Defining Agnosticism (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Wednesday, May 07, 2014, 13:51 (3854 days ago)

The Wikipedia definitions below*** raise the whole problem of defining agnosticism without creating such apparent contradictions as "agnostic atheism". (Frankly, if someone told me he was an agnostic atheist, I wouldn't know what he meant unless I looked it up on Wikipedia.) The difficulty lies in the fact that, as these definitions make all too clear, the origin of the word relates to knowledge and not to belief. Apart from fundamentalists of all denominations, most of us would, I think, agree that it is not possible for us to KNOW whether or not God exists. "Know" implies absolute certainty, and so if that is the criterion, we are all agnostics. This leads to the absurd anomaly of Richard Dawkins, who calls god(s) a delusion, claiming to be an agnostic. If this is the case, it makes a farce of terminology. Some people enjoy playing language games, but if we want to discuss these issues seriously, we need to find a solution to the problem.
 
Although the purists may frown on it, the term "agnosticism" has increasingly come to mean neither belief nor disbelief in the existence of god(s). This enables us to draw clear dividing lines between the -isms. With theism defined as belief in the existence of god(s), and atheism as disbelief in the existence of god(s), the confusion disappears. The various in-between shades can then be described in those terms: agnosticism tending towards theism/atheism. No further explanation or categorization is necessary. We should still retain the division between the traditional and the modern definitions (knowledge v. belief) but state from the outset which one we are using.
 
Of the Wiki categories, I do not accept "apathetic/pragmatic", a) because the definition does not require giving reasons for the person's agnosticism, and b) because an unconcerned god is still a god and the nature of god(s) is a different issue from the existence of god(s). The anomaly of agnostic theism/atheism disappears. "Strong" carries the traditional meaning, and "weak" becomes unnecessary, (a) because nobody can "know" and (b) because although beliefs/disbeliefs can change, the definition does not need to allow for change.-Too simple?-*** Wikipedia definitions of agnosticism:
Agnostic atheism
The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist. 
Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. 
Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest. 
Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."