Talk:Agnosticism

• Archive 1 - up to January 21 2004
• Archive 2 - up to May 3 2004
• Archive 3 - sections started 2004-05/2005-02-12.
• Archive 4 - upto september 30 2005

"I Don't Know And Neither Do You" - Strong Agnosticism

I'm not sure a strong agnostic would assume what another person knows. I would've thought that a strong agnostic would doubt their own agnosticism in a paradoxical fashion due to agnosticism being knowledge in itself (and so would that). Does this existentialist form of agnosticism have a name? (I'll make an edit within a day)

Interesting concept. But I don't think that strong agnostics have that paradoxical problem. The first paragraph explains it perfectly, agnosticism is the belief that you don't know something. Secondary to that is whether you can actually know, or whether you regardlessly believe in the existence or non-existence of god. If you think you can't, you're a strong agnostic. If you think you can, you're a weak agnostic. If you think something is impossible you won't believe someone else besides you is able to. The "knowledge" that it is unknowable isn't really knowledge but more a belief and not subject to the unknowability of strong agnosticism. I hope that last bit made sense. The "I Don't Know And Neither Do You" line is a bit inaccurate though, but I already changed that before reading this. Isandriel

Wording of first sentence

As of this post, the first sentences reads

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that value certain claims as truth is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.

Pschemp recently made a "fix grammar" change as seen on the history before i changed it back.

Agnosticism is the spectrum of philosophical views that the value of certain claims as truth is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.

'Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or gods' I feel that the sentence should read Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods'. Please could someone make this small change?

I would argue that the "fix" changes the meaning of the statement. I wrote out my explanation here:

Agnosticism and the unknowable

Certainly some "Agnostics" claim that some things are inherently unknowable, but to claim something is "unknowable" is to claim that you know something about it, that is, that it has a property that puts it beyond our ability to know. To claim something is beyond human comprehension is to resort to Gnosticism. However, the idea that the claim that truth is unknowable, unknown is utterly preposterous. In Agnosticism, Huxley observes Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle...." That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, "Try all things, hold fast by that which is good" it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able [246] to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. (-My emphasis http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn.html) More concisley, Huxley is saying that any claim about truth or certainty must be substantiated. Further, Huxley sets himself in direct opposition to the mysticism of the Gnostics who claimed certain attrubutes of God were unknowable. The defect of Hume's definition, while true, is that it makes everyone an agnostic. Agnosticism deals with the question of how knowledge is aquired and what criteria are used for distinguishing true knowledge from false knowledge. Mystics or Gnostics accept faith as a criteria for truth. Agnostics do not PERIOD.

 Atheists consider the question of God's existence to be answered in the negative 

and thus won't spend much time listening to someone's argument in the affirmative. Agnostics, in theory consider the question to be open, primarily because they accept the idea that they do not have all the evidence or that their own previous judgements may be due to incomplete knowledge. Doubt or not knowing is NOT agnosticism. If a waitrress asks what you want to order, you are not suddenly an agnostic because you don't know what you want.Spiker 22 (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 129.33.1.37 (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agnosticism wording

Original:

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that value certain claims as truth is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life. He is merely ignorant of God.

In truth he wants to remains ignorant to avoid accountable.

"fix grammar":

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the value of certain claims as truth is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.

you say it's a grammar fix, but i say it changes the meaning of the statement. Looking specifically at the clause:

original: "[agnostics] value certain claims as truth is unknown.."

"fix grammar": "the value of certain claims as truth is unknown.."

In the original, i read it as the view that claim that truth is unknown or unknowable. I read the latter as the value of truth(which is a claim) is unknown, etc. I'm pretty sure agnostic means truth is unknown, not values.

perhaps the grammar isn't prefect in the sentence, but this change seems to change the meaning

how about

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that values certain claims as truth is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.

or

Agnosticism are the philosophical views that value certain claims as truth is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.

This way, value is consistant with plurality of agnosticsim and philosophical view. The are several agnostic views so is agnosticsm plural or agnosticsm is the range of views?

how about

Agnosticism is the spectrum of philosophical views that value certain claims as truth is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.

--Tsinoyboi 21:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Eventually, I came up with this version:

Agnosticism is the spectrum of philosophical views that value certain claims as truth is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.

It may still not be perfect

Which one do you think is best?

--Tsinoyboi 21:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but "that value certain claims as truth is unknown" is neither grammatically correct nor comprehensible to English speakers. I like the current wording by Jimwae. The "of" has to be in there for the sentence to be comprehensible, otherwise it refers to the values of agnositcism, which is incorrect and lacking a plural. I don't care what comes after. pschemp | talk 23:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jimwae's wording is good, although "value" could be reasonably omitted. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i'm learning. I should have left the change but still say something in discussion. I can't argue that the original version was grammatical, but the new wording is good, but i agree that "the truth value of" could be omitted like these:

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that certain claims — particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities — is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.

or

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that claims Ultimate Reality— particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities — is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.

by the way, does User:Tsinoyboi/Agnostic theism meet policies and guildlines?

hmm god (monotheism) redirects to God. Should that be changed?

--Tsinoyboi 06:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If Agnostics claimed that the truth of claims re deities was unknown, it could be construed that they pretty much figure they ARE true claims, but do not know for sure. Truth value also brings in the idea that neither the truth not the falsity of such claims is known. Truth value is a basic term in logic - if it is too "technical", we could try "truth or falsityof claims..." -- but then the sentence structure gets more complex --JimWae 06:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

ok then, i guess that is more NPOV. --Tsinoyboi 06:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph is about strong agnosticism, not about agnosticism itself.

The opening paragraph describes strong agnosticism, not agnosticism itself. Then it claims that noncognitivists are agnostics, as if they would think something could exist even if the word describing it doesn't mean anything. Wiploc 01:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How is that strong agnosticism and not agnosticism itself? Strong agnosticism is that ultimate reality is unknowable, weak agnosticism is that ultimate reality is unknown, and apathetic agnosticism or ignosticism are that ultimate reality is incoherant or irrelavent. All that was talked about in the opening paragraph. It's a form of philosophical skepticism. What is missing be "agnosticism itself"? Agnostic atheism and agnostic theism? Spiritual agnosticism? --Tsinoyboi 05:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. Ok i don't agree with this sentence at least: "The term is used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion." Being convinced or committed doesn't have anything to do with agnosticism. I don't know if an agnostic theist would be committed about the existence of god(s). --Tsinoyboi 06:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

An Agnostic theist is confusing the word Agnosticism with mysticism. This article rightly points out that Agnosticism is a philosophical position that is something one has thought about and decided upon. The distinctions weak Agnostics etc are the philosophical equivalent of the "silent majority" arguments in politics: Everyone believes that if only the silent majority spoke, they would agree to position X. Philosophers simply take this to the next level by assigning agreement to this "silent majority" with definitions like weak or strong. Tsinoyboi your definitions need some work. Once again to claim something is unkowable is to claim to know that it has a property that places it beyond our comprehension, thus claiming that it is to some degree knowable. To consider ultimate reality to be unknowable or incoherent and unintelligible is to lapse into mysticism. Spiker 22 (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Data collection services - second half of second paragraph

Why is Data collection services important and part of the opening information? Why do they list agnostics alongside secular, non-religious, or other such categories? I think if this is going to stay on the page, then it needs to be moved; even if it gets it's own section. Either way it shouldn't be at the top. --Tsinoyboi 18:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Agnosticism is NOT weak atheism

If you don't believe me, what I write is not original research: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

Agnosticism says nothing about belief so one can be theistic or spiritual and still be agnostic. Is spiritual weak atheist too? I don't think Buddhism is atheistic, at least. Either way, agnosticism is specifically about knowing, only. Some people even believe faith and knowledge contradict. In terms of existence of god(s) and definition, belief in god(s) only requires belief that a definition of god(s) is correct. It doesn't mean either is known. Agnosticism is about epistemology; atheism is about ontology. Even Weak and strong atheism states that they are distinct even though they overlap. Does weak atheism encompass acceptance of the possibility of god(s) existing but just doesn't have belief? maybe you should include strong atheists as weak atheists too since they lack belief in god.[1] FrostyBytes, do you or anyone else have anything to back up that it is "completely accurate" that "Agnostic atheists are, by definition, weak atheists"? --Tsinoyboi 11:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, agnostic atheists can be strong atheists as well. They believe there is no god but believe there's no way to know. Similarly goes agnostic theism. If strong atheists are not weak atheists then not all agnostic atheists are weak atheists. Technically, strong atheists are also weak atheists? --Tsinoyboi 09:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Agnosticism says nothing about belief" --Tsinoyboi 09:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That is false. The agnostic principle is throughly explained by Thomas Huxley:

"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics

That which agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is any contrary doctrine like Islam or Christianity for example, that there are propositions like the tenets of Islam or Christianity for example, which people ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence. See Thomas Huxley, who coined the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html

Note the term, 'believe'? 67.182.154.119 20:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since you've shown that (technically, and by definition) strong atheistic agnosticism (if it can be called that) is possible, I defer to your wisdom in this matter. -FrostyBytes 15:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't believe, or disbelieve, that in which you have zero knowledge of. A seed has to be planted for a belief to grow. 3DJay 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement in question was, "Agnosticism says nothing about belief" --Tsinoyboi 09:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That statement is false. The agnostic principle is throughly explained by Thomas Huxley67.182.154.119 07:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is correct

You cut out the part that shows you are mistaken. Please do not cut out the comments of others.

That is false. The agnostic principle is throughly explained by Thomas Huxley:

"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics

That which agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is any contrary doctrine like Islam or Christianity for example, that there are propositions like the tenets of Islam or Christianity for example, which people ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence. See Thomas Huxley, who coined the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html

Note the term, 'believe'? 67.182.154.119 20:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

3DJay wrote, "A seed has to be planted for a belief to grow." 3DJay 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not true of an ABSENCE of belief (as in 'atheist'). 67.182.154.119 01:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Show me one dictionary that states the etymology of Atheism is A-theism, and not Athe-ism. Check Wiki's own article. The words Atheism and Atheist came into use, some 50 years before the words Theism and Theist. How can you add an A- to a word that doesn't exist? Besides that, every single absence of belief argument is based on some lack of knowledge (no good definition of god, can't know every possible god, etc.)...that's Agnosticism. You can absolutely, 100%, not form a belief, or disbelief, about something you've never heard of. It's not possible.

"I further say that Agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative" creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions. The justification of the Agnostic principle lies in the success which follows upon its application, whether in the field of natural, or in that of civil, history; and in the fact that, so far as these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its validity." - Huxley, taking a bite out of Theism and Atheism. Theist: I believe Gods exists. Agnostic: Prove it. Atheist: I believe Gods don't exist. Agnostic: You prove it, too. 3DJay 04:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to add some logos to the matter: I am agnostic in the sense that I do not beleive in established religion. I beleive in a transcendant, omnipotent and ubiquitious being; however I do not beleive (as many religions have claimed) that it would operate inside the human inhabited box that is "cause" and "effect". Does that resonate with anyone else here?

This statement

Although some agnostics do not believe in god and are therefore, by definition, also atheists, agnosticism is not a different word for atheism. An agnostic may believe devoutly in god.

contradicts the definition in the rest of the article, and is not supported by any external source. Unless it can be adequately sourced, it shouldn't appear. I removed it. Joe 00:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Profanity

Can someone please remove the profanity from the main paragraph? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.104.156.185 (talk • contribs) 10:29, November 23, 2006 (UTC).

What profanity? — Elembis 04:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do we have to declare our beliefs?

When people are having a very innocent, simple conversation, why do they have to screw it up by asking about the other person's church habits? I was at work one day and a co-worker was "preaching" about how "God" had improved her life, etc. Then she looked at me and asked me where I went to church. I very simply told her that I did not go to church. She looked at me like a had an infectious disease and asked me "why?". I told her that I did not participate in any organized religion. You would have thought I told her that I worshipped Satan or something. She doesn't really talk to me anymore.

If people are going to be so touchy about religion, why do they even ask about it? And, why do we feel like we have to defend ourselves when some bible-beating-baptist tells us we "need Jesus"? If you ask me, its a personal choice, and it really isn't anyone else's business.

If you have any suggestions for me on how to deal with these types of confrontations, you can email me. brinici@aol.com 198.179.157.10 17:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Brittany 198.179.157.10 17:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Inform her that if she would only watch her reaction better, you might actually be interested in what she had to say. ShumbodhiPhamus 09:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Messy

Someone has gone through the article and changed 'God' to 'God(s)' etc. although I can see the logic, it looks a mess and disrupts the readability. Can we just have a statement up at the top that 'God' in the text also means God/Gods/He/She/it/they, that may/may not/did/will exist etc. :-) ChrisRed 09:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a perfectly normal way to write. It should be god(s) with a small g though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.30.79.194 (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Alternate meaning

A bunch of friends of mine swears that the traditional meaning and use of the word "agnosticism" is quite different from that of this article. That greatly surprised me. Apparently most schools of the occult (and even a few religions) define Agnosticism as something close to "belief in God joined with a lack of faith in organized religion". Does anyone know about that and/or can suggest sources? Thanks! Luis Dantas 16:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the true definition of "Agnostic" as found on dictionary.com is as reads: "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience". So as this reads, there is no was of knowing for sure that God(s) do or do not exist. When it all comes down to it, if you are looking at Agnosticism in a literal sense, then there cannot be a belief in God(s), with the lack of certain knowledge. I hope that clears it up for you. EternallyTerminal 07:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC) ======================================================================================================

When T.H. HUXLEY coined the term, he defined it thus:

Agnosticism, "expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to agnosticism." Your friends may be correct in that there are people who call themselves agnostics and define it in this way. However, the question here is not how do "agnostics" or even dictionaries define the term. It is a question of what is consistent with the idea itself as expressed by the person who coined the term. Thus while Huxley himself sometimes spoke of things as unknowable, he realized this was not consonant with his definition or as Huxley observed: In Agnosticism And Christianity "The extent of the region of the uncertain, the number of the problems the investigation of which ends in a verdict of not proven, will vary according to the knowledge and the intellectual habits of the individual agnostic. I do not very much care to speak of anything as unknowable. 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." For those who profess some religious belief with or with out a distaste for organized religion are not Agnostics. Further, people who call themselves agnostics because they believe in the "unknowable" are also not agnostics. You might say that each of these is a Gnostic of one type or another. In Agnosticism and Christianity, Huxley continues: That which agnostics deny and repudiate as immoral is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions."

Further as I pointed out above to claim that something is "unknowable" suggests one knows that it posesses a property which places it beyond comprehension in which case they are claiming to know what they call unknowable. What is crucial here is that each is a philosophical position implying the issue has been thought about and that the thinker in question-whether laymen or professional philosopher- has reached some kind of decision. If one decides he is a theist, he can not consistently turn and say that he is agnostic: In effect he is saying I beleive in God, but do not have "logically satisfactory evidence" for that belief. 129.33.1.37 (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Spiker_22

January 3, 2007 edits by 67.165.208.252

I reverted the edits by 67.165.208.252. Stating that all agnostics believe in the existence of a god is in contradiction with parts of the rest of the article, the Philosophical opinions for example.

Concerning removal of the Qualifying agnosticism section, I'm assuming that 67.165.208.252's objection is the lack of sources for terms mentioned. For some of them, finding notable sources shouldn't be a problem (I'm working on it as we speak :)), but others seem te be mentioned only on the basis of a single occurance in a non-notable source. I propose that "Model agnosticism", "Agnostic theism", "Agnostic spiritualism", "Relative Agnosticism" and "Agnostic atheism" are removed from the list unless someone can provide notable sources for them. (Please note that with "non notable source" I'm not implying "untrue source". About.com for instance, provides for some great reading, but I don't consider it to be a notable source since it's not original material and it doesn't provide citations of it's own sources.) Ζεύς 11:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they should all be removed. Huxley separated any absolutes of reality from personal knowledge. He stated that personal beliefs were formed from that personal knowledge. He explained that "unknowable", was different for every individual. Meaning, people form their beliefs on enough circumstantial evidence to satisfy them, not absolutes. That allows for Atheists, Theists, and Agnostics, to all admit to not knowing the absolutes of reality, without it changing their beliefs. There's no such thing as an Agnostic-Theist or an Agnostic-Atheist. If they feel they know enough, to commit to a belief, then it doesn't really matter if they acknowledge the impossibility of knowing reality...they've commited their beliefs to Atheism or Theism. Huxley also stated the only thing that separated Agnostics, was that they didn't know enough, to form a belief. 3DJay 19:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal God?

Where does one fit in when they have strong atheistic views of a personal god (Deism?) but otherwise meet the definition of agnostic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.121.58 (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Deism seems to cover that. Of course, there are a few variants of deism, too. samwaltz 10:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

On definition

Not just guessing, I think the vast majority of people who identify themselves as agnostic also have some hesitation in actually believing a god exists. It is not just an epistemological position, it is also a statement about one's own psychology regarding accepting theism - at least among those who self-identify as agnostic. Most theists would agree that theism is a matter of faith, and that they do not know (to a philosophical standard of knowledge) that a deity exists. Admittedly, some theists claim knowledge -- to a different standard of knowledge. However, theists (and atheists) who claim metaphysical certainty (one way or the other) are usually working with metaphysical arguments that have received much criticism from post-Kantian philosophers. Those who self identify seem to be drawing attention to their own belief-state (hesitation, entertaining doubt) rather than just the epistemological position -- except perhaps for those who are just reluctant to call themselves atheists --JimWae 22:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

When Kantian ideas were new, saying that one was an agnostic was saying something somewhat novel. Previous to coining of the word agnosticism, people who were not theists were called atheists - however the term was often used disparagingly. Coining the term was not marking out new intellectual territory - it was finding a less objectional term that included most of those formerly called atheists (excluding only those who claimed knowledge that there was no deity, but not excluding those who disclaimed theistic belief). It probably also excluded those who never gave much or any consideration to theism.--JimWae later than above, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

True that! Manic Hispanic 04:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Huxley's Advocacy

Huxley may have had ulterior motives for preaching agnosticism, as noted here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Henry_Huxley_and_agnosticism#History_is_written_by_the_winners

Ac44ck 00:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I'm planning to move material from Spectrum of Theistic Probability into the bottom of this article calling it "Criticism of agnosticism", please express your opinion here. --Merzul 20:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Agnosticism and epistemology

It was quite surprising for me that this article defines agnosticism in terms of its answers to religious claims. I thought that agnosticism can be defined as a view of epistemology, viz. as a view that denies the possibility of achieving firm truths. It seems that in the Western tradition, agnosticism is not used in this sense (I couldn't find any web sources, that would connect agnosticism with epistemology in general, rather than with the 'God question').E.J. 14:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

E.J. You are extremely close; The assertion that Agnosticism "denies the possibility of achieving firm truths" is relativism and runs into the known unknowable fallacy discussed above. Agnosticism should be considered an epistemic position. You might say it is more a question of deciding what criteria has to be met in order to consider something true: a belief that evidence must bare out any assertion or belief. 129.33.1.37 (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Many people do define agnosticism in terms of Religious questions; however, as Huxley, himself argued:

it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.
The entire statement is about epistemology --Spiker 22 (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

God(s) v. god(s)

This would seem to be a very simple issue, the capitalized 'God' or 'Gods' is a title, and should be used when refering to a particular god or group of gods. The lower case 'god' is the generic noun, and should be used when not refering to a particular god. 'God(s)' is inherently incorrect as it implies that at the very least one does not know the number of gods being refered to, and so cannot be refering to one particular god or group of gods. --Menestheus

Where would this person fit in?

Some one who states that they:

-believe that a god(s) exists.
-reject most/all definable/expressible definitions of god(s)
-believe that definition of god is unknowable or inexpressible.

They may also state that they intuitively understand the nature of god, but are unable to express using words.

Could they be considered any kind of agnositic? Is this a common viewpoint?

What about someone who not only believes that God (capital G,the abrahamic god) exists, but knows it, yet doesn't believe in God, or any other (semi/demi) gods (inc. Satan) for that matter, therefore doesn't worship any gods.

About your first question about this person who believes in God, but refuses to define him, the question is interesting. I would consider it agnostic theism, but I don't know, if that's correct. I know at least that Anthony Kenny expresses such a views in this interesting paper. The essay ends by saying: "To leave God unnamed, then, is not equivalent to disowning him; on the contrary it is to refuse to claim an ownership which would be blasphemous." This is in my opinon more sophisticated than what our agnostic theist in this article says. --Merzul 13:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

================================================

The person in question is a Gnostic better known as a mystic. If there is no definition there can be no knowledge. If there is no definition what distinguishes "God" from a pumpkin, a mud puddle or a shnooog "God" might as well be either one of these without definition. 129.33.1.37 (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Spiker_22

Hume and meaning

The section titled "qualifying agnosticism" begins with this sentence:

"Enlightenment philosopher David Hume proved that meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt."

The statement is a striking paradox that raises two questions. 1) Could (should) this section be introduced by a statement that is more internally consistent? 2) What is the nature of proof for an agnostic, particularly with regard to philosphical arguments like those Hume put forward in "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding"?

I do agree with the writer that Hume offers a great starting point for the discussion.

66.28.178.67 21:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC) cck

I agree that the first sentence is inconsistent and I will change it to

"Enlightenment philosopher David Hume contended that meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt."

As for your second question, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I think that for an Agnostic, much of their beliefs are derived from the idea that there is no "proof" in most cases (in this case regarding God). I doubt that answered your second question, perhaps someone else can. Breakyunit (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agnostic Theism and Agnostic Atheism removal

I would suggest the removal of Agnostic Theism and Agnostic Atheism from this article as not being germane to agnosticism itself. The subcategories are actually subcategories of Theism and Atheism respectively and are not true subcategories of agnosticism. If they were they would be Theistic Agnosticism and Atheistic Agnosticism instead. Agnostic theists should also not be mentioned in the demographics talk at the beginning since they are theists at the core of their definition and not agnostics. Sure, an agnostic theist may claim they have no knowledge and use agnostic as an adjective to qualify their theism, but they are after all a theist no matter how that belief is qualified. Ffuege 17:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Protagoras

Why isn't he included in this article, one of the first agnostics I believe? Mallerd 18:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link

Ref 6 in the main text appears to be broken, but I fear any amendments I make will not resolve the fault.V-Bede 12:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Agnosticism is not a religion.

Would you guys agree that agnosticism is not a religion? If so, would you agree that we should not list it as a religion in articles about certain people? We should write None under "Religion" if the person does not belief in any religion. And while we are in this topic, I would argue the same way about Atheism. Atheism is not a religion. But this is not the place to discuss atheism. What do you guys think? --Xer0 19:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, I think it does fit, if you take religion to mean a set of spiritual beliefs regarding a divine presence, the belief that there is no devine presence or that we are incapable of proving the presence of a devine being or not, it is a religion in a way. To say if it is or not depends entirely on your definition of religion. T. Sutherland (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that constitutes a "set". One can hold beliefs about god, without it being a religion (e.g., Deism). Also, if every belief about a deity constitutes a religion, this would lead us to the odd situation of having all sorts of religions - there would be a religion called "theism", one called "monotheism", a religion for "people who think God created the Universe, but that evolution is still true", and another one for "Zeus doesn't exist". This would mean say, a Christian, would be a member of countless "religions"... Mdwh (talk)

I think you just descibed the general atmoshpere and plight of the world right now as far as "religion is concerned. There are just about THAT many beliefs and opinions and faiths and churches and sects and hereseys about in just America. I "believe" (dare I say) that the bigger issue or the root of there being so many and seemingly a large portion of confusion to the what the "truth" is actually lies in a few factors. Those factors I believe are in the minds and the hearts of the ones that develop the "out of the box" thinking. Not so much in proving if Christ, Satan, Buhdda, Ron L. Hubbard, David Karesh, or any of these others are correct or have existed. its more someones translation of the events that happened and how he story had been manipulated. Or did I just get off the subject.

-a concerned Chirstian- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.0.246 (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say we certainly shouldn't list "Agnostic" as someone's religion - this is a separate issue (technically, one could belong to a religion, as well as being agnostic). "None" is far simpler, and avoids any problems. Mdwh (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Atheism and agnosticism are religious positions. In some ways, to write none, when either agnosticism or atheism is documented, is to discriminate against people who hold specific positions. Surely these people have the right to have their opinions on religion count as much as the next person's. While writing none surely makes things simpler, it creates problems of its own. It conflates the two positions. Besides, I'm not sure that agnosticism or atheism applies to one god specifically but rather to the potential or ascertainability of any god. I think agnosticism and atheism should be noted when well-documented and otherwise, a not applicable. Phyesalis (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

I am removing "militant agnosticism" from the list (which reads like a T-shirt). I searched Google, got 1,130 hits went ten pages in and couldn't find one mention that wasn't a blog, a sales gimmick, or just agnosticism being modified by miltiant as an adjective. I searched on J-Stor and got 5 hits. Each article used the two words once and only as a descriptive phrase, not noting any kind of school of thought or social phenomenon. It's hard to prove a negative, but I think I've proven its lack of verifiability. Hope everyone's okay with this. Phyesalis (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Negative agnosticism

Found nothing under "negatiive" but have found this so far, a philosophy atricle on "weak" agnosticism. Will change to reflect. Haven't had time to go through it but will check to see if content reflects def as supplied. Phyesalis (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Agnostic" as used of people who believe in God but don't go to church

Aren't there some people who call themselves agnostic because they believe in God but don't belong to a particular church? Is there another word for that? Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would someone who believe in A god be connected to a church? - you seem to mixing up the term "God" with "christian God concept". --Fredrick day (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

An agnostic is someone who believes the existence of God or Gods to be unknowable. For many agnostics, the concept of God is irrelevant. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, an agnostic is someone who doesn't believe or disbelieve in gods. You're referring to the more narrow group that Dawkins calls PAPs (permanent agnosticism in principle). Richard001 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, my definition of agnosticism is correct. You can check it. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone please add this to the article? Richard001 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Improvement

I think this article should be improved. The article atheism is a Featured Article. This article should achieve at least Good Article status. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Ratzinger

I have just added this, with the indents that follow the style of this page.

According to Ratzinger, if the question of the knowability of God is not addressed, then “agnosticisim would in fact be the only correct attitude for man,” an “honest and devout” acknowledgement of that which eludes our field of vision. Ratzinger (later elected as Pope Benedict XVI also cautions against a premature objection to agnosticism, one that is merely based on affirming the “thirst for the infinite.” He says that the best critique lies in the practical realm: The true way to call agnosticism into question is to ask whether its program can be realized. Is it possible for us, as human beings, purely and simply to lay aside the question of our origin, of our final destiny, and of the measure of our existence? Can we be content to live under the hypothetical formula “as if God did not exist” while it is possible that he does in fact exist? I am forced in practice to choose between two alternatives: either to live as if God did not exist or else to live as if God did exist and was the decisive reality of my existence. What is at stake [in agnosticism] is the praxis of one’s life. Ratzinger thinks that human reason has the power to know reality, and attain the truth. For this, he alludes to the achievements of the natural sciences. He believes that agnosticism is a self-limitation of reason rooted in Kant: reason imposes limits on itself which can lead to dangerous pathologies of religion, such as terrorism and pathologies of science, such as ecological disasters. He thinks that this self-limitation is contradictory to the modern acclamation of science. When people argue that God is unknowable because he cannot be experienced, Ratzinger differentiates God from other knowable objects: This question regards not that which is below us, but that which is above us. It regards, not something we could dominate, but that which exercises its lordship over us and over the whole of reality. Ratzinger thinks that there is a natural knowledge of God, and agrees with Paul of Tarsus that “agnosticism that is lived out as atheism” is an not “an innocent position.” Agnosticism is always the fruit of a refusal of that knowledge which is in fact offered to man… Man is not condemned to remain in uncertainty about God. He can “see” him, if he listens to the voice of God’s Being and to the voice of his creation and lets himself be guided by this. The history of religions is coextensive with the history of humanity. As far as we know, there has never been an epoch in which the question of the One who is totally other, the Divine, has been alien to man. The knowledge God has always existed.

I've done something similar at Truth#Ratzinger. This was discussed here: Talk:Truth#Ratzinger. I believe Ratzinger is a highly notable author, who wrote about truth and agnosticism. His ideas concern contemporary issues as well, making them doubly notable. Marax (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• The reason there are no sources that can be used to show the unoriginality & lack of focus in Ratzinger's presentation is that only his supporters take him seriously. The section, besides wandering off-topic, appears to be little more than a cheering section to get his name to appear in the article. While HE may be notable, his views are not notable except among his supporters and they do not form anything new in the history of discussion on the topic. The focus on personality (getting HIS name & HIS picture in the article) detracts from whatever relevant (repackaged) points that might be worth adding to the article. --JimWae (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think it is highly inappropriate to include the views of Joseph Ratzinger in this article. He is certainly not an advocate of agnosticism. I am removing his views. --Masterpiece2000 04:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To Masterpiece2000: Whether or not he was an advocate of agnosticism should not be criteria for keeping or removing Ratzinger's material. Verifiability of the source is more important than the source's position on a topic. To JimWae: Ratzinger's views do not have to be notable to be included. Content within the article is not required to meet notability guidelines. A scholarly and verifiable work should be sufficient for inclusion, don't you think? --Ds13 (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree advocacy cannot be a requirement, but how is a work that is virtually unnoticed by scholars to be judged scholarly? Those who have noticed it, have not examined it, they have done little more than repeat the views to achieve a kind of bandwagon. Just because he is notable, does not mean he has said anything notable. All he has said is 1> Kant is wrong (remarking only that his conclusion was wrong, and not saying anythiing about his argument) & 2> some people who may have (or may not have) agreed with Kant were dangerous people. Ratzinger has not contributed anything new, and his views, while repeated by a few proponents, have not become part of scholarly discussion. --JimWae (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ratzinger also is not writing to explain what agnosticism is, but rather is writing to criticize it. He should not be in the same list as Huxley & Russell & Ingersoll. I believe there are some wiki-guidelines about criticism sections which could be worth another look --JimWae (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• If Ratzinger is not being published in a peer-reviewed media or he's not considered scholarly by peers then I agree with you — keep his material out of Wikipedia. I may have made the mistake of assuming he was seen as scholarly. Maybe not the most original scholar, maybe not the brightest, but still a reliable scholar... No? Then I yield. --Ds13 (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

D13: You are very very right. Benedict XVI belongs to the French Academy. He replaced Andrei Sakharov. Secular thinkers hold him in very high esteem. here. Thank you. Pradeshkava (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No to censorship!

I strongly agree with Ds13. The attempt to remove Ratzinger's ideas is a blatant censorship of a notable author and reliable scholar, and ideas published in highly reliable sources. Their removal is a clear violation of NPOV. Some people only want to hear a one-sided view of Agnosticism: only of Agnostics!! A unilateral perpective is most alien to Wikipedia. An abomination. You have to read and abide by Wikipedia policy first. Never anyone's policy. NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. All Ratzinger's quotes are from a reliable source. They are not from tabloids. They are from well-known publishers. Any censorship in Wikipedia should stop. Lafem (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because your edits aren't supported does not make it censorship; its removing inappropriate soapboxing. Kindly drop the "censorship" nonsense and discuss any merits your desired edits may have for improving this article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Marax, Lafem and Ds13 are correct in saying that Ratzinger has a place in Wikipedia's article on agnosticism. Ratzinger wrote about agnosticism; a bright mind such a Ratzinger deserves a place in this encyclopedia. Ran9876 (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

He has a place in this encyclopedia; in fact he has an entire article, as well as numerous quotes etc. in various other articles which pertain to Catholicism. What he does not have is any reputation as an expert on Agnosticism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

People at the UN regard him as an expert on world matters and matters related to religion. They heard him speak a few hours back. Many people all over the world read his regensburg address, his book on truth, his works that deal with kant. Millions have read Ratzinger more than they have read Ingersoll!! Lafem (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agnostics are not the only people who understand agnosticism. Indians, Africans and Latin Americans look up to Benedict XVI as a spokesman for religion and the rights of God. The vast majority of world population are religious. We have a right to be heard when we talk about unbelief or lack of belief or lack of knowledge of our God. Pradeshkava (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's rediciulous! Agnosticism is a non-religious ideology. The views of Benedict XVI should be in his biography. Please don't push your POV. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The attempt to remove Ratzinger's ideas is not a blatant censorship. I respect Benedict XVI. I have no problem with him. His views should be presented in religion-related articles. This article is about agnosticism—a non-religious ideology. Here, we have to describe about agnosticism, not promote the views of a religious leader. Pradeshkava, most people in this planet are religious. However, there are over one billion non-believers (atheists, agnostics, humanists, rationalist, etc.). If you have any constructive suggestion for the article, feel free to make your point. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pradeshkava and RAN9876. Maserpiece2000 and killerchichuaha, this is not the Secularists Encyclopedia. This is Wikipedia. Here there reigns a Neutral Point of View: the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. The sentence speaks volumes to defend what I have done and every word condemns the vandalistic removal of Ratzinger's POV. Wikipedia should contain the agnostic's and secularist's point of view, the Catholic theological point of view, the protestant point of view, the muslim point of view, and whatever point of view. It is not your interpretation of agnosticism that matters. It is the prominent writers interpretation that matters. Are you more prominent than Ratzinger? Better still, is Ratzinger's viewpoint published by a reliable source or not? Is he prominent or not? On both counts your erasure is a violation of NPOV! Lafem (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Lafem, what about WP:CIVIL? When did I claim that I am more prominent than Ratzinger? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the categories at the bottom, this article is under Theological Thought. Ratzinger is a prominent theologian, right now one of the most prominent. I would say the most prominent!! Lafem (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Until people have satisfactorily overcome D13's arguments above and below and my arguments (ratzinger is prominent theological thinker writing about an article under category of theological thought), any unilateral removal of content related to ratzinger's thought is to be considered vandalism, not just an NPOV violation. Any goodstanding administrator knows this commonsensical rule. Lafem (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Lafem: You are very very right. I admire Benedict XVI. He belongs to the French Academy. Secular thinkers hold Benedict XVI in high esteem. here Pradeshkava (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ratzinger's section in this article is totally inappropriate. It's akin to having the views of a prominent atheist published in the Roman Catholic Church article. It should be removed. Standardtheme (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We could debate whether you have a valid analogy there but fortunately we don't need to judge content by analogy. The standards of 1) Verifiability, 2) Neutral Point of View, and 3) No Original Research are the final words when deciding to include or exclude content. It would be helpful to present your objection to the content in terms of which principle it violates. --Ds13 (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians generally consider irrelevant that other stuff exists. And yes to D13's point-- NOR, NPOV and Verifiability are the ultimate Wikipedia policy standards. Lafem (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize that Standardtheme is a newbie. This is his second edit. You might want to brush up on Wikipedia policies, Standardtheme, so your contribution can be meaningful. Lafem (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop biting a newbie. Standardtheme is right. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy on contradictory sources of Agnosticism

We're not navigating any new WP territory here so this shouldn't be controversial. If the Ratzinger content is 1) verifiable and 2) not original research, and as long as the article presents a 3) neutral point of view (e.g. via structure, balance, characterizing the content, etc.)... then the content should be included. When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page. Ratzinger is a reputable source if he is considered a scholar and is published in peer-reviewed media. So it just comes down to that question, doesn't it? --Ds13 (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Original question asked: Ds13, will you include the views of Richard Dawkins in the article Christianity? Dawkins has spoken about Christianity. His views are 1) verifiable and 2) not original research, and presents a 3) neutral point of view (e.g. via structure, balance, characterizing the content, etc.). Similarly, we cannot include the views of Ratzinger in this article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Masterpiece2000, I would most certainly support the inclusion of Dawkins' views on Christianity in the Christianity article if the content satisfied the criteria you suggest. That's not just the ideal for any article's content, it's the only standard. Any editors who find themselves surprised by new material edits just need to reflect on those criteria to find the answer. Reliably sourced critical commentary on a topic and, in turn, reliably sourced counterarguments against the criticism can all live happily in the same article if it maintains a neutral point of view and original research isn't being done. Hopefully the Christianity article isn't pro-Christianity and the Agnosticism article isn't pro-Agnosticism. These articles are never "done", are they? :) --Ds13 (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ds13, will you include the views of Bertrand Russell on Christianity in the article Christianity? Russell has spoken about Christianity. His views are 1) verifiable and 2) not original research, and presents a 3) neutral point of view (e.g. via structure, balance, characterizing the content, etc.). I don't think you will include the views of Russell in the article Christianity. Similarly, we cannot include the views of Ratzinger in this article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Masterpiece2000, emphatically YES, I would love to see Russell's views on Christianity in the Christianity article if they are as V, NOR, and NPOV as you claim. --Ds13 (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ds13, I like the way you argue. Your comments are civil. If I were to include Russell's views on Christianity in the Christianity article, many users will oppose the inclusion. I don't think Ratzinger's views add anything to the article. I am planning to rewrite the whole article. Look at the article atheism. It's a Featured Article. This article is start-class. The views of Ratzinger will create problem. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to challenge the Ratzinger enthusiasts to put in point form what Ratzinger says. I think, if we could eliminate the original syntheses we'd be able to better discuss HOW to include this opposing viewpoint. Right now, appearing as a separate section at the end of the article, it functions as a critism section - something wiki-guidelines advise against. The section has many other problems besides being an original synthesis. It is so congested that the main points are obscured, and there is also questionable attribution.
  • We should always be wary of any attribution of any idea to someone when it is contained in a 35 word sentence with THREE separate SPLIT quotes of just 6 words, 7 words, and just 3 words. The following appears only in blogs and mirrors of this site

    agrees with Paul of Tarsus that “agnosticism that is lived out as atheism” is not “an innocent position.”

  • googling: [agnosticism "lived out as atheism" tarsus] yields 11 hits - all mirrors of wikipedia or blogs

--JimWae (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• It is indeed true that the article seems nowhere to deal with any criticisms of agnosticism. It is also detrimental to the article to have the only criticism come from such an unfocussed and unoriginal source as Ratzinger. NOTHING he says has not been said MUCH more clearly by others. --JimWae (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ingersoll is not in point form. So why should Ratzinger be in point form? DS13 is absolutely correct. DS13's point hits the nail on the head. So nobody wants to answer D13. If you want other POVs, Jim, then wait for them to come. Else look for more. Do not remove what is there. Lafem (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am asking for point form here -- not in the article... --JimWae (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the following:

Ratzinger thinks that human reason has the power to know reality, and attain the truth. For this, he alludes to the achievements of the natural sciences. He believes that agnosticism is a self-limitation of reason rooted in Kant: reason imposes limits on itself which can lead to dangerous pathologies of religion, such as terrorism and pathologies of science, such as ecological disasters. He thinks that this self-limitation dishonors reason and is contradictory to the modern acclamation of science, whose basis is the power of reason.[14][15]

When people argue that God is unknowable because he cannot be experienced and tested scientifically, Ratzinger differentiates God from other knowable objects:

This question regards not that which is below us, but that which is above us. It regards, not something we could dominate, but that which exercises its lordship over us and over the whole of reality.[13] [To] impose our laboratory conditions upon God...implies that we deny God as God by placing ourselves above him, by discarding the whole dimension of love... [To think thus] would make God our servant.[16] There are many things that we do not see but they exist and are essential...We do not see our intelligence and we have it: we do not see our soul and yet it exists and we see its effects, because we can speak, think and make decisions.[17] Ratzinger thinks that there is a natural knowledge of God "through the things he has made," and agrees with Paul of Tarsus that “agnosticism that is lived out as atheism” is not “an innocent position.”[13][18]

Agnosticism is always the fruit of a refusal of that knowledge which is in fact offered to man… Man is not condemned to remain in uncertainty about God. He can “see” him, if he listens to the voice of God’s Being and to the voice of his creation and lets himself be guided by this. The history of religions is coextensive with the history of humanity. As far as we know, there has never been an epoch in which the question of the One who is totally other, the Divine, has been alien to man. The knowledge of God has always existed.[13]

These paragraphs are not about agnosticism. These paragraphs should be in religion-related articles. These paragraphs have nothing to do with agnosticism. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Masterpiece: These sentences of Benedict XVI are about agnosticism, aren't they? agnosticism is a self-limitation of reason, when people [agnostics] argue that God is not knowable, agnosticism lived out as atheism is not an innocent position. You did not include other things Benedict XVI said that uses the word agnosticism. All these Benedict XVI explained very very well in all those paragraphs. Lafem is very right. It is vandalism when you remove Benedict XVI's words of wisdom about agnosticism. Pradeshkava (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pradeshkava, do you know what vandalism is? Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I grow a bit weary of this surprising controversy. Anyways... my final thoughts on this article for a while... When a topic can be seen from multiple viewpoints (e.g. supporters, different sects among supporters, detractors, etc.) then an appropriate amount of weight in the topic's article must be given to all significant views on the topic even when they are in the minority. This is non-negotiable and no size of article is excluded from this standard. This ensures NPOV. To not do this, proportionately, even in a start-class article means we're starting off without NPOV. Masterpiece2000, if you rewrite this article, that's great. Don't give the Catholic viewpoint undue weight, but since Catholic scholars such as Ratzinger have written significantly and specifically about Agnosticism, I believe it will always be necessary that you include something from a prominent and reliable adherent of this non-fringe view of Agnosticism, even in a very young article. --Ds13 (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Doxastic and Epistemological Senses of 'Agnostic'

'Agnostic' has a newer, doxastic (for want of a better word) sense in addition to the original, epistemological one that this article focuses on.

In the doxastic sense, in the context of religion, 'agnostic' is contrasted with 'theist' and 'atheist':

• Theist – believes in God
• Atheist – disbelieves in God
• Agnostic – neither believes nor disbelieves in God

The American Heritage Dictionary, as quoted by dictionary.reference.com, gives the definition 'one who is doubtful or noncommittal about something'. There's some logic to this usage: asked 'Does God exist?', I might reply 'I don't know'; and surely I'd be expressing a lack of conviction on the matter rather than a view about my epistemic state.

The doxastic sense must be intended by the 'demographic research services' mentioned in the second paragraph of the article – hence my provisional amendments. If the epistemological sense were intended, there would be reason to range 'agnostics' alongside atheists and against theists, as the existence of 'agnostic theists' demonstrates.

Ed Jarvis 86.144.92.245 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Disbelieves" is too vague & open to too much interpretation. It would also be necessary to explain somewhere how one could neither "believe P" nor "not believe P". The meanings that needs more exposition in the article include doubt and vacillation about "P".
• Recently a request for support was removed for "the 3 logically exclusive positions" - while the positions might be logically exclusive, people can shift their position 20 times in one day, so saying they must "belong" to one of the 3 groups is unsupported hyperbole --JimWae (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• agnostic theists claim to believe, yet not know. Some think knowledge might still be possible. Some do not know, and do not know what to believe. The standard for what counts as "knowledge" differs immensely among theists. Many theists agree "knowledge" of existence of a deity is not possible, yet do not count themselves as agnostics at all. Other theists claim not just personal certainty, but some kind of "knowledge" (but if pressed, many would agee it is not knowledge to the standard of math or science)
• I caution against taking at face value any dictionaries assertion that atheists all claim any certainty about what they do not believe. --JimWae (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

All fascinating stuff, but kind of irrelevant to what I've written:

• '"Disbelieves" is too vague ... .' Too vague for what? I haven't asked for a new section to be added to the article. I've just given a sketch of my reasons for amending the second paragraph.
• 'Recently a request for support was removed ... .' Ditto.
• 'Agnostic theists claim to believe ... .' Well, yes. Why are you telling me this?
• 'I caution against taking at face value ... .' So do I, but I haven't appealed to any dictionary definitions of 'atheist'.

For the record, by 'disbelieves in God' I mean 'believes that God doesn't exist'. I, for example, neither believe nor disbelieve in God, because I have no opinion on the matter.

Ed Jarvis 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this would help to alleviate your first worry:

• Theist – believes that God exists
• Atheist – believes that God doesn't exist
• Agnostic [in the doxastic sense] – believes neither that God exists nor that God doesn't exist [i.e. is noncommittal or 'doesn't know']

NB I haven't written 'believes that God neither exists nor doesn't exist', which would indeed call for explanation.

Ed Jarvis 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, then all the more reson for my comments. "Disbelieves in God", as you "define" "disbelieves", is not an adequate definition of an atheist and the 3-way contrast you propose would be misleading - see [atheism]] article --JimWae (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary – and this is what you seem to be overlooking in your missionary zeal – the focus of this section is the doxastic sense of 'agnostic' and not the ambiguity of 'atheist' (or, for that matter, the vagueness of 'believe'). I've defined 'theist' and 'atheist' heuristically, to offset 'agnostic', but if this is unhelpful to you, just ignore my definitions. It makes no difference whatsoever to my main points, which are a) that in addition to the original, epistemological sense of 'agnostic', there's a newer, doxastic sense according to which someone is agnostic about P if and only if he believes neither that P nor that not-P, and b) that this must be the sense intended by the 'demographic research services' mentioned in the second paragraph of the article, since 'theist' and 'atheist' are themselves doxastic terms.

Ed Jarvis 86.134.190.0 (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The Thomas Henry Huxley and agnosticism article was split from the Agnosticism article in 2003. Since then it has hardly changed and differs little from the section on Huxley in this article. I propose that any additional info be added here, which, if any, doesn't seem like much, and then the Thomas Henry Huxley and agnosticism article should be redirected to Agnosticism#Thomas Henry Huxley. Any thoughts? ascidian | talk-to-me 20:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote for Yes: As a contrib. to the main THH page, I have no objection to the merger of THH & Agnosticism to the main Agnosticism article. The split between the two latter happened early, when the THH page was little more than a copy of the weak Encyc Brit 11th ed article. It seems sensible now to put the two agnostic articles together. Incidentally, I notice his use of agnosticism was fairly narrow, but was connected to his rather demanding standards of scientific proof. THH differed from Darwin in having a rather old-fashioned inductive view of 'facts' – Darwin was more hypothetico-deductive. For those who care about such things! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support the merger. This article should be improved. The merger will be helpful. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends: I am not sure what is in the other article, but the agnosticism article already focusses too much on individuals & not enough on theory. The focus on individuals is a magnet for others wanting to include their favorite individuals (such as Ratzinger, whose only "contribution" to the field seems to be only to re-iterate the conclusions of 19th century Vatican Councils & encyclicals). Any text on individuals needs to be fairly concise, focussing on what they have contributed to the topic --JimWae (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Improvement!

I think this article should be rewritten. It is a poor article. The article atheism is a FA. This article is just a start-class. Others are invited to contribute. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Ratzinger

Joseph Ratzinger is not an expert on agnosticism. He has not contributed to agnosticism. T. H. Huxley coined the term agnosticism. Robert G. Ingersoll was a major American agnostic. Bertrand Russell was probably the most influential agnostic of the 20th century. That's why their views are included in the article. Ratzinger has contributed nothing to agnosticism. He is not an advocate of agnosticism. He is not considered as a major figure by non-believers.

I am interested in the sociology of religion. Theologians have claimed that "God exist". Agnostics, on the other hand, argue that the existance of God is unknown. All the major agnostic thinkers such as Huxley, Ingersoll, Mills, Russell, Darwin, Durkheim‎, Sagan, and others have been religious skeptics. Historically, agnosticism has been an intellectual justification for a disregard of theology. Thus, it is highly inappropriate to include the views of a theologian in this article. I strongly oppose the inclusion of views of Joseph Ratzinger on agnosticism in this article. I am removed the views of Joseph Ratzinger. I would like to know what other users think. After the discussion, we can make the final decision. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Masterpiece, it is altogether unethical to (1) start a new discussion when there is an ongoing one elsewhere, (2) to disregard a foregoing discussion where your views have failed to convince and where the arguments contrary to your position are much better argued and grounded on Wikipedia policy, (3) to imply that your arguments are the only basis for a final decision when in fact they have been answered thoroughly in a previous discussion (I repeat this is not the non-believer's encyclopedia nor the encyclopedia of agnosticism advocates and contributors to further the cause of the unknowability of God; all significant views on the matter should be included as long as they are prominent is Wikipedia policy; inclusion of Ratzinger furthers the cause of Wikipedia), (4) decide unilaterally to remove one entire section, (5) to act according to your personal ideas despite all arguments against it.

I am proud that Wikipedians have seen through your move and have not accepted your invitation to restart the discussion.

Masterpiece, You still have an opportunity to regain your good status as a Wikipedian, and rectify by rejoining the previous discussion, by replying to the arguments and above all by returning what you have removed -- please bring back the section on Joseph Ratzinger. Lafem (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lafem, please be civil. 1) I have started the discussion in the talk page of agnosticism. That's not unethical. 2) My views have not failed to convince others. There are four Wikipedians who have opposed the inclusion of Joseph Ratzinger's views. 3) I have never said that my arguments are the only basis for a final decision. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. I have never suggested that this is a non-believer's encyclopedia. 4) The material you included were included with out consensus. 5) I have never act according to my personal ideas despite all arguments against it.

Other Wikipedians will take part in this discussion. I will not respond to your uncivil comments. Others can see your comments and my comments and decide who is being uncivil. Lets wait for two weeks. Let's see what other users think about it. If enough Wikipedians think that Joseph Ratzinger's views should be included, we can include his views. I don't have any problem with that. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ratzinger is not a known expert or commentator or in any other way known as an expert or even knowledgeable about agnosticism. He is known as a Catholic theologian, and his views are appropriate on articles about Roman Catholicism, not here. The Catholic view is already present in the article; attempts to expand that violate WP:UNDUE and attempts to insert a section about Ratzinger, presenting him as knowledgeable about agnosticism, is not supported by any sources, thus violating WP:V - as well as probable violations of WP:SOAP and WP:DISRUPT. Lafem, unless and until R gains notoriety as an expert of agnosticism, cease this attempt to unbalance this article by adding a religious polemic. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree. Unless we have verification that Ratzinger's views are notable to agnosticism and he has recognition as an expert in the field, his statements represent his own or Roman Catholic views and belong in his biography or a suitable article about that religion, not here. .. dave souza, talk 12:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Lafem is very very right. Benedict XVI belongs to the French Academy. Secular thinkers hold Benedict XVI in high esteem. here

D13 is very very right. Remove Benedict XVI and you are not NPOV. Pradeshkava (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Pradeshkava, please stop pushing your POV. Benedict XVI belongs to the French Academy and some secular thinkers hold Benedict XVI in high esteem. However, he is not an expert on agnosticism and he has not made any significant contributions for agnosticism. His views should not be included. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• but the Catholic dogma on agnosticism - starting with a 19th century papal encyclical & repeatd in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia (& reiterated by Ratzinger) DOES belong in the article - as does any agnostic response to that view. It is altogether misleading to attribute this view to Ratzinger - he did not originate and it was not even the main focus of his work --JimWae (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, I like Ratzinger too. He's good. He should be included definitely. He balances the article correctly. Unlike now this reads like a pro-atheist almanac. Is Wikipedia pro-atheist? If not why don't we allow more convervative views. Ok? Scrape off what is original. Ok to JimWae's contribution. Put it in. But keep that thing on Ratzinger's pathologies, terrorism and ecological disaster. Sounds so modern, I bet its original. Hellohigudby (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• from what I can tell, that part is mostly original to blogs interpreting what R wrote, not what R originally wrote --JimWae (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• the pathology of science he MAY have written about was nuclear bombs. Even if he also said "ecological disaster" (btw, how many of those have there been?), I see no way he connects that to agnosticism --JimWae (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• terrorism he gives as a pathology of religion. What's that got to do with agnosticism? How many religious terrorists are agnostic? --JimWae (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

JimWae, it is inappropriate to include the views of Ratzinger because it is off-topic. It is also misleading to attribute the Catholic dogma on agnosticism to Ratzinger. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, he is not the source of that view - however, it would be ridiculously uninformative (&POV) not to include opposing viewpoints. --JimWae (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The opposing viewpoint is more correctly attributed to Pope Pius IX and the First Vatican Council--JimWae (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, JimWae, we have to include opposing viewpoints. However, we have to improve the article first! The article just a start-class. We have to add more information. At this point, I am more interested in improving the article instead of adding criticism. And, Jim, I really appreciate your constructive comments. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

JimWae is very very correct. To add oppossing viewpoint is to improve the article. Would be many times better. Masterpiece: do not push your POV only. Jimwae is correct. It is ridiculously uninformative and POV not to include different views. Do not push your POV Masterpiece. I approve addition of Pius IX and Vatican I. Include original thought of Benedict XVI is also very right. Thank you. Pradeshkava (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pradeshkava, I am not pushing my POV. When did I suggested that there should be no criticism of agnosticism? If JimWae is very very correct, then you are wrong. JimWae doesn't support the inclusion of Ratzinger's views. The opposing viewpoint is more correctly attributed to Pope Pius IX and the First Vatican Council and their views can be included after the discussion. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I hurt certain sensibilities. I support the compromise that is starting: remove ideas of Ratzinger which are not original but belong to Pius IX and The First Vatican Council. And I continue to support the inclusion of Ratzinger's modern ideas based on the unanswered argumentation presented by DS13 in a foregoing discussion and supported by other editors:

If Ratzinger is not being published in a peer-reviewed media or he's not considered scholarly by peers then I agree with you — keep his material out of Wikipedia. I may have made the mistake of assuming he was seen as scholarly. Maybe not the most original scholar, maybe not the brightest, but still a reliable scholar... No? Then I yield. --Ds13 (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We could debate whether you have a valid analogy there but fortunately we don't need to judge content by analogy. The standards of 1) Verifiability, 2) Neutral Point of View, and 3) No Original Research are the final words when deciding to include or exclude content. It would be helpful to present your objection to the content in terms of which principle it violates. --Ds13 (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

since Catholic scholars such as Ratzinger have written significantly and specifically about Agnosticism, I believe it will always be necessary that you include something from a prominent and reliable adherent of this non-fringe view of Agnosticism, even in a very young article.--Ds13 (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I quoted these words of DS13 because they are the best arguments for keeping some of the significant contributions of Ratzinger on agnosticism. Ratzinger is known all over the world as somebody who has discussed the dictatorship of relativism, the problem of agnosticism, the problems of truth, the issue of reason. His books have been read by millions. In this article, Ratzinger is but a small fraction of the whole. So the argument that his contribution (now to be cut even further when we include Jim's contribution) is given undue weight is most absurd. Lafem (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lafem, Ratzinger is not particularly known for his views on agnosticism. In fact, Ratzinger is more well-known for his critical views of atheism. His books have been read by millions; however, he has not written significantly about agnosticism. However, other Catholic and religious scholars have written about agnosticism. We should include their views. I think we should include criticism section and we can include the views of religious scholars on agnosticism. Are we in agreement? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that we include the views of Catholic and religious scholars. I continue to agree with DS13 that Ratzinger has written significantly and specifically about Agnosticism. The only way to prove otherwise is to deny that he wrote those things that were quoted and were affirmed by Pradeshkava as ideas about agnosticism. Those were significant points and were direct quotes from different Ratzinger books. Lafem (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who supported the inclusion of Ratzinger and the inclusion of other religious scholars. :) I am happy to see that there is support for "Catholic and religious scholars who have written about agnosticism," in the words of Masterpiece2000. I will try to gather some materials which can express the point of view of these religious scholars. Perhaps a minor improvement that can help is to rename the section "Philosophical Views" to "Famous agnostics" then create a new section titled "Religious views" or "Views of religious writers." Marax (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Any inclusion of Joseph Ratzinger view(s) will need to cite significant third-party secondary sources to establish their notability. Ratzinger/church publications are not third-party secondary sources. Modocc (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up this point, Modocc. I tried to check WP:NOR and WP:Notability and I did not really see any prohibition in using church publications in citing a church figure talking about a non-church issue. I believe that Ratzinger's independence from the topic of agnosticism is even greater than the independence of Russel from the topic under discussion. As you know, presently the sources of the ideas of the famous agnostics are from the words of the agnostics themselves. I believe it would be consistent with the sourcing of this article and other articles which follow Wikipedia policies to allow sourcing of materials on Ratzinger from publications which may be church related.

Perhaps I might have misunderstood your point as you might have been referring to additional third party sources in order to boost the claim that the work of Ratzinger is notable enough to be cited. I have found this site of First Things which features an article about the book Truth and Tolerance of Ratzinger. The writer is Paul Griffiths of the University of Illinois. He is Schmitt Professor of Catholic Studies in that university. There is this other site from the prestigious Acton Institute which also reviews the book. I have also recently read a series of articles in Scripta Theologica of the University of Navarra analyzing Ratzinger's famous Regensburg Address which discusses agnosticism and Kant. I hope this helps to clarify this issue. Marax (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't misunderstand me, as it was my fault for the confusion, as I should have said that secondary sources are needed instead of third-party sources. It can get confusing because the best third-party sources tend to also be secondary sources. It is fine to cite primary sources(Ratzinger’s views), but only if it is also possible to establish that the views are notable to the subject. No Original Research requires that such evaluations of primary sources(Ratzinger's views) be made by secondary sources. Ideally, secondary sources are independent of(or removed from) the primary source. But because of Ratzinger's position in the church, the publications by the church itself are not independent and should not be considered secondary sources. Even publications by the University of Navarra might be problematic because it is under the authority of the Holy See. The two book reviewers do applaud Ratzinger’s defense of monotheistic truth against other mystic forms and against skepticism. According to Griffiths, “ The world is accessible to human rationality because of the nature of its creator and redeemer.” Of course, Ratzinger and many theists would agree. That being said, these two sources do not directly address agnosticism, nor do they address Ratzinger’s criticisms of agnosticism and do not state their notability. Normally, if someone’s views are notable, there are specific cites available from multiple secondary sources. Thus far, the attempted inclusion in this article of Ratzinger’s views has been original research involving the cherry-picking of the primary source material to give the appearance of notability. This should stop until secondary sources are provided that evaluate his views on the subject. Modocc (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Modocc, Thanks for the clarification! I appreciate your use of wikipolicy and I do understand that you are not a wikilawyer (as mentioned in my talk page). I think in a case like this, which can be contentious, it is really best that we be guided by "Wikilaws", so that there is a "third-party" arbiter (please excuse the word play).

I've re-checked WP:NOR more carefully and its more specific sub-article on attribution and this is what I found. Wikipedia allows use of both primary and secondary sources. For primary sources it says: Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

The general principle is this: Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. (the idea of this policy is that the quote does not come from me but from a published reliable source.)

I firmly believe that Ratzinger quotes I placed are from a reliable publication (Ignatius Press); they definitely do not come from me. :) The author, Ratzinger, is regarded as trustworthy or authoritative by many people to talk about the subject of agnosticism-- its historical roots, effects, its consistency or inconsistency with other ideas (he was elected Pope, a position of trust and authority; he was also a great academic theologian; his Regensburg address was an academic lecture). It should also be noted that the work Truth and Tolerance is a collection of articles previously written in academic journals. I do not think there is a prohibition within Wikipedia of using church related academic journals. If not, most journals wold not be permitted since hundreds of universities were founded by the Catholic church.

I also firmly believe that those quotes could either be seen as good primary sources which Wikipedia accepts and could easily be checked that they are faithful to the original thing written by Ratzinger. Or good secondary sources because they analyze the ideas and writings of the agnostics such as Kant.

I also did not see within those policy descriptions any necessity (ideal is the word you used) that there be another secondary source abetting a secondary or primary source. Marax (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Marax, yes Wikipedia allows the citing of both primary and secondary sources and Ratzinger is notable, that is why he has his own article. Of course, any of his primary sources can be cited there. But, lets address the content of this article please. Are there any secondary or tertiary sources that establish any of Ratzinger's varied criticisms of agnosticism as either notable or substantially different from other critics? For instance, perhaps the Encyclopedia Britannica mentions Ratzinger in its agnosticism article? Modocc (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

1907 Catholic Encyclopedia on Agnosticism

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm

Catholic Encyclopedia > Agnosticism

The Agnostic denial of the ability of human reason to know God is directly opposed to Catholic Faith. The Council of the Vatican solemnly declares that "God, the beginning and end of all, can, by the natural light of human reason, be known with certainty from the works of creation" (Const. De Fide, II, De Rev.) The intention of the Council was to reassert the historic claim of Christianity to be reasonable, and to condemn Traditionalism together with all views which denied to reason the power to know God with certainty. Religion would be deprived of all foundation in reason, the motives of credibility would become worthless, conduct would be severed from creed, and faith be blind, if the power of knowing God with rational certainty were called in question. The declaration of the Council was based primarily on scripture, not on any of the historic systems of philosophy. The Council simply defined the possibility of man's knowing God with certainty by reason apart from revelation. The possibility of knowing God was not affirmed of any historical individual in particular; the statement was limited to the power of human reason, not extended to the exercise of that power in any given instance of time or person. The definition thus took on the feature of the objective statement: Man can certainly know God by the "physical" power of reason when the latter is rightly developed, even though revelation be "morally" necessary for mankind in the bulk, when the difficulties of reaching a prompt, certain, and correct knowledge of God are taken into account. What conditions were necessary for this right development of reason, how much positive education was required to equip the mind for this task of knowing God and some of His attributes with certainty, the Council did not profess to determine. Neither did it undertake to decide whether the function of reason in this case is to derive the idea of God wholly from reflection on the data furnished by sense, or merely to bring out into explicit form, by means of such data, an idea already instinctive and innate. The former view, that of Aristotle had the preference; but the latter view, that of Plato, was not condemned. God's indirect manifestations of Himself in the mirror of nature, in the created world of things and persons, were simply declared to be true sources of knowledge distinct from revelation.

Written by Edmund T. Shanahan. Transcribed by Rick McCarty. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Published 1907. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

NPOV tag

There should be an NPOV tag. I placed it. Until Benedict XVI's words of wisdom are returned, this article is not balanced and not NPOV. Lafem is very very correct. Benedict XVI is a brilliant expert on agnosticism in Catholic parts of India, Nigeria, Kenya, Latin America, now North America, Christian universities in Asia, in the Philippines, in Christian parts of Australia, in etc. etc. He is world-wide expert. Secular writers hold him in high esteem. Thank you. Pradeshkava (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Entire Point of the Article

I've read everyone's view points on this article and believe the text from Benedict should not be included in this article for one main reason:

I came to this article interested in learning WHAT IS AGNOSTICISM. And, quite frankly, I could care less if the viewpoint of agnosticism, theism, or atheism is correct. The ONLY reason Benedict would have written concerning agnosticism is to criticize it (unless he is a closet agnostic) and, from reading the original content, Benedict does, unsurprisingly, oppose agnosticism.

So, to keep this short: The article should be re-written to state how the term came into existence, why it came into existence, and what it means. There should be absolutely NO article content that is for agnosticism or against agnosticism. I think we can all agree the easiest way to balance the NPOV part of the article is to simply have no POV in the first place. If there is a need to have a point of view, and someone such as Benedict has written on the subject (regardless of his knowledge of the subject), I say we should either create a page for Benedict or add to the existing page (if one exists) and to add a link to that part of his article at the bottom of the page under the "other sources" section or something similar.

Quick Recap: What, When, Where, Why (why did this opinion arise), and How are the only questions that should be answered...and that should be done concisely.

Is X correct? Why is X wrong? ... Who cares!? I just want to know what it is! And, exactly 0% for and 0% against means there is a perfect balance.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.202.69 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Article on Agnosticism vs. Wikipedia's Article on Christianity

Which is worse?? Personally, I find both articles to be poorly-written, full of POV, full of errors, offensive and even annoying!! It's articles like this which is why so many people hate Wikipedia. Agnosticism is NOT Atheism!! Retro Agnostic (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

- Why don't you contribute something? You have a lot of criticisms with no examples and conclude with a cryptic statement that no one will dispute, but I doubt they'll understand the point. I don't know all that many people that hate Wikipedia - I do know a lot who use it as a source with the knowledge that they have to use their brains and maybe a little research to decide on some things. Hey, maybe they check the discussion page to see what the different opinions are. Your opinions are that it's all garbage, but you offer no reason why anyone should rely on your unsupported rant - unless maybe they can decipher that cryptic conclusion of yours. And, just curious, what additional flaw in this article makes it 'even' annoying - with all the other flaws it just seems so redundant. YAC (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What Am I?

Sorry if this is the wrong place, but I've been wondering about this. I'm not sure whether I'm an atheist or agnostic because if someone were to ask me if I could say with 100% certainty that the Christian God (for instance) didn't exist, I'd have to say no, I couldn't. But, on the other hand, if the idea had never been introduced to me, I don't think it would ever occur to me that there might be an entity that took an interest in me or even the planet I was on.

I probably would wonder how it all came about and absent the scientific method I would probably think fairly strongly that there was some form of 'intelligence' behind it all. And I still don't discount that possibility because I have no way of knowing for sure one way or another; in truth, some things do seem too complex to be the result of evolution (the spider that lives in a submerged net containing trapped air and surfaces to hunt), but I'm not a scientist. I'm content to keep letting science unravel the mysteries we know about already and I don't think there is any agenda against religion aside from the anti-scientifc bias.

Anyway, my point is I would be an atheist, but once the idea of a 'God' has been introduced to me, how can I be anything stronger than an agnostic? Is this too fine a point? Sorry if it was answered somewhere, but if so, the language was too dense for me. YAC (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me answer your question. Let's say we have a proposition "God exist". If you think that this proposition is false, you are an atheist. If you think that this proposition is probably false, you are technically an agnostic. Why? Because when you say 'probably false', you are leaving a small possibility that God might exist. Thus, technically, that's agnosticism. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• It is possible to be both. Only in a narrow view is atheism defined as asserting deities do not exist. A broader view is that atheism includes the rejection of belief in deities. I do not agree that the essential difference is in the assessment of the degree of probabilty that some "proposition" is false. There is no clear boundary between "thinking P is false" and "thinking P is probably false" - in both cases one thinks P is false. If being an agnostic meant thinking "At least one deity exists" is probably false, there would be no agnostic theists. Often the atheist/agnostic distinction is just a matter of what label one is comfortable/uncomfortable with. --JimWae (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

- I don't think that addresses my point. If someone asserts that God exists I can't say with absolute certainty that they are wrong. But if no one had ever put the proposition to me, then it would never occur to me to evaluate it. So, if no one ever brought up the subject of God, I would be an atheist because it would never occur to me that there was the idea of God to believe in. But, once the idea is proposed, I can't refute it because I can't actually 'know' one way or another, although I have a very strong opinion - so by necessity I become an agnostic. So that's my conclusion at this point, but I'd like to hear what others think. In my opinion, the only things one can actually 'know', ignoring the issue that everything is perceived through the senses, is what is right in front of them. So I'm comfortable with asserting with certainty that a white dog I'm looking at is white, for instance. But that's about it, especially given what's going on with quantum physics.

Incidentally I agree there is no difference between thinking something is false and thinking something is probably false. At least for the purpose of my question. I'm pretty sure an atheist is someone who is sure God doesn't exist. Otherwise, you'd have to have another category, like uber-atheist. YAC (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I went back and tried to read the section on atheism again. I've come to the same conclusions as I did about Kant - reduce an interesting line of reasoning to something that cannot be known, then keep obssessing over it until all the usefulness has been sucked out of the concept. So I'm ok with not knowing whether I'm technically an agnostic or atheist - with the current 'definitions' it's arbitrary and intellectually trivial; remind you of anyone? (hint - his name rhymes with Tim Spaniel's Aunt). YAC (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

---

• You do not need to be 100% certain of something to believe it & you do not need to be 100% certain something is false to either 1> just not believe it and/or 2> think that believing it would be an unsound choice. You say you are pretty sure an atheist is someone who is sure God doesn't exist - but that is not the only way the word is used among intelligent speakers. Categories do overlap - often simply because they are expressed in words used in a linguistic community & people have different perspectives. If you find you simply do not believe in any gods, you do qualify as an atheist under some definitions. If you further think that it would be unsound for you to believe in gods, even more people would agree that you are an atheist. If you moreover think that it is unsound for anyone to believe in gods, very few would not agree that you are an atheist.
• If you went further & said you were 100% certain there are no deities, people might wonder HOW you can be so sure, and accuse you of being dogmatic. You might even be asked to explain what it IS that you are so certain does not exist.
• Your other point seems backwards - if you had never heard of gods, you could not call yourself an atheist (though others might). MORE: you don't actually KNOW one way or the other about gods before you've ever heard of them. Do you KNOW there are no flugocites in your body before you've ever heard of them? This is a strange view of what it means to know something--JimWae (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Part of the confusion is the usage of the word "technically" - as in "what am I technically?". Natural language is not a technical language & not every word has a precisely defined meaning that does not overlap with the meanings of other words (not even when the words are thought to be at the same level of categorization). Philosophy also must use natural language. It is considered "stacking the deck" to insist in philosophy that words be used in some unnaturally restricted way. See stipulative definition --JimWae (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• An agnostic is anyone who accepts that they do not KNOW whether at least one deity exists or not. (It's easier to define agnostics than agnosticism.) Actually, many theists are in this camp, as are many atheists. SOME people (like the Pope) claim to KNOW at least one deity exists. (How they KNOW this defies rational examination.) Also some people claim to KNOW there are no deities - This is where agnostics & atheists do not overlap. In both cases, this is also where people use KNOW in a way different from its usage in science, in math & logic, and in (most current) philosophy. (Knowledge means about 2 or 3 different things in just these 4 fields, none of them have exclusive "rights" to the criteria for knowledge)
• For some people this "knowledge" is somehow something even stronger than "strong belief". I think they mean some kind of "inner certainty", but this again defies rational examination. Some people base it on one or more traditional metaphysical proofs for the existence of God - the teleological (ID) argument is enjoying a resurgence. These are the arguments that Kant's antinomies negate.
• The pope (and he is not the originator of this view) specifies one (or maybe two) ways in which he knows that people can know God exists: 1> revealed truth (scripture [Paul]) says people can know God exists (depending though on the translation) - which not only defies rational examination, it is completely circular & 2> some kind of moral necessity. (As much as he objects to Kant, he never seems to acknowledge that this was Kant's main justification for maintaining his own theism) --JimWae (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Thanks, the arguments I understand are cogent, and I think more or less you're agreeing with me that it's pretty arbitrary. But you make a good point; I'd say an atheist, as I define the word, is dogmatic by definition (picture light-bulb going on above head). Regarding the flugocite scenario, there's a difference in evaluating gibberish that someone makes up and a concept that I've never been introduced to before but I can easily understand. But, I'm equally agnostic/atheistic on flugocites - if you hadn't brought them up I'd never have thought of them, and I definitely can't make a call on whether they exist because I have no idea what they are, so, like God, you'd have to explain. Now, if you said "On a plane in our space-time continuum the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line" I'd be confident in saying I absolutely disagree. A priori knowledge as it were, which is as far as I want to go along that route, except to say I have none of that when it comes to God or flugocites.

Maybe I approach atheism asymptotically. Probably my response when the concept of God was explained would be: "I guess anything's possible, but why would you come up with something like, what did you call it, 'God'?". Why don't you just make up something else equally arbitrary and call it a 'flugocite', or a 'hobbit' or a 'leprechaun'?" Their answer would prbobaly be that a whole lot of people believe it and there's somewhat of a paper trail. The first means nothing to me and the second is completely unreliable. Many great themes that apply so many places "After you're saved you don't stop sinning, but the pattern of your life is changed" - great stuff, but it doesn't prove anything - especially since they picked and chose to decide what went into the perfect and unchanging document.

My weird concept of "knowledge" in this instance has something to do with the idea that if you can conceive of God it proves he exists. Actually that's what got me started down this road - I never would have conceived of God if people weren't so pushy with their ideas; thanks Mom and Dad.

I'm into promoting visualization combined with action as a way to creat an energy feedback cycle that encourages daily exercise - I call it "Energy Focused Exercise". I'm trying to figure out where the useful part of philosphy ends and the part where your mind gets sucked into a vicious cycle begins. I got into Kant to help me to gain insights to use promoting the idea that literally everything is a visualization, including "reality", so potentially the mind can be just as affected by purposeful visualization as by the visualization required to conceptualize the physical world. Somehow I ended up on this page and my old question occured to me.

Thanks, your answer really helped. The atheist/agnostic question was just an intellectual curiousity, but I think the discussion really gave me some other insights. YAC (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)