when it comes to lesser gods: spirits, feys, sprites, etc. (I often use the example of “Q” from Star Trek…) Such beings might exist, somewhere beyond our experience; I simply haven’t ever seen any evidence of it.
re the OP, if someone says, “ cannot be known,” then isn’t that the same as saying “ is false?” i.e., if I show you a mathematical conjecture, and state, “This can never be proven,” then isn’t it, by default, false? (Even Goedel only went so far as to demonstrate that unprovable true conjectures exist; his proof doesn’t extend to specifying one!)
Well, it took a page of posts, but ready29003 has nailed it.
If God was to make an appearance he/she/it would be unable to prove that they were indeed God. Not because they lack the ability to do magic, warp reality, amaze us poor mortals, but because we lack the cognitive powers to determine what is “real Godliness”, and what is just powers beyond our understanding.
Ergo, we cannot know God even if offered proof. We may not be able to recognise proof even when it’s underneath our nose.
So, my agnostic position is that if I cannot know, then if there is a God it must be his/her/its decision that I cannot know. And if there isn’t a god, well, the universe and everything if a vast. I cannot know everything, therefore I cannot determine the non-existance of any God. Either way, I’d be wasting my time worrying about it.
Being agnostic means you have a realistic acceptance of what must remain unknown to you. Anything else is either a delusion or an arrogance based on faith.
Well, what if there was a God who created us (or the universe) with intent but turned out not to so omnipotent? Say he died or by nature of his own rules cannot show up to prove himself.
Suppose God can only exsist through blind faith (which religions fall back on) so scientific data would be useless?
I consider myself Agnostic simply because athiests seem to carry with them the connotation that they’re out to prove the non-exsistence of God, where I’m not.
You seem to have convienently ignored the rest of my statement that you quoted. To wit, “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.”
To say that one would not accept God’s existence even if God himself showed himself to you is to say that one is an atheist. I’m well aware of “Clark’s Law” (“any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic”) and I’ve often thought that even if I died and found myself in some sort of “after life” I would still think that alien intelligence or virtual reality was a more rational explanation than “God”.
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?
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.
You mean a Charlton-Heston-Ten-Commandments type exodus? With the pillar a fire and raising-your-hands-and-parting-the-Red Sea and all that? Sure, I think that would be pretty good evidence of a God.
Just as I believe if the Rapture happened tomorrow, a whole lot of us on this board would be rethinking our position.
But still, the difference in my opinion, is that an atheist will say, it is impossible for that to happen. But an agnostic says, maybe, maybe not.