I've been thinking about this recently.
As we all know, there's 2 spectrums: The spectrum of belief and the spectrum of knowledge. This is a simplified version:
Belief: Atheist-----------------------Theist
Knowledge: Agnostic-------------------Gnostic
Atheists disbelieve in a god, theists believe in a god. Agnostics claim to not know for certain, gnostics claim to know for certain.
In this sense a gnostic theist is one that knows for certain that there is a god. An agnostic theist is one that doesn't know for certain that there is a god, but still believes in one.
I go from this point, to saying that there is no use for the word gnosticism in reference to the belief in a god. Nobody is a gnostic theist or a gnostic atheist, because nobody knows 100% for certain (yet). Therefore, I can remove Gnostic from the spectrum, and we are now left with this:
Belief: Atheist------------------------Theist
Knowledge: Agnostic
From this, I say that there is no need for the term agnostic. Why? Because there is nothing other than agnosticism, everybody is agnostic. I challenge anyone to find me someone that knows for certain that a god exists or that a god doesn't exist. If there is nothing other than agnosticism, and everyone is agnostic, why use it as a term? It should just be assumed that one is agnostic when talking about their beliefs in the existence of a god, and the only thing that will matter from thereon out is their basis for their belief.
Anyone disagree?
Is agnosticism a useless term?
Started by: Automaton | Replies: 21 | Views: 1,593
Jun 13, 2012 7:32 PM #676337
Jun 14, 2012 11:15 AM #676738
The difference between atheism and theism isn't the same different as gnosticism and agnosticism. Gnosticism is a pretty ancient term that dealt more with spiritual knowledge.
Either way, it's not useless. Most atheists will agree with agnostic views but you have to realize, people who are religious truly believe their entire existence and the world around them is proof of god's existence. They know it's true, or at least that's what they'll tell you.
Atheistic thought is so removed from that worldview, they can't conceptualize the idea of someone "knowing" god exists, but it's far from uncommon.
Either way, it's not useless. Most atheists will agree with agnostic views but you have to realize, people who are religious truly believe their entire existence and the world around them is proof of god's existence. They know it's true, or at least that's what they'll tell you.
Atheistic thought is so removed from that worldview, they can't conceptualize the idea of someone "knowing" god exists, but it's far from uncommon.
Jun 14, 2012 12:05 PM #676751
Just because theists say they know god is real doesn't mean they know that god is real. The whole point in "knowing" something is to know it as a fact, and the existence or non-existence of god is not factual, irrelevent of what any atheist or theist will say. Note that this isn't an argument against theism, it's an argument against gnostics (or whatever the actual term is). I realise that gnostic may not have been a correct term to use when referring to the opposite of agnosticism, however just replace that with "knowing 100% that god exists/doesn't exist". I don't see how a valid response to my argument there is essentially that they know a god exists, it's just they use "knowing" in a different way. Well then the way they use it is incorrect, or what they think they know is incorrect.
Jun 14, 2012 5:38 PM #676989
Quote from AutomatonJust because theists say they know god is real doesn't mean they know that god is real. The whole point in "knowing" something is to know it as a fact
So where do we draw the line for the acceptability of knowledge? Very few things outside of mathematics can be conclusively proven.
Jun 14, 2012 8:24 PM #677123
Epistemology is fucking scary. I refuse to take those modules.
Jun 14, 2012 8:43 PM #677141
Quote from ExilementSo where do we draw the line for the acceptability of knowledge? Very few things outside of mathematics can be conclusively proven.
Quote from ZedEpistemology is fucking scary. I refuse to take those modules.
I concur. I guess I just assumed it would be accepted that nobody can be gnostic, because I assumed that everyone would realise that nobody knows that god exists/doesn't exist. But then I suppose I can't really prove that nobody knows that, not much can be proved in terms of knowledge, and that's a different debate entirely.
off-topic:
Zed, you're taking philosophy at degree level aren't you? What modules did you choose? See I find epistemology really scary too, as in I can just imagine coming out of the 3 years and being like "well, descartes said this and Hume said that, and at the end of the day all I've learnt is to not think about this shit". But then again I also find it really, really interesting, and the topic we're starting this year is about the mind, and as my tutor put it "how the water of the brain becomes the wine of consciousness". Is that related to anything you're doing?
Basically, indulge me in degree level philosophy because I'm seriously considering taking it as my second degree :D
Jun 14, 2012 8:52 PM #677145
Quote from AutomatonZed, you're taking philosophy at degree level aren't you? What modules did you choose? See I find epistemology really scary too, as in I can just imagine coming out of the 3 years and being like "well, descartes said this and Hume said that, and at the end of the day all I've learnt is to not think about this shit". But then again I also find it really, really interesting, and the topic we're starting this year is about the mind, and as my tutor put it "how the water of the brain becomes the wine of consciousness". Is that related to anything you're doing?
Basically, indulge me in degree level philosophy because I'm seriously considering taking it as my second degree :D
We all had to do Descartes in first year, along with Ethics and a double module of Logic (you'd be amazed how fun it is, especially if you're any good at maths). This year I had to do History of Philosophy (a module on Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, and a module on Kant), and I chose Metalogic, Philosophy of Language, and Moral Philosophy (the Ethics professor from first year left and the new one decided it was best taught to second years. I thought "free 90%!"). Next year I'm writing a dissertation in Philosophy of Language (specifically on defending the descriptivist view of proper names like I did here) and I'll be looking at Later Wittgenstein and Philosophy of Mathematics.
Things like Logic, Phil. of Maths, Metalogic, and Phil. of Language can actually give some amount of certainty so it's not too much useless drivel. And the other stuff is good for learning to read ridiculously convoluted documents, which I imagine is a useful life skill.
Philosophy's great, especially if you can combine it with something else so that you're not relying on it for a job. Do it.
Jun 14, 2012 9:23 PM #677156
didn't Russell come up with the idea of "language games"? Or was it wittgenstein or something? We did a little on that in relation to religion and science and what may cause their arguments.
I'm okay at maths, I understand it well, however I got an E in my exam because I had already decided I was dropping it and didn't revise (I know, don't whip me for it, this was months ago). I'm also going to be doing my main degree in computing, so I suppose the sort of logical mathematics could also be transferable to algorithms.
So far out of all the people we've looked at, I like Hume the best. I can't think of one thing I've disagreed with him about, apart from his view that ideas are all empirically learned (conceptual schemes seem reasonable to add into the equation don't you agree?)
We're also studying descartes meditations as a set text for our A2 exam, which I think should be quite fun. Up until now we've never actually looked into the philosophers' work fully, only their ideas and selected sections/quotes.
Also, how do you deal with people that despise philosophy? Everyone that I know that doesn't do it thinks it's a waste of an A level. For instance there's one friend of mine who asked his sister what philosophy was and she told him something, and the only thing he remembered and constantly reminds me of what she said is "they ask questions like 'why is this a chair?'". So he always takes the piss, saying it's pointless asking what a chair is. Most people that are like him (which is most people) only view A levels and degrees to be qualifications to help you get into a career. How can you argue with someone like that?
I'm okay at maths, I understand it well, however I got an E in my exam because I had already decided I was dropping it and didn't revise (I know, don't whip me for it, this was months ago). I'm also going to be doing my main degree in computing, so I suppose the sort of logical mathematics could also be transferable to algorithms.
So far out of all the people we've looked at, I like Hume the best. I can't think of one thing I've disagreed with him about, apart from his view that ideas are all empirically learned (conceptual schemes seem reasonable to add into the equation don't you agree?)
We're also studying descartes meditations as a set text for our A2 exam, which I think should be quite fun. Up until now we've never actually looked into the philosophers' work fully, only their ideas and selected sections/quotes.
Also, how do you deal with people that despise philosophy? Everyone that I know that doesn't do it thinks it's a waste of an A level. For instance there's one friend of mine who asked his sister what philosophy was and she told him something, and the only thing he remembered and constantly reminds me of what she said is "they ask questions like 'why is this a chair?'". So he always takes the piss, saying it's pointless asking what a chair is. Most people that are like him (which is most people) only view A levels and degrees to be qualifications to help you get into a career. How can you argue with someone like that?
Jun 14, 2012 9:50 PM #677164
Wittgenstein was language games mostly. But he influenced Russell's later stuff, so you might find them creeping in. And yeah, logic would definitely help with computing. Most of the computer scientists I talk to are actually surprised to hear logic is done in another subject.
I don't run into many people these days who actively take the piss out of other people's degrees, but if I did I'd argue that whatever they're doing is probably just as useless in the long run and a hell of a lot more effort. Who's happier, the person who only gets joy from expensive new cars or the guy who can find joy in identifying something he can sit on?
I don't run into many people these days who actively take the piss out of other people's degrees, but if I did I'd argue that whatever they're doing is probably just as useless in the long run and a hell of a lot more effort. Who's happier, the person who only gets joy from expensive new cars or the guy who can find joy in identifying something he can sit on?
Jun 15, 2012 5:09 AM #677341
Quote from ZedWittgenstein was language games mostly. But he influenced Russell's later stuff, so you might find them creeping in. And yeah, logic would definitely help with computing. Most of the computer scientists I talk to are actually surprised to hear logic is done in another subject.
I don't run into many people these days who actively take the piss out of other people's degrees, but if I did I'd argue that whatever they're doing is probably just as useless in the long run and a hell of a lot more effort. Who's happier, the person who only gets joy from expensive new cars or the guy who can find joy in identifying something he can sit on?
Ah I suppose that's a good way to respond. I just don't really understand the mindset of saying something's bad because it doesn't help you with any particular career choice. I think there's merit (depending on the person) in simply knowing more and discovering your own beliefs about the world.
Jun 15, 2012 9:08 PM #677964
Quote from zedidentifying something he can sit on?
its a chair, a chair? Is it a chair? Bench? Rock? Idk tell me!
Anyways, I have no clue what the shit you guys are talking about because i have such a loose grasp of religion and philosophy (?) in general. I honestly don't care what are people are unless they rub it in my face or try to convert me, then i form a negative image of them if so. I don't have the slightest idea what i am, i'm more of the position that we can't know, so we shouldn't care about it, but that doesnt mean you should just shit on everyone else for fun. I love how theists talk about athiests like they are more likely to be greedy and corrupt, when the fucking "hero" of jp morgan chase has the whole government board that's investigating him so deep in his pocket, they're asking him how he would do their own job, saying that the government is worse, it's such obvious suck-up-ery that it makes my head hurt. Ok, I'm getting off topic, but alot of these religious republicans are also wealthy, and will do anything to keep their main donator, JP morgan chase bank. I'll try to find a vidya.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PMo
You can literally taste the ass being touched by lips, they lost a ton of money, and all our goverment can do is pat him on the back with one hand, while another reaches into his wallet.
Jun 16, 2012 4:51 PM #678417
Yes, I would agree with you that the DICTIONARY definition of agnosticism leads to you conclusion. If you subscribe to an early Wittgensteinian theory of meaning (that words have single, set meanings and can only be used in the context of that meaning: used outside of that meaning they are meaningless) then everyone on earth is, yes, and agnostic.
However I believe that in this context of agnosticism it is better to subscribe to a later Wittgensteinian theory of meaning. In his later life, Wittgenstein argued that the meaning of a word, and whether it makes sense or not, is dependant entirely upon the context in which it is used. So, for example, if we subscribe to wittgensteins original theory, that the dictionary meaning of a word is the only true meaning of it, the term 'brother' refers to a male child of your parents that isn't yourself. However, according to the later theories, the meaning of 'brother' depends upon context. So even though the dictionary definition of 'brother' means a male sibling, when used in the context of 'the hood' it just refers to a (... is friend right? perhaps 'homie' is better? Lol, I'm not street, you can tell :P)
The same thinking can be applied to agnosticism. Yes, if we take your method, it results in everyone being agnostic. However, it is better in this case to subscribe to Wittgenstein's later theories. In todays society, we generally use agnostic to refer to someone who hasn't made up their mind about whether he believes God exists. That is the context in which most people use it (I'm sure you will agree). When someone asks "are you an atheist or a theist" and the reply is "I'm an agnostic", the person answering isn't saying simply that he is unsure, but that he is so unsure that he hasn't decided to believe either way. So in the general context, agnosticism doesn't refer to knowledge about whether god exists or not, but to indecision over whether to subscribe to the theory of Gods existence. So in the context in which the term agnosticism is generally used, no, it is not a redundant term.
However I believe that in this context of agnosticism it is better to subscribe to a later Wittgensteinian theory of meaning. In his later life, Wittgenstein argued that the meaning of a word, and whether it makes sense or not, is dependant entirely upon the context in which it is used. So, for example, if we subscribe to wittgensteins original theory, that the dictionary meaning of a word is the only true meaning of it, the term 'brother' refers to a male child of your parents that isn't yourself. However, according to the later theories, the meaning of 'brother' depends upon context. So even though the dictionary definition of 'brother' means a male sibling, when used in the context of 'the hood' it just refers to a (... is friend right? perhaps 'homie' is better? Lol, I'm not street, you can tell :P)
The same thinking can be applied to agnosticism. Yes, if we take your method, it results in everyone being agnostic. However, it is better in this case to subscribe to Wittgenstein's later theories. In todays society, we generally use agnostic to refer to someone who hasn't made up their mind about whether he believes God exists. That is the context in which most people use it (I'm sure you will agree). When someone asks "are you an atheist or a theist" and the reply is "I'm an agnostic", the person answering isn't saying simply that he is unsure, but that he is so unsure that he hasn't decided to believe either way. So in the general context, agnosticism doesn't refer to knowledge about whether god exists or not, but to indecision over whether to subscribe to the theory of Gods existence. So in the context in which the term agnosticism is generally used, no, it is not a redundant term.
Jun 16, 2012 5:40 PM #678434
Yes, but then of course you come back to the age-old argument that atheists use (myself included), and which we have debated before on stickpage (I believe) that even if agnosticism is used by the layman's definition that person is still an atheist and thus the term loses its value. agnostics that aren't sure of gods existence or non-existence are atheists, because they lack a belief in a god. A lot of this is semantics, however, I suppose semantics are kind of pointless.
Also, how did you find the philosophy exam? Are the questions the same around the country? (i.e. did we answer the same questions?)
Also, how did you find the philosophy exam? Are the questions the same around the country? (i.e. did we answer the same questions?)
Jun 16, 2012 5:55 PM #678442
What board are you one?
did you have realism and more god stuff? I think I'm on AQA.
I found the first half of the paper was a breeze, as I've worked out an amazing essay in favour of idealism (even though I believe its complete and utter tosh, i get more marks arguing in favour of it) which I just memorised, and was lucky enough to get in the exam.
So I think for the first half of the essay I've got nigh on 40/45.
The second half I cocked up a bit though, the 15 mark was HORRIBLE, so I probably only got about 9 in that, and I ended up using Irenaeus in the 30 marker, so I'm guessing about 24/30.
so about 75% if my post mortem is correct :P
(that sounds bad, but considering 60% is usually an A, its gone alright)
How did you find it?
EDIT: forgot to actually debate :P
I think the definitions really fun as follows:
ATHEIST - "I Believe that God doesn't exist"
AGNOSTIC - "I believe that God COULD exist"
THEIST - "I believe that God does exist"
The key thing here is the acknowledgement that Gods existence is possible. Yes, atheists might concede God is possible, and theists might concede that it is possible that he doesn't exist, however it is the extent of this concession that I believe makes the term useful.
Think of it this way:
An atheist might be 99% sure that God doesn't exist (due to the way he interprets the world, coming to the conclusion that it is likely god doesn't exist (but allowing for the possibility that he does so as not to be closed minded to all possibilities) )
A Theist might be 99% sure that God DOES exist (yes, some are 100% sure, but most do have moments of doubt)
An agnostic is 50/50 (he doesn't swing either way)
I think the importance of the terms lies in the extent to which the speaker believes in the possibility of Gods existence.
did you have realism and more god stuff? I think I'm on AQA.
I found the first half of the paper was a breeze, as I've worked out an amazing essay in favour of idealism (even though I believe its complete and utter tosh, i get more marks arguing in favour of it) which I just memorised, and was lucky enough to get in the exam.
So I think for the first half of the essay I've got nigh on 40/45.
The second half I cocked up a bit though, the 15 mark was HORRIBLE, so I probably only got about 9 in that, and I ended up using Irenaeus in the 30 marker, so I'm guessing about 24/30.
so about 75% if my post mortem is correct :P
(that sounds bad, but considering 60% is usually an A, its gone alright)
How did you find it?
EDIT: forgot to actually debate :P
I think the definitions really fun as follows:
ATHEIST - "I Believe that God doesn't exist"
AGNOSTIC - "I believe that God COULD exist"
THEIST - "I believe that God does exist"
The key thing here is the acknowledgement that Gods existence is possible. Yes, atheists might concede God is possible, and theists might concede that it is possible that he doesn't exist, however it is the extent of this concession that I believe makes the term useful.
Think of it this way:
An atheist might be 99% sure that God doesn't exist (due to the way he interprets the world, coming to the conclusion that it is likely god doesn't exist (but allowing for the possibility that he does so as not to be closed minded to all possibilities) )
A Theist might be 99% sure that God DOES exist (yes, some are 100% sure, but most do have moments of doubt)
An agnostic is 50/50 (he doesn't swing either way)
I think the importance of the terms lies in the extent to which the speaker believes in the possibility of Gods existence.
Jun 16, 2012 6:28 PM #678460
I think I'm on AQA too. Can you remind me what the 2 15 markers were please? I can't remember. I think I did OK on idealism, and I think I did OK on the theodicies question. However, on the theodicies one, stupidly, I did both Irenaeus and Augustine. I couldn't remember at the time which one said that suffering was the result of imperfection caused by the misuse free will and which one said suffering was needed to obtain perfection. Luckily, I guessed and got it right (after checking with people afterwards). I feel kind of bad because I can't remember half of the AS level stuff XD If someone asked me to write the same essays I would probably get like 10%, lol.
Firstly, even with your definitions, saying "I believe that god COULD exist" still leaves atheists and theists as being agnostics, because they both concede that god could exist (at least, 99% of them that aren't completely retarded when it comes to realising what is actually possible - i.e. it's possible for god to exist and for god to not exist). On top of that, I'm not sure I can believe any "agnostic" who claims to literally have no viewpoint one way or the other. That, to me, either shows that they're lying or that they haven't considered the possibilities (i.e. they don't care and they're an apatheist). Imagine someone saying they're 50/50 on believing in the existence of unicorns.
Also, I've always based my definitions (of which I've agreed with) off of the sticky created by Ash:
http://forums.stickpage.com/showthread.php?18091-Religion-Definitions
I also believe that this is what most people who actually look into debating religion etc define their beliefs on.
Firstly, even with your definitions, saying "I believe that god COULD exist" still leaves atheists and theists as being agnostics, because they both concede that god could exist (at least, 99% of them that aren't completely retarded when it comes to realising what is actually possible - i.e. it's possible for god to exist and for god to not exist). On top of that, I'm not sure I can believe any "agnostic" who claims to literally have no viewpoint one way or the other. That, to me, either shows that they're lying or that they haven't considered the possibilities (i.e. they don't care and they're an apatheist). Imagine someone saying they're 50/50 on believing in the existence of unicorns.
Also, I've always based my definitions (of which I've agreed with) off of the sticky created by Ash:
http://forums.stickpage.com/showthread.php?18091-Religion-Definitions
I also believe that this is what most people who actually look into debating religion etc define their beliefs on.