Talk:Agnosticism/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

Antony Flew, Defining Agnosticism

Before I attempt removing the quote from Flew in the Defining Agnosticism section, I will ask for debate on why the quote is there. What is its relevance? The quote is clearly bringing into question the definition of Atheism in the Defining Agnosticism section. The last sentence of the quote is then asking, why should we presume someone that is not theist, is atheist and not agnostic. Why is a quote about redefining Atheism in the Defining Agnosticism section?IIXVXII (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"Neither believes nor disbelieves"

I think this sentence needs adding to, or editing/deleting entirely...

As "disbelief" is non-belief or not believing, how is it possible for someone to neither believe nor not believe. It's a true dichotomy.

It's like saying, "I neither accept nor not accept your proposition".

Or, "I'm neither a man nor not a man". It's logically incoherent nonsense, really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.161.141 (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Non belief is not disbelief or not believing. Disbelief or not believing would be like being shown a car and choosing not to believe it's existence. Non belief is being told a tall tale, assessing it based on it's merits and all available evidence, and coming to the correct conclusion it was a tall tale. This process applies equally to gods, leprechauns and even real things like gravity, but in that case the investigation would reveal it was not a tall tale. Both believers and agnostics first assume a god does exist. The believers then describe the god, and the agnostics say the god cannot be known. The non believers, often referred to as atheists by believers, look around and see no evidence for the concept of gods, and certainly no evidence for individual gods, but they do recognise the volumes of anthropological evidence which clearly shows gods reflect the societies that created them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.63.70 (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No that is not like that. Agnosticism is a different view, it is neither Atheism nor Theism. As Agnostics believe that it is unknowable whether God exists or not, the statement that they neither believe nor disbelieve is justified; because if you don't know about the existence of a thing, you can neither believe nor disbelieve. This brevity is of William L. Rowe, and is quite referenced. Please don't alter them again against the references provided. Faizan 13:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Everyone believes lots of things without being able to prove them and/or without knowing them to be so. If you have knowledge, then belief is either unnecessary or an understatement of the situation. However, disbelief is not the same as "not believing"; it (usually/always) indicates some difficulty in believing. Belief has more than 2 possible values. While the "popular sense" does not stand up to examination, it remains the "popular sense". Btw, the 2nd paragraph of "Criticism" section makes even less sense now that it contains sentence fragments.--JimWae (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The source for that 2nd paragraph has copied from this article--JimWae (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it, disbelief is the inability to accept something is true. Under that definition, and the "popular" agnosticism, they claim to neither believe (accepting something as true) nor disbelieve (not accept something as true). See how that doesn't make sense? Now, you could argue that using that definition of disbelief doesn't include people incognizant of the claims (babies, for instance), but agnostics are aware of the propositions that there is a god. They either accept the proposition, or they do not. They either accept or reject. They either believe or disbelieve. Which is entirely my contention. It's epistemologically impossible. The Wiki page for atheism states "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities" and "Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist." Those two encompass what most agnostics are: people who do not believe in a god by not accepting theism as true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asb0y (talk • contribs) 21:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your contention also. Belief that it is not possible to know whether god exists or not is a third possibility. If they belief it is impossible to know for sure then they can not reject god's existence or accept it having belief that the decision is impossible to make. Also, there are some that refuse to make the decision and go for years completely avoiding the question or topic. You are trying to make Schrodinger's cat either alive or dead when agnosticism is the state of indeterminable. Alatari (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm impressed Alatari. We previously disagreed and now you seem to understand the position of an agnostic like myself. Trying to make Schrodinger's cat alive or dead when it's currently indeterminable is a good analogy I can agree with.IIXVXII (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, firstly, holding a stance that it is not possible to *know* whether a god exists or not cannot be in conflict with theism/atheism. Knowledge is a subset of belief, but they are different. Theism/atheism address a belief/lack of. Gnosticism/agnosticism address knowledge/lack of. Look up epistemology to see the difference.
Secondly, "If they belief it is impossible to know for sure then they can not reject god's existence", of course it's possible. And it happens. The issue is with your warped idea of what the term "rejection" means. So many people seem to have this difficulty. Also, if it's impossible to *know*, then they could still believe in one, couldn't they? Don't confuse epistemological knowledge with every day usage. I have met agnostic theists that don't claim to be able to *know* for sure that a god exits, but believes in one nonetheless. Often via "faith". So claiming it is impossible to *know* doesn't address what you *believe* in regards to a specific belief (in a god). You either do or you don't hold a belief in your head. Think of it as a tangible object. The belief in a god inside your head means you are a theist, the belief not being there means you aren't a theist (a-theism = without theism), so you are an atheist. Whether you claim knowledge/lack of is additional, but also necessary. "Also, there are some that refuse to make the decision and go for years completely avoiding the question or topic", but atheism is largely regarded as a lack of a belief. Those people are automatically an atheist because they simply don't believe in one. Atheism doesn't address why someone doesn't hold that belief in their head, but rather labels people who do not.
Thirdly, "You are trying to make Schrodinger's cat either alive or dead when agnosticism is the state of indeterminable" -- that's a false comparison. Atheism/theism address a single claim "a god exists". It doesn't address "a god doesn't exist". So it deals with whether you *accept* that the cat is alive, not whether you think it is dead (yes, it has to be one or the other, but we're referring to an individuals belief towards the claim). You either accept that first claim or you do not. You either accept that cat is alive, or not (when you don't accept it is alive, it doesn't mean you accept it is dead) It's the same with court. You label people either guilty or not-guilty (theism and a-theism), rather than guilty or innocent (theism and anti-theism). You either have evidence the defendant is guilty, or you don't. If they haven't been proven to be guilty (not-guilty), it doesn't mean they have been proven to be innocent. I'm pointing out that you can only believe or not believe in something. They are the only two options when it comes to a *single* proposal. When you do not believe in a god, that doesn't automatically insinuate you believe there is no god (as that is a second claim). You could be in a state of non-belief, and thus in the neutral position (agnostic atheism). Which is largely my position.
I will steal an analogy to demonstrate this. Think of a jar of sweets on a counter of a shop. You and a friend walk into the shop and see it. As soon as you enter, your friend claims that the number of sweets in the jar is even (let's say this is theism -- a claim that there is a god). You, not being able to count that number, do not accept that assertion. You haven't enough information to form a belief. So you do not believe him. That *doesn't* mean you think the jar has an odd number of sweets (anti-theism). But you are in the neutral position. Non-belief (atheism). You know it's either one or the other, but you can't make a judicious conclusion. So you automatically reject your friends proposition. You can perform the same scenario but use knowledge instead.
Taken from wiki.ironchariots:
"To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:
1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.
There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:
1. Belief or acceptance of the claim.
2. Disbelief or rejection of the claim.
For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).
For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).
Note that one may wish to consider a "third option" of simply reserving judgement. This is actually consistent with position number 2. "Disbelief" means lack of belief. If someone reserves judgement, then clearly they don't believe — and thus they disbelieve, which is position 2. In light of this, one must interpret the term "rejection of a claim" as meaning "lack of acceptance" (and thus, in a sense, only a rejection "if forced to choose right now"). In particular, the term "rejection" should not be interpreted as being based in any way on an acceptance of the opposite claim.
Therefore, atheists need not positively believe that no gods exist. Some do, and this position is often known as strong atheism. By contrast, other atheists hold that neither claim is sufficiently supported by evidence to justify acceptance, a position known as weak atheism. (The weak atheism position is often confused with agnosticism, which is discussed below.)
While logic dictates that exactly one of the two claims above must be true (assuming the concept of "god" is sufficiently well-defined in the first place) — and so if one claim is not true the other must be true — there is no such implication in the case of belief. Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite. (For example, not believing the claim that the inventor of the Slinky died in a spring-related accident doesn't mean one positively believes that he didn't die that way.) This is one reason why the theist's accusation that atheism requires "just as much faith" as theism is unfounded (except possibly in the case of particularly strong forms of strong atheism, as discussed below)." -- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic
You either accept a proposition put forward to you, or you do not accept. If someone said Schrodinger's cat was alive, I do not accept their claim because I have insufficient evidence. And I'd do the same if they asserted it was dead. But those are TWO separate propositions. Not accepting because you are withholding judgement is synonymous with rejection. "Rejection" isn't looking at a claim and saying it is false, it is looking at a claim and saying I don't accept it right now. Many atheists "doubt" the existence of a god, not deny. This is what so many people need to understand. --Asb0y (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
By the law of excluded middle, a either a statement is true or its negation is true. So the quote "agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities" is nonsensical (given my understanding of "disbelieve"="not believe" which really seems to be standard). By that definition no one can be agnostic. Either the statement "I do believe in the existence of a deity" is true or the statement "I do not believe in the existence of a deity" is true. As user 81.98.161.141 noted, the believe/disbelieve is a true dichotomy. Fundamentally our debate seems to be about definition of certain words ("disbelief", "atheism", "know") and this quote seems nonsensical to me and I would imagine a lot of people. I replaced it with another section of the same quote that hopefully gets around the semantics. Let me "know" what you think. balljust (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit here which seemed to undermine the real philosophy and words of the philosopher William L. Rowe. How you can change his quote with your own words? Please proceed with consensus. Faizan 06:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, I thought what I had done was uncontroversial, but I probably should have known better. But I did not change the quote to my own words. The quote in reference 2, which is cited for the sentence in question is: "In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational." I think it is fair to say that a lot of people, including myself and several other contributors to this discussion, think the current statement (based on the first sentence of the Rowe quote) is nonsensical, so I replaced it with a statement which I think is clearer (based the last sentence of the same Rowe quote). Again, they are not my own words. They are directly taken from the last sentence of the Rowe quote. To summarize, I and many others (I think) find the "popular" definition to be illogical, therefore we should replace it with the "strict" definition, which are both endorsed and defined in the same Rowe quote. Let me know if you're cool with that. balljust (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Can I ask if Rowe actually stated they neither "believe nor disbelieve"? Because the paragraph "According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in the strict sense agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of rationally justifying the belief that deities do, or do not, exist.[2]" is slightly but fundamentally different. "rationally justifying the belief that deities do, or do not," is fine. As they are two separate beliefs rather than solely belief & disbelief. One is a positive belief a god does exist, and another is a positive belief one does not. "Agnostics", as most people think of it, both disbelieve theism (they don't accept it) and disbelieve anti-theism (or "strong atheism"). Which is synonymous with "weak atheism" or just plain old atheism. But I am aware of the common understanding / misconception of the terms (there seem to be several definitions).--Asb0y (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I too think the sentence "According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in the strict sense agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of rationally justifying the belief that deities do, or do not, exist." is flawed. It says that agnostics reject the belief that "deities must either exist or not exist", which is necessarily true by the law of excluded middle. It should be worded something like "According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in the strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason cannot rationally justify the belief that a deity does exist nor the belief that no deities exist." balljust (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The law of excluded middle is irrelevant. No one is claiming that the truth lies between true and false. The law of excluded middle does not exclude the ability for one to rationally suspend judgment. One position for an agnostic is to say, "I cannot pass judgment on whether the claim is true or false, thus I suspend judgment."IIXVXII (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I took it to mean that they don't believe a god does exist, nor do they believe a god doesn't exist (they know it must be one or the other, but they haven't enough evidence to form a mental acknowledgement towards either claim). They are in a position of non-belief or neutrality. Which I have less issue with, but it is synonymous with the position that many, or even most, atheists entertain. Atheism is non-belief in theism after all. I was just pointing out it doesn't follow with "neither believe nor disbelieve", because it suggests disbelief in both of the claims. I think the whole scenario is mired by the "strong" atheists that are currently in the limelight who deny the existence of deities. People see this and often assume that is typically atheism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asb0y (talk • contribs) 12:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with you Asb0y. I think the way you phrased it is what is intended, but, as it stands, that isn't what it says. The sentence does not refer to the two claims "A deity does exist" and "No deities exist", instead it refers to the single claim that "deities do, or do not, exist". If you agree with me I will change it to my suggested wording (given in my most recent comment). balljust (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I haven't heard anything in a couple of months. The exact Rowe quote is
"In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."
Using this quote I am modifying the text to say
"According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in the strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason cannot rationally justify either the belief that a deity does exist nor the belief that no deities exist.[1]"
per the discussion above. balljust (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted to the previous statement. It is not acceptable for you, or anyone else, to interpret and reword a direct quote.IIXVXII (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
That's an improvement. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Why are admitted atheists that deny agnosticism as a valid third position, still here trying to redefine agnosticism? Can you answer that Robin? IIXVXII (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but I also would be an admitted agnostic. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
"Theism/atheism has to do with belief, gnosticism/agnosticism has to do with knowledge. If you think you know whether or not a god exists, you're gnostic; if you don't know, you're agnostic. And you either have a belief in deities (theism), or you don't (atheism)." -Robin Lionheart
You are not an admitted agnostic, as defined in this article. Have you changed your position?IIXVXII (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Not recently. I meet our first sentence's definition of believing that "the truth values of certain claims... are unknown", but I am not the topic here. This page is for discussing improvements to this article. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


Since someone went through and highlighted statements only supporting the atheist position, I'm guessing they are expecting some type of response. So here is a response.

The law of excluded middle is not an exhaustive statement of the options for what to believe about the proposition. The law of excluded middle is an exhaustive statement of the options for what the truth is about the proposition.

Consider this example, assume we are together in a room and I claim this box contains a particle with momentum 2. According to you, by Law of Excluded Middle, you have to believe or disbelieve my claim. There is no opening the box. There is no conducting an experiment. There is no logic to do any investigation whatsoever, because in order to remain with the rules of logic, Law of Excluded Middle demands you choose and that you choose now. So you guess and then hope your guess is correct as I open the box. Guessing becomes superior reasoning to investigation.

If Law of Excluded Middle applies to positions, then it is always not logical to suspend judgment. If Law of Excluded Middle applies to positions, then it is always logical to guess.

If you believe investigation is superior reasoning to guessing, then applying Law of Excluded Middle to positions leads to contradiction.

"Either the thing is true or it isn't. If it is true, then you should believe it and if it isn't you shouldn't. And ah, if you can't find out whether it's true or whether it isn't, then you should suspend judgment." - Bertrand Russell "Bertrand Russell on God (1959)"IIXVXII (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree with the original poster. It is incorrect to say "An Agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves ..." because an Agnostic do disbelief in God. Both Agnosticism and Atheism are Nontheistic positions because both disbelieve in God. The thing is that an Agnostic disbeliefs in God without negating it's existence, while Atheism disbeliefs in God by negating it. So to the question do you believe in God, both agnostics and atheists will say no. Both for different reasons, sure, but both do not believe in God. "God may or may not exist" not to be confused with "i neither believe nor disbelief". Tacv (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand what is so complicated for some people to comprehend about the idea of suspending judgment. I'm willing to claim that everyone in their life at some point is going to say, I don't know what to believe. Yet, when the topic is God, all the sudden this simple idea gets thrown out the window. And it's primarily atheists that play these mental gymnastic games convoluting this simple idea.
Do you believe in God?
Agnostic: I don't know what to believe.
Atheist: I know what I believe and that is, I disbelieve in God.
Rowe's statement accurately reflects the position of agnostics. Saying one neither believes nor disbelieves is a statement of suspending judgment. A statement that says, I don't know what to believe.IIXVXII (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Agnostic: I don't know what to believe.
Atheist: I know what I believe and that is, I disbelieve in God.
That's not the broad atheist position, which is in fact simply not theist. Suspending judgement means you are not actively theist, hence atheist. Disbelieve - withhold belief, to not believe. In other words if you don't actively believe you're not in the middle. You do not believe.
I am an Agnostic myself. In your own words an Agnostic is someone that do not know what do believe, while in fact an Agnostic is someone that do not find a belief to be a correct form of answering questions. What i mean is that it's not a matter of believing or not believing, but a fact that knowledge is the only way to respond to the question of God existence. A belief is a personal truth not an universal truth and Agnostics do not dwell into personal truths. So it's very clear that an Agnostic is not someone confused or undecided (implicit when you say don't know what to believe) but someone that is holding all possibilities open until knowledge is presented allowing us to answer the question (not belief). Again an Agnostic does not believe nor wants to, so the original poster is correct in the sense it doesn't make sense when you say an Agnostic "neither believes nor disbelieves", because we do disbelieve. Tacv (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Rowe's logically incoherent statement does not accurately reflect my agnosticism either. Rowe's statement only makes sense if one assumes Rowe has misused the verb "disbelieve" to mean having a belief in the negative, else he would be describing an impossible state. It would be less confusing if we paraphrased Rowe's misused wording. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"I don't understand what is so complicated for some people to comprehend about the idea of suspending judgment." I don't understand what is so complicated for some people to comprehend about the idea of the excluded middle. Either you have a belief (that god exists) or you don't. It doesn't matter whether you belief the opposite or not, nor if you are unsure about what to belief. If your answer to the question "Do you belief in god?" is anything but "Yes.", you do not belief.

This whole discussion seems to miss one fundamental point: Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief.

Theist: "I believe in the existence of god.".
Atheist: "I don't believe in the existence of god.".
Agnostic: "I don't know if god exists.".

Rowe's quote matches those definitions perfectly: Agnosticism doesn't require the belief or disblief in god. Neither does it require the belief that some football team will win a certain competition. On the other hand any one person either does believe or doesn't, regardless. 86.56.57.192 (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't require it, but someone who is agnostic still believes or disbelieves. Atheist merely means someone who is not theist. As the article correctly mentions agnostic/gnostic is a separate question to theist/atheist.
I cannot agree entirely with the last user comment.
1. You seem to confuses Nontheism with Atheism. Mind you that your definition is not incorrect, the problem is that it is a very inclusive definition, that applies to all non theistic positions. The definition below is a more exact way to describe it, since it points out it's specific characteristic. You just need to read the first paragraph on the main article on Atheism, it's all there. So the full and correct way is:
Atheist: "I don't believe in the existence of any God (inclusive - Nontheism), because i personally believe there is no Gods (exclusive - Atheism).".
Agnostic: "I don't believe in the existence of any God (inclusive - Nontheism), since the existence of such deities is unknown and i don't regard a belief as a reliable way to answer to the question of existence(exclusive - Agnosticism)."
2. Both Atheism and Agnosticism do require the disbelief in God, like described in the definitions above. Why? Simply put: because they are both nontheistic positions. If Agnosticism didn't had the disbelief in God it meant they believed in it, since you or believe or do not believe, there are no middle option here. The thing is that an Agnostic disbeliefs in God without negating it's existence, while Atheism disbeliefs in God by negating it. Tacv (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd say they're both atheist. One is an agnostic atheist.
So you and user 86.56.57.192 support the idea that law of excluded middle applies to positions, yet, neither of you attempted, at all, to refute my argument that applying law of excluded middle to positions leads to contradiction. Instead of posting your philosophies, why don't we have a debate? The argument was put forth that law of excluded middle applies to positions. I offered a challenge to that argument. Where is a rebuttal from either of you?
I want you to tell me that disbelief doesn't require any knowledge as you try to convince me to disbelieve my argument. If you don't believe knowledge is required to obtain a disbelief, then you will never convince me to disbelieve anything.
As a further challenge to the claim, why does Law of Excluded Middle even apply? It's well known in modern logic that Law of Excluded Middle fails for indeterministic systems, like quantum mechanics. It is no longer the case that the truth is T OR not T, as in quantum mechanics it could be T AND not T. Law of Excluded Middle fails. Why does Law of Excluded Middle apply to the claim of God? Is it your faith that God is deterministic? It is, if you offer no reasoning based upon knowledge you have.IIXVXII (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry mate, but i'm not here to discuss the Law of Excluded Middle. I am here to give my position towards the "Neither believes nor disbelieves" debate. And what you call posting your philosophies was my logic explanation how it doesn't make any sense saying that Agnostics neither believes nor disbelieves. We don't need any Law to see it, it's simple Logic. A disbelief is a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real or if you wish refusal or reluctance to believe, how in the world can you state you need knowledge to disbelief something? When you have knowledge you know you don't disbelief. Disbelief and belief only make sense when something is unknown. Your last comment leads me to believe you didn't read what i wrote or you didn't understand a single thing. I always tell to myself that wiki debates are pointless, i don't even know why i even bother. Tacv (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
"I'm sorry mate, but i'm not here to discuss the Law of Excluded Middle." -Tacv
Then why are you responding to my arguments about law of excluded middle? Please take your admitted logical fallacy of irrelevant thesis and start your own comment string.IIXVXII (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you egocentric or what?! This discussion (and the world) isn't about you, you know?! This section is to debate the neither believes nor disbelieves expression on the main article. I never responded to the irrelevant discussion about Law of Excluded Middle, because that's not what this discussion section is about. If someone should take their bs somewhere, it should be you, because discussing that Law is creating a straw man fallacy, and concentrating the discussion on a theme that is not the core of this section. I've meet many people like you in wikipedia, that think they own a discussion or an article and start to go uncivil with personal attacks, so it pointless to discuss anything. Having said this, i will not respond anymore to anything about this issue. Change the main article as you guys wish. Tacv (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I started this comment string and established it's thesis. If you were not interested in debating that thesis, then you should have started your own comment string. It's absolutely clear that you have hijacked my comment string as this discussion now has absolutely nothing to do with the thesis I put forth.IIXVXII (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This is the original Huxley version of Agnosticism. "Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." "I do not very much care to speak of anything as "unknowable."2 What I am sure about is that there are many topics about which I know nothing; and which, so far as I can see, are out of reach of my faculties. But whether these things are knowable by any one else is exactly one of those matters which is beyond my knowledge, though I may have a tolerably strong opinion as to the probabilities of the case."
His Agnosticism was neutral towards two opposing propositions ... The(os)-ism, the belief that "gods exist", and Athe(os)-ism, the belief that "gods don't exist". Objectively, things either exist or don't. Absent objective evidence, to try and prove that either way, we're discussing subjective degrees of certainty, not anything objective. Ever the scientist, Huxley felt one should remain neutral until a proposition can be objectively tested (just like Popper, also an Agnostic, and demarcation). Take Schrödinger's cat ... Objectively: 1. The cat is alive, 2. The cat is dead; Subjectively, 1. Someone could claim to "know" ("know" in their heart, or some such) the cat is alive, 2. Someone could believe the cat is alive, 3. Someone could say they don't know and will wait until the box is opened, 4. Someone could believe the cat is dead, 5. Someone could claim to "know" the cat is dead. Nothinheavy (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
You're missing the point of Schrödinger's cat and quantum mechanics. The cat can only be determined to be alive or dead once one does an experiment. What was the cat before the experiment? According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the cat can be alive, dead or in a superposition of being alive and dead. That the act of experiment forces the cat to take a stand on whether it's alive or dead. The superposition of states is real and there are many examples of physicists creating superposition states, where, objectively, the state is in a superposition.IIXVXII (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Huxley would be classified as an agnostic atheist.

... Vs. "Ambivalence - mixed belief"

If we observe current cognitive theories regarding belief (namely, the metacognitive model of ambivalence), there are four positions that may be held about a proposition: low valence (apathy), univalence (preference to the affirmative position or the negative), and ambivalence (mixed feelings without internal consensus).

If we understand that lexicographers compile dictionaries to reflect the way people use words, but lexicographers do not dictate how words ought be used, we can appreciate that different groups of people will have varying definitions for words and their usages and none of these differences are inherently "wrong."

P1) Agnosticism does not seem to have a solid definition that everyone agrees to and we must therefore focus on what someone is attempting to express

P2) Most self-proclaimed agnostics I have encountered seem to espouse mixed beliefs when they express "I don't know"

P3) Claiming to neither "believe nor disbelieve" describes a lack of internal categorical conclusion, and may either represent low valence or ambivalence

C) If we are describing agnosticism in an epistemological sense of "not knowing" or "low conviction" that title may apply to agnostic atheists (balanced "lack" of belief => low valence; belief against => negative univalence) and agnostic theists (belief for => positive univalence); however, agnosticism stands as its own title which commonly refers to ambivalence and/or conceptual pluralism. Ephemerance (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a self-proclaimed agnostic atheist who does not espouse mixed beliefs when I express "I don't know".
I agree with your interpretation of what Rowe was poorly attempting to express, because surely his breach of the law of non-contradiction was unintended. It'd be less confusing if we'd stuck with our earlier paraphrase, rather than quoting his sloppy sentence verbatim. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Being an agnostic atheist indicates univalence (a preference toward disbelief). Most people I've encountered that call themselves simply "agnostic" seem to indicate ambivalence. Though relevant, I'm not terribly hung up on Rowe's definition of agnosticism.Ephemerance (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
"Preference" seems misleading. Take, for instance, a freshly deconverted atheist that still wishes they could unsee the light and return to their former worldview. It would not be apt to say they have a "preference" toward disbelief. Their preferences don't really enter into it. You either believe or you don't believe. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
"Deconvert" is biased phrasing implying that atheism is the default (by virtue of Tabula Rasa or the like) and "unsee the light" implies theism is untenable; both are contested conjecture. Typically someone calling themselves an atheist ascribes to disbelief (univalent or apathetic low valence). If they are having doubts, you are correct in saying they may experience cognitive dissonance, and act in a mixed fashion (one day acting as, or claiming they are, a theist and on another an atheist). You could call that unstable/flipping univalence if you wanted.
"You either believe or you don't believe." - No; that's entirely wrong. Show me cognitive or neurological studies that make this claim. You can believe and disbelieve at the same time (as shown in ambivalence and cognitive dissonance). Low valence is a separate category: this is where "lack of belief" would fall into (ergo, scepticism/disbelief/distrust or apathy toward both propositions). For example, based on your phrasing against theism, I think it's fair to assume that you have at least a slight univalent 'preference'/tendency/affinity/lean toward the concept "God does not exist" that exceeds true neutral scepticism (which is completely fair, respectable, and fantastic that you have your own view on that matter - and I mean no disrespect by that.)
In your example with the recent theist turned sceptic, because disbelief describes the neutral and negative, 'preference'/ general tendency toward disbelief could describe 'lack of belief' or negative belief (i.e. "God doesn't exist.") You touched on cognitive dissonance which admittedly can be a bit of a different soup because someone can strongly identify with a position and have splintering parts of their mind that are in opposition. It's the greater balance of parts that will give them the answer for how they feel as a whole, but their identity might be somewhat amorphous depending on the severity of the dissonance/imbalance. When someone is to the point that they claim to not know what they believe any more, that's usually an indicator of mixed opposite feeling of nearly or true equivalent magnitude (which is called ambivalence). An ambivalent person is not apathetic and holds opposing beliefs - meaning they don't "lack belief" and so fail the first context of atheism. We could call them atheist-theist if we really want, but it's more appropriate just to say they are ambivalent. Ephemerance (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Though I didn't say anything about tabula rasa, a blank slate is an apt metaphor for a new mind. Some parents will tell you of their ordeals just teaching an infant to sleep!
Sure, a person may frequently vacillate between believing and not believing. And it wouldn't be useful to give wobbling fencesitters a label of "theist" or "atheist" that may stop fitting soon, though I think they're still one or the other at any given moment. Seems to me that ambivalence makes belief no less a binary state.
People simultaneously holding conflicting beliefs regarding a deity's existence make an interesting edge case, but such doublethink seems like an episode of theism to me, although they may be theists in remission. You still cannot both have and not have a belief, just like my common sense prevents me from having both tea and no tea. Aside from exceptional cases like neurologist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran's split-brain patient whose right hemisphere believed in God while their left hemisphere did not (though one could question whether they're a single individual anymore). ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Just expanded given source...which I think illustrates why it's a poor one.

Added more from the paragraph closing the "criticism" section from the book by Donald E. Smith, with the further use of the vague "they", apparently for arguments from the theistic side.

...Which, it appears before I even wrote that first sentence was reverted by 'Jess'.

I would ask what makes the deleted quote any less reliable then the existing one. I suggest neither are particularly useful, in particular the bizarre use of intangibles as an argument against agnosticism, but foremost that both should be deleted on the grounds of WP:WEASEL. I leave that to up to any seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equilibrium103 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

If you believe the quote you added isn't useful, then you should read WP:POINT. I agree the second part of the quote isn't particularly useful. It's not encyclopedic in the way it is phrased, which makes it a poor candidate for a direct quote, and it adds very little to the existing passage.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
If this person's claims are conferred with relevance and authority, then it was not a "disruption" simply because you didn't care for the juxtaposition. At the moment, you seem to be either actively enforcing a paragraph rife with WP:WEASEL: "Some atheists" "some thinkers" "they" or reluctant to take the whole issue upon yourself. Since you consider the whole tense of the cited reference to be dubious, (On top of the third and forth sentences apparently contradicting each other.) I'm removing the quote entirely and you may rewrite or defend it on your own burden of proof and appeal. Equilibrium103 (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Agnosticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Citation to Dr. Richard Dawkins

I'm deeply sorry that the article cites Dr. Richard Dawkins as an authority on the atheistic critics to Agnosticism.

Dr. Dawkins is not an authority in Atheism, even if he is a renowned Atheist.

His views shown in the article are personal, unfunded, and inelegant.

He is a self-proclaimed authority in the field of Darwinian Evolution for the mass, which he uses as an anti-religion weapon.

This Author has certified scientific education, although he offers opinions and ideas that are poorly sustained by scientific evidence and that are biased at large to promote his undisguised extremist anti-religious goals.

Worse still, his theological (or anti-theological) opinions and ideas are even more poorly supported.

I'm sorry that I can't revise this part of the article, as I'm not versed enough in writing on Agnosticism, but I'd appreciate indeed that it be revised and that credible and authoritative citations be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.166.117.159 (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

What sort of revisions are you suggesting? Agnosticism, Atheism, and all of Theology is based on theoretical principles. One hardly needs a formal education to discuss the nature of the divine and all views will surely be personal, unfounded, and opinionated. As long as his thoughts are attributed as his own, I see no issue with including them. Further, if writing best-selling books on theology doesn't make you a notable critic, I don't think most people qualify as authorities. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

perhaps vs no perhaps

Agnosticism isn't "I am perhaps uncertain". It is "I am certain that I am uncertain". Adding a 'perhaps' implies that there is room for certainty of some kind. Or, I might not be certain that I'm uncertain. That's not agnosticism, that's partial agnosticism at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffbg (talk • contribs) 00:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't use the phrase "I am perhaps uncertain" anywhere in this article. This Talk page is for discussing improvements to this article, not a forum for general discussion about agnosticism. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 32 external links on Agnosticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Agnosticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Agnosticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference RoweRoutledge was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agnosticism/Archive_15&oldid=963836124"