Agnosticism Basics: Definition of Agnosticism in Standard Dictionaries
Thursday January 8, 2009
To understand the concept of agnosticism, it can be helpful to learn a bit more about its history. It has been used in a variety of ways, not all of which are entirely compatible. They may be similar, but there enough differences that there can be some confusion.
Read Article: Definition of Agnosticism in Standard Dictionaries
Comments
Austin,
Do you think since, by definition, an agnostic is unbiased; with any intellectual honesty,one could spend one year as a christian, and the next as an unbeliever-and it not be a problem?
No. By definition, an agnostic doesn’t claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not. That’s it.
Depends entirely on the reasons for the switch.
“No. By definition, an agnostic doesn’t claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not. That’s it.”
How can one be an agnostic without being unbiased? Does not one cancel the other out?
“Depends entirely on the reasons for the switch.”
Why couldn’t the reason for the switch be that they’re unbiased?
“No. By definition, an agnostic doesn’t claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not. That’s it.”
This is contradictory. You are biased, the agnostic does not know… which by default must be unbiased. If the agnostic is biased, then he is not agnostic. Right?
Because everyone has biases.
I don’t see how.
How is that a reason?
How is not knowing if some proposition is true or not a lack of bias? I do not know if I will one day be rich, but I have a strong bias in favor of being rich. I do not know if I will one day have cancer, but I have a strong bias against having cancer. A lack of knowledge is not a lack of bias.
No, because bias and knowledge are entirely separate issues.
If you disagree, feel free to show why you think they are the same.
And please don’t make multiple responses to the same comment.
All due respect, your answers are insufficient.
We know getting rich is attainable, an agnostic(has no knowledge or opinion) would not know that it is attainable without knowledge of it being possible.
One has no control over cancer-one does have control over his bias’
Once again, feel free to show how an absence of knowledge is the same as an absence of bias.
Even if we didn’t know for sure, I can still have a bias in favor of getting rich despite not knowing if I will or if I can.
Only biases one is aware of. Maybe.
One thing that an agnostic is NOT, is unknowing of ignorance.
An anorexic is not agnostic of food, they are intentionally ignorant of it. Intent lends bias, and I refuse to believe one is agnostic while being biased.
Agnostics are probably aware of their ignorance. So?
Uh…. what?
You also refuse to explain how a lack of knowledge is the same as a lack of bias or necessarily leads to/entails a lack of bias.
Refusing to believe something is indicative of bias, by the way. You shouldn’t have the attitude of “refusing” to believe one thing or another. Either a position has a sound basis and you believe it, or it doesn’t and you don’t.
So, what’s your “sound basis” for the position that lacking knowledge of the existence of gods is the same as or necessarily leads to/entails a lack of bias on the issue?
How about, “Knowing that one cannot know that which is unknowable”?
Matt, you really should learn what words mean before using them.
Ignorance is to be unaware of something. It is not a perjorative, though many misuse it as such. An anorexic is not “intentionally ignorant” about food. They have made choices to not eat enough of it. Are their conclusions incorrect, and unhealthy? Yes. But they are aware that food exists. What they may be ignorant about is how to eat healthily.
Agnosticism means not knowing about something. There are agnostic atheists, usually just called agnostics, who think no gods exist, but do not know. There are also agnostic theists, who participate in religious groups, etc, but express doubt about the existence of the god they are worshipping.
People moving from one position to the other probably cannot will themselves to move back and forth. Disbelief in a god or a religion is not a choice. It’s like not believing the world is flat, or not believing in fairies. You understand that they are not real, so you stop believing they are.
Agnostic. An atheist who can’t make up his mind.
Agnostic. a Theist who can’t let go his past.
Agnostic. Gambler who place bets only.
Agnostic. I’m not really sure what I disbelieve.
My Quaker wife was agnostic. She could always see both sides of an argument and disagreed about agreeing with either.
One more. An Agnostic is an atheist who doesn’t want to offend offensive theists.
“All but the dead are agnostic.”
- Apeiron
Some are just more honest about it than others.
In my college, they used the term “vendor agnostic” as a way of saying “we are not preferential to one company’s software over another”. They should have said “vendor neutral”, even though they had pretty clear preferences regarding vendors.
Monty Python says an agnostic is someone who doesn’t know whether they believe anything or not.
Maybe the key word is CLAIM. If being agnostic wrt religion means not knowing, then my quote is true. If it means not *claiming* to have knowledge, then it isn’t.
Most folk saying they are agnostic are also atheists, but don’t want to come out and say it (lest they offend, draw attention), or think they are being enlightened/objective.
If being agnostic wrt religion means not knowing, then my quote is true.
Wrt? What’s that an abbreviation for? With regards to? Don’t abbreviate things like that; it’s plain stupid! I believe it was you who, in a post around 14-15 months ago under an article about the BSA’s bigoted policies against homosexuals and atheists, criticised ‘missionaryway’ for using text message typing/leetspeak saying it was ‘not cool after age 25′, yet here you are, doing the very thing that you’ve been criticising others for! How hypocritical!
Regardless, agnosticism ‘with regard to religion’ is a vague notion. Religion is a complex concept. What aspect of religion is it that you’re being ‘agnostic with regards to’? Existential claims? Moral teachings? Whether it is ultimately a constructive or a destructive force for humankind?
It is also not how the word is usually used. Agnosticism, as I understand it, in this context (and feel free to correct me iof I’m wrong), is the position of disclaiming/not claiming knowledge of and/or with regards to the question of the existence and/or nature of gods. Do note that this is distinct from the ambiguous notion of ‘being agnostic with regards to religion’.