Talk:Agnosticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Agnosticism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
 
Portal:Religion
 Religion Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Agnosticism is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
For more information and how you can help click Show →
Socrates
Portal:Philosophy
 Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Agnosticism is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated Start-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Philrelig.


Contents

[edit] What to believe

The whole concept of Agnosticism and Atheism is a absolute waste not only in human effort but also in time. The word "belief" should be completely deleted from our language on the following grounds. Human beings should be able to answer 3 (Trinity) simple questions before they are entitled to talk about anything that concerns belief oppose to knowledge especially in the "anti" sence of the word;

  • Where did the big bang come from?
  • Where do we come from?
  • Where do we go once we die?

It just proves how arrogant (arrogance), naive and judgemental we are as people, everyone walks around thinking and talking as if they were looking for some kind of "foodtopia" as depicted in the childrens film Antz. The saying "wake up" accurately describes the state of peoples minds here, to wake-up would be from a state of sleep. To be politically correct (Political correctness), everything should be taken on face value or until it is "dis-proven" in the same way as one is "innocent until proven quilty" (Criminal law). To say that one does not "believe" in something which is "judgemental" is the same as saying one is (Guilty until proven innocent). Once having Considered these points it is clear that the people who are closest to the "truth" or the (fact) to these 3 questions are the ones who actually believe in something, especially to a pro belief system that claims to be "the" truth, the way and the life ("quote by Jesus Christ") for an individual human being. Our world and its systems are governed and ruled by everything that are a sum total of averages, for example, average intelligence, price, population growth, numbers, voters, rainfall, temperature, height etc etc, so it stands to reason that when "pro" belief systems are concerned one should choose a system that is accepted by the "average" (in the majority) person. Another selection guide for choosing a pro-belief system would be to choose from a "system" that already governs and rules our everyday lives, one which bases its own guidelines (dogma) to a pro-belief system which it follows eg, the legal system, government (parliament or congress), time counting AD (Anno Domini) etc.

The only pro-belief system that would qualify for a person to follow is the one that promotes "constructivity" (positivity), love and the exercise of free will (freedom), democracy and life after death, such a system already exists and its called Christianity or Judaism, democracy for instance is built on the beliefs of Christianity, both Christianity and Judaism are the wings from the same bird. Only a system that offers all these things that have any merit or legitimacy and value are worthy of a "belief", Christianity as a pro belief system would be the "awakening" of the sleeper (Agnostic or Atheist) if they chose to accept it. Fact idiot 16:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing at all to do with wikipedia articles about agnosticism. This is not a talkforum or a place to preach - get a blog. If you continue in this vein, your comments will be removed. --Charlesknight 19:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It says Talk section??? Fact idiot 19:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Interesting! talk about freedom to express an opinion hmmm, Fact idiot 19:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a talk section to discussion the contents of the article - it's not a talkspace in the sense of a talk forum. Preaching is of no interest to us. --Charlesknight 19:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Browsing everything above so far I dont see any difference, and this was my opinion after reading all the above statements, now really! it appears that you are preaching to me right now Fact idiot 19:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is compleatly different, it takes a stab at the establishment of thought as it's presented in wikipedia's encyclopeda format. Wiki is here to be a represention of research and should not be underminded by people who wish to erase or ignore history and information gleaned over time. Hackajar 12:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a space to express opinion. It is a place to compile factual information. People are free to express opinion of course, but it should be somewhere that is appropriate. Acting appropriately is a matter of simple, common courtesy to others. Please extend that courtesy here. MrsPlum 22:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording of first sentence

As of this post, the first sentences reads

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that value certain claims as truth is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.

Pschemp recently made a "fix grammar" change as seen on the history before i changed it back.

Agnosticism is the spectrum of philosophical views that the value of certain claims as truth is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.

I would argue that the "fix" changes the meaning of the statement. I wrote out my explanation here:

[edit] Agnosticism wording

Original:

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that value certain claims as truth is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.

"fix grammar":

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the value of certain claims as truth is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.

you say it's a grammar fix, but i say it changes the meaning of the statement. Looking specifically at the clause:

original: "[agnostics] value certain claims as truth is unknown.."
"fix grammar": "the value of certain claims as truth is unknown.."

In the original, i read it as the view that claim that truth is unknown or unknowable. I read the latter as the value of truth(which is a claim) is unknown, etc. I'm pretty sure agnostic means truth is unknown, not values.

perhaps the grammar isn't prefect in the sentence, but this change seems to change the meaning

how about

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that values certain claims as truth is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.

or

Agnosticism are the philosophical views that value certain claims as truth is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.

This way, value is consistant with plurality of agnosticsim and philosophical view. The are several agnostic views so is agnosticsm plural or agnosticsm is the range of views?

how about

Agnosticism is the spectrum of philosophical views that value certain claims as truth is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.
--Tsinoyboi 21:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Eventually, I came up with this version:

Agnosticism is the spectrum of philosophical views that value certain claims as truth is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.

It may still not be perfect

Which one do you think is best?

--Tsinoyboi 21:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but "that value certain claims as truth is unknown" is neither grammatically correct nor comprehensible to English speakers. I like the current wording by Jimwae. The "of" has to be in there for the sentence to be comprehensible, otherwise it refers to the values of agnositcism, which is incorrect and lacking a plural. I don't care what comes after. pschemp | talk 23:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jimwae's wording is good, although "value" could be reasonably omitted. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, i'm learning. I should have left the change but still say something in discussion. I can't argue that the original version was grammatical, but the new wording is good, but i agree that "the truth value of" could be omitted like these:
Agnosticism is the philosophical view that certain claims — particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities — is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.
or
Agnosticism is the philosophical view that claims Ultimate Reality— particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities — is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.

by the way, does User:Tsinoyboi/Agnostic theism meet policies and guildlines?

hmm god (monotheism) redirects to God. Should that be changed?

--Tsinoyboi 06:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If Agnostics claimed that the truth of claims re deities was unknown, it could be construed that they pretty much figure they ARE true claims, but do not know for sure. Truth value also brings in the idea that neither the truth not the falsity of such claims is known. Truth value is a basic term in logic - if it is too "technical", we could try "truth or falsityof claims..." -- but then the sentence structure gets more complex --JimWae 06:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

ok then, i guess that is more NPOV. --Tsinoyboi 06:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph is about strong agnosticism, not about agnosticism itself.

The opening paragraph describes strong agnosticism, not agnosticism itself. Then it claims that noncognitivists are agnostics, as if they would think something could exist even if the word describing it doesn't mean anything. Wiploc 01:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How is that strong agnosticism and not agnosticism itself? Strong agnosticism is that ultimate reality is unknowable, weak agnosticism is that ultimate reality is unknown, and apathetic agnosticism or ignosticism are that ultimate reality is incoherant or irrelavent. All that was talked about in the opening paragraph. It's a form of philosophical skepticism. What is missing be "agnosticism itself"? Agnostic atheism and agnostic theism? Spiritual agnosticism? --Tsinoyboi 05:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. Ok i don't agree with this sentence at least: "The term is used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion." Being convinced or committed doesn't have anything to do with agnosticism. I don't know if an agnostic theist would be committed about the existence of god(s). --Tsinoyboi 06:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Data collection services - second half of second paragraph

Why is Data collection services important and part of the opening information? Why do they list agnostics alongside secular, non-religious, or other such categories? I think if this is going to stay on the page, then it needs to be moved; even if it gets it's own section. Either way it shouldn't be at the top. --Tsinoyboi 18:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agnosticism is NOT weak atheism

If you don't believe me, what I write is not original research: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

Agnosticism says nothing about belief so one can be theistic or spiritual and still be agnostic. Is spiritual weak atheist too? I don't think Buddhism is atheistic, at least. Either way, agnosticism is specifically about knowing, only. Some people even believe faith and knowledge contradict. In terms of existence of god(s) and definition, belief in god(s) only requires belief that a definition of god(s) is correct. It doesn't mean either is known. Agnosticism is about epistemology; atheism is about ontology. Even Weak and strong atheism states that they are distinct even though they overlap. Does weak atheism encompass acceptance of the possibility of god(s) existing but just doesn't have belief? maybe you should include strong atheists as weak atheists too since they lack belief in god.[1] FrostyBytes, do you or anyone else have anything to back up that it is "completely accurate" that "Agnostic atheists are, by definition, weak atheists"? --Tsinoyboi 11:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, agnostic atheists can be strong atheists as well. They believe there is no god but believe there's no way to know. Similarly goes agnostic theism. If strong atheists are not weak atheists then not all agnostic atheists are weak atheists. Technically, strong atheists are also weak atheists? --Tsinoyboi 09:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


"Agnosticism says nothing about belief" --Tsinoyboi 09:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That is false. The agnostic principle is throughly explained by Thomas Huxley:

"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics


That which agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is any contrary doctrine like Islam or Christianity for example, that there are propositions like the tenets of Islam or Christianity for example, which people ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence. See Thomas Huxley, who coined the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html

Note the term, 'believe'? 67.182.154.119 20:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Ok, since you've shown that (technically, and by definition) strong atheistic agnosticism (if it can be called that) is possible, I defer to your wisdom in this matter. -FrostyBytes 15:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't believe, or disbelieve, that in which you have zero knowledge of. A seed has to be planted for a belief to grow. 3DJay 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


The statement in question was, "Agnosticism says nothing about belief" --Tsinoyboi 09:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That statement is false. The agnostic principle is throughly explained by Thomas Huxley67.182.154.119 07:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is correct
You cut out the part that shows you are mistaken. Please do not cut out the comments of others.
That is false. The agnostic principle is throughly explained by Thomas Huxley:

"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics


That which agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is any contrary doctrine like Islam or Christianity for example, that there are propositions like the tenets of Islam or Christianity for example, which people ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence. See Thomas Huxley, who coined the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html

Note the term, 'believe'? 67.182.154.119 20:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


3DJay wrote, "A seed has to be planted for a belief to grow." 3DJay 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not true of an ABSENCE of belief (as in 'atheist'). 67.182.154.119 01:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Show me one dictionary that states the etymology of Atheism is A-theism, and not Athe-ism. Check Wiki's own article. The words Atheism and Atheist came into use, some 50 years before the words Theism and Theist. How can you add an A- to a word that doesn't exist? Besides that, every single absence of belief argument is based on some lack of knowledge (no good definition of god, can't know every possible god, etc.)...that's Agnosticism. You can absolutely, 100%, not form a belief, or disbelief, about something you've never heard of. It's not possible.
"I further say that Agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative" creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions. The justification of the Agnostic principle lies in the success which follows upon its application, whether in the field of natural, or in that of civil, history; and in the fact that, so far as these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its validity." - Huxley, taking a bite out of Theism and Atheism. Theist: I believe Gods exists. Agnostic: Prove it. Atheist: I believe Gods don't exist. Agnostic: You prove it, too. 3DJay 04:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Profanity

Can someone please remove the profanity from the main paragraph? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.104.156.185 (talk • contribs) 10:29, November 23, 2006 (UTC).

What profanity? — Elembis 04:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why do we have to declare our beliefs?

When people are having a very innocent, simple conversation, why do they have to screw it up by asking about the other person's church habits? I was at work one day and a co-worker was "preaching" about how "God" had improved her life, etc. Then she looked at me and asked me where I went to church. I very simply told her that I did not go to church. She looked at me like a had an infectious disease and asked me "why?". I told her that I did not participate in any organized religion. You would have thought I told her that I worshipped Satan or something. She doesn't really talk to me anymore.

If people are going to be so touchy about religion, why do they even ask about it? And, why do we feel like we have to defend ourselves when some bible-beating-baptist tells us we "need Jesus"? If you ask me, its a personal choice, and it really isn't anyone else's business.

If you have any suggestions for me on how to deal with these types of confrontations, you can email me. brinici@aol.com 198.179.157.10 17:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Brittany 198.179.157.10 17:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Inform her that if she would only watch her reaction better, you might actually be interested in what she had to say. ShumbodhiPhamus 09:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messy

Someone has gone through the article and changed 'God' to 'God(s)' etc. although I can see the logic, it looks a mess and disrupts the readability. Can we just have a statement up at the top that 'God' in the text also means God/Gods/He/She/it/they, that may/may not/did/will exist etc. :-) ChrisRed 09:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a perfectly normal way to write. It should be god(s) with a small g though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.30.79.194 (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Alternate meaning

A bunch of friends of mine swears that the traditional meaning and use of the word "agnosticism" is quite different from that of this article. That greatly surprised me. Apparently most schools of the occult (and even a few religions) define Agnosticism as something close to "belief in God joined with a lack of faith in organized religion". Does anyone know about that and/or can suggest sources? Thanks! Luis Dantas 16:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the true definition of "Agnostic" as found on dictionary.com is as reads: "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience". So as this reads, there is no was of knowing for sure that God(s) do or do not exist. When it all comes down to it, if you are looking at Agnosticism in a literal sense, then there cannot be a belief in God(s), with the lack of certain knowledge. I hope that clears it up for you. EternallyTerminal 07:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] January 3, 2007 edits by 67.165.208.252

I reverted the edits by 67.165.208.252. Stating that all agnostics believe in the existence of a god is in contradiction with parts of the rest of the article, the Philosophical opinions for example.

Concerning removal of the Qualifying agnosticism section, I'm assuming that 67.165.208.252's objection is the lack of sources for terms mentioned. For some of them, finding notable sources shouldn't be a problem (I'm working on it as we speak :)), but others seem te be mentioned only on the basis of a single occurance in a non-notable source. I propose that "Model agnosticism", "Agnostic theism", "Agnostic spiritualism", "Relative Agnosticism" and "Agnostic atheism" are removed from the list unless someone can provide notable sources for them. (Please note that with "non notable source" I'm not implying "untrue source". About.com for instance, provides for some great reading, but I don't consider it to be a notable source since it's not original material and it doesn't provide citations of it's own sources.) Ζεύς 11:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they should all be removed. Huxley separated any absolutes of reality from personal knowledge. He stated that personal beliefs were formed from that personal knowledge. He explained that "unknowable", was different for every individual. Meaning, people form their beliefs on enough circumstantial evidence to satisfy them, not absolutes. That allows for Atheists, Theists, and Agnostics, to all admit to not knowing the absolutes of reality, without it changing their beliefs. There's no such thing as an Agnostic-Theist or an Agnostic-Atheist. If they feel they know enough, to commit to a belief, then it doesn't really matter if they acknowledge the impossibility of knowing reality...they've commited their beliefs to Atheism or Theism. Huxley also stated the only thing that separated Agnostics, was that they didn't know enough, to form a belief. 3DJay 19:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal God?

Where does one fit in when they have strong atheistic views of a personal god (Deism?) but otherwise meet the definition of agnostic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.121.58 (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Deism seems to cover that. Of course, there are a few variants of deism, too. samwaltz 10:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/g/n/Talk%7EAgnosticism_6491.html"