Talk:Agnosticism/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Agnosticism in "religion" line of officeholder infobox

So, newly elected president(-elect) of Croatia, Ivo Josipović, when asked about his religion declares to be an agnostic. User:DIREKTOR says we can't put that in infobox since it's not a religion. User:GregorB and me, we thing that if the man chooses to list his religion as "agnostic", that designation should be in his infobox. Full discussion can be found here: [1]. It's not very long and GregorB I feel that this matter should be discussed here, not on Josipović's talk page. So, Agnosticism talkers, what do you think, what should Ivo's infobox "religion" line state? Cheerz, 188.129.65.176 (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO agnosticism is indeed not a religion, but my reasoning about it differs from Direktor's. I won't go into details, I've pretty much said what I had to say in the Josipović talk page. Also, let me just note similar subjects have been discussed here before. GregorB (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to be as informative as possible. Please think of this as a kind of informal RfC (for the record, I'm an atheist :)

When Ivo Josipović, the new socialist president of Croatia, was asked about his religious beliefs during his recent election campaign, he stated that he is an "agnostic". Now, in Croatia the socialist left often likes to use the label "agnostic" to avoid the negative "feel" of the word "atheist" (or "agnostic atheist"), denoting an imaginary softer form of atheism. In fact most prominent politicians from the Social Democratic Party of Croatia (Josipović's party) identify as such. What we know about these folks is that they are certainly not religious persons, i.e. they do not belong to any specific religion.

In short, I removed "Religion: agnostic" from the infobox and replaced it with "Religion: None" since a person's agnostic convictions (or lack of them) have virtually nothing to do with religion. As we all know, people can be agnostic atheists, agnostic Christians, agnostic theists, etc. Agnosticism is a separate category from atheism/theism. A politician's elections media ploy to avoid the term "atheist" is good enough for the media, but an encyclopedia should not perpetuate such common misconceptions and misuse terms. Agnosticism is not religion, nor is it atheism. Lets not list it as such in infoboxes simply because people are generally unaware of that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's another interesting thought. According to the scientific method (roughly speaking), before anything can be said to exist, its existence has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt via empirical observation. The proponents of atheism affirm that there is no evidence whatsoever that a deity exists, and that therefore we cannot consider such a possibility. Agnostics acknowledge that there is no evidence that a deity exists, and add that such evidence will (most likely) never be found, and that evidence disproving (a) god also cannot be discovered. However, it is not necessary to disprove something which has not been proven in the first place. Therefore, by acknowledging that there is no evidence supporting a deity's existence, and by even adding that none can ever be found, agnostics in the religious sense are more opposed to the possibility of an empirical assertion of (a) god's existence than mere atheists. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard of evidence of jurisprudence, not of the scientific method. Proponents of atheism think we can consider the possibility, and reject it for insufficient evidence. Weak agnostics are agnostic about whether evidence can be found. And all of this is straying off-topic. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Jurisprudence? We do not use the courts or the judicial system to determine facts about the universe. We use the scientific method. A ruling of a judge or justice would have no significance on the validity of someone's paper.

People who are convinced evidence about the existence of a deity cannot be found - are either atheists, or theists who completely reject the concept of objective reasoning (deferring instead to their subjective "feeling" about a deity). This is why I say agnosticism (in its proper sense), is a different category from theism or atheism. However an "Agnostic" in the (modern) colloquial sense (i.e. the non-religious "agnostic") is ironically more of an atheist than the "atheist" in the general sense, even though that is considered a softer term, since he is in fact an agnostic atheist and rejects even the theoretical possibility that empirical evidence might be found indicating the existence of a deity. An atheist can reject the concept of god on the basis of the lack of an objective argument, but need not exclude the possibility, however unlikely, that this might theoretically change. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Agnostic neutralism

I've started a discussion about its validity and usefulness here. GManNickG (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested revision to redirect page Agnostic

[edit]

In order to keep a neutral point of view, it may be useful to revise the root entry agnostic Vis: Main article: Agnosticism

Agnostic is a word coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869. from Gk. agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known.

Agnosticism presumes that the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known. It is usually relates to religious doubt, but is also used in engineering and medicine to indicate that a device is not dependent on any particular technology or condition. See, for example:

• Fixed-mobile convergence Timpo (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles are predominantly about concepts, rarely about words - which is the role of a dictionary. See WP:NOTDIC. "Agnostic" would either be a noun for a person or an adjective, and would not be about an -ISM. The usage of "agnostic" in technology is usually adjectival. While technological meaning of "agnostic" relates to agnosticism, in the field of technology, "agnostic" is used (perhaps exclusively) rather than "agnosticism". (The technological meaning is indeed already somewhat included by "the view that the truth value of certain claims... is unknown or unknowable" - though it would be "facts" about the operating system rather than "claims".) It would have been more appropriate to find consensus for changing the title to "agnostic" before making drastic changes to the lede AS IF the change in title had already been made. Also, I do not see how this could be a NPOV issue. --JimWae (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Atheistic Critique

This is not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In my oppinion - it is not justified to define "some" with only one atheistic critique (namely mr. Dawkins) who shows clear signs not to be able to define agnosticism to himself (hence the criticism). I propose to either rename "some" to "Richard Dawkins" or removing the sentence entirely since his "critique" is biased and unjustified. Reason - he is in fact a agnostic himself but can't admit it either to public or to himself what he stands for, and is locked in the mindset of "imago" rather than principles (i don't know, maybe being atheist sounds more popular than agnostic). Quoting quotes: "I know there is no God..." and then "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, ...". There, he is both atheist, agnostic, agnostic atheist or he doesn't know himself. Once he have decided or accepted his identity, his critique can be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.145.77 (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC) The attitude of science (and hence scientific skeptics like Dawkins) towards the concept of a sentient being creating matter/energy is very simple: "there is no evidence to support the hypothesis, hence it cannot be treated as a valid theory". Its a very basic attitude: no concept exists until proven otherwise ("proof positive"). Science therefore, can conclusively say that (a) "god" does not exist. This confuses some people. Some cannot understand that the only way to determine facts is very high standards of proof, this exactly is the incomparable genius in the concept of the scientific method which has taken us so long to develop and which has brought us so much, lifting us, in spite of our flawed nature, to heights unimaginable to our ancestors. Example: if you stood outside a locked room you never saw before, an average person would say "I do not know what is inside that room", a scientist on the other hand, would say "there is nothing inside that room until proven otherwise". A primitive and untrained human mind spontaneously starts speculating on the contents of that locked dark room (perhaps inventing legends, religions and myths) while a scientist, through considerable training of the mind - refrains from it. The fact is that the only method we have that comes anywhere near determining the real truth about he world we live in - is the scientific method. It also makes a lot more sense that real facts about our universe can only stem from painstaking, meticulously checked, labor of our best minds - rather than a mob of ridiculous robed old men memorizing words from books written when we were little more than animals eating grass, living in huts, and wasting the short decades of our lives in misery, disease, and filth. But I digress.. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC) In the end it is irrelevant how philosophy decides to call this view. Is it "atheism"? Indubitably, since the science does actively deny the existence of "god". Is it agnosticism? Doubtful, no scientist including Dawkins can ever claim something is "unknowable" - since it is in fact impossible to ever know whether something is "unknowable" or not. By definition, since it is an absolute statement that would require an infinite amount of time and effort to prove. Leading us to conclude that in general, people who say "this or that is unknowable" cannot possibly have any idea what they are talking about. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC) What are you talking about? Both an "average" person and scientist should say "I don't know what's in that room.", because that is in fact true; you would be incorrect in concluding nothing is in the room. Indeed, this is preposterous: walk to someones home and find a closed front door. Are you really suggesting we state "you have nothing in that house!"? I think you can see how ridiculous this is. And then you go on to pose a libel against those who speculate. How exactly would any science progress if not for speculation? Again, are we simply to shut our minds and dismiss the issue forever? Please make the distinction between ideas, beliefs, and knowledge, because apparently you aren't. No, the reasonable stance is "I don't know what's in that room, and I don't have any reason to believe any thing is contained in that room." And even this is impractical. If you walk up to a house with a closed door, you have plenty reason to *believe* it contains a kitchen, a bathroom, etc. That's extraordinarily far from "this house is empty!". Again, make the distinction: I can believe something without claiming to know it. I can even say "what if there's a unicorn in there?" without believing it is so. "The fact is that the only method we have that comes anywhere near determining the real truth about he world we live in - is the scientific method." Paradoxically, I ask: how do you know this? If that were the only method, you do not. (Unless you want to argue in favor of circular reasoning; do you?) Do not make such self-defeating claims. " since it is in fact impossible to ever know whether something is "unknowable" or not." Surely you might have come across Gödel's incompleteness theorems? Do you have the audacity to claim the field of mathematical logic is completely undermined? "people who say "this or that is unknowable" cannot possibly have any idea what they are talking about." I'm afraid the person who doesn't know is you. What is your background in epistemology? On what grounds do you state these ideas? GManNickG (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Please calm down. We have a misunderstanding on our hands. Quickly looking through your userpage I cannot help but notice we agree on a large number of major issues (I especially love the quotes). Frankly I'm surprised we're in conflict at all. :) A scientist does indeed not wildly "speculate", he hypothesizes. There is a difference, as I'm sure you know. A hypothesis would be based on available evidence (e.g. "the room might have a wardrobe inside, as opposed to an elephant because the door is too small"). My meaning was that a scientist would not take as fact that anything existed in the room without proof positive. A scientist is, of course, free to hypothesize, and that is indeed as you say the very basis of scientific advancement, but science does not accept the existence of anything without empirical, falsifiable, positive evidence to that effect (i.e. neither science nor logic itself accept an argumentum ad ignorantiam). "The fact is that the only method we have that comes anywhere near determining the real truth about he world we live in - is the scientific method." How do I know this? Ha, only a philosopher would ask such questions. The scientific method does not exist separately from the world we live in. It is a method to determine facts/truth, and its quality is determined by how well the facts we derive correspond with the natural world. In other words, the natural world itself is the measure by which the method's quality is determined. Or in simpler terms: if it did not work, then the jet airplane you flew in would not have flown. The car you drive would not start, your house and world would be a dark cold place, you would die of disease by the age of 50, after a lifetime of working the fields with your hands. "...it is in fact impossible to ever know whether something is 'unknowable' or not." Perhaps I should've elaborated on that, my apologies, it was getting rather late. Science progresses through time. Science is not immutable, but continuous and fluid. Science never deals in absolutes. In order to be able to determine whether something is "unknowable" (an absolute statement), one would require evidence that would be impossible to attain. Hence considering anything to be "unknowable" is an uneducated statement. Hypothetical example. How could you (or Gödel) possibly know what knowledge would be attainable 10,000 years from now? How about a 1,000,000? A hundred million? One can only say "This/That is 'unknowable' for the foreseeable future." And even there he/she is making a rather wild claim. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry for starting this but the discussion is going rather off topic. I'm quite happy with the rest of the article, only thing bothering me was the "atheistic critique". And what goes about science, then of course empirical evidence is the only real thing we can rely on. It's true that many "scientists" have hard time admiting that there are things that we/they don't know about (yet) fearing that it makes them and science seem weak, but it does not mean that atheism is science. I don't mind hypotheses nor theories but before any proof/conclusions it remains unproven/unknown. Of course many theistic gods have been proven nonexistent (or existing only as mental concepts) and with time we can discard more god hypotheses. It doesn't mean, however, that any believer is forced to renounce their faith/religion. The situation with deistic god is bit different though. But once the meaningful (something that interacts with physical world) definition of (deistic) god have been manifested, it would make the discussion possible, till then it remains unknowable (i would add that rather pointless too). I myself don't believe in anything "unknowable" - if something exists (or if it doesn't), it is possible to prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longisle (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Atheism is not science, but science is atheism. Or to put it more accurately and "colorfully", science simply requires evidence and does not really care how philosophers define the view that is based on it. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Now this is where you are wrong, my friend. Science does care how things are defined and does it itself. The word that requires evidence is "agnosticism" and NOT "atheism". Atheism is a view (a faith of no evidence) but agnosticism is not. Another expression for it is being objective and it is very important view indeed. No atheist will ever discover anything, only people with curiosity and hunger for knowledge (people who want to know the answers and not making them up), despite of all the naysayers. Science is driven by evidence and not by the lack of it.--Longisle (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Atheism is not necessarily a view, and I certainly don't know of any who claim to have a "faith in no evidence". Please read on atheism and find out what it is. In its broadest sense, it's just a lack of a view, nothing more. A baby is an implicit negative atheist, for example, while some are explicit positive atheists. A blanket statement about why people may or may not be atheists will not go unchallenged, especially one as senseless as claiming it requires "faith". It's a tired, old, broken argument that tries to move the burden of proof onto the atheist so that the theist can critique his position in equal light. However, the atheistic position requires no proof, so there is nothing to have faith in. This is all horribly off-topic though, but just so you know: your views on atheism are wrong. GManNickG (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC) For an atheist to be able to say that "no gods exist", some degree of faith must be exercised in this type of assumption. There is no totally incontrovertible evidence to suggest the absence of any deity. You must be confident that the assertion "no gods exist" is a true statement, without any evidence to support the notion. Everyone is definitely born Agnostic, and Ignostic on top of that. Not only do people not have any knowledge of these claimed truths to begin with, but the "god concept" has no meaning to them until it's been properly defined. Atheism is the belief that no gods exist, or the disbelief in the existence of any god. This modern interpretation "lack of belief" blurs the line between Atheism and Agnosticism a little too much. This is where we get all of these sub-categories such as "weak atheist", "agnostic atheist", etc. It gets to the point where the lack of knowledge is being equated as the lack of belief, which isn't necessarily true either. Somebody can feasibly "hold" many beliefs as "possible", without truly denying the truth behind the claims. A typical Agnostic generally holds every belief as "possible", or contingent following modal logic. The Agnostic would not say that any claim is either true or false, while an Atheist would basically see most claims of deity as being "false". UnReAL13D (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, atheism is a view (actually belief). I do know what atheism is. I have read about it, spoken with atheists and talked about it for years. The lack of view again, i must repeat myself, is agnosticism. A baby is not an atheist, since he/she have never heard of god nor anything else, therefore he/she is an agnostic. The child remains agnostic for quite some time untill he/she still have curiosity to find out everything he/she doesn't know about. The curiosity starts to fade once he/she either have found the truth or starts to make up the answers (or even starts believing something someone else have made up). Claiming that atheism requires faith is not actually theistic argument, it was in fact an agnostic argument that theists have hijacked. The utmost error that people can do, is placing agnosticism in between atheism and theism, when in fact agnosticism is on one end and theism and atheism are on the other. Why, because agnosticism doesn't care about beliefs (or faith) and cares only about the truth/knowledge - that requires proof. You say it is an old and broken argument and then state "the atheistic position requires no proof" - that's called faith, my friend, the very same thing that many fundamental theists say. And my views on atheism, theism, agnosticism and many other things are correct. I propably know about the issue more than you and your family combined.--Longisle (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Atheism can be a view, it isn't necessarily one. And no, agnosticism is about belief versus knowledge. I mean we're on the page, just read it. A baby is an implicit negative agnostic atheist. Agnostic because the child cannot possibly hold the belief it's knowable or unknowable, and an atheist because it cannot hold a belief in god (cannot be a theist). I'm sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time talking to someone who cannot even read the information their typing next to. Look up the Dunning-Kruger effect, you're under it. Refusal to accept the definitions and ideas of almost every educated philosopher and intellectual is extremely arrogant, and you'd be better of listening to their results; exactly the same idea that unless you were an evolutionary biologist you shouldn't be trying to push your own ideas in evolutionary biology. GManNickG (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC) "agnosticism is about belief versus knowledge" - exactly, so what are you arguing about ? Maybe if you would actually read yourself you wouldn't be arguing with yourself.--Longisle (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC) I don't feel my points were addressed as directly as I'd liked, so I'll try to make more clear what I'm after. Also, I apologize in advance to others at the amount of off-topic discussion going on, but I feel it's important to reply. "A hypothesis would be based on available evidence" Strictly speaking, this would be a conjecture. A hypothesis, while indeed maintaining criteria, does not need any evidence. (After all, it's purpose is to provide a starting point to look for evidence that confirms or falsifies it.) I think what you're confusing is that one might rank hypothesis a priori with the reasoning you say. "He probably doesn't have an elephant in that room, but I shall not believe it to be so or not so." We agree here. However the point I was after was your claim that "an average person would say 'I do not know what is inside that room', a scientist on the other hand, would say 'there is nothing inside that room until proven otherwise'". How do you reconcile this point with the example I gave, of the house? Do you believe a scientist should and does believe the room is empty, or did you speak in error? "How do I know this? Ha, only a philosopher would ask such questions." Is this meant as a retort? Sorry, it's hard to portray online. You do have philosophy to thank for progress in scientific ideologies, and would probably do well to take the time to understand the history. You fail to answer the question, instead dodging it by restating your views on the scientific method and what it accomplishes. But I ask my point again: how do you know the scientific method is the only way to determine truth? Stating "the jet airplane you flew in would not have flown" is actually false. Regardless of scientific knowledge and method, if I somehow ended up in a plane it would fly fine; my car would start, as well. What you mean to say is we wouldn't know how to achieve these things. Here, again, we agree. But note stating that we have things doesn't answer my question: How do you know? My reason for asking this is simple: it's wrong. If it is indeed the case the only way to determine if a claim X is true is via the scientific method, then let X be "the scientific method is the only way of determining truth." You either shrug and say "I don't know that, I guess I was wrong." or you argue in favor of circular reasoning. I ask you address this, please. "Science never deals in absolutes" Is this an absolute? Given that science is the only way to know truth (according to your belief), and you claim the previous to be true, you contradict yourself. In any case, before I continue I want you to notice a trend in your responses: they start more often than not as red herrings. You start your reply by stating "Science progresses through time. Science is not immutable, but continuous and fluid." I ask: who said otherwise? I think you're simply trying to bolster up the oncoming argument with less disputable facts, in hopes that people will attribute the truth of these to the weight of your argument. Ironically, if you trim all the extraneous information you can strengthen your argument by removing the need for the listener to wade through the irrelevant material. Simply trimming these sentences does not affect the rest of your argument; you should do so. "In order to be able to determine whether something is "unknowable" (an absolute statement), one would require evidence that would be impossible to attain." Please substantiate this claim. I also ask: Is it then not impossible to know something? What of mathematics? Please address the points I've brought up. Thanks. GManNickG (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC) I try to depict the views with the room behind door example: There is a door and something behind it. An theist comes along and say; "There is an elephant in the room". An atheist hears this and say: "No, there is no elephant". Then another theist comes and say: "You are right, there is no elephant, in fact, there is a very poor man in there, so please give me your money". Another theist comes and say: "No the man is suffering and want us to suffer aswell". A deist comes and say: "There is man in the room behind the door, but he want's nothing to do with us". Then atheist makes himself clear: "No, there is absolutely nothing in the room". Then ignostic comes and say: "There is no point arguing if you don't define elephant, man, money, suffering and room in a meaningful way in the first place". Then agnostic comes and say: "I honestly don't know what's behind the door". And finally a scientist comes and say: "I don't know either, but i want to find out" and opens the door. Now whatever is behind the door, only one who will find out, is the scientist, who in fact have agnostic views. I made the story so simple that even children would understand, i hope it helps.--Longisle (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC) "I made the story so simple that even children would understand" Wow, that was arrogant. Even more so since you're wrong. You were fine until you said "No, there is no elephant" as the only option for an atheist. While this would indeed be a positive atheist, you forget negative atheist which would be "I don't believe there is an elephant". An theist is one who believes in a god, an atheist is one who does not. That's it. An atheist may go further and say "Not only do I lack the belief, but I believe the contrary", but not necessarily. And yes, an agnostic says "I don't know" but it sounds like you're incorrectly trying to wedge that between atheism and theism, which is wrong. Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge versus belief, not on what those beliefs are. A theist may believe there's an elephant, but not claim to know: that's an agnostic theist. I think you need to take the time to actually read about these terms before you try to make things "simple" for others to understand. Every person in your story could be an agnostic, not just one. It's not possible to simply be "an agnostic", you are either a theist or an atheist, pick one. You either believe or you don't. GManNickG (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC) "it sounds like you're incorrectly trying to wedge that between atheism and theism, which is wrong" - i cite myself sine you don't even bother to read it: "The utmost error that people can do, is placing agnosticism in between atheism and theism, when in fact agnosticism is on one end and theism and atheism are on the other". The argument is faith against knowledge - my original point actually when starting this discussion - how can man of faith criticise knowledge ? My suggestion was to find some actual scientists to do the criticism or to erase that nonsense. I don't mind theistic "critique" since they already look stupid and anyone with any rational thinking will automatically discard it. But atheism is cool rebel movement and i try to help them not to look too stupid. "pick one. You either believe or you don't" - i pick knowledge over faith, i am convinced empirical agnostic !--Longisle (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Atheism is about belief, but it need not be a belief. Atheism is reliably defined as the rejection of belief that any deities exist. It is quite consistent to be both an atheist and an agnostic. Agnosticism is the claim that we do not (or, according to some, cannot) know whether any deities exist. Some agnostics, such as Huxley, make the (quaint) jump from lack of knowledge to the claim that unless one can know, one is not justified in believing.--JimWae (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC) ""pick one. You either believe or you don't" - i pick knowledge over faith, i am convinced empirical agnostic" This is exactly the stubbornness that makes your reasoning fail you. Answer this extremely simple question: do you believe in any gods? It's really a simple question, yes or no. You don't need to make any proclamations or anything, just a yes or no. GManNickG (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC) There is absolutely no point to cite anything to me if i have already read it. Actually not only read, but analysed and discussed it with others. And by the way - defining it "weak" or empirical is the same. Empirical would be more correct, but since you are the one who "defines" things around here, i see not much point trying to educate you. You can read books but you can't understand them, other ways you woulnd't ask such "simple" questions and wouldn't mix up knowledge with faith. You made me wonder now to find out if any of my old students have turned up to be such book readers, even though they were tought to think critically. I was hoping to get to some reasonable outcome, but mind aswell delete it, it doesn't lead to anywhere. I should speak to Richard directly because he is the only one who can persuade you, or so it seems.--Longisle (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Look at that, an entire paragraph for a yes or no question, and it wasn't even answered. Good work. Please refrain from editing articles until you're capable of answering a yes or no question with the word 'yes' or 'no', thanks. GManNickG (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Gods are defined by man. You can tell by how ideas of gods have developed over the many centuries. Acknowledging the possibility of a god is different than not believing in the god, since "believing in a god" is often defined as abiding by the rules of such deity. If atheism is not believing in god, then by the definition of not abiding the rules of an alleged god, agnosticism is a part of athiesm. But athiesm differs because it completely denounces (or absolutely does not believe) in any possibility of a deity's existence. This has become a sort of debate in this discussion, eh? --132.241.189.251 (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Closing forum discussion. GManNickG (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Agnostic neutralism again

This is not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Although recently deleted the article is back in new form, and again I still feel it does not belong, either as an article on Wikipedia or as a recognizable term. There is currently a small discussion on its validity, please drop by. Thanks. GManNickG (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC) The page has been deleted, but me and Eudamoire feel that a section addressing the "neutrality" of the so-called "Vanilla Agnosticism" should be included on the main Agnosticism page. Sources seem to indicate that many scholars feel that Agnosticism is an essentially "neutral" position to the scope of belief. Right now the page is unevenly skewed towards history and criticism. I think it's worth a mention. UnReAL13D (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC) The header article seems weaker now that the neutrality article was deleted. I believe it added a crucial alternative to the Agnostic (a)theism types already listed. The faithless perspective is now unexplained in my opinion. I would agree with UnReAL13D in saying that overall the scope of agnosticism is seen as a truly and uniquely neutral perspective by describing the "lack of knowledge" aspect. This term should be at least added to the "Types of agnosticism" subheading in the article to encompass this perspective. I'd also like to add that this needs to be defined beause Agnosticism describes a lack of knowledge but not a lack of faith. Since there are descriptors for the "faithfull" there should also be a descriptor for the "faithless". In fact the Agnostic (a)theism types described could be condensed to one type to help the articles flow. * Agnostic (a)theism The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but have faith in the existence or non existence of that deity. * Faithless Agnostic The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity and do not have faith in the existence or non existence of that deity. Verratic (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC) That doesn't make any sense. Have you read the Atheism article yet? "The faithless perspective is now unexplained " A lack of a belief in God makes you an atheist. It's already completely explained. "there should also be a descriptor for the "faithless"" Yes, that's called atheism. Belief and faith are not the same thing, which you apparently think they are, given your definitions. Given "a theist is a person who believes there is a god", you cannot substitute this with "a theist is a person who has faith there is a god". (Some would claim they don't require faith, but have evidence, for example.) Note having faith entails a belief, but having a belief doesn't entail it's based on faith. I believe my chair supports my weight, but that's not the same as me having faith that it holds my weight; I don't need faith, I have evidence. So your definition "The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but have faith in the existence or non existence of that deity." is already wrong. (Even more so, atheism doesn't require faith or evidence, it's just the absence of a belief.) I'm pretty tired of this discussion, which arises because of this strange unwillingness to accept or understand that theism and atheism are the only two positions one can take on belief, by the mere definition of atheism ("not theism") and the law of the excluded middle. You either believe in a god and are a theist (you reply "yes" to the question "do you believe in a god?"), or you don't believe in a god and are an atheist (you do not reply "yes" to the question "do you believe in a god?"), and by the law of excluded middle there are no more options. Note someone who "doesn't know either way" hasn't said "yes" and is therefore not a theist. (Ergo, they're an atheist.) I'm finished with this discussion, it's repetitive, dull, and a non-issue to anyone willing to do the research. GManNickG (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC) What's this "law of the excluded middle" business? Why is it mandatory for any middle or neutral position to be excluded from this scenario? The basic Agnostic DOES NOT KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE IN. They wouldn't hold either Atheism or Theism as correct. I simply have to disagree as the variety of sources I've provided show a general perspective of "neutrality" on "vanilla agnosticism". UnReAL13D (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC) I said I was done. But what you've written is very lazy; you're on Wikipeda, don't ask me what it is, look it up yourself. It's only the foundation of classical logic, who knows why it's there? Must be my evil plan, right? I'm done. Go away. GManNickG (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC) GManNickG, you're very arrogant for someone who's so conceited in their own opinion. You're proposing a form of classical logic, that's fine. Here's what I'm proposing, a form of Modal Logic. In classical modal logic, a proposition is said to be possible if and only if it is not necessarily false (regardless of whether it is actually true or actually false); necessary if and only if it is not possibly false; and contingent if and only if it is not necessarily false and not necessarily true (i.e. possible but not necessarily true). This is taken from the wiki article for Modal logic. The claim "god exists" is neither necessarily false NOR necessarily true. It's a contingent matter. The typical "vanilla agnostic" would hold most claims such as this as contingent. This is the middle ground, the "neutrality" which you are CLAIMING does not exist. Following Modal Logic we can rationally categorize any statement as "possible", "necessary" or "contingent". If you don't admit that the claim "god exists" is either contingent or possible, you are most likely either Theist or Atheist. The true Agnostic would always say that the statement is contingent. It would seem that your opinion is simply that, an opinion. A different viewpoint on the matter. UnReAL13D (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC) "which you are CLAIMING does not exist" This is false, I don't claim this, and you've never quite been able to see that. "It would seem that your opinion is simply that, an opinion. A different viewpoint on the matter." Guess who's saying it? Of course it's my opinion. As is everything you say yours. This isn't a secret or a difficult revelation. Please, I'd like to be done with this, just leave me alone. And stop with the personal attacks for once, please. If you did I might care about what you say, but approaching me after poisoning the well isn't going to make me want to be a part of this. So just please let it die, thanks. And I'm going to delete this section at some point, per WP:FORUM and/or WP:FRINGE. Both you and I were ignoring these policies, but not me now. GManNickG (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Okay, but it's quite obvious that you were displaying a much ruder tone in your response before I simply observed and stated your "arrogance" on the matter. You're the one who's being unwilling to accept anyone else's position. "Go away"? And calling me lazy? A lot of that is just unnecessary. UnReAL13D (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC) "Obvious" is not a form of reasoning (I could just as well say I'm "obviously" not X, where X is any claim you find obvious). There is no objective measure of arrogance, so you cannot claim you were simply pointing out my "observed" arrogance. You may subjectively find me arrogant, that's fine, but I ask you refrain from expressing that sentiment and keep it to yourself. (Even if it were objective, we should still strive to avoid attacks on each other; keep them on the argument.) I'm fine accepting other peoples positions; could I not make the same "objection" to you, as you haven't accepted mine? What's the point of that statement? Yes, it's unnecessary. I freely admit it was a mistake, and will attempt to make it less blunt by saying I had, at the time, been on an extremely long discussion about the very topic elsewhere and was tired of it. Better would have been to leave the conversation, which I didn't do, but am trying to do now. (That is, I still would rather leave it alone.) Cheers. GManNickG (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Let's just put the ad hominems aside and stick to the core discussion. Following Modal Logic, the claim "god exists" is a contingent statement. Thus rendering a neutral position towards the claim. Would you care to object? By the way, the only reason I haven't accepted your opinion is because I see no grounds for it to stand on. The so-called "Law of the Excluded Middle" is not a "law" that has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. It's merely a different route of logic to follow. This course of logic leads to a False dilemma. In other words, it's "black and white thinking" that only allows for 2 potential options. This is a logical fallacy. UnReAL13D (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Remember, we aren't suppose to discuss this here per WP:FORUM. And yes I admit: my objections to the article were violating both WP:FORUM and WP:OR. That is, both of us are trying to justify our claims from personal lines of thought, rather than from sources. I would instead reply to the sources originally given (that I "rejected" with original research) with the policy WP:FRINGE or even WP:NEO. So with that said, I won't reply to your response here. This is not because I don't want to or cannot (in actuality, now that the personal attacks are off the table I'd love to discuss this anew), but because we're polluting the talk page. However, that's only why I won't continue here; I see no reason we cannot talk about it on a subpage somewhere. As such, you can follow me to this subpage if you'd like: User:GManNickG/Neutralism; I'd be happy to carry it on there. After a reply from you (either here, if you don't want to continue the discussion, or there, if you do), I'll be removing this talk page section (with Template:Hat), per WP:FORUM. Hope to see you on the other page. GManNickG (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC) -> GManNickG, are you so immature you can't have a civil discussion about something? You're completely unwilling to understand or accept a simple concept such as neutrality. You don't have to believe or not believe. There is an "i don't know" answer. 21 years old and already pig headed. Oh and according to wikipedia itself faith IS belief. "Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing. "--Verratic (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC) You have no idea who I am, on what basis do you judge my character? By a few sentences you read on some website? Quite solid ground you're standing on. I'm absolutely willing, and I don't know if you were around, but I put a substantial amount of effort into not only explaining my side, but also trying to understand the other side and finding where we disagreed. I understand quite well that "neither" is an option, you'd know that if you read any of the past material I wrote on the subject. (And if you haven't, you've done a fantastic job of demonstrating how to make baseless assumptions, bravo!) I don't appreciate the personal attacks, if you could be so kind as to retort my arguments instead, that would not only be more mature but more productive. And yes, faith entails belief, that doesn't mean faith is belief. (A building (belief) being supported by a foundation (faith) doesn't mean a building is a foundation. And in epistemology, "faith" is typically "belief without reason", not the more canonical definition you've looked into.) I'm happy to explain my side if you're willing to listen and not be rude; I'd even prefer we do so outside of Wikipedia so we can take our time and not hinder editors trying to talk about page maintenance. Otherwise don't waste my time, thanks. GManNickG (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC). I'm not attacking you in anyway, in fact you attacked our assertions and statements first i was merely doing the same with your thought process. You have chosen to neither show us courtesy nor consideration, so i have returned the favor. You refuse to make an argument other than simply claiming our statements are incorrect and providing no information. Then when you can no longer provide a counter argument, you say you want nothing more to do with the argument. That's being immature. Faith is belief by any definition and your meandering around the direct definition of the word doesn't make your point more valid than mine. You're trying to simply dismiss my argument by picking apart the language chosen. It is a poor attempt at disproving the point. I have not been an active member of Wikipedia for very long and can already tell that people who bully others on the site often get their way. This won't work on me. Oh and all of your "thought" put into this matter is conveniently missing. If a person chooses to not have a belief or disbelief, that IS possible. Example: 1.)I believe in purple. 2.)I do not believe in purple. 3.)I do not have a belief in purple or disbelief in purple because i choose not to make an assertion without facts. If a person chooses to neither believe nor disbelieve in a deity, that IS an option. Agnosticism itself deals with knowledge and not belief. Agnostic atheism provides there is no knowledge of deities and yet a distinct disbelief in one. Agnostic theism provides there is no knowledge of deities and yet a distinct belief in one. What about those who do not have a belief or disbelief on the subject matter? This is an obvious problem with the article. These definitions should either be placed within their respected pages or there must be a new term created to define the missing variable. Agnostic atheism and Agnostic theism should be moved to the atheism and theism pages as types of theism and atheism and not defined within the spectra of agnosticism. Therefore we must have a separate page dealing with this undefined term. However if we are to assert that these definitions are subsections of agnosticism itself than the absence of belief & disbelief description must also be included on the page with the other two. --Verratic (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC) It's not worth my time to reply to you in detail. This has nothing to do with me not being able to support my arguments, and has nothing to do with the rest of your comment which I haven't and won't read (which I'm sure is a wonderful comment that would have been great to talk about), but if you can't accept that calling me "pig headed" is a personal attack, I'm done. You can always go back and remove the personal attacks, and I'll be happy to return the effort. GManNickG (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Shouldn't there be two separate sections for agnostic strong atheism, and agnostic weak atheism(also what is generally referred to as agnosticism, and agnostic neutralism). Strong and Weak Atheism already are separate terms, so shouldn't there be referred to separately. Furthermore one could argue that weak atheism can not be gnostic, and is by definition agnostic. Overall it seems that agnostic strong atheism refers to a belief that there is no God(s), and agnostic weak atheism refers to a lack of knowledge or belief in the existence of God(s). Believing something is false, and having no belief seems to be different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.217.200 (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Closing forum discussion. GManNickG (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hume and Kant Citation

The second line in Hume and Kant

"Following the skeptical empiricism of David Hume and the antinomies of Immanuel Kant, most later philosophers abandoned these attempts, regarding it impossible to construct any such unassailable proof."

requires a citation or a removal. It does not appear unbiased - in fact it appear biased towards agnosticism! 130.216.172.67 (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Agnostic Humor

Given that the agnostic stance is one of not being sure:

Question: Do you know who the world's most famous Agnostic was?

Answer: We're not sure either.

Original agnostic humor by Howard W. Johnson, Bridgeport, CA 1959-present —Preceding unsigned comment added by 29Flavors (talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Issue with page

There is an issue with this article, it leads with this:

"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 knowledge whether God exists or does not."

It's not logically coherent to neither believe nor disbelieve in something, agnostic is not a 3rd neutral position when it comes to belief, it doesn't address belief in any way. (a)theism and (a)gnosticism aren't mutually exclusive as the page later goes on to explain, both atheists and theists can be agnostic about gods existence.

This needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessfrosty (talk • contribs) 18:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The assertion "It's not logically coherent to neither believe nor disbelieve in something?" is simply incorrect. In fact, this is precisely the position that philosophical skeptics have used/do use to argue that there can be no empirical knowledge at all, or, to differing degrees in doubting the status of any particular subject or bit of claimed knowledge. [see e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism or Nozick: http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/nozickphilreading.pdf]

• I think this may just be a conflation of logical contradiction e.g., using ¬ for logical negation and ∧ for conjuction, [z ∧ ¬z] (which is indeed incoherent), with statements about human beliefs (especially in the sense of believing that 'x Exists' [Ǝ(x)], using the existential quantifier from predicate logic), e.g., [where B(Ǝ(A)) = 'Austin Forces Believes A Exists', ¬B(Ǝ(z)) ∧ ¬B(¬Ǝ(z)))] (which is not incoherent, since the two propositions are not logically inconsistent). Although one might be tempted to draw out the inner '¬' in the second half of the statement to come up with [¬¬B(Ǝ(z)) ≡ B(Ǝ(z))], this is not possible, as '¬' does not distribute through the 'Belief' predicate in that manner.
• [edit: it occurs to me that on the surface this also might look like a violation of the law of the excluded middle, but since the predicate variables are not the same (z vs. ¬z), there is no violation of the law.]
• As a fairly standard class of example to demonstrate this: [let SF = a fish with fifteen eyes, two of which are on long stalks ('Simpson's Fish')]. I have neither seen SF, nor seen credible evidence of SF's existence. However, I know that lots of strange fish have been found deep within the sea, and I am, therefore, not certain that SF does not exist. In this example, I believe it is clear that it's not unreasonable (or at least not incoherent) for me to hold no belief whatsoever as to the truth value of Ǝ(SF). In other words: I do not believe that [Ǝ(SF)], and I do not believe that [¬Ǝ(SF)]. So: I do not believe that Simpson's Fish exists, and I also do not believe that Simpson's Fish does not exist.
• I think a fair informal reading statements of this form is simply "I do not know whether X exists," although it is not necessary to accept that reading to understand the rest of the argument. Under this reading, the statement as regards agnosticism becomes clear. When one says something like "An agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves that God exists" (slightly modified to make the quantified nature of the statement explicit), it is at least informally equivalent to the idiomatic, but likely more common, phrasing: "An agnostic does not know whether God exists."
• Of course, a statement of the form [¬B(Ǝ(z)) ∧ B(Ǝ(z))] does seem on the surface to be problematic, however, this is not the form of the statement being questioned here, so I shall not address it further.

Shelleybutterfly (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Two-valued logic is preferable wherever it gives useful results, because it is the simplest approach, but it deals poorly with situations that are unknown, partially known, ambiguous, or paradoxical. Such situations require more general techniques, as described in probability interpretations, fuzzy logic, probabilistic logic, and elsewhere. Such techniques can give rigorous mathematical representation to statements ranging from "I neither believe nor disbelieve in a supreme being" through "Six tiny planets orbit Arcturus" to "This statement is false". Such statements are incoherent only when an inappropriate formalism is applied. The trick is to get the right tool for the job. Ornithikos (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We definitely agree about using the right tool for the job, but multivariate logics have their own serious issues and I don't really see them doing much other than making this issue more complex. Tri-value logic seems to me, at best, overkill in this case. Your restatement of the contested proposition "I neither believe nor disbelieve in a supreme being," is covered by the foregoing discussion using binary predicate logic (and is not incoherent). As for 'Six tiny planets ...' and 'This statement is false' (or even [¬B(Ǝ(z)) ∧ B(Ǝ(z))] from above), ah, each could lead to interesting discussions, but don't really seem applicable to this issue, so I will leave it at that. Shelleybutterfly (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no disagreement. I think the agnostic position is reasonable, and thought to toss in what little bit I could. Ornithikos (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agnosticism is an epistemological stance, not an ontological. Agnosticism does not reside in the same realm as theism and its a-counterpart.

The claim that there can be a third position between belief and disbelief, is without relevance as that is not the position in dispute.

Theism - the belief in a supernatural entity, is the -ism. Atheism is, in its general form, simply it's opposite - it is those that are not theists… and the only common characteristic of atheists, is a lack of belief in gods, not a disbelief in gods… within the group of atheists, you will find those that disbelieve the existence of gods, as well as those that simply does not have a belief in gods - a reference to atheism in general, must refer to the common denominator for all forms of atheism - the only one being, a absence of a belief in deities.

There cannot be a third position between having a belief in gods, and not having a belief in gods. There cannot be a third position between belief and lack of belief, any more than there can be a third position between red, and anything that isn't red.

An entry on Agnosticism - the claim that the existence of gods are unknown or unknowable - should not be messed up by talk about theism and atheism, should not be colored by religious people or atheists… The whole idea, of different types of agnosticism is flawed… there are only two types of agnostics, those that say that the existence of deities is unknown, and those that claim such an existence to be unknowable… any other subdivision is arbitrary. You can have agnostic atheist, as well as agnostic theists, as well as agnostic hot-dog vendors and agnostic politicians… it has no relevance to the aspect of their agnosticism.Sorenolin (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Introductory Statement Regarding 'Popular' Understanding of Atheism is Misleading

From the current introduction:

In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God, whereas an atheist disbelieves there is a God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify knowledge whether God exists or does not.

Because of the qualifier 'in the popular sense', the first part of the quoted section may be technically correct, but it is misleading. I am aware that shortly thereafter is a mention of agnostic atheism, and I am aware there is contention in the talk page as to a definition of 'atheism' in the sense of 'not holding a belief in deities' as opposed to active 'disbelief in God.' However, I have had discussions with those who consider themselves atheists in the weak sense, (also: some who consider themselves weak atheists but NOT agnostic) and I do not think it gives due charity (nor does it accord with the current consensus philosophical definitions) to those considering themselves weak atheists to simply define them out of existence. (see, e.g., introductory remarks in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) To rectify the situation, I believe the statement needs to be re-worked such that it does not exclude this particular type of atheist altogether. I intend to give a day or several for comment since I realize this is a contentious issue, pending my having time to do a proper edit and to hopefully be able to come to some sort of internal consensus prior to editing. There are several actions that I am considering taking:

• I may tag for sourcing of the statement regarding the 'popular' view, since it is not currently sourced and since it does not seem to match the other sourced statements regarding weak atheism on the atheism page, but:
• As indicated, I do realize that there *is* likely a 'popular' view that shades the meaning of the statements following, however, I also am considering whether having this kind of statement in the introduction is giving undue influence to a weasel-worded ('popular' for whom?) and vague idea which, once sourced, could perhaps be covered in specific terms, and perhaps elsewhere in the article (or perhaps in the introduction if there seems to be specific reason to do so.)

• Therefore, I may simply remove the 'popular' qualifier/statments altogether, and instead just attempt to cover the differences as given by sourced consensus definitions of the different terms, especially as regards atheism

• As evidenced by the previous argumentation on this talk page, there seems to be a lot of personal disagreement as to what different terms may mean. However, I do believe that there *are* consensus definitions of the different terms, and that where they can be found, they should be used, and that the personal definitions/beliefs of individuals that disagree (without appropriate credible sources backing up both the positions and the importance of such) certainly should not be a factor in determining the material in the article.

• As previously stated, I believe that including minority disagreements about the terms and how they are used in the introduction gives undue influence to what seem to be non-consensus definitions of terms (especially regarding atheism). However, given reliable sources I do think some sort of discussion of the matter belongs in the body of the article.
• The current "criticism" sections do seem to address this somewhat, but with the "Athiest criticsm" sub-section solely being addressed with Richard Dawkins' POV [which as an aside, likely ought to be expanded with other credible Atheist sources, or the heading re-titled to reflect that it is solely the views of Dawkins], and the "Religious Criticism" section not clearly demarcating issues with definitions as opposed to other criticisms.
• Therefore, I think perhaps a re-work of the Criticism section that incorporates perhaps 'criticism of agnosticism as a religious philosophy' perhaps vs. 'criticism of the concept of agnosticism itself' and perhaps vs. 'criticism of the definition of atheism and agnosticism' (or something along these lines) is warranted, and therefore I will give serious consideration to whether something like this would improve the section, how it could be organized, and also how to address the alternative viewpoints on the various matters (e.g. esp. definitions.)

• Consider these potential actions as my attempt to 'be bold' until such time as I have further input. If there is no objection to the proposed changes I will likely just 'be bold,' decide what I think makes the most sense, and make the changes. [Although, if requested, I am quite happy, once I have had time to work on it some, to give specifics prior to making changes.] Should there be objections, I am more than happy to have adequate discussion to find some internal consensus as to what the changes should be and how they should be implemented.

Shelleybutterfly (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Popular vs. Academic views

Anyone interested in the scant literature on the popular understandings of the terms "agnosticism" and "atheism" should read, Bullivant, Stephen. 2008. "Research Note: Sociology and the Study of Atheism". Journal of Contemporary Religion 23(3):363–368. The sample used isn't exactly representative of the entire English speaking world, but it offers some interesting ideas. The sample tended to believe that atheists are some variety of strong atheists only ("A person who believes that there is no God or gods" - 51.2%, "A person who is convinced that there is no God or gods" - 28.1%), and that agnostics are either taking the philosophical position about not being able to know ("A person who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God - 36.5%), or are fence sitting ("A person who can’t make up his or her mind whether there is a God or not" - 29.4%). Weak atheism doesn't seem to have much room in the popular imagination, though 13.6% did say that an atheist is, "[a] person who lacks a belief in God or gods," and 6.3% said that an agnostic is "[a] person who doesn’t believe in God, but isn’t as convinced as an atheist would be." An citing this study brings me to yet another point ...

There are popular views and then there are different kinds of academic views. Social scientists usually do not recognize "weak atheism" and usually distinguish between agnosticism and atheism based on the basic split between strong atheism and agnosticism as the inability to know. For instance take the belief question in the General Social Survey - "don't believe" (atheist) "no way to find out" (agnostic). However there are some caveats here. Some social scientists are more open to varieties of agnosticism. Take the belief question from the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey - "There is no such thing," (atheist) "There is no way to know," (agnostic) and "I'm not sure" (agnostic). You'll see that Kosmin and Keysar (the study creators) specifically claim that the last two are "hard" and "soft" forms of agnosticism. In a way this mirrors what Bullivant found in the beliefs about the term agnosticism of his British sample. What this also shows is the difference between an active stance about knowledge being impossible and the simple lack of knowledge due to uncertainty. Anyway, I think it is important not to lose sight of the fact that philosophers are not the only scholars treating agnosticism, far from it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Charles Darwin was an Agnostic

See the page on Charles Darwin, perhaps a mention of him is a good addition. Mash ^Talk 17:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Informational considerations

I have added a text under "Types of Agnosticism". It is a small consideration on the categorization of an agnostic point of view under the context of information theory.

In this context, the most qualified agnostic point of view is the one that puts the question under the maximum entropy case, considering a probability of 50% for each proposition to be true.

JulioMarco