This is an archive of past discussions about Agnosticism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Ignosticism is not a "Type of Agnosticism", it is a different concept altogether. I have moved it to a "Related Concepts" section. The question I have regarding both that and "spiritual agnosticism", are these concepts notable enough to agnosticism to be included in the article at all? The sources for the information are websites. Allisgod (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It is not "a different concept altogether"; it is a very closely related concept. That said, I agree with moving to Related concepts.
There is nothing inherently wrong with using websites as sources; in fact, I recently had someone on my page asking for admin advice because no web sourcing was being provided for some content, the sourcing being from a book. Neither view is correct; we accept both dead-tree and online sourcing, as long as the source provided meets with the WP:RS guideline. We also do not remove content because the sourcing is suspect, unless the information is believed to be inaccurate. We instead locate better sourcing for the content. We should certainly include both concepts in this article. Note that Spiritual agnosticism has its own article. Any content sourced on the target article is considered sourced here, as there is a link from the term to the article on the term. KillerChihuahua17:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
In researching the phrase, "Spiritual agnosticism", I have found no evidence that this is not just a phrase used by a handful of people on the internet who want a unique name for their personal philosophy. There are dozens of such "[fill-in-the-blank] agnosticism" phrases out there. The sources on the target page are also all personal blogs with zero references and I haven't found it to be a notable concept in academic research, so I have nominated that page for deletion and notified the creator of the page (who happens to be one or more of the sources). Allisgod (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
No worries, was just making sure. If you Prod an article, it can be recreated; if an article is deleted through Afd, it cannot be recreated without substantial changes. Be sure to notify the creator of the page about the Prod on their talk page, there are templates for that on the WP:PROD page. If you decide to switch to Afd, same thing, notify the creator, as this is a new article. KillerChihuahua19:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
And I have now removed Spiritual agnosticism, as it seems clear the Afd will close as a snowball; we have the same lack of RS here as at the article. KillerChihuahua13:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Input requested
Please offer your view on an Rfc here to decide whether of all the "List of atheist (profession)" lists, the philosophy list should be expanded to include agnostics as well, as "List of atheist and agnostic philosophers" instead of "List of atheist philosophers". The discussion may be found at Talk:List_of_atheist_philosophers#This_list. KillerChihuahua19:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The article currently begins "Agnosticism is the belief that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable." I don't particularly want to waste any more of my life than I have already done on what I now see as basically absurd (but sometimes seemingly mass-murderously dangerous) arguments over the meaning of words like 'God', 'god', 'belief', 'knowledge', 'atheist', 'agnostic', 'theist', etc. But it does seem to me that an unsourced and controversial initial definition which states as a fact that Agnosticism is some kind of belief seems to violate WP:NPOV (and maybe WP:NOR, etc) which may offend many self-perceived agnostics, perhaps especially those who come to agnosticism in the hope of escaping from the word 'belief' and the many horrors they may see it having caused to them and/or to others. I know it once hugely offended me elsewhere about 10 years ago when I still called myself 'an Agnostic', though I suppose I've calmed down a bit since concluding that none of the words that I've listed ('God', 'god', 'belief', 'knowledge', 'atheist', 'agnostic', 'theist', etc) seem to have any clear and/or agreed meaning anyway. Actually I still tend to describe myself as 'my own thoroughly eccentric variety of agnostic, skeptic, and humanist', but only because I think that's slightly less misleading to others than describing myself as 'my own thoroughly eccentric variety of atheist', or 'my own thoroughly eccentric variety of theist' or 'my own thoroughly eccentric variety of atheist, non-theist, agnostic, skeptic, humanist, and theist', all of which I could probably equally well use to describe myself (and quite likely everybody else too) by suitable choices of different but usually fairly common definitions for words like 'God', etc...
At any rate, in case it offends others the way it once offended me, and violates WP:NPOV, etc, I'm provisionally changing it to "Agnosticism is the opinion, (or view, or outlook, or belief, or idea, etc) that ...", and if I get reverted, I'll cross that bridge if and when I come to it. I will probably leave it to others to improve the article by finding reliably sourced quotes to back up each of these words and any other words anybody else may care to add. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Since that got reverted by somebody claiming a list disimproved the article, I've changed 'belief' to 'view', which is the word used in the 2 citations from references 1 and 2, and is much less likely to annoy or offend any agnostics who are trying to get away from 'belief' systems, which is quite likely why both sources use the word 'view' rather than 'belief'. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
That the wording may be offensive to some is not a valid reason for rewording the lead. However if the cited sources uses "view" instead of "belief", then the former does indeed seem to be a more appropriate wording. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't particularly want to waste time getting into a distracting side-argument when we seem to be agreed on the present outcome. But I still feel some sort of doubtless foolish desire to mention that WP:NOTCENSORED says (among other things): 'However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.'
The qualifying word 'generally' actually implies that there may well be occasions when being objectionable is 'sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content', though I have no idea what these might be. The passage also implicitly acknowledges that discussion of potentially offensive materials should occur (by stating that such discussion should not focus on its offensiveness), and it seems self-evident that it is sometimes necessary, or at least usefully informative, that people be informed that some wordings are potentially offensive before such a discussion can even begin. In many cases, including this one, the offense may be largely or entirely caused by the perception that the wording is mistaken or misleading, and thus there may be little or no difference between the question of whether it is offensive and whether it is appropriate - the argument being not 'it should be excluded because its inclusion is offensive' but 'its inclusion is offensive because it should be excluded (on grounds of inaccuracy, etc)'. Also WP:IAR says we should ignore all rules if that improves the encyclopedia, and it seems to me that re-phrasing something to make it potentially less offensive without misleading the reader, improves the encyclopedia. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Most people are able to find and correct errors without being offended by them. In general if you find yourself to be emotionally touched by such experiences, you should perhaps reconsider being an editor on Wikipedia, because it is almost certain that you will run into similar instances on a fairly regular basis. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your touching though ill-informed concern for my welfare :) As I stated in my opening remarks when creating this section, I am NOT offended by this matter, but was offended by a very similar statement a little over 10 years ago (not in Wikipedia, which may not even have existed at the time), and I was thus concerned that others might be similarly offended today. Nor, to the best of my recollection, have any errors in Wikipedia offended me in several years as an editor - but I am simply well aware that certain kinds of error have the capacity to cause unnecessary offence, and that it seems generally even more desirable and urgent than usual that such errors be fixed (and pointing out that such an error is one that is liable to cause unnecessary offence may well tend to usefully make it less likely that the fixes will be reverted without first giving the matter adequate thought). If a Wikipedia article explicitly or implicitly asserted that, for instance, Catholics were not Christians, or not proper Christians, this could be expected to offend a great many Catholics (all the more so if it was given exceptional prominence as the opening statement of the article, and presented as fact rather than as merely somebody's opinion (and indeed fact so self-evident that it seemingly required no backing citation, as initially appeared to be the case here - it later became easy to fix when it turned out that there were citations a little further on, and these were being misquoted)). And the offence would largely (not necessarily entirely) be the result of a perception that the assertion was untrue (or inaccurate, etc). And if I were to re-word it, I would think it perfectly reasonable to mention that I thought the new wording was likely to avoid offence (but I would hope to only do the re-wording if the new wording was also accurate, etc, and represented an improvement to the article). The same would apply to similar explicit or implicit assertions that Sunnis were not Muslims, or not proper Muslims, or that Savaists were not Hindus, or not proper Hindus, and so on ad infinitum. In this instance, the article was implicitly asserting that the many Agnostics who did not see their Agnosticism as a belief were not Agnostics, or not proper Agnostics, which may well offend many of those Agnostics, as it did offend me ten years ago (and might well still offend me today, if I still regarded myself as a 'proper Agnostic', and if I still felt that to be a core part of my identity).
At least in my humble opinion, there remain several unsatisfactory (inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, etc) aspects to this article, which I may or may not eventually get round to trying to fix myself (if I have the time and am sufficiently interested, etc). Needless to add, it is quite likely that the ones that I may want to see fixed first are those errors (or inaccuracies, etc) that I think are liable to cause unnecessary offence (rather than the seemingly less urgent ones that seem unlikely to cause offence). At present I have noticed two of these, which I'll mention (both here and again in a new section) in case somebody else wants to fix them. One is the frequent unqualified repetition as if it were fact that Atheism means believing there are no Gods, whereas many (and perhaps most) Atheists would say that is only one kind of Atheism (usually called Strong or Hard Atheism) - I know from experience (and you can also see clear evidence of it elsewhere on this Talk page) that this kind of unqualified assertion can offend Atheists (especially 'Weak' or 'Soft' Atheists), that the unqualified assertion is basically wrong, but that fixing it satisfactorily and accurately (with the backing of 'reliable sources') is liable to be quite difficult. The other is the bit about 'Agnostic Atheism', which is liable to offend many Agnostics who see it as describing their position, but who reject the label of Atheist (one of whom would perhaps have been T.H.Huxley himself, judging by what he has to say about Atheism). The fix may well be to clearly spell out that this is a classification invented by atheists and frequently rejected by agnostics (always assuming that it actually is all that - its sole supporting quote is one book by one atheist who, for all I know, may well not be a 'reliable' source), but finding reliable sources for any of that may not be easy.
I've wasted enough time on this already, so provided any reply you care to make is not too provocative, I'll leave you free to have the last word on the subject. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
However all that waffle of mine was a distraction from what I originally intended to write. As luck would have it, the so-called reliable sources currently seem to conveniently support my re-wording. But I actually suspect that these 'reliable sources' are profoundly unreliable, and that agnosticism is basically something that should be incapable of being precisely defined (especially not in sentences beginning 'strictly speaking agnosticism is...'). But it can perhaps be loosely (NOT precisely or strictly) defined as something like the set of different views of people who call themselves agnostics. Almost all of these say 'I don't know whether there is a God or not', but many (and perhaps most) of them do not have any firm views on whether theism and atheism are irrational. In my view they are not irrational (which probably means I'm not an agnostic according to many of the allegedly reliable sources making up the definitions), but I suspect that's already going further than many agnostics, who simply have no view on that question at all. In other words there's a big difference between 'I don't know' (a seemingly self-evident truth) and 'Nobody can know' (the sort of seemingly arrogant and unproveable generalisation that many, and perhaps most agnostics (and probably many or most 'weak' or 'soft' atheists) are trying to escape from, having had to endure that sort of stuff from priests and their 'strong' or 'hard' atheist counterparts for far too long). Or put another way, the 'popular view' of what agnostics are, a view which seems to be shared by most agnostics (and, incidentally, seemingly also by most non-agnostics - that's presumably what makes it the 'popular view') is dismissed by one of those 'reliable' sources as incorrect, but arguably that dismissal itself makes that source unreliable. Catholicism may be what the Pope and/or the Church says it is, and Islam may be what Islamic scholars say the Koran says, but agnostics tend to be people who reject the claims of authority figures, churches, and scriptures to tell them what they should think, and that presumably includes the claims of self-appointed 'experts' to tell them they are wrong in their understanding of what agnosticism is, and that to become 'proper agnostics' they have to go along with whatever the 'expert' claims they should be going along with. But my life is arguably too short to be wasted on looking for allegedly reliable sources who might say this, so I probably won't bother - but if anybody else would like to look for them, I'd be delighted if they found some, and mentioned them in the article. However I've wasted enough time on this rather trivial matter already, so if anybody wants to carry on this discussion, please feel free to do so, but hopefully it will probably be without me. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Problem with the Euler diagram
You can have knowledge of the subject or not have knowledge but as agnostic/gnostic is defined can there be a third state? What does the yellow area labeled 'Atheist' that lies outside knowledge/lack of knowledge represent? Wouldn't a more appropriate diagram be one with a line bisecting the Y-axis with agnostic taking the upper or lower half and gnostic the other half? A person either claims some evidence for belief or fails to claim evidence or claims no evidence but the person's failing to claim evidence are still agnostic.
The article should make reference to the yellow and pink sections of the diagram as to what they represent. It only focuses on the intersected areas. Alatari (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Those areas represent a space where the word is written, not as an actual third category. It's not the most helpful diagram. NaturaNaturans (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Please, can we remove the diagram? It is not helpful. There is no belief axis in Agnosticism! I despise this orthogonal view of agnosticism. Agnosticism is about knowledge, that's it... Once there is knowledge, a belief statement can be made. There is no need for this kind of chart! Furthermore, it is not neutral. It's taking the atheist orthogonal chart and attempting to display it in a way that agnostics will be ok with (since there's a bubble there marked "Agnostic" with no overlap), but the chart doesn't make sense: No one is just Gnostic. It's pointless trying to represent agnosticism in this kind of chart. Szkott (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree that the diagram confuses the agnostic subject by mixing in belief and using the Euler diagram allows for agnostic, gnostic, atheist, and theist as stand-alone positions within the multi-axis of knowledge and belief. Ffuege (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I like the diagram but I don't believe the categories are to be capitalized. They are not proper nouns so if you make all the letters lower case there likely will not be objections. I do not have a source but in many forums usage of Atheism denotes a gnostic atheist and usage of atheist is short hand for an agnostic atheist. It's like religion discussion slang. Alatari (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The chart above does not have the Rowe area that agnosticism is a possible separate position. So while this diagram would be useful to present the Smith view we would need a diagram for the Rowe view to satisfy IIXVXII's (and some others that have chimed in) objections. Alatari (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Two items possibly needing relatively urgent fixing
At least in my humble opinion, there remain several unsatisfactory (inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, etc) aspects to this article, which I may or may not eventually get round to trying to fix myself (if I have the time and am sufficiently interested, etc). As already discussed at greater length in the previous section, it is quite likely that the ones that I may want to see fixed first are those errors (or inaccuracies, etc) that I think are liable to cause unnecessary offence (rather than the seemingly less urgent ones that seem unlikely to cause offence). At present I have noticed two of these, which I'm mentioning (both here and already in the previous section) in case somebody else wants to fix them. One is the frequent unqualified repetition as if it were fact that Atheism means believing there are no Gods, whereas many (and perhaps most) Atheists would say that is only one kind of Atheism (usually called Strong or Hard Atheism) - I know from experience (and you can also see clear evidence of it elsewhere on this Talk page) that this kind of unqualified assertion can offend Atheists (especially 'Weak' or 'Soft' Atheists), that the unqualified assertion is basically wrong, but that fixing it satisfactorily and accurately (with the backing of 'reliable sources') is liable to be quite difficult. The other is the bit about 'Agnostic Atheism', which is liable to offend many Agnostics who see it as describing their position, but who reject the label of Atheist (one of whom would perhaps have been T.H.Huxley himself, judging by what he has to say about Atheism). The fix may well be to clearly spell out that this is a classification invented by atheists and frequently rejected by agnostics (always assuming that it actually is all that - its sole supporting quote is one book by one atheist who, for all I know, may well not be a 'reliable' source), but finding reliable sources for any of that may not be easy.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I know more than a few agnostics who self-describe as “agnostic atheists”. However, no doubt some closeted atheists prefer the label “agnostic” to “atheist” to evade social stigma from atheophobes. Let's not put any unqualified generalizations in the article about how people label themselves. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
@Robin Lionheart "Let's not put any unqualified generalizations in the article about how people label themselves." Yes, let's not. Therefore, we shouldn't put the "agnositic atheist" self-label in there either. I have a fear that this article is becoming a political statement made by atheists, who wish to view all agnostics who lack beleif in god as "agnostic atheists" - such a statement however is full of bias, because it assumes that the only reason for wishing to self-label as such is to avoid the "stigma" of being called atheist. This classification system (orthogonal chart) was clearly invented by atheists and has no place on an unbiased page concerning agnosticism. The problem is that most agnostics don't care enough to bother and most of the edits here are made by atheists, who think they understand what agnosticism is. Unfortunately they only understand it as a self-invented relationship with atheism.Szkott (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
All agnostics who lack belief in any gods are “agnostic atheists”. No bias — that’s simply what that term means. You keep complaining about atheists speaking about agnosticism, but a majority of those atheists are agnostics. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The Duty to Information - New notions to agnosticism - Slipstream
I believe that this article has the duty to inform its readers that the Agnostics, theoretically, at least, by a kind of "Slipstream Argument", necessarily enters the religious people as group and that Agnosticism as such, whether theoretically or not, is diminishing in both force of message and numbers. This may alter the (voluntary/uncoerced) view of any reader, and therefore the duty. You? 109.189.211.11 (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
What, pray tell, is a “slipstream argument”? I don't know what your local demographics are, but in my country, surveys show Nones are on the rise, so agnostics would seem to be growing in number here, not diminishing. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Only that the Slipstream Argument demands the one who is seriously considering the idea of God, to enter the 4 entities, whether two of them are in this fashion or other, but that they list as follows crudely, Meaning, Ethics (10 Commandments), Description of God and Heaven as Affirmable Knowledge in order to get to God at all. So the only way for the credible Agnostic (to Christianity here) is to follow these 4 entities as the Path to God, and no way around them either. (At least, this is what it, the internet, says out there in the vastness of information.) 95.34.121.16 (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
What you vaguely describe seems related more to conversion to Christianity than to agnosticism. I don’t see anything there that would improve this article. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is very simple and clear. If you say agnostic atheist, then agnostic is an adjective, not a noun. The noun is atheist. However, if one defines themselves as an agnostic, then agnostic is a noun. Huxley clearly defined agnosticism as a noun. People who identify with agnosticism, use it as a noun. The entire page is supposed to be about agnosticism, the noun. If you atheists that dominate this page do not agree to removing the fallacious Euler Diagram, then you will agree to have a qualifier that agnostic doesn't mean agnosticism as defined by Huxley, just like you do with the qualifier that gnostic doesn't mean Gnosticism. Cleary, without doubt, the Euler Diagram says Agnostic Atheist, which misleading treats agnostic as an adjective without any clarification.
You misunderstand the concept of agnosticism. If one defines him/herself as an agnostic, that doesn't mean that he or she isn't also a theist or an atheist. Agnosticism is not a third position in regard of belief - agnosticism deals with knowledge, not belief. If anything, the diagram is wrong in a way that it visually allows people to identify themselves only as agnostics, because you are never agnostic without at the same time being a theist or, more commonly, an atheist. You can think of it this way - the temperature of your drink is hot or cold, and regarding the content of your drink it is alcoholic or nonalcoholic. You have two independent axis' about your drink (the same way you have two independent axis' in relation to gods). If you only say that your drink is hot, that doesn't mean that at the same time it is neither alcoholic nor nonalcoholic. The fact that your drink is hot does not mean that it has no alcohol in it, or that it has alcohol in it, nor does it mean that it has alcohol somewhere between nonalcoholic and alcoholic drink (because that is impossible). The drink is never only hot - it is also alcoholic or nonalcoholic, transparent or has some color etc - it doesn't matter whether you specify its alcohol content or color, it it never only hot (or only cold). The same thing is with religious and philosophical categories - you are never only an (a)gnostic - you are also an (a)theist, whether you specify that or not.
BTW you commented Huxley's definition - Huxley said "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle." which basically means that agnosticism is not a thing, rather it is a method skeptical inquiry, and in that sense it should be used as an adjective. Marekich (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
"You have two independent axis' about your drink..", I agree and every axis has a null vector, which in your analogy is agnosticism. What if I ordered my drink and hadn't received it yet? I'm supposed to form a belief on the temperature of my drink even though I haven't received it yet? That's irrational, the logical course of action would be to suspend judgment due to lack of evidence, ie, the null vector in your axes analogy. When you don't have enough evidence to take a position, the logical course is to suspend judgment, not drum up some faith that your drink will be cold and then stick to that.
"Either the thing is true or it isn't. If it is true, you should believe it and if it isn't, you shouldn't. And ah, if you can't find out whether it's true or whether it isn't, you should suspend judgment." -Bertrand Russell
Agnosticism is, in general, the position of suspending judgment. And many people suspend judgment every day on many varying issues. And some times, suspending judgment is the logical course of action. Yet, when that suspension of judgment comes to the question of a gods existence, then all the sudden the atheist comes arguing that suspension of judgment is not a valid position. This is obviously the fallacy of special pleading, that somehow suspension of judgment is valid, unless the topic is god.
The Wikipedia page about shrimp doesn't mention anywhere the other meaning of shrimp as being a person of small stature, because the page for shrimp is about shrimp, the life form. The Wikipedia page about worms doesn't mention the other meaning of worm as being a deceitful individual, because the page is meant to be about worms, the life form. This page is supposed to be about agnosticism, the noun. People come here, because of agnosticism, the noun, just like people goto the page on shrimp, because they are interested in the life form, not the other meaning. And this page should represent what agnosticism is, not what atheists think it should be. That's the issue here. Atheists do not find the agnostic position philosophically pleasing and instead of just rejecting the position, they have some motive, some need, to redefine it.
I will be continuing to clean up the atheist propaganda on this page and you better be coming back with better arguments then Huxley saying agnosticism is a method, thus should be an adjective, when the 'scientific method' is clearly a noun. Next, the atheist will define themselves as scientific method atheists and then claim 'scientific method' the noun, doesn't exist anymore.IIXVXII (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Neither Huxley nor Russell are the last word on what agnosticism is, nor on what atheism is, nor on how they contrast. Agnosticism is what reliable sources say it is. One thing reliable sources say is that agnosticism is about knowledge. Some reliable sources indicate it also has some relevance to belief. We do not get to decide which reliable source is correct. This is an encyclopedia, which means that it aims to be comprehensive, including the views of all reliable sources & not restricting itself to any one.--JimWae (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Really Jim? So Wikipedia, as you say, IS an encyclopedia. Yet, when you look at dictionaries, you find a clear distinction being made between the noun and adjective meaning. Not here. When you look at encyclopedias like encyclopedia.com, brittanica.com, plato.stanford.edu you find no mention even of the term agnostic atheist under agnosticism. You do here. The label agnostic atheist, is not from agnostics, but from atheists. Under the noun definition of agnosticism, it's impossible to be atheist. Agnostic atheists deny the very existence of agnosticism. Agnostic atheism is not a 'Type of Agnosticism". It is the atheist objection to agnosticism.
Where is the atheist propaganda, so called, 'Euler' diagram on the Wikipedia Gnosticism page? The diagram is equally gnostic in representation as agnostic, why isn't it there? Because gnostic atheism is not a "Type of Gnosticism". Hence, why there is no category, not even the mention of the label on that page. But atheists don't feel threatened by gnosticism, so they don't try to change things there.
Can you even offer any logical reason, why a termed coined by atheists, defining a position that denies the very existence of agnosticism, is a type of agnosticism? How, in thee world of critical thinking, is it even possible, for a group of people that claim one is either theist or atheist to be put into a category that they don't even believe exists? Can you explain how this ludicrous reasoning has continued for so long on this page?IIXVXII (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
@IIXVXII - Regarding two independent axis - you either did't understand my analogy or you made a straw man argument. That analogy is about the drink you already have - work from there - realize that and think it over. If you still cannot understand the analogy, I can make you another kind analogy that might be easier for you to understand. The point is in two independent axis - something which you do not or do not want to recognize - one axis is belief (which you actually act upon), and the other is knowledge or relevance.
Regarding Bertrand Russels' quote - It either makes no sense (if you know something is true or false what is the point of believing one way or the other when you know?) or he uses different meaning of the words know and believe (I would argue this is the case). Not believing unsubstantiated claim is very similar to suspending judgement. Also, people act whether they believe something is true or not. For example, religious people pray to their gods even though they do not know that their gods exist! So you see - they might have "suspended their judgement" due to lack of (positive) evidence, but they act as if the claim of their god's existence is true!
While agnosticism might be suspending judgement about existence or relevance, that doesn't exclude the fact that you also either believe or do not believe. Are you not aware about courtroom analogy? It is usually used as analogy for a/theism, because many people do not realize that atheist does not necessarily believe no gods exist. In the court jury (or judge - whatever) judges the guilt of a person. They judge whether one is guilty or not guilty - they don't judge whether one is guilty or innocent! So you see - if someone is "accused" of theism, he or she is a theist or not a theist (an atheist). By this example you can tell that believing no gods exist is not necessary to be labeled as an atheist - it is enough to not have positive belief that at least one deity exists.
But let's apply courtroom analogy to agnosticism/atheism relation. The jury is AGNOSTIC about one's guilt (they weren't next to the person when the crime was committed)! They DO NOT KNOW whether one really committed the crime or not - they judge by what they believe. So, they can put innocent person to prison, and let guilty person go free. Do you finally understand the relation between knowledge (a/gnosticism) and belief (a/theism)? I would also advise you to read this relatively shor article: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/?title=Atheist_vs._agnosticMarekich (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
You cannot create independent axes (otherwise known as a vector space) without a null vector. You tried to create a vector space with no null vector, which is impossible. You can't just graph something and think it has meaning. You can't just assign things to axes and think people should care, when it doesn't satisfy the axioms for employing such tools. If you deny the null vector, then you are denied the use of these tools. It's that simple. Do you deny a null vector exists in your axis analogies?
You didn't address my comment on what I should believe about the temperature of my drink, when I haven't even received it yet.
"While agnosticism might be suspending judgement about existence or relevance, that doesn't exclude the fact that you also either believe or do not believe."
If you suspend judgment on whether to believe or disbelieve in God, then how can you also believe or disbelieve in God if that's exactly what you are suspending judgment about? How do you explain your contradictory reasoning?
You make a courtroom analogy and ignore the outcome of a hung jury.
" They DO NOT KNOW whether one really committed the crime or not - they judge by what they believe."
So you're claiming that the jurors verdict doesn't depend upon any of the knowledge they gained in the proceedings of the court? Then what's even the point of having a trial? Why even produce evidence, rational arguments...knowledge? Because belief is based upon faith and/or knowledge, not just faith. I don't know for certain that humans will ever travel to the second closest star, but I have knowledge of what humans can achieve. I have knowledge on what physics allows us to do. And this knowledge leads me to believe we will someday get to the second closest star. We want people to believe things based upon what they know. We don't want people believing things based upon nothing. Is that what you're advocating? That we should have beliefs based upon no knowledge? It is, because as an average atheist, that's exactly what you want agnostics to do. You want agnostics to form a belief about God, when agnostics are telling you, they lack the knowledge to form that belief and reject forming that belief on faith.
I claim 27 hangers exist in my closet. I want you to think about this, gather as much knowledge about how many hangers I have in my closet as you can and then tell me what you believe about my existence claim. Will you believe these 27 hangers exist (theist)? Will you disbelieve these 27 hangers exist (atheist)? Or is there a third alternative?
"Either the thing is true or it isn't. If it is true, you should believe it and if it isn't, you shouldn't. And ah, if you can't find out whether it's true or whether it isn't, you should suspend judgment." -Bertrand Russell
Do you understand Russell now? We will see, when you answer my claim. By the way, no matter how much you think, no matter how much you search, you will never find any knowledge on how many hangers exist in my closet. How do you answer my claim?IIXVXII (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The 3rd alternative is to reject any belief about the number of hangers in your closet, including 0. Rejecting all beliefs about how many hangers exist in your closet is not the same as believing the number is 0. While hangers are physical, not metaphysical - still, rejecting any belief about the number of gods is not the same as believing the number is 0.
Neither Russell nor Huxley have a monopoly in this area. The diagram reflects the sources - except that it should be "Does/Does not claim knowledge" instead of "... proof exists" -- for which reason the previous diagram was better.
Kierkegaard is a prime example of an agnostic theist
In the current diagram, the way you want to use Agnostic is in the blue region on top. Some sources say this region is populated, some say it is not. The diagram makes no claim about which are populated --JimWae (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
" ...still, rejecting any belief about the number of gods is not the same as believing the number is 0."
Exactly, hence the difference between agnosticism and atheism. Agnostics reject all beliefs about God, while atheists hold a belief that leans towards 0.IIXVXII (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
One of the definitions of atheism is rejecting belief -- w/o claiming (either to know or to believe) that no gods exist.
Btw, what is the 3rd agnostic alternative to 1. believing in the existence of a deity, but not claiming to know such exists & 2. rejecting belief that any deity exists, but not claiming to know if any exist or not?----JimWae (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It is patently false that all "agnostics reject all beliefs about God" (as you say a few lines above). Kierkegaard is a primary example of an agnostic theist - and there are multitudes of theists who do not claim to know a god exists. You are claiming a privileged usage of "agnostic".--JimWae (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Where does the diagram represent agnosticism? If the union is defined as agnostic atheist, then clearly, the adjective meaning is being used and the blue region becomes nonsense, because one can't simply be an adjective. The diagram was produced by atheists that don't believe agnosticism even exists, hence why it's not represented in the diagram. That's hardly neutral. The diagram may not explicitly say agnosticism doesn't exist, but it's clearly designed to imply that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IIXVXII (talk • contribs) 06:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Btw, what is the 3rd agnostic alternative to 1. believing in the existence of a deity, but not claiming to know such exists & 2. rejecting belief that any deity exists, but not claiming to know if any exist or not?--JimWae (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
If the unions were labelled atheistic agnostic & theistic agnostic, that would not imply none of atheism & theism & atheists & theists do not exist--JimWae (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
You've got to be joking. How can I take you serious when you revert to a previously problematic diagram. I shouldn't talk about people's motives when you insist upon displaying atheist propaganda? One cannot have an Euler diagram when the yellow region is agnostic the noun and the union is agnostic that adjective. That is obviously the fallacy of equivalence and the fallacy of ambiguity. You offer no logical reason why you continue to support these obvious fallacies. Having something isn't better than nothing when that something is fallacious. IIXVXII (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
If the unions were labelled atheistic agnostic & theistic agnostic, that would not imply none of atheism & theism & atheists & theists do not exist----JimWae (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you name the people who made the diagram? On what basis do you determine their position? Actually the maker of the worse one identifies as agnostic.--JimWae (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Agnosticism is not a belief
The page should make it clear that there are different views about the definitions: Agnosticism is not a belief, in fact, it is the pure absence of all beliefs (i.e. is equivalent to being Faithless, Unbeliever, or Infidel). By contrast, Atheism is the belief of the non-existence of gods, therefore Atheism is a belief system. Thus, to clarify:
1) People can be divided into two groups: Believers and Non-believers (Unbelievers, Agnostics, Infidels).
2) Believers can be divided into two further groups: Believers in the existence of gods (Theists) and Believers in the non-existence of gods (Atheists).
3) Theists can further be divided into: Believers in one god and Believers in more than one god, etc. Non credo (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Like our atheism article explains, atheism can mean either an affirmative belief that no deities exist, or an absence of belief in deities. Freethought groups generally describe the difference differently:
Theism/atheism has to do with belief, gnosticism/agnosticism has to do with knowledge. If you think you know whether or not a god exists, you're gnostic; if you don't know, you're agnostic. And you either have a belief in deities (theism), or you don't (atheism). These intersect in four ways:
A gnostic theist thinks they know that a god or gods exist.
An agnostic theist doesn't know whether any gods exist, but has a belief in them. Ex. Fideists are agnostic theists.
An agnostic atheist doesn't know whether any gods exist, and does not have a belief in them.
Theists can be further categorized (monotheists vs polytheists) and so can atheists (implicit vs explicit atheists), but that's not particularly relevant to this article. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I have to disagree. "Knowledge" cannot be brought into religion. There is no person who "knows" whether or not gods exist. Religion is purely a matter of faith, a matter of the existence or non-existence of "belief". Therefore, from a pure logical point of view, the notion of four possible combinations between "knowledge" and "belief" (colorfully illustrated in the figure in the wiki page) is ill-defined and must be discarded. It is not a two dimensional space (with "knowledge" & "belief" as the axes; as depicted in the figure) but rather a one dimensional space (just "belief" as the only axis, one side denoting its presence, and the opposite denoting its absence). The point where this becomes contentious is the issue of properly naming these two cases. A more purist approach of defining them would be "Believers/Faithful/Fidels" and "Unbelievers/Faithless/Infidels". In the most common definition, Agnosticism is also understood to mean the latter. The opposite of Agnosticism, i.e. Gnosticism is a fallacy, because, once again, one cannot "know" of the exitence of gods, but rather can only "believe that he/she knows" which in fact is nothing but a "belief". Therefore, the opposite of Agnosticism (i.e. "that does not know") is not Gnosticism (i.e. "that one knows"), because such "knowledge" does not exist, but is rather "belief". And "belief" itself can then be divided into "the belief that gods exist" (Theism, further consisting of Mono- and Multi-theism) and "the belief that gods do not exist" (Atheism). It is a difficult subject because of the ambiguity of definitions. Therefore, perhaps a better illustration would be thus:
An Agnostic/Unbeliever/Faithless/Infidel would say "I do not know if gods exist", "gods may or may not exist", or simply "I do not believe" (whether or not gods exist).
An Atheist would say "I do not believe gods exist" (soft Atheism, which does not rule out the opposite case of non-existence) or "I believe gods do not exist" (hard Atheism, which is now a statement of belief).
A Theist would say "I believe gods exist"
This point of view may be worth expressing for the benefit of those who would be interested in such a discussion. Non credo (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I do not know or believe whether or not this guy is real... The gap between knowledge and belief is somewhat arbitrary, if only because beliefs tend to be irrational and knowledge itself is a belief in facts. Note however that popular agnostics that don't explicitly reject theism are still implicit atheists and are therefore firmly within the agnostic atheist category as such, but atheism definitions differ in this regard. Thus, the popular sense definition that is in the lede could be placed in the body proper under the heading Agnostic (popular sense) within the types section. Also, I wouldn't scrap the diagram since the agnostics which are NOT atheists, theists or gnostic are represented by it. -Modocc (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The diagram does not imply that any section is actually populated (though it does not shade out any sections either). BUT there are agnostics who neither clearly believe in a deity, nor clearly reject belief in a deity, they have not or cannot figure out whether they believe or not - or their position may change hourly - so (unless one advocates implicit atheism as the "correct" definition of atheism [in my view, this definition has such major problems that IT should be rejected, btw]) that section would be populated.--JimWae (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
An XY diagram with labelled quadrants might be preferable, and less easily misread as a Venn diagram.
Vacillating, indecisive agnostics pose no problems for the dichotomy; they may indeed be agnostic atheists one hour and agnostic theists the next. At any moment, you're either a theist or you're not, however tentative your belief may be. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
An XY diagram is wrong, since agnosticism only concerns itself with the knowledge axis. Remove the Venn diagram and do not replace it with any diagram. Anyone vacillating should be considered an agnostic theist one day an an agnostic atheist the next. The term Agnostic should be kept for people who have a better understanding of what it means. Lack of knowledge, therefore no belief. Agnosticism is only defacto on the orthogonal chart at 0,0. The chart is useless for understanding what agnosticism is and how it relates to Theism and Atheism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szkott (talk • contribs) 07:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins had another view regarding agnostics all together... :-) Although I disagree with Dawkins' scale because for me, someone who thinks a god is 50% likely is really just an uncertain theist that thinks a god is very likely. So our definitions and their usage varies. The diagram could be misread as a Venn diagram (it doesn't have enough overlaps), but it is a Euler diagram. Which sets are populated really do depend on the definitions used and this fact might be made clearer in the caption. The only possible unpopulated position I don't quite see being occupied is the gnostic position (maybe knowledge of a pseudogod?). If an XY diagram is created, it must be constructed such that it is abundantly and explicitly clear which definitions are being used. Non credo's suggestion of creating a diagram that confers no overlaps is possible I think, and can be sourced. Perhaps what is needed though is for the current diagram to be replicated and shaded in accordance with different definitions to allow a visual comparison of the different predominant viewpoints. -Modocc (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Knowledge == v. strong, justified (to the subject) belief, the distinction being unimportant. Among those with an opinion, we have: Theists ("we are convinced God(s) exist(s)"), Atheists ("we are convinced Gods do not exist"), Agnostics ("we are convinced that we cannot know that"), Ignostics ("we believe the question is too poorly defined to address"). The latter two may overlap a bit with others, but it's their strongest opinion that defines them. That most agnostics tend towards atheism, I attribute to Occam's Razor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey.dreyk (talk • contribs) 16:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
"Agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative" creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions. The justification of the Agnostic principle lies in the success which follows upon its application, whether in the field of natural, or in that of civil, history; and in the fact that, so far as these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its validity." Thomas Huxley, Agnosticism and Christianity
The original definition, as per Huxley, was NOT compatible with The-ism or Athe-ism (as per etymology, and original usage). He berated both of those positions.
"The extent of the region of the uncertain, the number of the problems the investigation of which ends in a verdict of not proven, will vary according to the knowledge and the intellectual habits of the individual Agnostic. I do not very much care to speak of anything as "unknowable."2 What I am sure about is that there are many topics about which I know nothing; and which, so far as I can see, are out of reach of my faculties. But whether these things are knowable by any one else is exactly one of those matters which is beyond my knowledge, though I may have a tolerably strong opinion as to the probabilities of the case. Relatively to myself, I am quite sure that the region of uncertainty–the nebulous country in which words play the part of realities -is far more extensive than I could wish." Thomas Huxley, Agnosticism and Christianity
While I understand that objections to agnosticism are open to all theological and unempirical critiques, the atheist objections on this page consists of nothing but one, largely incomprehensible, paragraph summarizing the exclusive work of Richard Dawkins on the matter. It could more correctly be called Richard Dawkins' objections. It would be beneficial to the page if someone who had any knowledge on the subject could expand atheist objections beyond one personality, and also if anyone who knows about Richard Dawkins could expand the paragraph to at least a sensible level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.99.60 (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
First line - not sure about the use of the phrase "truth values" - maybe just "truthfulness"?
"Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1869.[4] However, earlier thinkers have written works that promoted agnostic points of view." - "The word agnostic was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, in 1869, but earlier thinkers have written works that promoted agnostic points of view." - ref 4 is redundant to 15 in Etymology, perhaps just move it?
"Protagoras was exiled from Athens and his books were burnt because of his Agnostic beliefs" - maybe remove this - some confusion with full stops here.
Final para of intro could do with contemporary agnosticism, demographics, personalities etc.
"According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense an agnostic is someone who neither..." - repeated almost verbatim from intro.
Refs for Huxley quote should be next to the "said"
Likewise ref 15 should be after "rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge."
"often has a meaning close to "independent"" - "can mean independence from some parameters" (or something like that.)
Thanks, I am fixing them:
A wikilink has been already given for Truth value: is a value indicating the relation of a proposition to truth., that may be able to explain the truth values.
The alarm clock analogy is confusing - I'm not quite sure what it's meant to say.
Removed the un-cited analogy. That has apparently no relation with the reference.
"is literally stating" - rm literally - the rest of that paragraph is a bit weak.
Removed. Reduced the paragraph a bit, the categories are referenced.
The History section is a bit confusing - the first {{main}} is not used in the text, and the one for Huxley could instead be linked in the prose. I'm also concerned about the brevity - it's probably borderline on the broadness of coverage.
{{main}} templates have been removed and instead they have been linked to the prose, as these were not the main articles of the philosophers' agnostic views solely. The usage of words is mainly dealing with their quotes.
Part 3
The quote from the Rig Veda should be sourced - can be found here or here - and linked.
On a similar vein, there is a great deal of these letters - I see no problem with that now, but others might think differently.
Only your thinking matters.
"Huxley's agnosticism is believed to be a natural... metaphysical issues are fundamentally unknowable." - needs a few references.
The paragraphs have been removed. There was no such reference for this "natural consequence", it appeared to be personal commentary to me. The Huxley quote in the second paragraph was already stated above, so it was also removed.
"he claims that agnosticism is "the very reverse of atheism"" - this rather leaves the reader hanging - I think a short explanation would be nice.
Yeah that is right. But the book of Ross is not available for preview in Google. There is no such content on "reverse of atheism" in Google Search. I think that if it causes more problems, the line can be removed.
The section on Bertrand Russell also needs a few more refs.
Demographics is extremely short, and is probably not sufficiently broad (in my opinion) to meet the criteria at present. Atheism has a section that could provide some inspiration.
Expanded the Demographics section. Took the references from the Atheism article and putted the agnostic figures. Also took the images which were supposed for both of the agnosticism and atheism.
"repudiate" is a highly unusual word - I'm sure there is a simpler one.
Replaced it with "deny".
It's unclear what is sourced from ref 56 - is it for the whole paragraph?
Fixed, that reference was only for Islam, and not for all the three Abrahamic Religions, and had no place there. Replaced the text according to the original reference.
The Religious criticism section is quite unclear in places, especially the paragraph starting "Islam tends to completely..."
Removed the line about Islam. Applied fixes
Is there more atheist criticism of agnosticism than Dawkins? I think there must be somewhere.
I have trimmed the text there that was not meant for criticism.
The citations are a bit inconsistent - for example, Britannica should use {{cite encyclopedia}}, the books in the bibliography are not using {{cite book}} (and are missing some information), and some the rest of the cites have some individual quirks to be ironed out.
Fixed all the Britannica's references. Fixed the books in the bibliography.
Thanks for responding to my comments quickly - I'm being quite harsh, but this is a very important article and it would be good to get it looking like a proper GA.
I'm very happy to pass it now - I've read through it again and it is much more informative and readable than it was just a few days ago. There is still some scope for expansion, however, so you could enter The Core Contest and see what you can make of it. Well done! Jamesx1234517:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
