Agnosticism
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Cris, John is clearly playing dumb and is refusing to answer in any intelligent manner.
First he says that agnostics are born that way, i.e. at the moment of birth the baby is already agnostic.
Then he continues to say that "agnostics require proof and a very analytical".
Not to mention that he agreed that:
- agnosticism requires a concept of God,
- he doesn't know whether or not babies already have a concept of God at birth.
First he says that agnostics are born that way, i.e. at the moment of birth the baby is already agnostic.
Then he continues to say that "agnostics require proof and a very analytical".
Not to mention that he agreed that:
- agnosticism requires a concept of God,
- he doesn't know whether or not babies already have a concept of God at birth.
The OP is imposing too much into the definition of agnosticism. Agnosticism is simply the belief that man cannot arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not God exists.
1. Theism - Conclusion that God exists.
2. Atheism - Conclusion that God does not exist.
3A. Miscellaneous inconclusion.
3B. Agnosticism - No man can arrive at a conclusion about the matter.
Furthermore, the OP incorporates severe linguistic flaws in its statement. It is impossible for anybody to take authority over deeming evidence for all. One can only say "nobody has produced evidence that I find acceptable". However, it is a linguistic trap to define a term in regards to a completely subjective matter. One can deem himself agnostic if he finds that man is incapable of producing evidence that he finds acceptable. It is important to remember that all justification is subject to approval of the individual. Whereas one might deem material to be acceptable justification, another might not.
1. Theism - Conclusion that God exists.
2. Atheism - Conclusion that God does not exist.
3A. Miscellaneous inconclusion.
3B. Agnosticism - No man can arrive at a conclusion about the matter.
Furthermore, the OP incorporates severe linguistic flaws in its statement. It is impossible for anybody to take authority over deeming evidence for all. One can only say "nobody has produced evidence that I find acceptable". However, it is a linguistic trap to define a term in regards to a completely subjective matter. One can deem himself agnostic if he finds that man is incapable of producing evidence that he finds acceptable. It is important to remember that all justification is subject to approval of the individual. Whereas one might deem material to be acceptable justification, another might not.
i do agree with it. i dont mind "Agnostic" but i dont see the reason to add "ism" to it. Say like Commun'ISM', now there the 'ism' is warranted because it is a system, a long arduous system with rules and formalities and people breathing down your neck and telling you how to live. of course i refer to actual real world examples of it and not the watered down definition which has never existed due to the nature of humans to incorporate a hierarchy and we are also naturally competitive.
getting back on point, i sad agnostic from birth to convey the reality that it is my nature. so in that sense i would have to conclude i was born like that. i do think that an atheist needs to make a conscious effort to be an atheist and there is the distinction. so basically you dont learn to be an agnostic and that was th point i was trying to make.
John,
Yes OK, I understand your point.
I do observe that many people have a natural tendency towards certain attitudes. Those that easily believ anything they are told, and others who are super critical and cynical towards everything. There are those who are extremely analytical and accept virtually nothing without signficant proofs, and others who simply don't care.
Most of these attitudes we inherit and others are developed through experience and practice. These natural tendencies usually allow some people to do well in say the sciences (analystical minded), or the arts (emotionally oriented), etc.
I would not say someone could be naturally atheistic or theistic as these are considered opinions based on intellectual comprehension, a child would not be able to absorb these concepts easily if at all.
As to agnosticsm as Huxley defines it; as a tendency towards requiring evidence before making a concluion then yes I woul tend to agree that for many this might well stem from a natural tendency to be analytical and critical. But as regards to its specific application towards gods then this would again require a more adult intellectual comprehension.
Yes OK, I understand your point.
I do observe that many people have a natural tendency towards certain attitudes. Those that easily believ anything they are told, and others who are super critical and cynical towards everything. There are those who are extremely analytical and accept virtually nothing without signficant proofs, and others who simply don't care.
Most of these attitudes we inherit and others are developed through experience and practice. These natural tendencies usually allow some people to do well in say the sciences (analystical minded), or the arts (emotionally oriented), etc.
I would not say someone could be naturally atheistic or theistic as these are considered opinions based on intellectual comprehension, a child would not be able to absorb these concepts easily if at all.
As to agnosticsm as Huxley defines it; as a tendency towards requiring evidence before making a concluion then yes I woul tend to agree that for many this might well stem from a natural tendency to be analytical and critical. But as regards to its specific application towards gods then this would again require a more adult intellectual comprehension.
So what do you call a person who is neither convinced there is a god nor there is no god at all, just doubting both ways ? .
.
mike47,
If they have no tendency to say that they believe a god probably exists then they would not be theist. Others would argue that means they are atheist (lack of theistic belief). But I would not hold with that. Until they say that they feel that gods probably do not exist then I would not label them.
However, if their reasoning is of the form, after due dilligence to investigaion, that they do not see any any credible evidence to support either case for the existence or non existence of gods then I would label them agnostic.
Alternatively, if they are seriously considering specific theist claims and find them absurd and incredible then I would say they are atheist in that context, i.e. disbelief in theistic claims.
Why call them anything? There is no rule that says everyone must be labelled.
If they have no tendency to say that they believe a god probably exists then they would not be theist. Others would argue that means they are atheist (lack of theistic belief). But I would not hold with that. Until they say that they feel that gods probably do not exist then I would not label them.
However, if their reasoning is of the form, after due dilligence to investigaion, that they do not see any any credible evidence to support either case for the existence or non existence of gods then I would label them agnostic.
Alternatively, if they are seriously considering specific theist claims and find them absurd and incredible then I would say they are atheist in that context, i.e. disbelief in theistic claims.
Yes, he coined the term. But that doesn't mean there has been no progress in understanding since then or that the first pass at putting it into words was the best or even definitive.
I would disagree that his interpretation is the "real" meaning. He isn't god handing out commandments you know.
While wordy I don't see how this is so divergent from "I don't know?" Perhaps you would prefer "I'm uncertain?"
I think you are making an unnecessary distinction here. After all, atheism isn't a belief system either. It isn't even a creed.
So?
The arguments that god is inherently unknowable and therefor certainty is impossible seem a valid extension to me.
No, and in fact part of being an agnostic is lacking that since a valid concept implies some knowledge of the subject.
Its just like an atheist needs no concept of god to think the theist is full of it.
Cris,
Not to muddy the waters, but I view theism, atheism and agnosticism a little different. I think it could be two parts based on two questions.
1) do you believe in god (theism or lack of belief atheism)
2) can you prove there is a god or can you prove there is not a god.
For me the first is no, atheist.
The second however for me requires being agnostic.
Although, nobody can prove something does not exist, atheist would argue that we don't have the responsibility to prove something does not exist, it just allows me to discuss my position with theists. Simply because at some point the second question is asked.
So I am an atheist/agnostic due to the above.
Not to muddy the waters, but I view theism, atheism and agnosticism a little different. I think it could be two parts based on two questions.
1) do you believe in god (theism or lack of belief atheism)
2) can you prove there is a god or can you prove there is not a god.
For me the first is no, atheist.
The second however for me requires being agnostic.
Although, nobody can prove something does not exist, atheist would argue that we don't have the responsibility to prove something does not exist, it just allows me to discuss my position with theists. Simply because at some point the second question is asked.
So I am an atheist/agnostic due to the above.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
A concept can exist without it being linked to an actual subject.
If someon believes in God if someone trusts in him
If someone doesnt believe ad god does trust in him do others who knows is he going to get criticism from others who do yes therefre it is a issue just for that but the fact that a freaking god who is not there well this god a nt there so he'll have problems finding out whyother believe and never can understand them. he say thei birth they have no god but he has never dsproven theism. he will confont it - probably. this leads agnosticism as one of the stronger stances. n one who really sings that is an atheist has much recognition as of the ones who say nothing. god is a tochy concept and even the atheists never answer te arguement from design OR the arguements about other existances of go from the existences we all are aware ofor undrstand. he would say to disprove hs ideas and we would fumble unware of what disageement or possibility ther is which exists
If someone doesnt believe ad god does trust in him do others who knows is he going to get criticism from others who do yes therefre it is a issue just for that but the fact that a freaking god who is not there well this god a nt there so he'll have problems finding out whyother believe and never can understand them. he say thei birth they have no god but he has never dsproven theism. he will confont it - probably. this leads agnosticism as one of the stronger stances. n one who really sings that is an atheist has much recognition as of the ones who say nothing. god is a tochy concept and even the atheists never answer te arguement from design OR the arguements about other existances of go from the existences we all are aware ofor undrstand. he would say to disprove hs ideas and we would fumble unware of what disageement or possibility ther is which exists
I'm sorry, come again. :shrug:
swarm,
Perhaps, but the current idea that it means that gods are unknowable is effectively unrecognizable from Huxley's original. He created the term at the height of the Darwin evolution storm and the bitter fights with the clergy.
I don't see it as "interpretation", but a term he created specifically to deal with real debate issues. From his writings one can see his exasperation at the the clergy for asserting they were absolutely correct and at the same time offerring not a single scrap of evidence, that he very strongly felt was very wrong. It was the first real major challenge to the acceptance that "faith" was valid as a method for determining truth.
It is neither, it is not a matter of degree but of methodology, i.e. "let the facts speak for themselves". If there are none then expressions of certainty or uncertainty have no meaning.
It was critical to Huxley's position, i.e. how does one determine the basis for certainty, what method is used? Well, evidence of course. Without that then the issue becomes one of faith, whether theist or atheist.
But that wasn't the critical issue he was attempting to define, that is perhaps supplementary but not central.