Agnosticism Vs. Atheism

[littlegrimlin1]

I was on atheists.org recently ( more accurately http://atheists.org/Agnosticism%3A_The_B...or_Atheism )

They argue that there is no reason for agnosticism...

They say that not believing in X should inevitably mean that we maintain that there is no X.
But that is what Agnostic Atheism is all about, right?

Is their argument about this invalid? Agnostic Atheists are in no place to even judge, we don't maintain whether X does or doesn't exist.

I love this website, but this page kind of caught me up... ;\

[Tiberius]

They seem to confuse the issues of relative and absolute knowledge with belief in the article. Yes, to one degree you can argue that not believing in X is maintaining that there is no X, however this is a relative assertion. Just because there is no X for me, doesn't mean there is no X ultimately.

The point is, you can maintain that there is no X all you like, but if you cannot demonstrate via a proof that there is no X objectively, you have to admit agnosticism.

I'll have to read through the article a bit more later, but from first glances it seems that he mutilates definitions and thereby comes to a faulty conclusion.

[theVOID]

I agree with Adrian - Gnosticism an Atheist requires absolute knowledge because you first must know everything that does exist in order to say whether or not something doesn't.

[Eilonnwy]

tl;dr

I don't think it's possible to be in some middle ground between theism and atheism. You're either one of the other and if you claim to "not know" then I think by definition you are an atheist because you lack belief in a God and don't accept theist claims. It's a true dichotomy.

However, you can be agnostic atheist and agnostic theist. You just can't believe and disbelieve at the same time. I agree also with Adrian's comment above.

[fr0d0]

How about this:

I can never know God exists but I'm not an agnostic theist, I'm a theist. Because (my) theism requires me not to know. This isn't faulty this is actually precise.

theist = belief in God

Add in gnosticism... knowledge.. I know that I believe in God.. I don't claim to know that God exists.. I cannot.. but that is never my claim. My claim is that I know I believe.

Same with atheism.. You know you do not believe in any deity. You have knowledge that you do not believe. You can't know for sure the same as a theist can't know for sure about the existence of any deity, but that was never your claim.


Agnosticism is a category on it's own, defined as "the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable."

"Agnostic Atheism" is a confused combination of two words, because both make a statement about deities that are different. You can be both, but you can't link the two.

[Tiberius]

Add in gnosticism... knowledge.. I know that I believe in God.. I don't claim to know that God exists.. I cannot.. but that is never my claim. My claim is that I know I believe.

That's not gnosticism. Gnosticism isn't about what you believe, it's about what you know. "Knowing that I believe" isn't a statement of gnosticism. "Knowing God exists" is a statement of gnosticism. So I object to your assertion that this is adding in gnosticism. Knowing what you believe is more in the realm of certainty.

Agnosticism is a category on it's own, defined as "the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable."

"Agnostic Atheism" is a confused combination of two words, because both make a statement about deities that are different. You can be both, but you can't link the two.

It's not a confused combination. It's a combination of two words that make a more accurate description. We say "agnostic atheist" in the same way I say "english atheist". All it does is add more information about me.

Both make different statements about deities, but they cover different aspects. One covers the belief in deities (theism/atheism), the other covers knowledge of deities (gnosticism/agnosticism). You can combine the two to add more information about your views.

It's not a way of describing my atheism, but a way of describing my beliefs about god and the way I look at them (i.e. that I do not hold my beliefs as absolute knowledge).

[fr0d0]

Well I was taking 'gnosticism' literally rather than fully. 'Gnosticism' is a particular belief & not purely 'knowledge'. You'll find that it means something very different to 'absolute knowledge of existence'.

Show me your source for your assertion of "knowing that God exists" applies to 'Gnosticism'.


In combining the two words your intention (I believe) is to apply one to the other. To me you're qualifying 'atheism' (which doesn't need it) with an element of 'un-knowing'. You are both an Atheist AND an agnostic. You are not agnostic about your Atheism.

[Tiberius]

I mean Gnosticism as the opposite of Agnosticism (not the Gnostic movement). Agnosticism (simply) is the view that certain things are simply not known or are "unknowable". Gnosticism is the opposite, that certain things are known or knowable. Gnostic theists claim that God is knowable (as in absolutely), and in many cases they claim that this is special knowledge they have but nobody else doesn't (case in point, Ray Comfort makes this claim loads of times).

My intention is not what you think it is. I'm not qualifying atheism, I'm qualifying my view on god. A view on god can have many aspects (whether I believe and whether I claim knowledge are two of them, whether I care is another, etc).

In the same way saying I'm a "English atheist" is not qualifying my atheism, saying I'm an "agnostic atheist" isn't either. Both descriptions simply reveal more information about myself. The former reveals that I am English, the latter than I am agnostic. I only use "agnostic atheist" as a description of my "religious views" because it is far more informative to people than just "atheist". In no way does it qualify, but it does add information.

[fr0d0]

Well that's an unfounded definition of Gnosticism. I know what Agnosticism is, invented by Huxley. What is a "Gnostic theist"? ...is it a slight on the theist saying that "this fool is asserting absolute knowledge of existence" when this is never the case? If you study Ray Comfort accurately (*shudders at the thought*) you'll find that he never asserts absolute knowledge of God's existence only as is classically Christian (as you've said on your blog): asserting confidence through faith - a very different thing.

Whether it is your intention or not, I think it's entirely unclear and weak. It's weak language. You are an Agnostic and an Atheist. You are not an agnostic Atheist. An "English Atheist" would attract some connotations I wouldn't doubt ... I might think of the secular influence as opposed to an American Atheist who'd have superficially non secular influence (*unintentionally throws rocks around* ) for example.

You clearly use the term agnostic as a descriptive adjunct rather than a separate and additional qualification. How would anyone be militantly agnostic? "Damn!.. I'm militant about not knowing" ...sounds amusing

No... you're saying you're a militant atheist who cannot know that God exists.

The agnostic scale is a purely Huxleyan scale. Atheism is simply not theism. It doesn't need the scale. What information does it add? That you're not in the theoretically absurd/ mentally delusional % of people who actually know for sure that God does or doesn't exist. It seems a nonsense & superfluous qualification to me. 'atheist' (small 'a') covers the atheist by default/ apathetic.

[Tiberius]

I'm afraid it is very founded fr0d0. Whilst Huxley did indeed define Agnosticism as a rejection of the Gnostics, the word "Gnosticism" fell out of it's original use for the movement, and was used to describe people who claim the opposite of Agnosticism. To paraphrase from the interview/debate Ray Comfort had with Thunderf00t:

Ray: How did life begin?
Thunderf00t: This is what we refer to in science as an 'unknown'.
Ray: I've got to stop you there, because I know. You don't know, but I do.

This is an example of gnostic thinking. He claims to have absolute knowledge through what has been "revealed" to him through scripture. On his blog he has stated multiple times that there is no evidence that could persuade him that evolution was true, because evolution to him is already false, and creation is absolute truth.

It's not weak language at all, you are simply going down a similar route Kyu did when trying to understand what we mean. I'm not denying that agnostic can be related to atheism, and indeed when I say 'agnostic atheist' it does reveal something about my atheism, but it isn't a quantification. My atheism is the same atheism as that of a gnostic atheist (or as you would have it, an atheist who is also a gnostic). It's the same thing, because it can't be quantified. It's a simple statement of disbelief.

Where I differ with the gnostic atheist is in my position on whether deities can be known, and as an agnostic I say they cannot.

How can anyone be militantly agnostic? Easily, if we ignore your stupid example of "I'm militant about not knowing" which is a strawman. I sum it up nicely in my religious views which you apparently didn't read past the first 3 words:

"I can't know, and neither can you."

Not, "I don't know" but "I can't". That is agnosticism. It is a view that some things simply cannot be known, and I hold that nobody can know, thus I am militant about it.

As for the information it adds, I've already told you. Atheism as it stands is (as you say) not theism. It is the disbelief in the existence of deities. On its own, this says nothing of whether the atheist may claim this disbelief as absolute truth or not (and as atheism has no dogma, neither theism, you cannot say this is included in the definition). I have met atheists who claim to hold proofs for God's non existence, as I have met theists who claim to hold proofs for God's existence. Both of these are easily separable from other atheists and theists, and the separation comes in whether they subscribe to agnosticism or not.

It may seem like a nonsense and superfluous qualification to you, but it is neither nonsense, nor superfluous, nor a qualification.