Fuck Yeah Agnosticism

zeitvox:

XHerakleitos - 11/15/10

Puzzling over a trend to dismiss agnosticism, I ran into a post by Caesar, the esteemed Imperator at Arstechnica:

Agnosticism is the most reasonable position to take with regards to the supernatural. Let me unpack this, because it’s possible to read that sentence in 1,000 different ways.

First, my view argues that certainty either that God does or does not exist is a less reasonable position than the position that we cannot and do not know with certainty one way or another.

For the purposes of this thesis, I am only speaking to certainty, to claims of knowledge. That is, I believe it is possible to be agnostic on the question and believe or not believe in God. So, belief is a state of assent based on something less than knowledge.

Further, I argue that the claim to know for certain that there is no “god” is no more rooted in reason than to claim to know for certain that there is a “god.”

Unfashionable as it may be, Caesar’s thesis certainly appears most wise. Moreover, a robust agnosticism seems advisable when we regard it as likely one of the most spirited echoes of the beginnings of Western science. Is it merely an appeal to authority or is there something to this spark which bears remembering or rediscovering?

21c  I went looking for wise men: I went to one of those reputed wise, thinking that there, if anywhere, I could refute the oracle and say to it: ‘This man is wiser than I, but you said I was.’ Then, when I examined this man…my experience was something like this: I thought that he appeared wise to many people and especially to himself, but he was not. I then tried to show him that he thought himself wise, but that he was not. As a result he came to dislike me, and so did many of the bystanders. So I withdrew and thought to myself: ‘I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know.’

One can say quite a bit about what’s going on here, not to mention the strange tension where Socrates is on a mission from a god in trying to refute the god’s oracle. But essentially, there in the Apology, Socrates underscores the importance of wonder (thaumazein) as wellspring of all wisdom…

Read More

schierl:

I’m agnostic. Sometimes I wish that I was fully an atheist. 

Revelation: I need more freethinkers in my life.

Hi there!

(Source: thistraindontstop)

hatefulatheist:

So I don’t plan on turning this into a daily thing by any means but I thought of another good question I’d like to ask my followers today. Perhaps this one is relevant to more people on my list then the last. It is directed to people that recognize themselves as being “agnostic”. To avoid any confusion on definitions I am referring to people that have taken the stance that they do not know or believe, one way or the other, on God’s existence. If you are an Agnostic, what would it take for you to become an Atheist? Obviously the question of if God exists or not does have a definite answer. So what would need to be different for you to become an Atheist? I am not looking to proselytize anyone but am very curious as to what may be holding back someone from making a decision. Anyways, feel free to leave answers in a reply of send me a message if you’d like. As always thanks for reading.

I’m reblogging this here, in case anyone here wants to respond with what would be necessary for them to self-describe as atheist. I’m uncertain if the question applies to people who self-describe as agnostic and as atheist, but I suppose for atheist agnostics and agnostic atheists it can be interpreted as “What would be necessary for you to drop the agnostic descriptor and self-describe only as atheist?”

My own (non-fence-sitting, rather logical-positivisty) response is at my personal tumblr if anyone is interested in that.

lilro-curiousthing:

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism, though it is not a religious declaration in itself.

Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and/or non-religious people, using ‘agnostic’ in the sense of ‘noncommittal’.

However, this can be misleading given the existence of agnostic theists, who identify themselves as both agnostics in the original sense and followers of a particular religion.
Philosophers and thinkers who have written about agnosticism include Thomas Henry Huxley, Albert Einstein, Robert G. Ingersoll, and Bertrand Russell. Religious scholars who wrote about agnosticism are Peter Kreeft, Blaise Pascal and Joseph Ratzinger, later elected as Pope Benedict XVI.

———

L’ agnostico afferma cioè di non sapere la risposta, oppure afferma che non è umanamente conoscibile una risposta, e che per questo non può esprimersi in modo certo sul problema esposto.
Nello specifico questa posizione è solitamente assunta rispetto al problema della conoscenza di Dio, ma può anche riguardare l’etica, la politica o la società.
Si suole distinguere, riguardo alle persone non credenti in una religione, tra ateismo e agnosticisimo. La differenza sta nel fatto che, mentre l’agnostico afferma semplicemente l’impossibilità di conoscere la verità sull’esistenza di Dio o di altre forze soprannaturali, l’ateo, al contrario, afferma con certezza che non esiste alcun Dio o un qualsiasi altro tipo di forza superiore.

In pratica la posizione “agnostica” deriva dallo scetticismo, che praticava una simile ma più radicale sospensione del giudizio nell’epistemologia, ritenendo tutta la conoscenza umana sempre dubitabile e perfettibile.
Gli agnostici non sono necessariamente indifferenti al problema della fede e all’attività spirituale o religiosa. Molti di coloro che stanno attivamente cercando una fede o sono in dubbio, hanno sostanzialmente una posizione agnostica, paragonabile al dubbio metodologico nella filosofia.
Il termine fu usato la prima volta nel 1869 dal naturalista britannico Thomas Henry Huxley, per descrivere la sua posizione rispetto alla credenza in Dio; il termine deriva come contrapposizione alle antiche dottrine cristiane gnostiche, che affermano che la conoscenza della realtà ultima (gnosi) è interiore a ogni uomo.
La posizione agnostica diviene permanente in vari filosofi post-kantiani, che come dimostrò Immanuel Kant ritengono che la ragione che pretende di parlare dell’incondizionato cade in contraddizione, tanto per dimostrarne l’esistenza quanto per negarla.


Thomas Henry Huxley che per primo coniò il termine agnosticismo.