Is agnosticism reasonable?

Seachmall

Before I begin my question directly relates to the question "What do you believe?"

The following are, to me, the two de-facto responses given by someone who would define themselves as agnostic.

"I do not know [what I believe]"

or

"I do not know [if God exists]"

If the answer is the former I would presume/assume the responder is simply in a situation of cognitive dissonance where they have yet to pick a "side". If the answer is the latter I would respond that my question is not of one of knowledge and thus I am not asking what you know, or do not know.

Am I simplifying things too much? Is the response "I do not know" a valid one, or am I incorrectly assuming a position that cannot exist? Can "I do not know" be a valid response to "Do you believe"?

I know this question has probably been raised many times but given the time of year I find myself in this argument quite a bit and simply don't know the answer. How should one respond or is the initial "I do not know" response a valid one?

If "Neigh" it is not a valid response, why not? If otherwise why so?

I'd also be happy to receive a relevant link to a similar topic if this has been discussed before (undoubtedly), or have a discussion here for my own ease.


Also, more-or-less my first time in A&A so hey to ye I do not know, some of ye may know me from AH.

Also, I may or may not be drunk at the moment; that's my caveat.

ShooterSF

Agnosticism is out of place when talking about belief in a God, though it can be applied to certainty.
The thing I always find strange though is it never comes up in other subjects. Ask someone do they believe in ghosts and you will get a yes or no or perhaps some leaning but no one ever replies I don't know if ghosts exist.

Helix

as above, agnosticism isnt really applicable when asked if you believe in something or not. it's fairly binary - you do or you don't. however if you're asking people to give a reason then i think it's fair enough. ie "i don't believe in god, but i also don't think that i know enough to say for certain that there isn't one"

strobe

I think unreasonable is a strange word to say. Unreasonable. When I say it it has like 6 sylabyls. Sylabyls is a weird word to spell. When I spell it it has a lot of whys. It's a very mysterious word, 'cause of all the whys.

amacachi

strobe wrote: »

I think unreasonable is a strange word to say. Unreasonable. When I say it it has like 6 sylabyls. Sylabyls is a weird word to spell. When I spell it it has a lot of whys. It's a very mysterious word, 'cause of all the whys.

Most words are funny to spell when you spell them incorrectly.

Agnosticism is perfectly reasonable. Like how Hondas are perfectly reasonably priced.

robindch

Seachmall wrote: »

I'd also be happy to receive a relevant link to a similar topic if this has been discussed before (undoubtedly), or have a discussion here for my own ease.

Last time was last week:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056492239

Here's an update of an old diagram which explains the various positions:

Dades

Agnosticism is reasonable as either a first step, or a stance held along with an actual belief.

Defined correctly, I find it somewhat as a cop-out as a stand alone stance. Though I do believe most agnostics use their own personal definition which makes things a bit muddier.

18AD

Why do you have to pick a side? Can you not simply just not know?

bnt

18AD wrote: »

Why do you have to pick a side? Can you not simply just not know?

You can think whatever you want, of course. The diagram doesn't have sides, it shows two dimensions of possibilities, and you can place yourself anywhere on it (or not) as you please.

18AD

I'm just curious as to why the OP thinks that not knowing might be an invalid answer. That is to say, he thinks you must be on the diagram.

ShooterSF

18AD wrote: »

I'm just curious as to why the OP thinks that not knowing might be an invalid answer. That is to say, he thinks you must be on the diagram.

If you ask someone do they believe in Vampires then "I don't know if they exist" (which would be agnosticism) is not really answering the question though...

18AD

ShooterSF wrote: »

If you ask someone do they believe in Vampires then "I don't know if they exist" (which would be agnosticism) is not really answering the question though...

But if they simply answer "I don't know if I believe in vampires", is that not fine?

ShooterSF

18AD wrote: »

But if they simply answer "I don't know if I believe in vampires", is that not fine?

Absolutely. They may never have given it any thought or they somehow don't see evidence that sways them even the tiniest in one direction (though that would be a tiny tiny minority).
It's still all to do with belief though, not knowledge.

18AD

Ok. But if that is allowed. Then I was wondering why the OP said:
"If [that is] the answer ... I would presume/assume the responder is simply in a situation of cognitive dissonance where they have yet to pick a "side"."

I thought this implied that you should pick a side and that it was somehow an error of cognition to not do so.

ShooterSF wrote:

It's still all to do with belief though, not knowledge.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by this. In the context of the original post the two possible answers are:

"I do not know [what I believe]"

or

"I do not know [if God exists]"

Both are knowledge questions, but only the former is a belief question.

ShooterSF

18AD wrote: »

Ok. But if that is allowed. Then I was wondering why the OP said:
"If [that is] the answer ... I would presume/assume the responder is simply in a situation of cognitive dissonance where they have yet to pick a "side"."

I thought this implied that you should pick a side and that it was somehow an error of cognition to not do so.



Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by this. In the context of the original post the two possible answers are:

"I do not know [what I believe]"

or

"I do not know [if God exists]"

Both are knowledge questions, but only the former is a belief question.

Yes but the former is an acceptable answer to the question of what you believe. The second is not really but is what agnosticism is...

Rev Hellfire

I think its acceptable to ask for a boolean answer when dealing with the simplistic anthropomorphic definition applied to the term God as provided by the abrahamic religions.

The term God can be so nebulous that unless you start to try and restrict its scope you have to take a agnostic stance. imho etc.

ShooterSF

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I think its acceptable to ask for a boolean answer when dealing with the simplistic anthropomorphic definition applied to the term God as provided by the abrahamic religions.

The term God can be so nebulous that unless you start to try and restrict its scope you have to take a agnostic stance. imho etc.

I take both an agnostic and atheistic stance towards all gods from the abrahamic to the ambiguous and all in between.

Rev Hellfire

ShooterSF wrote: »

I take both an agnostic and atheistic stance towards all gods from the abrahamic to the ambiguous and all in between.

Do you take the same stance about fairies in the bottom of your garden ?

ShooterSF

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

ShooterSF wrote: »

I take both an agnostic and atheistic stance towards all gods from the abrahamic to the ambiguous and all in between.

Do you take the same stance about fairies in the bottom of your garden ?

Yes actually. I'm pretty confident none of the 3 exist but imo to claim to know such a thing is impossible and such arrogance is best left to the religious.
This is why I see ones declaration of agnosticism as a pointless tip of one's hat to some theists muddying of the word atheism imho etc and so forth (I prefer so forth )

Rev Hellfire

ShooterSF wrote: »

Yes actually. I'm pretty confident none of the 3 exist but imo to claim to know such a thing is impossible and such arrogance is best left to the religious.

Fair enough, not sure I agree with the idea that its arrogant to take a absolute stance. Once you're prepared to accept later evidence which refutes your stance.

18AD

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Fair enough, not sure I agree with the idea that its arrogant to take a absolute stance. Once you're prepared to accept later evidence which refutes your stance.

Surely absolute truth requires that under no conditions it could be untrue?

In which case, if you think such conditions might occur, you can't think it to be absolutely true.

Rev Hellfire

I think russell summed it up better than I could, so I'll bow to him:

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.

RichieC

It is quite reasonable as a stepping stone to gnostic athieism.

ShooterSF

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I think russell summed it up better than I could, so I'll bow to him:

That's exactly how I perceive agnosticism. It's a given in most atheists.