Agnosticism

[mike47]

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.

I see it as a matter of beliefs and NOT proof at all . .

 

[jpappl]

I see it as a matter of beliefs and NOT proof at all . .

Certainly to question 1. Do you believe in god.

So can you prove god exists or does not exist ?
Do you know that a god exists or does not exist ?

Claims of knowledge then lead to a request for proof.

 

[swarm]

A concept can exist without it being linked to an actual subject.

A valid concept of something which supposedly exists can't/

 

[Enmos]

A valid concept of something which supposedly exists can't/

What?

 

[swarm]

Perhaps, but the current idea that it means that gods are unknowable is effectively unrecognizable from Huxley's original.

I don't agree. I cannot fathom that Huxley would claim something unknown without exploring why it is unknown. Because if it is unknown merely from a lack of effort on his part, then he is not an agnostic, he is merely lazy.

No he is not only lacking evidence now, he is lacking any reason to believe evidence will be forth coming as well, in spite of being favorable disposed towards them.

I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I—who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds—have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them.
Letter to Charles Kingsley May 6, 1863

I can't agree that he is merely saying that as an agnostic he just represents the certainty of his data and conclusions honestly. Instead he is ether implicitly or explicitly denying the possibility of supportable gnosis on either side. There is no need to coin a term for "I'll be finding out later."

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.

A tradition carried on to this day by such people as LG and Lori. But while I share his exasperation, he doesn't seem the type to let righteous indignation form the basis of his position. Rather he seems to have found himself in a position where not only was there not a shred of evidence; there was no reason to expect that this situation would be changing.

It is neither, it is not a matter of degree but of methodology, i.e. "let the facts speak for themselves".

Facts, unfortunately, never speak for themselves and all to often in these matters failing to assert your position is take as acceptance.

"Huxley states, 'In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable' (Huxley, Agnosticism, 1889)"

He seem clearly to be advocating open inquiry and holding yourself uncertain until there is reason to be certain, be it for or against, based on the fruits of your inquiry.

If there are none then expressions of certainty or uncertainty have no meaning.

You seen to be implying that that uncertainty is asserting certainty concerning a position.

If I have no facts concerning something I am uncertain about it. I don't know.

But that wasn't the critical issue he was attempting to define, that is perhaps supplementary but not central.

Not central for him is just fine. Like atheists, agnostics tend to each have their own emphasis.

To widen the field a bit:

Russell's 1947 pamphlet, Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? (subtitled A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas), he ruminates on the problem of what to call himself:

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

In his 1953 essay, What Is An Agnostic? Russell states:

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.
[all quotes from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism]