Agnosticism

[Angrboda]

I realize that agnosticism predates Huxley, but he is the author who most gave agnosticism its present form. Huxley and those who agreed with him posited not that we couldn't be confident that God existed, but that we couldn't have knowledge of the specifics of God. Thus the Huxleyan agnostics criticized the various forms of worship such as confession and the eucharist as assuming to know too much of the specifics of what God is and what He wants. Huxley et all were reacting, in large measure, to the claim's of knowledge and ownership of the rights of faith by the religious institutions. In a way, they were a companion movement to deism in that they still postulated a god, just not that the specifics of the god could be known. The meaning of the world evolved to mean, generally, anyone who claims that it is impossible to know the specifics of some object of attention, with God being the prototypical case. In recent times, the word has evolved again to mean that it is impossible to have certain, infallible knowledge of the specifics of the object of inquiry.

This is where it meets atheism, and has been incorporated into the culture. Its meaning in the sense of it being impossible to have any knowledge of God, or of having knowledge of the specifics of God, has been replaced by the meaning that an agnostic believes it impossible to have positive, certain knowledge of the specifics of God.

This is all well and good except for two points. First, as noted, some are able to assign probabilities to the question, and most atheist agnostics dismiss the idea of God as improbable. When you assign probabilities to any question, you are claiming knowledge, even if that knowledge is only partial and uncertain. If you have no knowledge of a binary question, the principle of insufficient reason states that you assign a 50/50 probability to the outcome; assigning other probabilities implies knowledge, no matter how fallible.

Second, most who do not already believe in a god or a divine revelation already accept that anything they believe they know may turn out to be false or wrong; believing one's knowledge fallible and capable of revision is almost a required part of not believing in revealed sources of knowledge. The point that all knowledge is provisional seems a presupposition shared, not just among agnostics, but among all who deny sources of absolute knowledge such as gods, revelations, prophecy, or absolute codes. To add the word agnosticism to your claim to not believe in a god seems to be protesting too much by half, as it isn't only agnostic atheists who posit that their knowledge is only provisional, but essentially everybody. It's almost like saying "I'm a human atheist, by which I mean I'm distinctly human, unlike those other human atheists."

Ultimately, I think this glomming on to the label agnostic by atheists represents a couple of things. First, it's an obvious evolution of the word from related meanings. But secondly, it is an anti-theist statement responding to theists framing the question in terms of certain knowledge, and so the atheist responds by framing the answer, agnosticism, in terms of certain knowledge. To my mind, this is a misunderstanding of the meaning of 'knowledge' and the sources of knowledge, admittedly caused by the theist's usage of the term. To my mind, if you don't believe in revealed or absolute knowledge, you already accept, by implication, that your claims to knowledge are provisional. In that case, I think the label is redundant in that it adds a qualifier which doesn't need to be added, because it's already presumed. It also allows our understanding of just what "knowledge" is and what the word means to be framed by this question of certainty and 'proof', outdated notions that are at home in theist epistemology, but should be abandoned by thinking non-theists. Knowledge isn't about possessing certain, infallible truth, it's about reasonably justified beliefs, with doubt, skepticism, and the acknowledgement of fallibility.

[Whateverist]

To my mind, if you don't believe in revealed or absolute knowledge, you already accept, by implication, that your claims to knowledge are provisional. In that case, I think the label is redundant in that it adds a qualifier which doesn't need to be added, because it's already presumed. It also allows our understanding of just what "knowledge" is and what the word means to be framed by this question of certainty and 'proof', outdated notions that are at home in theist epistemology, but should be abandoned by thinking non-theists. Knowledge isn't about possessing certain, infallible truth, it's about reasonably justified beliefs, with doubt, skepticism, and the acknowledgement of fallibility.

On a very quick reading -I've got to run- I'd say that it clearly is not the case that every atheist is an agnostic. A "7" or anti-theist makes absolute knowledge claims in which I detect no provisionalism. Perhaps it is a failure in my understanding but i'll have to think more of this later.

---

Okay, I have a few more minutes after all.

More than anything, what I think I know about the whole god question is that what a 'god' may be varies vastly between speakers. It's a thing which isn't a thing, a pre-thing which is the origin of all things. Or perhaps that is all just elaboration of some archaic expression of vastness and awe. More likely all that a god really is is a voice from within, or the apprehension of the presence of something that is nowhere but in you. If so, then 'god' is our creation. Not by any deliberate scheme but as a potential of our imaginations, the nature of our consciousness and the influence of culture. I just think it is obtuse to insist on refuting the most stupid interpretations of 'god'. Of course 'god' is not a fit topic for physics or philosophy, but perhaps there is something worth knowing about the phenomenon anyway.

[Angrboda]

On a very quick reading -I've got to run- I'd say that it clearly is not the case that every atheist is an agnostic. A "7" or anti-theist makes absolute knowledge claims in which I detect no provisionalism. Perhaps it is a failure in my understanding but i'll have to think more of this later.

You missed the part where I redefined what we mean by knowledge to something that, while we have great confidence in it, is still fallible and provisional. Even a "7" would admit that, if by some miracle, they were provided with satisfactory evidence that they had been wrong about God, they would change their belief. (I don't know that a "1" would.) We claim that we know that nothing travels faster then the speed of light, that gravity exists, and that the earth is older than 4,000 years old. If we were to discover tomorrow that we had been mistaken about anything we consider knowledge, the practical man would simply acquit himself of the old belief and get on with the business of embracing this new "knowledge," whether it be of gravity or of God. (The theologian and apologist, I can't be as sure of. They do not strike me as practical fellows.) So, in answer to your question, no, a "7" would not be an exception to this, unless said "7" felt their belief that god does not exist is infallible, and those such 7's probably shouldn't be setting the tone for the rest.

[KUSA]

I'm an agnostic atheist. I am certain of the non-existence of a theist god, but I am completely agnostic about the existence of a deist god. We have absolutely no clue how the universe came into being, so I'd say it's 50/50 chance of a deist god. A theist god almost certainly does not exist. Unicorns are far more likely than a theist god.

Your profile says you are a satanist. If you believe in satan then how can you be an Atheist?

[max-greece]

This is all well and good except for two points. First, as noted, some are able to assign probabilities to the question, and most atheist agnostics dismiss the idea of God as improbable. When you assign probabilities to any question, you are claiming knowledge, even if that knowledge is only partial and uncertain. If you have no knowledge of a binary question, the principle of insufficient reason states that you assign a 50/50 probability to the outcome; assigning other probabilities implies knowledge, no matter how fallible.

I think we have to differentiate "no knowledge" from insufficient knowledge and that it is the latter, rather than the former that would describe the case for an Agnostic Atheist.

A straightforward Agnostic may fall into the 50:50 split.

Further, when confronted with a specific theist the question is not binary - in the sense of God's existence as we have to incorporate "which God?"

Using your own logic, therefore, the question "is Jesus the Son of God" is a 50:50 call only when assuming that the option is Christianity or atheism.

Factor in the variety of different religions (not to mention different Churches) and the odds for a specific interpretation of God fall dramatically.

Deism would also have to be included as an option. A Deist God either exists or does not exist. If that's 50:50 what remains for a theist God?

If we are to summarize all of the above, therefore, taking Agnostic Atheist as the start point.

P(God) = 50:50
P(Deist God) = 50:50 = 1 in 4.
Assume P(Theist God) = P(Deist God)
Number of possible Gods = All of those worshipped on Earth + 1 (to incorporate the possibility of a theist God not yet worshipped). For ease lets use a number of 5,000 (from thin air).

Therefore P(specific theist God) = (1 in 4) * (1 in 5,000) = 1 in 20,000.

Hence the reasonable addition of the word Atheist to the title Agnostic Atheist.

[Angrboda]

If you say so. I think you're violating the principle in your application, but since that wasn't the point, it's irrelevant. The fact is, atheists don't dismiss belief in this or that deity under the assumption that any deity is as likely as not to exist. They do so on the basis of rationally justified belief, aka knowledge.

[max-greece]

You're ignoring the first line in my argument.
You are further hiding behind the principle to avoid the issue (Deism and theism are mutually exclusive as much as belief and non belief are).
You're further ignoring that the question is not binary in any meaningful sense.

Off your meds?

Right - ignore the above as you appear to have completely changed your response.

Assuming that you won't do that again whilst I type:

" The fact is, atheists don't dismiss belief in this or that deity under the assumption that any deity is as likely as not to exist. They do so on the basis of rationally justified belief, aka knowledge."

I thought we were discussing agnostics, or more specifically, atheist agnostics.

Again, I repeat, we have to differentiate "no knowledge" from insufficient knowledge and that it is the latter, rather than the former that would describe the case for an Agnostic Atheist.

Insufficient knowledge, in this case, can be defined as not being sufficient to be 100% certain.

[Angrboda]

Off your meds?

Such rudeness, arrogance and bigotry belongs in the hall of shame. I corrected my post while you were typing, but apparently you have an agenda at hand that involves insulting me on account of my having a mental illness.

I may be insane, but at least I have some decency. I can't say the same for you.

[max-greece]

Off your meds?

Such rudeness, arrogance and bigotry belongs in the hall of shame. I corrected my post while you were typing, but apparently you have an agenda at hand that involves insulting me on account of my having a mental illness.

I may be insane, but at least I have some decency. I can't say the same for you.

You did and I apologise. I only saw your change of post after I made mine and mine was a response to your initially insultingly dismissive reply.

I spent quite some time thinking my first reply to this thread through prior to posting and to have it dismissed in that fashion you did hit a nerve.

I'll accept the accusations of arrogance and rudeness but not bigotry. It was a genuine question.

[Whateverist]

Second, most who do not already believe in a god or a divine revelation already accept that anything they believe they know may turn out to be false or wrong; believing one's knowledge fallible and capable of revision is almost a required part of not believing in revealed sources of knowledge. The point that all knowledge is provisional seems a presupposition shared, not just among agnostics, but among all who deny sources of absolute knowledge such as gods, revelations, prophecy, or absolute codes. To add the word agnosticism to your claim to not believe in a god seems to be protesting too much by half, as it isn't only agnostic atheists who posit that their knowledge is only provisional, but essentially everybody. It's almost like saying "I'm a human atheist, by which I mean I'm distinctly human, unlike those other human atheists."

Lets have another go at this.

I still doubt that everyone who does not share a belief in any gods is so open to revising what they think as you indicate. Many seem to harbor a naive belief that all questions will ultimately be answered by science. Some seem to hold scientists in too high a regard as authorities and accept what they have to say too uncritically.

I do accept your point that knowledge should not be put on too high a pedestal as something requiring airtight evidence. But then when discussing something as strange as 'gods' I have a hard time understanding how people who do not believe in them can be so sure that what it is they doubt is the same thing as what the faithful believe in. Perhaps those who have recently left a religion in which they were a participant do know what it is that their colleagues believed in, but I don't. Furthermore, it may well be that what believers believe has some basis in their experience even if they misattribute the source of that experience.

Of course those who make literal claims about the age of the universe and judgement day and heaven and hell and take every allegory literally can be dismissed easily enough. But I'm not sure that net catches them all. I'm not so sure what it is exactly that Jacob believes about gods or what claims he would make for it. I'm equally in doubt about what interpersonal or transpersonal claims you would make for your Kali apart from your own intrapersonal experience.