Misplaced Pages

Talk:Agnosticism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:57, 2 October 2005 editJimWae (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers37,709 edits rv injoined user - who "gave" his SECOND "warning" with his "first" edit← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:58, 17 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,089 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
*]
{{Talk header}}
*]
{{Article history
*]
| action1 = GAN
| action1date = 17:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
| action1link = Talk:Agnosticism/GA1
| action1result = listed
| action1oldid = 594856970


| action2 = GAR
==Taking reasonable exception to the blatant ] in the statement, "Agnosticism differs from atheism in that (strong) atheists claim there is no God"==
| action2date = 03:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
"There is no God" is not a claim (a statement standing in need of proof), it is the denial (the negation in logic) of one. -- ] 17:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
| action2link = Talk:Agnosticism/GA2
| action2result = delisted
| action2oldid =


| currentstatus = DGA
Moved from the article:
| topic = Philrelig
<blockquote>
| small =
"There is no God" is not a claim (a statement standing in need of proof), it is the denial (the negation in logic) of one. -- ] 17:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
|itn1date=
|dyk1date=16 February 2014
|dyk1entry=... that the word "''']'''" was coined by biologist ]?
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Religion |importance=High }}
{{WikiProject Atheism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Theology|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=High}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 16
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Agnosticism/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}


{{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90}}
One point of view has it that "Theists and ] 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'."


__FORCETOC__
Two objections to the above point of view are:


== ]: make page ==
1. How could anyone possibly know that it is impossible to know it if some hypothetical thing were to exist and interact with the world? Any such interaction would leave some kind of trail of evidence that could be demonstrated, wouldn't it?
<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:55, 25 October 2017‎ (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->


== Agnosticism isn't a worldview on the metaphysical actuality of the cosmos itself ==
And 2. The argument that there might actually BE (exist) an invisible deity is what is known as an EXISTENTIAL statement, not a "statement about the world" (universal statement) as the writer of the above paragraph asserts. The null, 'There is no invisible deity in evidence in the universe' is a universal statement (statement about the universe).
Agnosticism isn't a worldview on the metaphysical actuality of the cosmos itself, but a state of mind of the individual or a limitation of the individual. That isn't tautological to the workings of the cosmos. The "limitations of the individual", either personally or cosmically posed, are not the "mechanism of the universe"; thus agnosticism is a worldview about the opinions of the individual, and not about the cosmic actuality. The possibly hidden nature of the cosmos, isn't its only attribute, nor its deepest mechanism. Agnosticism is not the purest metaphysics on the cosmos, but it is pure ontic metaphysics on the individual (the thinker). <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)</small>
</blockquote>


== Unclear first sentence ==
Thanks for your input, .204. In my dictionary, to make a claim is to make an assertion or to state something one takes to be true, ...
The first sentence is this:


"''Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.''"
:... which stand in need of proof.


But this leaves entirely unstated the question of '''whose''' knowledge is being referred to.
''not'' to make a statement that is in need of proof.


Is it just the agnostic person whose knowledge is referred to here? (The existence of God is unknown or unknowable to that person?)
:Any existential statement like, "There might be an invisible God" is an assertion that stands in need of proof. The denial is not an assertion, it is the denial of one, so it does not stand in need of proof. Look up fallacy of trying to shift the burden of proof to the non-believers.


Or does the quote mean the agnostic believes the existence of God is unknown or unknowable to '''everyone'''?
But perhaps you would accept the wording "Agnosticism differs from atheism in that (strong) atheists assert that there is no God"? ] 21:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


Whatever the answer — which could be either of these, or both of these, or something else — the article desperately needs clarification. ] (]) 19:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
:"There is no God" is not a claim (statement standing in need of proof), it is the denial (negation) of one.


== Definition ==
Your (1) may indeed be correct, but nevertheless, it is what agnostics claim.
Should a clause not be added that agnosticism can mean "the belief that the existence of a god or gods is '''personally''' unknowable" or to mean an apathy towards religion without claiming anything about the nature of our reality? ] (]) 09:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


:This is inline with @]'s post above ] (]) 09:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
:I am agnostic, and I do not claim any such thing, since it is nonsense. See Thomas Huxley's excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism vs. Christianity." There you will find that agnosticism is not about knowledge at all, it is about the folly of believing things without evidence. Huxley says, and I agree, that the reasonable course is to unabashedly deny and repudiate any religious doctrine like Christianity or Islam for example, that there are existential propositions that people ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence. Have you read it?

::Yes, I have read it. Knowledge is belief that is both true and justified - see ]. Huxley was certainly aware of Plato, and was making use of the ] account. Huxley is advocating justified beliefs over unjustified - and so knowledge over belief. In other words, he is talking about knowledge. ] 09:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

:::Your equivocation, "Knowledge is belief" is sophistry, a standard ] attempted ] of scientific knowledge and religius belief, two entirely different things. That will fool only the most gullible. You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. --] 22:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why "Dogs exist" is not a statement about the world - that it contains dogs. That is, not all statements about the world are universals. Also you might be aware that U(x)f(x) is equivalent to ~E(x)~f(x) - that is, all universal statements can be re-parsed as existential statements.

:Only if you are trying to sell sophistry. Existential statements and universal statements are two different things. And why are you trying to change the subject to dogs? Dogs are known to exist. Look up 'conjecture' to learn about what we are discussing here. -- ] 07:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
::There is a general policy on the Wiki of assuming good faith. Please do not accuse me of sophistry - I find it offensives.

I am not accusing you of anything, I am discussing content, not contributor, as per WikiPolicy ].

<blockquote>Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users.</blockquote>

I am taking exception to the content you are contributing because an attempted conflation of knowledge based on proof and religious belief without evidence, which are two entirely different things, fits the definition of sophistry. It doesn't stand up to ].

::I am afraid you are mistaken, unless you are using unusual quantifiers. Check any introductory text on predicate calculus for confirmation.
::A claim is not a conjecture. ] 09:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

There you go again, trying to change the subject, first to dogs, whinc are known to exist, now to math, which has nothing to do with what we are discussing. We are not discussing math, we are discussing the logic of plain language statements, ]

Any statement like, 'There might be an invisible God' remains conjecture until proof is produced, where proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a truth, or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. --] 21:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

{{wiktionarypar|conjecture}}

Others will fix the problems you have introduced into the article. Some arguments are not worth the trouble, and I think this is one of them. ] 00:06, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Translation: "Banno cannot come up with any reasonable objection to what was said, so Banno will just declare victory by the popularity of his ] and run like a scared rabit away from any reasonable discussion he cannot handle." -- ]
:Yep. Or that Banno has more productive things to do. ] 05:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Allright, how about we say "Agnosticism differs from atheism in that (strong) atheists ''say'' there is no God". Athiests say there is no god. The purpose of this article is not discuss whether god has any way of being said to exist. see ]. correct me if I'm wrong but say doesn't imply anything about whether or not what is being said could be true. I am changing the article as above, however if someone reverses this I won't fight over it. Please considder whether these small semantic bias' can be fixed simply before engaging in a edit war. ] 21:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

::That just isn't true. All atheists do not assert that there is no god. Only strong atheists assert that there is no god. Weak atheists that are not strong atheists make no such assertion. Because theism is such a well definied category, not theism (atheism or more correctly weak atheism (the more general category)) is a very broad and general category. Babies, vegetables, and non-believers all fall into the category of atheist. And unless you make agnosticism a very quirky definition, not A or B is a subset of not A and agnostics are a subset of weak atheist. If you are going to say anything related to that at all it should be something to the tune of "Agnostics do not deny the existence of god and are not (strong) atheists". Your statement has misleading wording and the first clause is incorrect.(] 10:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC))

==List latest issue on top==
cf ]
:This is ''not'' the RfC page, which is a special case.

There shouldn't be any 'special cases', WikiPolicy should be universally consistent, don't you think, so things are done the same way on all pages?. --] 21:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

:The convention is that new issues are added to the bottom of the page.

From my point of view, the sensible thing to do is to put the latest hot topic at the top so it is easier to find without having to wade through reams of stale issues; but you don't see it that way? Are you accustomed to getting your way on everything? --] 21:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Check out the order of the dates of the ''first'' entry of each section on this page - they progress from oldest at the top to youngest at the bottom. I will leave it to some else to re-move this to the bottom of the page, were it should be. ] 08:10, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
:Ha! Some sections of this article do not conform to this convention - I should have checked first. But you will find in ]: "Proceed vertically: Within each topic, the further down the contribution to talk, the later it was made."

Yeah, WITHIN each topic, that makes sense, just like we are doing right here, but the latest hot topic should be added at the top instead of buried under reams of stale issues, don't u stink? --] 21:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

:Also, you might note that the "Post a comment" feature places comments new sections at the end of the discussion, not at the top. ] 09:25, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Then it's broken and needs to be fixed. How do I do that? Do I have to put in a Request For Change to the software? --] 21:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
:Try it, and let us know what response you get... ] 23:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
::Please discuss any proposals to change the guideline on having new sections at the top at ], not here.]2005-07-24t22:48z

==Removed Large Section==
'''Here is the section I removed:'''
<blockquote>
One point of view has it that "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'."<br><br>

Two objections to the above point of view are:<br><br>

1. How could anyone possibly know that it is impossible to know it if some hypothetical thing were to exist and interact with the world? Any such interaction would leave some kind of trail of evidence that could be demonstrated, wouldn't it?<br><br>

And 2. The argument that there might actually BE (exist) an invisible deity is what is known as an EXISTENTIAL statement, not a "statement about the world" (universal statement) as the writer of the above paragraph asserts. The null, 'There is no invisible deity in evidence in the universe' is a universal statement (statement about the universe).<br><br>

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 a lack of belief in the existence of any deities, "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 the lack of belief. Agnostic atheism is a combination of both.<br><br>
</blockquote>

'''I removed that section because:'''
* it is badly written (lots of questions)
* it is pretty blatant POV (assertions not attributed to any source)

I know we don't all agree on the definition of agnosticism, but the Variations subcategory should not have back and forth fighting. The part about "as the writer of the above paragraph asserts" is just unprofessional and silly. This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion board. Let each section say what it wants to say, and discuss your disagreement with "the writer of the above paragraph" here on the Talk page. ] 22:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

== Belief system ==

Agnosticism is a philosophic position - that knowledge is not possible. Some agnostics believe in god & some do not. To say agnosticism is a belief system is to fly in the face of the meaning of the word to put forth a POV agenda. --] 01:06, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

To what proposition do you claim agnostics assent? You are pushing an agenda & a POV. The vandalism is all yours. Your comments below are non-responsive, saying only to look elsewhere - --] 01:15, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

== Definition of "Belief" as applied to Agnosticism ==

Misconstruing the meaning of "belief" is the core of the tug-of-war content confusion here. Misplaced Pages has a fine definition of belief, and we should agree to abide by its very reasonable content.

There is otherwise a glaring lack of clear thinking here regarding what a "belief" (or ethereal "lack of belief") is. Also, see Merriam-Webster's definition of "belief" . It is otherwise 'dancing on air' to not ground this discussion in commonly accepted definitions of words.--] 01:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

: Yes, but for more fun check out the of the word ''belief'', for what its worth. ] 06:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

==Whither Robert G. Ingersoll?==

Before anything anybody want me to write ''agnostic'' in Greek ? I don't know if its been seen as unecessary, or if nobody else wanted to do it? Well, I think this is it nonetheless: &#7940;&#947;&#957;&#969;&#963;&#964;&#959;&#962;.

Now, forgive me for interrupting the discussions on the finer points of style and the minutiæ of logic, but I am wondering about a question of simple content. Most namely, why isn't Robert Ingersoll mentioned? I checked the talk archives and didn't see him. If I missed him, I apologize. If there's a good reason he's not here I also apologize. His is brilliant in the way he is able to communicate the loftiest ideas in the plainest of speech. When people want to know what I 'believe' I have them read that speech. Perhaps, a noteworthy counterpoint to the scientific oriented Agnostic thinkers already mentioned in the article for his unpretentious, "folksy" style alone. His ability to see things abstractly, offers a different perspective from the hyperfocused Huxley (whom I admire for that ability). For those not familiar with him (I'm not implying any of you do or don't) -in addition to the wiki article - there is a good, brief column on the contemporary views of him . If he has been left out for reasons of modern influence (and lack thereof), his indirect influence, is perhaps, at least worthy of a footnote. For those with some time on their hands there is his at infidels.org.

I'm not saying I don't like what is in the article at all! I just thought it was odd not to find Ingersoll here in addition to the other great Agnostic thinkers. I might also suggest, though he was more famous as a lawyer, Clarence Darrow's . I realize what I've written is preaching to the choir and bordering on chutzpah, so thank you for being patient with me! ] 06:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

==Neutrality tag==
This is my first attempt to contribute to a talk page, so I hope I'm not screwing up. How long does a warning remain when there is a dispute about neutrality? I'd have thought that the complaint has been sufficiently answered, so the warning could be removed, or a vote could be taken, etc. Should I RTFM? Where is the Manual?
Are these questions inappropriate here? ] 21:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

These questions are perfectly legitimate on the talk page. Only they should go to the end of the page, like any new discussion. Here you are :) You can either ] and remove the tag yourself or, if you think some people would object, start a vote ] 14:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I did it... anyone feel free to put back
{{POV-because|reason}}
so we can know why...
I think the standard NPOV tag shouldn't be used at all, in fact. ] 15:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

==]'s view on agnosticism==


My point is this: if you are going to do away with something (some long-established convention, such as God, or the monarchy, that has been accepted as a cornerstone of life for centuries, and has been guiding things), you had better think about it first. ...

:Misplaced Pages is not a forum. This page is for discussion of specific edits to the article, not a place for evangelism. ] 00:38, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

::Sorry about that, I got a bit carried out. I moved my "contribution" to my ] page. ] 04:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

:::You forgot to move it. I just did it for you, okay?--] 21:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

== Beliefs as possibilities ==

"Some Agnostics embrace all beliefs as possibilities, albeit of variable likeliness; they do not confirm or reject any belief, and assert only their own unability to know for sure."

I know from personal experience that this view is shared by some agnostics, at least. If you're tempted to rv, please comment beforehand. ] 18:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

::"Some Agnostics embrace all beliefs as possibilities". Maybe. But who? And where? And what exactly did they say? We need some actual citations from actual Agnostics. Huxley was certainly willing to reject some beliefs, as an acquaintance with what he actually wrote would soon reveal. And that's what this article needs in order to avoid all the POV squabbling. It's obvious that the word agnostic has been used in divergent ways: the entry just needs to tell the reader how these ways have been characterised, by who, and where and when. --] 20:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

:::I don't know of a precise author who said it, but then again I'm not that familiar with that kind of litterature. You can say it's unsourced, but certainly not that it's nonsense. The argument goes thus:

Any belief can actually be accurate, as contradictory as it may seem, because the contradictions may only be misconceptions on our part, be it from misjudgement or from lack of appropriate data (see ]'s "evil demon" hypothesis or the "brain in a jar" hypothesis). This is only a recognition of one's unability to know anything for sure. Un-knowledge; A-gnosticism; it's only an extension of that principle.

But since, to live, we must act as if some specific set of facts are true. We use our experience and confront it to the facts to deem many things to be less likely. It doesn't make them impossible, but we have to act as if they were because one can't remain in doubt and inactive forever (], somewhere).

One example I really like is how a turkey, from experience, knows that whenever the farmer comes out every morning he's going to give it grain. In the same way, we know that the sun will come up, the experiment will work again, such behaviour will have such consequences... Only one day the farmer might be coming with an axe. If someone had told you otherwise, you wouldn't have believed him. And you would have been right, because you simply can't believe whatever you're told. Especially when that's against all experience (]'s inductivist turkey)

Oops. look at what I found:

<blockquote>
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

— Bertrand Russell, Collected Papers, vol. 11, p. 91
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago."

— Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind, 1921, pp. 159–60; cf. Philosophy, Norton, 1927, p. 7
</blockquote>
] 16:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

== "Various meanings" top section ==

As I suggested on the Atheism page, I think that here too we need to insert a typology of the different kinds of atheism that exist (before the views of precise philosophers). I think that we can distinguish 3 kinds: those who considerthat the answer to the question "Does God exist?" is unknowable, those who consider that we just don't know and the solution might, in principle, be known at some point, and those who consider that the question itself is incoherent (I think only logical positivists qualify for the last one, though).

Thus, we would be able to explicit what these views mean and imply, and give the result of the above discussion which will then hopefully never happen again.

] 08:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

((The discussion in question was enterely reverted, as it had been stirred up by a ] of an injoined user , which I am grateful for, because during this "discussion" I was found extremely guilty of copiously ], as it has been pointed out to me)) - ] 04:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

:I'd be careful with the logical positivists. ''Language Truth and Logic'' not only rejected theism and (strong) atheism, but also agnosticism, on the grounds they all thought the topic was meaningful. And the point is, it's "meaningfulness" in a very particular sense, not as might be generally understood. --] 12:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

::Yeah, I wasn't sure about that point either.. ] 19:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

::In fact, there was already such a section in the article, only it was strangely located at the very end of it. I moved it to the top of the article, after editing it, moving a large bit that was unnecessarily developed here into where it belonged (namely, ]) and cleaned up the receiving article entirely and developed it as I went through. ] 23:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

:::Does anyone disagree with having the variations section at the top and why? Please comment before re-reverting. ] 20:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

== Adrigo (]) is back (?) ==

I increasingly believe that ] is a sockpuppet of Adrigo/DotSix (]).
*He has the same peculiar theses (See what he says on ]:; my explanations:)
*He is a very recent user who nevertheless knows wikipedia policies well
*He edits the same pages as the injoined user did ()
Yesterday, I asked ] for IP check (an arbitrator on the case; not sure she can actually do the check) and warned Banno (seems to me, the most active witness in the case). I didn't get any answer yet.

additional evidence here that made me write this in the first place:
*: recent radical edit by ]. Note the Huxley quote made prominent.
*Repeated use of this Huxley misquotation (See why it is one: ) in Adrigo's "rethoric":

Ehrlich's edit is at the moment reverted (by ], not me), and I would encourage anyone who saw a controversial edit by ] () to revert it immediately with the edit summary simply stating "rv: injoined user". I'll post all of this and more in the ] as soon as possible.

] 19:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

*Repeated use of this Huxley misquotation (See why it is one: )

What do you mean, 'misquotation'? Do you have a reading problem? Huxley definitely says in (1899) that agnostics rightly deny and repudiate, as immoral, any religious doctrine like Christianity for example, that there are statements like the tenets of Christianity for example, that people ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence? What is there about this simple statement of one of the most basic principles there is that you are not able to grasp? --] 22:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

:I am not familiar with the word "injoined" , it means partially and temporarily banned?]2005-09-29t22:22z
::It means being the subject of an injunction by the Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee. In this case, this one: --] 23:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I am not a party to that request for arbitration. Why are you all ignoring ]? --] 22:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

:I was assuming good faith until you proved that I should not do so with the above comment and your disingenous edit summaries. Welcome back, Donald.--''']]''' 02:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

==Philosophical opinions: Huxley, Darwin, Russell==

I have major problems with this section. For one, Darwin called himself an agnostic but did not actually make any philosophical contributions to agnosticism. Russell is absolutely not an agnostic "in the original sense", as the article currently claims. This ought to be obvious from the quotes that are actually in the article. Basically, Russell didn't know what to call himself, was willing to say that the traditional anthropomorphic god could be disproved (how many agnostics "in the original sense" would say that?), and doesn't actually seem to have contributed much to agnostic thought. Where is Leslie Stephen? Where is WK Clifford?

This article really really needs rewriting, no? --] 14:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

:The Darwin passage is just an anecdote that does add any information about agnosticism, so I agree that it should be deleted. --] 18:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:58, 17 July 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Agnosticism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Former good articleAgnosticism was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 10, 2014Good article nomineeListed
October 6, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 16, 2014.The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the word "agnosticism" was coined by biologist Thomas Henry Huxley?
Current status: Delisted good article
This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconReligion High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAtheism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
For more information and how you can help, click the link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Be consistent

  • Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
  • Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
  • Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether ] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Articles to improve

Create

  • Articles on notable atheists


Expand

Immediate attention

  • State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
  • False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
  • Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
  • Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTheology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.



Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.


Agnostotheism: make page

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2149:8286:5d00:fc1e:e047:b002:3866 (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Agnosticism isn't a worldview on the metaphysical actuality of the cosmos itself

Agnosticism isn't a worldview on the metaphysical actuality of the cosmos itself, but a state of mind of the individual or a limitation of the individual. That isn't tautological to the workings of the cosmos. The "limitations of the individual", either personally or cosmically posed, are not the "mechanism of the universe"; thus agnosticism is a worldview about the opinions of the individual, and not about the cosmic actuality. The possibly hidden nature of the cosmos, isn't its only attribute, nor its deepest mechanism. Agnosticism is not the purest metaphysics on the cosmos, but it is pure ontic metaphysics on the individual (the thinker). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4115:e96c:88ea:a31a:74f3:a24c (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Unclear first sentence

The first sentence is this:

"Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable."

But this leaves entirely unstated the question of whose knowledge is being referred to.

Is it just the agnostic person whose knowledge is referred to here? (The existence of God is unknown or unknowable to that person?)

Or does the quote mean the agnostic believes the existence of God is unknown or unknowable to everyone?

Whatever the answer — which could be either of these, or both of these, or something else — the article desperately needs clarification. 2601:200:C082:2EA0:F171:81DE:843A:DA36 (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Definition

Should a clause not be added that agnosticism can mean "the belief that the existence of a god or gods is personally unknowable" or to mean an apathy towards religion without claiming anything about the nature of our reality? Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is inline with @2601:200:c082:2ea0:f171:81de:843a:da36's post above Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Categories: