Weak agnosticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weak agnosticism, or empirical agnosticism (also negative agnosticism), is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is currently unknown, but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until more evidence is available.

Weak agnosticism is in contrast to strong agnosticism, in which the agnostic believes that the existence of any gods is not only unknown, but is also unknowable to humanity. Neither type of agnosticism is fully irreconcilable with theism (belief in a deity or deities) nor strong atheism. Weak agnostics who also consider themselves theists are likely in a state of doubt, though they are not necessarily having a crisis of faith. Weak agnosticism often overlaps with, and is often confused with, weak atheism, as both are a lack of belief rather than a belief in lack (of either knowledge or existence, respectively).

1 Weak agnosticism and symbolic logic
2 Weak agnosticism vs indecision
3 Criticism against weak agnosticism and response
4 Bibliography

[edit] Weak agnosticism and symbolic logic

The philosophy of weak agnosticism can be related to proof theory and can be expressed in terms of symbolic logic. Simply, if a person makes a statement A and claims that it is true, then he must prove that it is true. Similarly, if another person makes a statement A' (not A) and claims that it is true (or rather A is false), then he too must prove that it is true (or A false).

[edit] Weak agnosticism vs indecision

Weak agnostics have often been accused of indecision, that is, "fence-sitters." This arises from a misunderstanding of weak agnosticism. The principle of weak agnosticism is not about a belief in God or a disbelief in God but about the belief in the statement "God exists" or the belief in the statement "God does not exist". Given that, to a weak agnostic, nothing has been shown to support either statement conclusively, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the data is inconclusive and believing in either is a leap of faith.

[edit] Criticism against weak agnosticism and response

Some atheists argue that believing in the possibility of a God is as ridiculous as believing in the possibility of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and so forth, and find it contradictory that weak agnostics believe in the possibility of the former but not any of the latter. However, to a weak agnostic, this fails to assess the situation logically and with clearly defined lines. To a weak agnostic the concepts of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Christian God, and so forth, are clearly defined claims akin to claiming the existence of alien life on a specific planet in our solar system, whereas the general concept of God is more akin to the concept of alien life anywhere in the universe. Given that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and so forth, can be argued against using proofs and data, it is not contradictory to dismiss those things that can be disproven while keeping an open mind to those things that have not.

[edit] Bibliography

Oppy, Graham. (1994). Weak agnosticism defended. in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. Vol. 36 (3), Dec. 1994. pp.147-167. Electronic text