Does "agnostic theism" imply deism?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I got to thinking about some of the conversation in this thread and in this other thread.

I personally hold to the idea that the labels "theist" and "atheist" describe belief, and the label "agnostic" describes a position about knowledge. Therefore, I think that it's valid to use terms like "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist": both would describe someone who believes certain things, but thinks that definite knowledge is beyond him.

However, there seems to me to be a deficiency of agnostic theists... or at least, a deficiency of people who would self-apply the label. I started thinking about why this would be. I came up with a few possibilities:

- these definitions aren't universally accepted, and tend to be most popular in atheist circles. Theists tend to think that "agnostic" means something like "an undecided person".

- people who believe things very deeply don't like to consider the possibility that their beliefs may be wrong, so even though agnostic theists exist, they don't like to call themselves this.

- most religions make knowledge claims about deities. This runs counter to the central tenet of agnosticism, that knowledge of god(s) is either currently or permanently out of reach.

The last one is the one I'm most interested in. It would imply that agnostics who believe in some sort of god or gods would avoid religions that make knowledge claims about those god(s)... in my mind, this just leaves deism.

Now, I know that a person can be a deist without being an agnostic, but do you think that "agnostic theists" are necessarily deists?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I would say Deism is a more specialized term than Agnostic Theism. Generally, Agnostic Theism may be applied to Deism, but not all agnostic theists would be considered deistic in their approach to belief in God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would say Deism is a more specialized term than Agnostic Theism. Generally, Agnostic Theism may be applied to Deism, but not all agnostic theists would be considered deistic in their approach to belief in God.

I guess I was thinking that any intervention or miracle that a deity performs would potentially be a source of knowledge about that deity, so a god that is completely unknowable would be one that doesn't interact with the universe at all, which to me implies deism.

No?

 

[Willamena]

I got to thinking about some of the conversation in this thread and in this other thread.

I personally hold to the idea that the labels "theist" and "atheist" describe belief, and the label "agnostic" describes a position about knowledge. Therefore, I think that it's valid to use terms like "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist": both would describe someone who believes certain things, but thinks that definite knowledge is beyond him.

However, there seems to me to be a deficiency of agnostic theists... or at least, a deficiency of people who would self-apply the label. I started thinking about why this would be. I came up with a few possibilities:

- these definitions aren't universally accepted, and tend to be most popular in atheist circles. Theists tend to think that "agnostic" means something like "an undecided person".

- people who believe things very deeply don't like to consider the possibility that their beliefs may be wrong, so even though agnostic theists exist, they don't like to call themselves this.

- most religions make knowledge claims about deities. This runs counter to the central tenet of agnosticism, that knowledge of god(s) is either currently or permanently out of reach.

The last one is the one I'm most interested in. It would imply that agnostics who believe in some sort of god or gods would avoid religions that make knowledge claims about those god(s)... in my mind, this just leaves deism.

Now, I know that a person can be a deist without being an agnostic, but do you think that "agnostic theists" are necessarily deists?

When I first came to this board, I called myself agnostic theist (even though my ideas, images, and hence definitions, have changed). At that time, it was very much "someone who believes certain things, but thinks that definite knowledge is beyond him."

Now I am in a peculiar position of knowing the way in which there is no "me" distinct from knowledge for it to be "beyond" me. Am I still the agnostic theist? I think so, among other labels.

Deism is, I think, much misunderstood. I think in its description it sounds a lot like unadulterated panentheism --the idea that all is "in God," hence God needn't "intervene" in the world since the world, in its existence, activities and meaningfulness, is all an "act" of God. But I can see this same idea reflected in some who label themselves theist.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I guess I was thinking that any intervention or miracle that a deity performs would potentially be a source of knowledge about that deity, so a god that is completely unknowable would be one that doesn't interact with the universe at all, which to me implies deism.

No?

But a Deist believes God is knowable, as much as humans can understand God, through nature and the laws that govern the universe. Not in the pantheistic view that God is nature, but rather that nature is evidence of God to a Deist. If God does interact, it is only through natural, not supernatural, means.

 

[Storm]

I agree with tumbleweed, "agnostic theist" is not equivalent to deist. The former might well believe that if God exists, it would be interventionist.

 

[imaginaryme]

I'm an anarchist, also because when one tells another what their belief system is, there is anarchy.

I understand that people use labels for a myriad of reasons, to be understood, to subscribe to a common philosophy, to show sympathy for a standard cause or belief; but my argument is merely to know thyself above all others - cause there ain't no others - and waking up to find oneself aligned with unacceptable dogma is anarchy.

 

[KarlVonMox]

An agnostic theist can be a deist, but its not necessary.

Really, all theists (including deists) are agnostic theists - once you push a theist hard enough to explain what God is eventually they will retreat into the "He is unknowable" argument.

Nobody knows how something can be beyond the physical universe, how something can transcend space and time. This is where the theist will always retreat into agnosticism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now, I know that a person can be a deist without being an agnostic, but do you think that "agnostic theists" are necessarily deists?

I cannot think of a reason why one might think so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I cannot think of a reason why one might think so.

My thinking when I wrote the OP was that divine intercession is a potential source of knowledge about God, and that agnosticism (in the "God is unknowable" sense) implies that no opportunties exist to gain knowledge of God. When I put these two ideas together, the result that I get is that divine intercessions do not happen, which to me implies deism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My thinking when I wrote the OP was that divine intercession is a potential source of knowledge about God, ...

I do not agree with this premise.

 

[Baydwin]

I must admit I'm having difficulty wrapping my mind around the concept of agnostic theism. I can understand agnostic atheism well enough, someone who doesn't think it possible to know whether god(s) exist or not, and so (presumably) adopts an atheistic standpoint as it involves no leaps of faith.

However, I find it hard to imagine how someone can believe in the existence of a god without basing that belief on something 'tangible', like a sacred text, personal experience or even just some contemplative reasoning, all of which I'd define as a form of (supposed) knowledge.
Perhaps I'm just being dense though?

 

[Harshtotem]

sounds like someone can't make up their mind on what to be a agnostic theist- talk about being a Wolf-rabbit- about eating and having the cake-

 

[Willamena]

However, I find it hard to imagine how someone can believe in the existence of a god without basing that belief on something 'tangible', like a sacred text, personal experience or even just some contemplative reasoning, all of which I'd define as a form of (supposed) knowledge.
Perhaps I'm just being dense though?

But that is knowledge of those things (text content, personal experience, line of reasoning). Even if belief in "god" is based on those things, can they claim knowledge of "god"?

 

[Baydwin]

But that is knowledge of those things (text content, personal experience, line of reasoning). Even if belief in "god" is based on those things, can they claim knowledge of "god"?

I don't think I explained myself very well.
Essentially what I don't understand is how someone can believe in something without any basis (however feeble that basis might seem to others). I'm not saying that all theists need to claim knowledge of god, but I can't imagine how any can hold beliefs without a reason, and if you have a reason for believing in god I don't understand how you can still claim agnosticism. Does that make more sense?

 

[Willamena]

I don't think I explained myself very well.
Essentially what I don't understand is how someone can believe in something without any basis (however feeble that basis might seem to others). I'm not saying that all theists need to claim knowledge of god, but I can't imagine how any can hold beliefs without a reason, and if you have a reason for believing in god I don't understand how you can still claim agnosticism. Does that make more sense?

If "god" is something gleaned from the context of a text, from an interpretation of personal experience, or from a deductive line of reasoning, then the person does have some basis for belief. Even without direct knowledge of "god," there is basis for belief; and in having no direct knowledge of "god" there is basis for calling oneself agnostic.

 

[Baydwin]

If "god" is something gleaned from the context of a text, from an interpretation of personal experience, or from a deductive line of reasoning, then the person does have some basis for belief. Even without direct knowledge of "god," there is basis for belief; and in having no direct knowledge of "god" there is basis for calling oneself agnostic.

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with your definition of an agnostic then. For me, an agnostic could not have any basis upon which to reason a belief in god.

 

[Willamena]

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with your definition of an agnostic then. For me, an agnostic could not have any basis upon which to reason a belief in god.

Fair enough. I think it's when the gleaning leads to an understanding (an image) of a vast unknown depth to reality that you find the agnostic theist.

 

[Baydwin]

Fair enough. I think it's when the gleaning leads to an understanding (an image) of a vast unknown depth to reality that you find the agnostic theist.

I think I understand what you mean, a theist who is aware that they can't know what is essentially unknowable. I wouldn't personally use the term agnostic to describe that (I find it too confusing), but I can see why one might.

 

[Willamena]

I think I understand what you mean, a theist who is aware that they can't know what is essentially unknowable. I wouldn't personally use the term agnostic to describe that (I find it too confusing), but I can see why one might.

And this is (again) why I love my dictionary and give it many hugs (it's the concise Canadian Oxford).
Agnostic: "a person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known, of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena."

But as always there are other fine distinctions of "agnostic."