charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Agnosticism is a bit of a different philosophical proposition from theism and atheism; so that it can overlap with either atheism or theism. Agnosticism simply asserts that there is insufficient information available for one to determine the existence or non-existence of "God". This does not, however, preclude one from making that determination based on something other than "sufficient information" (we each have to define for ourselves what this "sufficient information" would entail). For example, there are many theists who will assert that they lack "sufficient information" to determine that "God exists". And yet they still can choose to trust in (have faith in) the belief that God does exist based on the value that doing so produces in their experience of life, rather then on any required information. And likewise, an atheist might choose to maintain the belief that no gods exist based on some criteria other than "insufficient information" (though I don't know what this other criteria would be, as I see no value in a determined non-belief).
I've seen the agnostic definition vs atheist definition raged between themselves, continuously. It seems like a meaningless topic because disbelief, non-belief, and then you have suspension of judgement, are so hard to wrap someone's head around. Then you have atheists/agnostics who have decided a certain usage of the word that conflicts with others. I've noticed, sadly, definitions become more important than the meaning or usage. Anyway.
I assume you're using, then, suspension of judgement to define agnosticism Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). I have some criticism here. I'm not sure if it's even possible to suspend judgement, but lets assume it is. I'd think, in this regard, I'm much more of an agnostic than atheist concerning the prime mover or cause of the universe. This thing might be defined as god.Agnosticism simply asserts that there is insufficient information available for one to determine the existence or non-existence of "God".
However, god is also used for personal deities and whatnot, ranging in the thousands. So, I'm more a soft-atheist concerning these deities, because there's evidence to the contrary for scripture, definitions, conflicting views, yada yada. So when you say this "But at least theism can provide a positive purpose. And agnosticism can claim honest open-mindedness. But atheism can claim none of these. It's a pointless, unfounded bias, that closes off the mind to other possibilities." it's really quite meaningless considering how imprecise and convoluted the terms are. However, if I were to go on the offensive it wouldn't be as pretty. Many theists do not even consider the cause of the universe, the alternative, and have made up their mind, nor do they consider other gods(they are atheist towards them), unless it supports their god in some way. This seems far more biased than the atheist by any stretch.
Interesting. I've never seen a theist admit they believe god exists because it gives their life value. They seem to genuinely belief god exists because of evidence(anecdotal or not).And yet they still can choose to trust in (have faith in) the belief that God does exist based on the value of that doing so produces in their experience of life, rather then on the information.
Last edited: