Talk:Weak agnosticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Could we add some examples of people who have held to this position (not necessarily under this name)? And references to their writings about it, if any? seglea 08:14, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There are rather a lot of quotes here, and they mostly appear to be about agnosticism in general rather than weak agnosticism specifically. I'm going to move them over to http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Agnosticism and add a Wikiquote template to the Agnosticism article. Bryan 07:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Alien life?
That alien life example could use some reworking because there might be alien life--microbes--within our solar system. Santa Clause is clearly defined and admittedly man-made, whereas God is neither clearly defined, nor admittedly man-made. Santa Clause had its origins in Saint Nicholas. The concept of God dates much farther back and even a Christian will tell you that God came before Jesus, verily before time itself. Though my explanation may be muddled, I think that there is a distinction and it does not need to relate to a potentially incorrect statement, namely, that life does not exist in any solar planet other than Earth.
-You've got it backwards, the point is that the existance of aliens is not ridiculous. This is saying that it's no more ridiculous to believe that god might exist somewhere than to believe that alien life might exist somewhere (whereas it is ridiculous to say that Santa is at the north pole, aliens are on the moon, or that Zeus is on Mount Olympus). If you need a better example, you could say that believing in the possiblity of god is no more ridiculous than believing in the possibility of ghosts, magic, blessings, curses, exorcisms, out-of-body experiences or qi. Of course, those things may not be as plausible to a critic. There is precident for extra-terrestrial life given the known life existing on earth and the sheer size of the universe. Perhaps a weak agnositic would say that a 'plausible unknown' is of equal likelyhood as an 'unplausible unknown'. You may disagree. -pmm
[edit] article incorrectly defining term?
This article says, "Weak agnosticism ... is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable and therefore one should withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available." But this seems to contradict the only source given, which says weak agnosticism is "the view which is sustained by the thesis that it is permissible for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question of God's existence." In other words, we're saying that it means, "No one knows now, but someone might know in the future," while our one source seems to say that it means, "I don't know, but other people might, even in the past or present," though I admit I could be reading something wrong. About.com, The Freethought Zone, and this website also contradict our claim that weak agnosticism claims no one knows whether God exists. Does anyone have references supporting our article's claim? If not, I will change the article to reflect these sources. --Allen (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] contradiction of meaning
Does weak agnosticism simply refer to a lack of belief in theism/strong atheism/strong agnosticism/etc, or does it actually involve a belief that there is not enough evidence to support those things? Is a person who's never heard of the concept of gods a weak agnostic? Or must someone believe that there is not enough evidence available to them to support theism/strong atheism/strong agnosticism/etc, to be a weak agnostic? The article first says weak agnosticism "is the belief that ..." and then contradicts itself by saying it is a "lack of belief". Herorev (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was wondering something similar. Consider the following statement by an agnostic: "according to my best evaluation of the evidence and arguments I've encountered at this time, I don't know whether or not God exists, BUT if anyone thinks I have overlooked a key point of evidence/argument, I'm willing to look at it, and perhaps it will help me decide one way or the other." What kind of agnostic would the hypothetical person I just 'quoted' be? Does it matter to what extent, how comprehensively, or how passionately he's examined the question of the existence of God up to this point? Weak agnostic was the closest I could find, and while it does seem the closest, this article didn't leave me confident in that assessment. Doubleg (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
