Zadok001

And no, this question isn't half as stupid as it looks. Might still be stupid, but not quite THAT stupid.

I am unconvinced that the question "Do you believe in God?" can be answered with "I'm agnostic."

So you've got this set of humans. By the law of non-contradiction, for each individual human it is either the case that the subject believes in God, or it is the case that the subject does not believe in God. Those who believe in God are 'theist.' Those who do not believe in God are 'atheist.'

Now, there doesn't seem to be room here for an entity that describes itself as neither atheist nor theist. i.e., you either believe in a deity, or you don't believe in a deity. The only possible middle-ground is "I don't know whether I believe in a deity or not." But I find it hard to accept that there is a state wherein one is NOT AWARE of one's own beliefs! Perhaps one's beliefs are in flux, believing in a deity one day and not the next, but that would merely make one flucuate being 'atheist' and 'theist.' The only way to adequately define 'agnostic' in this case is to use a conglomeration of the definitions of 'atheist' and 'theist,' in which case the whole process seems to be meaningless.

So... What the hell's an 'agnostic?' Some people define it as "Someone who doesn't know whether or not God exists," but this definition means the condition of agnisticism has NO BEARING on the question "Do you believe in God?" If that definition holds, it seems that answering "I'm agnostic" is no more coherent than answering "I have a green jacket." The question of whether one KNOWS God exists is entirely distinct from the question of whether one BELIEVES God exists.

So, I guess my question is this:

Is it possible to define 'agnostic' such that it becomes a valid response to 'Do you believe God exists?', and such that it remains exclusive of 'atheist' or 'theist'? i.e., can you find a definition of 'agnostic' that is relevant to one's belief in God, and that doesn't just mean '(a)theist'?

Jet Grind

I think you've answered your own question here. Agnosticism is about what you know, Atheism is about what you believe. The two terms are not mutually exclusive either, one can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

Darth Dane

I am unconvinced that the question "Do you believe in God?" can be answered with "I'm agnostic."

It can't as I se it, the correct answer would be "I am not able to answer"

Agnosis:

Gnosis = Knowledge
a = is a prefix that reverts the polarisation(wahts teh correct word here?)

Agnosis means without knowledge.


But I find it hard to accept that there is a state wherein one is NOT AWARE of one's own beliefs!

I am aware of my belief-system, I just don't know if God Is or God Is not.

So... What the hell's an 'agnostic?' Some people define it as "Someone who doesn't know whether or not God exists," but this definition means the condition of agnisticism has NO BEARING on the question "Do you believe in God?" If that definition holds, it seems that answering "I'm agnostic" is no more coherent than answering "I have a green jacket." The question of whether one KNOWS God exists is entirely distinct from the question of whether one BELIEVES God exists.

Yes, some say that an answer to taht question is "Mu", which means "not able to answer, the question was wrongly put!


I think you've answered your own question here. Agnosticism is about what you know

Being Agnostic isn't that about teh fact what we don't know, where Gnostics actually know?





DD - Love Spliff

Zadok001

Ok, that makes sense. Problem is, most people don't seem to make this distinction. People answer "Do you believe in God" with "I'm agnostic" on a regular basis. Does this imply A) A definition of 'agnostic' I am unaware of OR B) An uninformed individual?

Jet Grind

I think most people who answer the "God question" with "I'm an agnostic" are really weak/soft/negative atheists (like me). So I'd have to go with B.

smugg

The prefix a- merely means not or without. I suppose that's similar to "reverting" the "polarisation."

Hans

When one defines atheism as a lack of belief in god(s) then the agnostic is necessarily an atheist as the agnostic does not maintain the conviction that god(s) exist. But when one defines atheism as a conviction that god(s) do not exist then the agnostic is necessarily not an atheist because the agnostic does not maintain that conviction. The agnostic does not draw a conclusion in the matter of the existence of god(s) because the agnostic finds the matter inconclusive.

How an agnostic would answer the questions:

Do you believe god(s) exist? No.
Do god(s) exist? Unable to determine.

How an atheist would answer the questions:

Do you believe god(s) exist? No.
Do god(s) exist? No.

The only philisophical difference between the atheist and agnostic is how the second question is answered.

beastmaster

What of the agnostic who simply does not understand what the word "God" means?

If someone asks "Do you believe in 'uiw;ahgEWP:b jkshu89p'?," an entirely appropriate answer is "I neither believe nor lack belief in 'uiw;ahgEWP:b jkshu89p' because I do not know what it means." We cannot draw any reasonable inferences as to the existence or non-existence of ''uiw;ahgEWP:b jkshu89p' unless we have some workable notion of what its properties are.

Well, a strong agnostic may say, "I have no idea what God is and I cannot say I believe or lack belief in this undefined/ undefinable 'thing.'"

This holds true both of unknown gods and of gods that are well-known but hopelessly inchoate.

Philosoft

I call this person a "noncognitivist." Some call her an "igtheist."

beastmaster

Fair enough, but isn't a noncognitivist/igtheist a subcategory of agnostic?