   #copyright

Agnosticism

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: Philosophy

                                                     Certainty series
                                                   * Nihilism
                                                   * Agnosticism
                                                   * Uncertainty
                                                   * Probability
                                                   * Estimation
                                                   * Belief
                                                   * Justified true belief
                                                   * Certainty
                                                   * Determinism

   Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without" and gnosis, "
   knowledge", translating to unknowable) is the philosophical view that
   the truth value of certain claims — particularly theological claims
   regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or
   deities — is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable. Some
   agnostics take a stronger view that the concept of a deity is
   incoherent, thus meaningless and irrelevant to life. The term is used
   to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the
   existence of deities as well as about other matters of religion. Early
   Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to
   describe "spiritual knowledge". "Agnostic" came from the union of it to
   the Greek / Latin prefix a, and was originally coined by Thomas Henry
   Huxley in 1869 to describe his philosophy. Agnosticism is not to be
   confused with religious views opposing the doctrine of gnosis and
   Gnosticism— these are religious concepts that are not generally related
   to agnosticism.

   Agnostics claim that either it is not possible to have absolute or
   certain knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be
   possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases
   involves some form of skepticism. Data collection services often
   display the common use of the term, distinct from atheism in its lack
   of disputing the existence of deities.

   Agnostics are normally listed alongside categories such as atheist and
   non-religious, although this may be misleading. For example prominent
   agnostics such as Aleksander Kwaśniewski and Michelle Bachelet have
   been notably Christian in their outlook.

Qualifying agnosticism

   Critics of the term "agnostic" claim that there is nothing distinctive
   in being agnostic because even many theists do not claim to know god(s)
   exists -- only to believe it. Under this asserted distinction between
   the words "belief" and "knowledge," agnosticism has recently started
   suffering from terminological ambiguity. While critics maintain the
   distinction is not contrived; others reject the distinction as
   trifling. By contrast, compare:
     * "I believe god(s) exist(s)" means that "I know god(s) exist(s)".
     * "I believe god(s) exist(s)" can still mean "I don't know if god(s)
       exist(s)".

   If this distinction is accepted, the term agnostic becomes orthogonal
   to theism without further qualifiers, and many qualifiers become
   contradictory unless the distinction is accepted. If this distinction
   is ultimately accepted by the larger public, the group formerly
   described by the term will again find themselves without a label,
   because the qualifiers provided would be inappropriate for their
   philosophy.

   Recently suggested variations include:
     * Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed
       agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view
       that the question of the existence or nonexistence of god(s) are
       unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge
       the evidence.
     * Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism,
       empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the
       existence or nonexistence of god(s) is currently unknown but is not
       necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment
       until/if more evidence is available.
     * Apathetic agnosticism—the view that there is no proof either
       existence or nonexistence of god(s), but since god(s) (if exist)
       appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its
       inhabitants, the question is largely academic.
     * Ignosticism—the view that the concept of god(s) as a being is
       meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it
       cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence.
       (See scientific method)

     * Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical
       questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of
       malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This
       branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence.
     * Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)—the view of
       those who do not claim to know existence of god(s), but still
       believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)
     * Agnostic spiritualism—the view that there may or may not be a
       god(s), while maintaining a general personal belief in a spiritual
       aspect of reality, particularly without distinct religious basis,
       or adherence to any established doctrine or dogma.
     * Relative Agnosticism-This is similar to Agnostic spiritualism, but
       with the added view that if it was empirically proven that god(s)
       do or do not exist, it would not affect the beliefs of the Relative
       Agnostic.
     * Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence
       or nonexistence of god(s), and do not believe in god(s).

Philosophical opinions

   Among the most famous agnostics (in the original sense) have been
   Thomas Henry Huxley, Robert G. Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell.

Thomas Henry Huxley

   Agnostic views are as old as philosophical skepticism, but the terms
   agnostic and agnosticism were created by Huxley to sum up his thoughts
   on contemporary developments of metaphysics about the "unconditioned"
   (Hamilton) and the "unknowable" ( Herbert Spencer). It is important,
   therefore, to discover Huxley's own views on the matter. Though Huxley
   began to use the term "agnostic" in 1869, his opinions had taken shape
   some time before that date. In a letter of September 23, 1860, to
   Charles Kingsley, Huxley discussed his views extensively:

          I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no
          reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means
          of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine.
          No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble
          himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as
          would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will
          believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as
          the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter. .
          . .

          It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I
          know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse
          squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker
          convictions. . . .

          That my personality is the surest thing I know may be true. But
          the attempt to conceive what it is leads me into mere verbal
          subtleties. I have champed up all that chaff about the ego and
          the non-ego, noumena and phenomena, and all the rest of it, too
          often not to know that in attempting even to think of these
          questions, the human intellect flounders at once out of its
          depth.

   And again, to the same correspondent, May 6, 1863:

          I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons
          against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the
          greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel
          school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself,
          exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see,
          is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. 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.

   Of the origin of the name agnostic to describe this attitude, Huxley
   gave the following account:

          So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the
          appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as
          suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who
          professed to know so much about the very things of which I was
          ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.

   Huxley's agnosticism is believed to be a natural consequence of the
   intellectual and philosophical conditions of the 1860s, when clerical
   intolerance was trying to suppress scientific discoveries which
   appeared to clash with a literal reading of the Book of Genesis and
   other established Jewish and Christian doctrines. Agnosticism should
   not, however, be confused with natural theology, deism, pantheism, or
   other science positive forms of theism.

   By way of clarification, 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). While A. W. Momerie has
   noted that this is nothing but a definition of honesty, Huxley's usual
   definition goes beyond mere honesty to insist that these metaphysical
   issues are fundamentally unknowable.

Robert G. Ingersoll

   An Illinois lawyer and politician who evolved into a well-known and
   sought-after orator in 19th century America, and who has been referred
   to as the "Great Agnostic."

   In an 1896 lecture titled Why I Am An Agnostic, Ingersoll related what
   led him to believe in agnosticism and articulated that belief with:

          Is there a supernatural power -- an arbitrary mind -- an
          enthroned God -- a supreme will that sways the tides and
          currents of the world -- to which all causes bow? I do not deny.
          I do not know -- but I do not believe. I believe that the
          natural is supreme -- that from the infinite chain no link can
          be lost or broken -- that there is no supernatural power that
          can answer prayer -- no power that worship can persuade or
          change -- no power that cares for man.

          I believe that with infinite arms Nature embraces the all --
          that there is no interference -- no chance -- that behind every
          event are the necessary and countless causes, and that beyond
          every event will be and must be the necessary and countless
          effects.

          Is there a God? I do not know. Is man immortal? I do not know.
          One thing I do know, and that is, that neither hope, nor fear,
          belief, nor denial, can change the fact. It is as it is, and it
          will be as it must be.

   In the conclusion of the speech he simply sums up the agnostic belief
   as:

          We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked
          what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do
          not know.

Bertrand Russell

   Bertrand Russell's pamphlet, Why I Am Not a Christian, based on a
   speech delivered in 1927 and later included in a book of the same
   title, is considered a classic statement of agnosticism. The essay
   briefly lays out Russell’s objections to some of the arguments for the
   existence of God before discussing his moral objections to Christian
   teachings. He then calls upon his readers to "stand on their own two
   feet and look fair and square at the world," with a "fearless attitude
   and a free intelligence."

   In 1939, Russell gave a lecture on The existence and nature of God, in
   which he characterised himself as an agnostic. He said:

          The existence and nature of God is a subject of which I can
          discuss only half. If one arrives at a negative conclusion
          concerning the first part of the question, the second part of
          the question does not arise; and my position, as you may have
          gathered, is a negative one on this matter.

   However, later in the same lecture, discussing modern
   non-anthropomorphic concepts of God, Russell states:

          That sort of God is, I think, not one that can actually be
          disproved, as I think the omnipotent and benevolent creator can.

   In 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 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.

   However, later in the essay, Russell says:

          I think that if I heard a voice from the sky predicting all that
          was going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours,
          including events that would have seemed highly improbable, and
          if all these events then produced to happen, I might perhaps be
          convinced at least of the existence of some superhuman
          intelligence.

   Note that he didn't say "supreme" or "supernatural" intelligence, as
   these terms are metaphysically loaded.
   Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism"
   This reference article is mainly selected from the English Wikipedia
   with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details
   of authors and sources) and is available under the GNU Free
   Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer.
