Agnostic / ??? / Gnostic

subway

So, am I missing something or is the rational person missing from the (a)gnostic grouping?

Agnostic - we dont if a god exists, because it's outside our comprehension
Gnostic - we know a god exists, because of the "evidence"

So, where is the scientific person represented in this?, i.e. there's nothing to suggest a god exists, but we'll look into if you have some evidence.

I don't believe in a god, I don't believe in alien, but sure as I'm typing this, if they exist I believe we could know about them. So can someone explain to me if I just step away from these definitions and, if so, how they fit in with a scientific, atheistic forum when both sides of the coin ascribe magic powers to deities
1 says he is omnipotent because he tells us, the other says he is too much for our feeble minds to comprehend.

gawker

It's more complicated than the two categories/definitons you mention there. Dawkins does a good job of explaining the athiesm/agnostic issue when he put's it something like this:

subway

That's exactly what i typed above, in graph form.my question is how can you be on the righ hand side of that chart.

gawker

In that case, I don't understand the question!

Wait, I think I get you.

Athiesm means not believing in god(s). By not knowing for 100% sure that there isn't a God, but being quite certain there isn't a god, someone still doesn't believe in a god. That would be an agnostic atheist. On the other hand, a gnostic atheist claims certainty there is no God.

Perhaps there's a gnostic atheist around here who can explain better

subway

My question, is that being either gnostic or agnostic ascribes power to a deity.
An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in god but believes we are too stupid to know if god exists (ie, god is smarter than us)
A gnostic atheist believes that we know god exists, but doesn't believe in god himself.

I think both of these positions are untenable and am trying to gain insight as to whether I am missing something or not

gawker

subway wrote: »

My question, is that being either gnostic or agnostic ascribes power to a deity.
An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in god but believes we are too stupid to know if god exists (ie, god is smarter than us)
A gnostic atheist believes that we know god exists, but doesn't believe in god himself.

I think both of these positions are untenable and am trying to gain insight as to whether I am missing something or not

I think, if you were to ask them what they think, they might say:

Agnostic atheist: "I can't prove it 100%, but I'm quite sure there is no god and have seen no evidence to suggest there is."

Gnostic atheist: "I am absolutely certain there is no god."

Gnostic means "relating to knowledge" and so a gnostic, atheist or theist, is claiming to have absolute knowledge that makes their mind up. An agnostic might base their opinion on a lack of evidence but not claim absolute certainty.

doctoremma

subway wrote: »

An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in god but believes we are too stupid to know if god exists (ie, god is smarter than us)

I call myself an agnostic atheist. I think that whatever people call 'god' is untestable and undemonstrable in a material sense - we can't ask scientific questions about 'god'. So for me, I don't believe he exists, as far as I can define the word 'exist'. Existence requires physical evidence and I see none.

I haven't thought that it's because I'm too stupid that I can't detect his existence.

MagicMarker

subway wrote: »

An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in god but believes we are too stupid to know if god exists (ie, god is smarter than us)
A gnostic atheist believes that we know god exists, but doesn't believe in god himself.

Where in the christ did ya come up with those definitions?

Agnostic Atheist - Doesn't believe in a deity and also believes we can't know if one exists or not.

Gnostic Atheist - Doesn't believe in a deity but believes we can know if one exists or not.

im invisible

subway wrote: »

My question, is that being either gnostic or agnostic ascribes power to a deity.
An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in god but believes we are too stupid to know if god exists (ie, god is smarter than us)

agnostics believe it is impossible to know, one way or the other, whether god exists or not, with him being super-natural. this might give power to god, just so long as he doesn't interact/ interfere with the physical world, because if he did, we would be able to know

A gnostic atheist believes that we know god exists, but doesn't believe in god himself.

gnostics believe it is possible to know whether god exists or not, with gnostic atheists *knowing* he does not exist

I think both of these positions are untenable and am trying to gain insight as to whether I am missing something or not

but dont take my word for it, i could be agnostic, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or just your normal a la carte irish catholic, depending on my mood.

subway

MagicMarker wrote: »

Where in the christ did ya come up with those definitions?

Agnostic Atheist - Doesn't believe in a deity and also believes we can't know if one exists or not.

Gnostic Atheist - Doesn't believe in a deity but believes we can know if one exists or not.

Where in the Christ did you come up with those definitions?

fitz0

But I don't know if we can or can't know whether a god exists. So what am I?

Fence-sitting non-believer?

subway

doctoremma wrote: »

I call myself an agnostic atheist. I think that whatever people call 'god' is untestable and undemonstrable in a material sense - we can't ask scientific questions about 'god'. So for me, I don't believe he exists, as far as I can define the word 'exist'. Existence requires physical evidence and I see none.

I haven't thought that it's because I'm too stupid that I can't detect his existence.

But does agnosticism not require acceptance that we can never know?

(not stupid at an individual level. at a species level, it defines us as less than a being agnosticism defines us as being incapable of being aware of)

MisterEpicurus

fitz0 wrote: »

But I don't know if we can or can't know whether a god exists. So what am I?

Fence-sitting non-believer?

If you 'know' something, as in 100%...like you are a man, then that's gnostic. The contrary is agnostic.

I'm guessing you have an inclination as to whether a god exists or not? It can't be 50:50 surely?

If you do then you're; agnostic theist [I don't 'know' if a god exists but the balance of evidence shifts me to believing something 'may' exist]
Gnostic theist [I 'know' a god exists as much as I know what sex I am; there's no question about my certainty]
If you don't, then you're; agnostic atheist <--- Opposite of above...

subway

fitz0 wrote: »

But I don't know if we can or can't know whether a god exists. So what am I?

Fence-sitting non-believer?

This is the point I'm getting at...
(a)Gnosticism picks a side without any further investigation being an option

MisterEpicurus

subway wrote: »

But does agnosticism not require acceptance that we can never know?

Agnostic can refer to 'unknown' or 'unknowable'

subway

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

If you 'know' something, as in 100%...like you are a man, then that's gnostic. The contrary is agnostic

not quite, gnostic claims to know it exists, agnostic claims to be incapable of knowing. Not unsure or questioning, but incapable.

subway

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Agnostic can refer to 'unknown' or 'unknowable'

In your personal definition? Even in the dawkins chart abou, it's "cannot" rather than "does not" know

MisterEpicurus

subway wrote: »

In your personal definition? Even in the dawkins chart abou, it's "cannot" rather than "does not" know

Well, it's more accurate than Dawkin's 'personal definition'. I don't accept everything Dawkin's says just because he's Richard Dawkin's.

Here's some quotes I found;

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).

Agnosticism: an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.

"a person who claims, with respect to any particular question, that the answer cannot be known with certainty"

MisterEpicurus

subway wrote: »

not quite, gnostic claims to know it exists, agnostic claims to be incapable of knowing. Not unsure or questioning, but incapable.

If you 'know' something i.e. have sufficient evidence to make a claim of certitude, then that's the gnostic I think we're referring to.

subway

Not sure what article thats from but it's worded very similarly to wiki, for example, which goes on to say

In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who is undecided about the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

And the clarifies

In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.

subway

I guess my difficulty is that rather than going with the correct definition, everyone seems to be just using the popular interpretation?

Newaglish

subway wrote: »

I guess my difficulty is that rather than going with the correct definition, everyone seems to be just using the popular interpretation?

Saying that people cannot know whether god(s) exist or not doesn't necessarily mean that they can never know, it just means that at the moment there isn't sufficient evidence at the moment for you to make a definitive judgment on existence.

Is that kind of what you're getting at?

MisterEpicurus

subway wrote: »

And the clarifies

It seems like an oxymoron to me. How can you justify a 'deity' on 'rational' grounds when the whole point is that it's 'supernatural' and can't be based on reason. So I think I'm justified to assume the contrary to the strict wiki definition.

subway

That's it really, the definition, to me, is they we can never know.
Maybe the sources I'm reading are incorrect?

I feel if I define myself as agnostic ( I don't define as either one of the 2) then I am being unscientific and don't like the idea that this definition would be applied to me given the understanding I have built up of it over the past number of years

Daftendirekt

subway wrote: »

That's it really, the definition, to me, is they we can never know.
Maybe the sources I'm reading are incorrect?

I feel if I define myself as agnostic ( I don't define as either one of the 2) then I am being unscientific and don't like the idea that this definition would be applied to me given the understanding I have built up of it over the past number of years

Why would it be unscientific though? Surely claiming to lack knowledge about something untestable is the most scientific attitude.

Also:

An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in god but believes we are too stupid to know if god exists (ie, god is smarter than us)
A gnostic atheist believes that we know god exists, but doesn't believe in god himself.

You've got your definitions a bit mixed up here.

Gnostic atheist - "Knows" there is no god.

Agnostic atheist - Doesn't believe and doesn't know.

Agnostic theist - Believes but doesn't know.

Gnostic theist - "Knows" there is a god.

Mark Hamill

subway wrote: »

So, am I missing something or is the rational person missing from the (a)gnostic grouping?

Agnostic - we dont if a god exists, because it's outside our comprehension
Gnostic - we know a god exists, because of the "evidence"

So, where is the scientific person represented in this?, i.e. there's nothing to suggest a god exists, but we'll look into if you have some evidence.

Agnostic. The problem is that your defintion assumes a reason for agnosticism which doesn't exist in the definition. Some agnostics are agnostic because they simply haven't encountered sufficient evidence to answer the question. Some believe there isn't enough evidence for anyone to answer the question now, while others beleive that there can never be. There are some (ignostic) who are waiting for a proper defintion to first examine the question.

subway

Thanks again for the replies, I'm still concerned that I'm only getting personal opinion on the meaning of (a)Gnosticism, has any one got a definition or source that explains their interpretation to me?

I've given a basic quote above, and no one has refuted it.

subway

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

It seems like an oxymoron to me. How can you justify a 'deity' on 'rational' grounYds when the whole point is that it's 'supernatural' and can't be based on reason. So I think I'm justified to assume the contrary to the strict wiki definition.

The bold part would be my point also. Where we disagree is that I won't more than personal opinion to understand where this "popular" definition comes from.

Newaglish

I've tried to write a bunch of replies but I don't really understand what you're getting at. There are a million definitions of agnosticism, one of which you don't agree with?

subway

Well, that's what I'm getting at. What is the proper definition and how does it interact with a atheism.

There are a few popular definitions, which are a bit wooly (imo) an older definition, which appears to be the correct one, which is useless outside the context of accepting gods existence, and then lots of personal definitions that (not specifically anything on this thread) seem to be people's way of saying atheist without the stigma that goes with it (militant, staunch, aggressive... Choose your adjective)

what I want to understand are the accepted literal definitions of agnosticism that allow it to cohabit with atheism. All I have really found is personal definitions (a large carte agnosticism?).

I'm not attacking anyones beliefs, just trying to get at the meaning of the word.

The other solution, implied by the thread title is that there is an option to be neither agnostic or gnostic. But that doesn't seem possible under the popular definitions.

doctoremma

subway wrote: »

I'm not attacking anyones beliefs, just trying to get at the meaning of the word.

gnostic (adj.) "relating to knowledge," 1650s, from Gk. gnostikos "knowing, able to discern," from gnostos "known, perceived, understood," from gignoskein "to learn, to come to know" (see know).

Add an a- prefix and reverse all the above definitions!

bnt

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

If you 'know' something i.e. have sufficient evidence to make a claim of certitude, then that's the gnostic I think we're referring to.

I'd disagree with that, based on Huxley et al: (a)gnosis is not a position based on what you know, it's a position on what can be known. So, a "gnostic atheist" is someone who is an atheist (i.e. does not believe) but thinks such questions can be answered. Dawkins is somewhere in that area, and so am I.

It does not mean that the person is a "sworn atheist" who thinks the answer is definitely "no". The impossibility of "proving a negative" has been done to death already, and I've yet to meet or read an atheist who has absolute certainty that there are definitely no god-like beings anywhere. That position, if it exists as more than a straw man, is off that chart.

Over the centuries there have been various "gnostic" religions and sects that attracted people with the promise of knowledge - "we have the secrets of life", and so on. You would be "allowed" to access those secrets if you followed the order and paid enough in over time. I'm thinking about the Rosicrucians, Freemasonry, Scientology, and others.

But while I would place myself in the "gnostic atheist" area, I don't ever expect to see a definitive answer to the question about the existence of gods. The questions would remain in the shadows, which are shrinking all the time, impervious to the light of reason. Irrational beliefs are like germs in a hospital; you're never going to get them all, but you don't need to get them all. As long as they are confined to dark corners, you can stop them from infecting the patients.

MisterEpicurus

bnt wrote: »

I'd disagree with that, based on Huxley et al: (a)gnosis is not a position based on what you know, it's a position on what can be known. So, a "gnostic atheist" is someone who is an atheist (i.e. does not believe) but thinks such questions can be answered. Dawkins is somewhere in that area, and so am I.

It does not mean that the person is a "sworn atheist" who thinks the answer is definitely "no". The impossibility of "proving a negative" has been done to death already, and I've yet to meet or read an atheist who has absolute certainty that there are definitely no god-like beings anywhere. That position, if it exists as more than a straw man, is off that chart.

Over the centuries there have been various "gnostic" religions and sects that attracted people with the promise of knowledge - "we have the secrets of life", and so on. You would be "allowed" to access those secrets if you followed the order and paid enough in over time. I'm thinking about the Rosicrucians, Freemasonry, Scientology, and others.

But while I would place myself in the "gnostic atheist" area, I don't ever expect to see a definitive answer to the question about the existence of gods. The questions would remain in the shadows, which are shrinking all the time, impervious to the light of reason. Irrational beliefs are like germs in a hospital; you're never going to get them all, but you don't need to get them all. As long as they are confined to dark corners, you can stop them from infecting the patients.

It's true that my explanation was clumsily defined.
The issues revolve around how you can rationally justify what you 'know'. Do things have to be empirically verified? If so, then the word loses its meaning for supernatural concepts which are wholly rationally based. For example, if someone had a spiritual/religious experience, they have a different definition of 'know' than others.
It's also true that you can never have absolute certitude either way. Regarding 'what can be known'; at the end of the day, none of us here can determine the answer to that in terms of a deity, so the term seems to lose meaning on another level.
You can actually "prove a negative", never really understood the popularity of that phrase to be honest.

Mark Hamill

subway wrote: »

Thanks again for the replies, I'm still concerned that I'm only getting personal opinion on the meaning of (a)Gnosticism, has any one got a definition or source that explains their interpretation to me?

I've given a basic quote above, and no one has refuted it.

In the wiki definition you gave before ("agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist."), there is nothing to say that such an agnostic wouldn't be open to claims about god assuming new evidence was presented as well. I am gnosticly atheist in terms of the gods defined by human religions so far, I am fully confident they are inherently wrong and I think it can said with certainty they don't exist as described. I am agnosticly atheist in terms of gods yet to be defined, as, without definition, there is nothing for me to say if it does or does not exist.

ShooterSF

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In the wiki definition you gave before ("agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist."), there is nothing to say that such an agnostic wouldn't be open to claims about god assuming new evidence was presented as well. I am gnosticly atheist in terms of the gods defined by human religions so far, I am fully confident they are inherently wrong and I think it can said with certainty they don't exist as described. I am agnosticly atheist in terms of gods yet to be defined, as, without definition, there is nothing for me to say if it does or does not exist.

Ignostic?

To be honest the only time I bother with the word Agnostic is when I'm describing that chart to someone who asks which I am or when some theist tells me belief or non belief both require faith.

Improbable

I've made the point several times both on boards and to people I meet in real life that I don't believe in a god of any kind, but freely admit that I do not know for sure that one does not exist. In the absence of any evidence however, I am perfectly content to live my life as if there is no god.

Pushtrak

I posted this in the hazards of belief, but I think it works just as well here... It is talking about how there is more than two camps, theist and atheist and he goes about it in a pretty ridiculous way, in my opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65xTBxcYuTs

Adamas

subway wrote: »

My question, is that being either gnostic or agnostic ascribes power to a deity.
An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in god but believes we are too stupid to know if god exists (ie, god is smarter than us)
A gnostic atheist believes that we know god exists, but doesn't believe in god himself.

I think both of these positions are untenable and am trying to gain insight as to whether I am missing something or not

Like many words such as 'faith' and 'truth', the word 'gnostic' has been religionised as though it refers to someone who knows that 'God' exists, but this is a contradiction, as you can only believe, not know, that a deity exists.

You either know something or you don't. The correct usage of the word 'gnostic' is one who uses knowledge (gno-sis, from the Greek gnṓsis: a seeking to know things) to understand things, rather than belief, which is thinking according to an absence of evidence. You are either inclined towards knowing things (gnostic) or towards believing things (credulous).