Agnosticism philosophy

[cho_pilo]

Agnosticism

The definition offered here is taken directly from the words of Thomas Henry Huxley.

“Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle …Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.”

In your opinion, do you think agnosticism is a good philosophy?

Do you agree with it? Do you not agree with it?

Is it the best way of looking at things, specifically religion?

Which type of agnosticism sounds most like your beliefs?

I’m just curious.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Nowhere in Huxley definition does it say agnosticism should apply to the question of God’s existence. Yet that is very much what modern agnosticism has come to mean.

Note that Huxley does not say the certainty of knowledge is not possible, but only that evidence must accumulate to assert certainty.

So if one finds certainty in religion, one need not be agnostic. But if one finds uncertainty in religion, one is likely to become agnostic.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty…

Did Huxley offer evidence that logically justifies the objective truth of this proposition? If not then it is a self refuting statement, a logical contradiction. A personal opinion about how Mr. Huxley would like the world to be. That’s nice but its not logically meaningful. So that particular rendition of agnosticism is meaningless.

 

[cho_pilo]

Thanks for the replies. What about the Atheism’s definition?

Atheism

Atheism is fundamentally a reaction to theism and is overwhelming expressed as a disbelief of theist claims. Atheist opinions will vary from absolute certainty that gods do not exist through various degrees of uncertainty to simple skepticsm. Typically when asked, an atheist will say they do not believe in the existence of gods. Many atheists will leave open the possibility that gods might exist providing appropriate evidence is provided.

In your opinion, do you think atheism is a good philosophy?

Do you agree with it? Do you not agree with it?

Is it the best way of looking at things, specifically religion?

Which type of atheism sounds most like your beliefs?

I’m just curious.

 

[Katholish]

Both definitions are incorrect to some degree. What you quoted form Huxley is not unique to Agnosticism in anyway, and indeed represents a Catholic view of Philosophy (provided allowance is made for first principles).

The definition of atheism is incoorect because it also encompasses what is properly called agnosticism. An athiest cannot admit the possibility that there is a god. If they agree to that possibility, but simply claim that it cannot be proven, they are in fact not atheists at all, but rather agnostics.

 

[cho_pilo]

There’s one more category:

Agnostic atheism

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism.[1] Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know with certainty whether any deity exists.[1][2] The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have absolute knowledge of such.[1]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

 

[Daval]

Nowhere in Huxley definition does it say agnosticism should apply to the question of God’s existence. Yet that is very much what modern agnosticism has come to mean.

Note that Huxley does not say the certainty of knowledge is not possible, but only that evidence must accumulate to assert certainty.

So if one finds certainty in religion, one need not be agnostic. But if one finds uncertainty in religion, one is likely to become agnostic.

And what certainty could one find in religion? I can see putting faith in a religion, perhaps choosing the one that appears most likely to be correct, and then trying and hoping that it is correct, but can there be any real certainty that it is true, that it’s metaphysical claims are accurate? How could one ever test such claims? In other words, isn’t it called “having faith” for a reason?
As to my opinion of agnosticism, I view it as simply a “neutral” or “default” postion of beleif if one is currently uncertain of any other explantion, but not a position that is to be entered into indefintely.

 

[honestquestions]

The definition of atheism is incoorect because it also encompasses what is properly called agnosticism. An athiest cannot admit the possibility that there is a god. If they agree to that possibility, but simply claim that it cannot be proven, they are in fact not atheists at all, but rather agnostics.

Wrong. Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism deals with what you know, and atheism deals with what you believe.
Theists - belief in god(s)
Atheists - lack of belief in god(s).
An atheist is not proposing a position, but rather a response to the position of theism. That being said, there may be a small subset of atheists who not only do not believe in god, but actually claim proof that a god is not possible. It is possible and actually the most common that theists and atheists are also both agnostic in that they realize it is unlikely that a certainty claim for the truth of god or no god will ever be proven.

 

[tonyrey]

An atheist is not proposing a position, but rather a response to the position of theism.

If an atheist is not proposing a Godless universe what is he proposing?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…certainty claim for the truth of god or no god will ever be proven.

The fulfillment of Messianic Prophecy provides mathematical proof beyond any reasonable doubt that G-d exists. All the known documentation of G-ds relationship with man were gathered together in one collection we call the Bible. G-ds existence is documented and mathematically certain beyond rational question.

 

[honestquestions]

If an atheist is not proposing a Godless universe what is he proposing?

Nothing is ever certain. Just as I mention a bigfootless universe I mention a godless universe. This is said in terms of giving a meaningful message, but is not meant to state 100% certainty. In the same regard that I say I know there is no bigfoot, I say I know there is no god; however, I do not literally mean I know 100% proof there is no god or bigfoot. The statement is just meant to portray a position, though more accurately it should be stated I do not believe in god or bigfoot.

 

[honestquestions]

The fulfillment of Messianic Prophecy provides mathematical proof beyond any reasonable doubt that G-d exists. All the known documentation of G-ds relationship with man were gathered together in one collection we call the Bible. G-ds existence is documented and mathematically certain beyond rational question.

The fulfillment of Messianic Prophecy provides mathematical proof beyond any reasonable doubt that G-d exists. All the known documentation of G-ds relationship with man were gathered together in one collection we call the Quran. G-ds existence is documented and mathematically certain beyond rational question.

(God is a universal term of which represents thousands of supposedly divine beings throughout history). I have shown the circular reasoning fallacy that the quran/bible is true because the quran/bible says it’s true. If your god wants people to believe in his existence, it would be very easy to settle the matter undeniably within a minute.

 

[cho_pilo]

The fulfillment of Messianic Prophecy provides mathematical proof beyond any reasonable doubt that G-d exists. All the known documentation of G-ds relationship with man were gathered together in one collection we call the Bible. G-ds existence is documented and mathematically certain beyond rational question.

Interesting. Can you please provide any supporting document about this? Thank you

 

[Joel_PF]

In your opinion, do you think agnosticism is a good philosophy?

Do you agree with it? Do you not agree with it?

Is it the best way of looking at things, specifically religion?

Which type of agnosticism sounds most like your beliefs?

I’m just curious.

I think it is, in principle, a good method of guiding one’s thought. It must, however, apply to itself too! In other words, we must be ready not to be agnostic when some matter, by its very importance to us, require a definite answer. The soundness of this philosophy of agnosticism is itself not demonstrable, and therefore should not be taken as an absolute.

In matters of ethics, for instance, I think there are many sound limitations to this philosophy. Should I be an agnostic when it comes to affirming that rape is immoral? I cannot demonstrate its immorality. I can give all kinds of arguments and evidence, but none of them will have the definitive character of a mathematical demonstration. It is in the nature of ethics to be not so precise and not so certain in its conclusions. Should my values and my ethical principles, therefore, be equally uncertain? In some cases maybe, but in others (such as the one mentioned: rape), not at all!

Religion is similar in some respects. Religion deals with a person’s whole existence. Ideally, it should permeate everything a man does and thinks, as it is his fundamental outlook and attitude towards reality. Our life is finite; we have a limited time in which to learn and research. Should we, then, become agnostics to our core, not affirming anything about ourselves and the universe exactly where it matters the most, that is, in the guidance of our whole lives? I think not.

Therefore, while agnosticism is generally sound, it has its limitations.

 

[tonyrey]

Nothing is ever certain. Just as I mention a bigfootless universe I mention a godless universe. This is said in terms of giving a meaningful message, but is not meant to state 100% certainty. In the same regard that I say I know there is no bigfoot, I say I know there is no god; however, I do not literally mean I know 100% proof there is no god or bigfoot. The statement is just meant to portray a position, though more accurately it should be stated I do not believe in god or bigfoot.

Belief is not only a question of what we claim but also of how we live. It as an atheist, Sartre, who pointed out that we cannot remain uncommitted. You rightly stated that atheism is “a response to the position of theism”, a response which has practical implications. A genuine agnostic would allow for the possibility that God exists and pray for guidance. There is no evidence that most agnostics ever do this…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The fulfillment of Messianic Prophecy provides mathematical proof beyond any reasonable doubt that G-d exists. All the known documentation of G-ds relationship with man were gathered together in one collection we call the Quran

. G-ds existence is documented and mathematically certain beyond rational question. What do you think switching the word Bible with Qur’an does?

(God is a universal term of which represents thousands of supposedly divine beings throughout history). I have shown the circular reasoning fallacy that the quran/bible is true because the quran/bible says it’s true.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Interesting. Can you please provide any supporting document about this? Thank you

Sure. A good place to start are books called “Science Speaks” and “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Agnosticism

The definition offered here is taken directly from the words of Thomas Henry Huxley.

In your opinion, do you think agnosticism is a good philosophy?

Do you agree with it? Do you not agree with it?

Is it the best way of looking at things, specifically religion?

Which type of agnosticism sounds most like your beliefs?

I’m just curious.

I think the big mistake of the agnostics is that they don’t seem motivated to pray. They want physical or logical evidence first, then they’ll pray. But spiritual knowledge comes about primarily through prayer. So their method basically rules out all but one conclusion.