Consistent or Delimited Agnosticism

We seem to be missing a third option: I don't need to know about {x}.
If there is a God, fine.
But I don't think He/She cares where I am on Sunday morning.
If a bus is about to run over me, I don't think He/She is going to snatch me out of the way.
So, if God doesn't take a minute-by-minute interest in my life, what difference does it make to me if He/She exists or not?
That's the kind of agnostic I am.
 
sideshowbob said:
We seem to be missing a third option: I don't need to know about {x}.
If there is a God, fine.
But I don't think He/She cares where I am on Sunday morning.
If a bus is about to run over me, I don't think He/She is going to snatch me out of the way.
So, if God doesn't take a minute-by-minute interest in my life, what difference does it make to me if He/She exists or not?
That's the kind of agnostic I am.
Click to expand...

All power to sideshowbob

a very good point

however it's more an atheist statement bob.
 
sideshowbob said:
We seem to be missing a third option: I don't need to know about {x}.
If there is a God, fine.
But I don't think He/She cares where I am on Sunday morning.
If a bus is about to run over me, I don't think He/She is going to snatch me out of the way.
So, if God doesn't take a minute-by-minute interest in my life, what difference does it make to me if He/She exists or not?
That's the kind of agnostic I am.
Click to expand...

Then you're an athiest.
 
wesmorris said:
Then you're an athiest.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I said, "If there is a God...."
I define an agnostic as somebody who isn't adamant one way or the other.
Do you define an atheist as somebody who doesn't believe in a nosy God?
 
Then you're not paying attention.

regarding god, you either believe in god or you dont'.

if you don't care, then you don't believe and you're an athiest.

agnosticism is an epistemological statement.
 
The definitions I am using (Oxford English Dictionary):

"Atheism: belief that no God exists"
I do not hold that belief.

"Agnostic: one who believes that nothing can be known of the existence of God"
That is exactly what I believe.

You can call me an atheist if you want, but your argument is with the dictionary.
 
no i'm not arguing with the dictionary, it is wrong. if you'd read this thread, you'd understand that. i'm not trying to be offensive or argumentative, i'm telling you something you're apparently not aware of. kick back and peruse this thread real good, or read this one. i'm sure in one of them, the fact of the dictionary's mistakes are likely mentioned. in either there are excellent, in-depth conversations that show the dicitonary's flaw.
 
Granted, the dictionary definitions are simplistic, but it's arrogant to call them "wrong".
It is also arrogant to assume that somebody who disagrees with you doesn't understand the situation.

If you want a more detailed description, I'm somewhere between a "strict agnostic" and an "empirical agnostic". I wouldn't even quibble with "weak atheist".

As I said, I don't object to being called an "atheist". I just don't agree. And forgive me if I don't take Internet philosophers as my authority.

No offense taken, and (I hope) none given.
 
Athiesm is a lack of belief. If belief is one, then athiesm simply states: it's not one, even though it might 0.99999. Dig?

I know it sounds arrogant to call the dictionary wrong, but it isn't. It's just education. I don't have an expectation you'll agree, so it's cool if you don't. I do though, think that if you'd read the stuff I told you about, you might change your mind. I only say that based on the fact that at the beginning of this very thread I was arguing exactly what you have said so far (if I remember right).
 
Whether I have or have not read every word will remain my little secret.
What I will say is that I haven't found anything in your posts that I seriously disagree with (other than your almost systematic inability to spell "atheism" - is there something Freudian in that?)

If atheism is a "lack of belief" then you are welcome to call me an atheist.
I will continue to call myself an "agnostic".
 
ConsequentAtheist said:
For those of you who claim to be Agnostics, how do you determine the scope of your agnosticism? In other words, are you equally agnostic with respect to all things the you don't and/or can't know, or only with respect to some subset of that class?
Click to expand...

I am atheist with respect to specific supernatural god-claims (e.g. Zeus, Baal, YHWH etc). However, I am agnostic regarding the existence of an undefined divine/supernatural being. I do not consider that existence necessarily falls into the limited boundaries naturalists would have us believe, simply because our human perception is limited. Yet absence of evidence and a plethora of historical (and contemporary) charlatanry does suggest that we are perhaps incapable of such perception, except at an intuitive level.

btw Sideshow Bob is an agnostic. He doesn't deny the existence of a deity (atheist), nor does he affirm it (theist).

f
 
filter said:
btw Sideshow Bob is an agnostic. He doesn't deny the existence of a deity (atheist), nor does he affirm it (theist).
Click to expand...

But he expressed his third option :

sideshowbob said:
We seem to be missing a third option: I don't need to know about {x}.
If there is a God, fine.
But I don't think He/She cares where I am on Sunday morning.
If a bus is about to run over me, I don't think He/She is going to snatch me out of the way.
So, if God doesn't take a minute-by-minute interest in my life, what difference does it make to me if He/She exists or not?
Click to expand...

Would he need to know about {x} in future.? We have no idea what would make him to need to know.? Whether (1) a scientific finding or (2) a 'Miracle'.?

By his above conditions, (2) might be sufficient to make him to come to a conclusion on {x} ; He is a potential theist, IMO. ;)

delimited agnostic.??!!
 
I don't know if this is what Wes was getting at, but I did learn something from this thread:

If I was an agnostic, I couldn't claim certain knowledge of anything.
Therefore, I couldn't claim with certainty that I am an agnostic.

However, I think the simpler dictionary definition is more useful.
 
If I was an agnostic, I couldn't claim certain knowledge of anything.
Click to expand...

Well that's true. We can't have "certain knowledge" (complete truth) to anything unless we're able to hop into the body of the person/thing who did such actions or created this and that. All we're left with is probability. We can be 99.9% certain, but that doesn't mean we're completely correct in what we know, whatever it may be.

- N
 
If I was an agnostic, I couldn't claim certain knowledge of anything.
Therefore, I couldn't claim with certainty that I am an agnostic.
Click to expand...
Is it therefore safe to say that nobody can be a consistent agnostic without it becoming untenable or irrational at some stage, let's call it {x}?

Does {x} lie inside or outside your ability to know {x'}, and does it preclude you from knowing f(x)=a,b,c...?

The only option seems to me that one can be agnostic only about things you don't know (what's the point?), and even a delimited agnostic must necessarily be atheistic to a knowable God.
 
The person who coined the term wrote ...

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: 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. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.

-- Agnosticism by Thomas Henry Huxley​
 
But how did he reason that we are the only possible source of dependable information? How will we discover other possible valid sources using this method? Shouldn't we trust {x} for information about {x}? That's what we do with every natural phenomenon - they don't spring into existence the moment we can conceive them.

It's all very reasonable to check our progress along the path we choose to take, but we're talking about another intelligence here. And not a foreign one either: our own existence, and our very ability to acquire knowledge hasn't been achieved by the process of reasonable enquiry.

Would we have been doomed to unawareness of ourselves - "agnostic" towards our own existence - if it was not for the "leap of reason"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top