Agnosticism
The singular characteristic of agnosticism is uncertainty or doubt. For this reason it is a form of scepticism focusing on religious statements, and so faces some of the same philosophical issues. For instance if an agnostic claims that absolute knowledge of truth is not possible and does not restrict the scope of this claim, they are in danger of contradicting themselves. For then the statement there are no absolute truths would appear itself to be an absolute truth. An agnostic is on firmer ground if they claim that religious statements or statements about the numinous are not or cannot be satisfactorily justified. If such were the case, it would be reasonable to reserving judgment. For instance, an agnostic might demand that religious statements be justified in the same way as scientific statements, perhaps in terms of the scientific method. Since this is adopting an attitude towards the quality of proof required to accept such statements, agnosticism becomes a matter of inclination rather than of logical proof. That is, one need only be willing to accept a different justification of religious statements in order to avoid agnosticism. Perhaps this explains why agnostics do not generally engage in proselytisation.
| Table of contents |
|
2 Variations 3 See also 4 External references 5 External links |
Among the most famous agnostics (in the original sense) were Huxley, Charles Darwin, and Bertrand Russell. It has been argued from the works of David Hume, especially Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, that he was an agnostic, but this remains subject to debate.
Agnostic views are as old as philosophical skepticism. But the terms "agnostic" and "agnosticism" were applied by Huxley to sum up his thoughts from that time's contemporary developments of metaphysics about the "unconditioned" (Hamilton) and the "unknowable" (Herbert Spencer). It is important, therefore, to discover Huxley's own views on the matter. Though Huxley began to use the term "agnostic" in 1869, his opinions had taken shape some time before that date. In a letter to Charles Kingsley (September 23, 1860) he discussed his views extensively:
Some philosophical opinions
Huxley
And again, to the same correspondent, May 6, 1863:
Of the origin of the name "agnostic" to cover this attitude, Huxley gave (Coll. Ess. v. pp. 237-239) the following account:
Huxley's agnosticism is believed to be a natural consequence of the intellectual and philosophical conditions of the 1860s, when clerical intolerance was trying to suppress scientific discoveries which appeared to clash with a literal reading of the Book of Genesis and other established christian doctrines. Agnosticsm should not, however, be confused with deism, pantheism or other science positive forms of theism.
By way of clarification, Huxley states, "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" (Huxley, Agnosticism, 1889). A. W. Momerie has noted that this is nothing but a definition of honesty. Huxley's usual definition went beyond mere honesty, however, and he insisted that these metaphysical issues were fundamentally unknowable.
Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian is considered a classic agnostic text. Based on a speech delivered in 1927, it gives a feel for the way in which agnostics view themselves. The essay sets out briefly Russell’s objections to some of the arguments for the existence of God before discussing his moral objections to Christian teachings. He then calls upon to his listeners to 'stand on their own two feet and look fair and square at the world', with a 'fearless attitude and a free intelligence'.
Logical positivists, such as Rudolph Carnap and A. J. Ayer, are sometimes erroneously thought to be agnostic. In a vein similar to Wittgenstein’s famous whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent, they viewed any talk of gods as literally nonsense. For the logical positivists and similar schools of thought, statements about religious or other transcendent experiences could not have a truth value, and were deemed to be without meaning. But this includes all utterances about god, even those that deny knowledge of god is possible. In Language, Truth and Logic Ayer explicitly rejects agnosticism, on the grounds that an agnostic, despite claiming that knowledge of god is not possible, nevertheless holds that statements about god have meaning.
Theists and strong atheists make statements about the world, the theist that 'god exists', the strong atheist that 'god does not exist'. Agnostics make the statement about these statements, 'one cannot know whether or not: god exists'.
Agnosticism has suffered more than most expressions of philosophical position from terminological vagaries. Examples come from attempts to associate agnosticism with atheism. The "freethinking" tradition of atheism calls not adopting any position with regard to the existence of god, "weak atheism" (or "negative atheism"). However, one can still draw a distinction between weak atheism and agnosticism by drawing a distinction between belief and knowledge, leading those who believe knowledge of God is not possible to claim agnosticism is about knowledge, while atheism/theism is about belief. Agnostic atheism is a combination of both.
Data collection services [1], [1] often display the common use of the term, distinct from atheism in its lack of rejecting the existence of deities. Agnostics are listed alongside secular, non-religious or other such categories.
Other variations include:
Russell
Logical Positivism
Variations
See also
External references
External links