I think my point remains. Without a clear definition agnosticism remains hijacked by atheism/materialism.
If we are to assume the position of Agnostic, we have to agree to the "terms and conditions" defining Agnosticism and also we have to have those definitions heard and accepted by those in both materialist and supernaturalist positions, even giving weak atheists opportunity to become actual agnostics instead of presumed ones.
Therefore, without that particular dogma, the position will remain indistinct/foggy et al re understanding and application.
ETA
Agnostic 2: Q: Is taking an agnostic position on unknown things, a matter of safety (as the quote above implies) or of sensibility aligned with current knowledge of reality?
Agnostic 1: I think it can be both can be factors and it depends on why someone takes the agnostic position. Some people take the agnostic position out of laziness or not caring about the issue. Some might take the agnostic position because they don't want to take a stand, especially if it's a hot button issue, so they stick to a middle-of-the-road position. These are all bad reasons to be an agnostic, in my view.
But the good reasons for being one is your other option which aligns it with the current knowledge (or lack thereof) for a given topic. If we don't know whether or not Genesis was meant to be literal or not, then the best thing to do is to remain agnostic until there's evidence.
GPT: The concept of agnosticism, as presented in your discussion, seems to involve two main aspects: one related to personal attitudes and motivations, and the other related to an evidence-based approach.
- Personal Attitudes and Motivations:
- Agnostic 1 mentions that some people might adopt an agnostic position out of laziness or indifference. This implies that for some, agnosticism might not be a thoughtful or reasoned position but rather a lack of engagement or concern.
- Additionally, there's a mention of avoiding taking a stand on controversial issues, indicating that agnosticism can be chosen as a middle-ground stance to avoid conflicts or commitment.
- Evidence-Based Approach:
- Agnostic 1 also highlights a more principled approach to agnosticism, where it aligns with the current state of knowledge or lack thereof. This suggests that the agnostic position can be a rational response when there is insufficient evidence to make a definitive conclusion.
Considering both aspects, it appears that the strength of the agnostic position may vary depending on the reasons behind adopting it. When agnosticism is driven by a thoughtful consideration of the available evidence and a recognition of uncertainty, it aligns with a sensible approach. On the other hand, if it stems from indifference, laziness, or a desire to avoid controversy, it may not be as commendable.
Ultimately, being agnostic about a particular topic can be a reasonable and cautious approach when there is a lack of conclusive evidence. It allows individuals to remain open-minded and receptive to new information while avoiding unwarranted certainty in the absence of adequate knowledge.
Agnostic 2: The smoke and mirrors appear to be in the strong/weak atheist relationship and how "weak atheist" have been identified by materialists as "agnostics".
This opens up a question re the validity of the label being used, as weak atheists already existed long before Huxley coined the term "Agnostic".
Also, there may be some confusion in Huxley using the term as it implies an opposition to Gnosticism with the prefix "A" and it is know that "A" theists are in opposition to theists, thus implies "A" gnostics are in opposition to gnostics.
So the first question I ask, is this what Huxley was trying to achieve this implication, by coining the word simply by placing an "A" in front of an already established word?
Agnostic 1: I doubt that because he would not have needed to create the word agnostic. Based on my research of Huxley's writings on the issue, I definitely agree that he created agnosticism to be distinct from atheism. We might differ on what we think that distinction was, and that's mainly based on our different definitions for agnosticism. Many see the distinction being only between knowledge and belief, with agnosticism dealing with knowledge and atheism with belief. Others see the difference based on atheism being defined as disbelief (as opposed to
lack of belief) in God's existence. I think the distinction as being between those that accept dogma (which Huxley would say atheists are included) or those that engage in dogmatic thinking/attitudes vs. those that don't (agnostics).
In the end though, even if many atheists define themselves as weak atheists lacking belief in God, then the type of thinking and actions that they engage in will also come into play in defining them. And that's where people also see a difference between atheists and agnostics, with the latter being seen as less dogmatic, more open-minded, etc.
GPT: The origin and distinction of the terms "agnosticism" and "atheism" can be complex and have evolved over time. It's important to note that the interpretations and usage of these terms can vary among individuals and scholars. Let's delve into the discussion you provided:
- Huxley's Intent in Coining "Agnostic":
- Agnostic 2 raises the question of whether Huxley intended an oppositional implication with the prefix "A" when coining the term "agnostic." The mention of opposition to Gnosticism is highlighted.
- Agnostic 1 expresses doubt about this implication, suggesting that Huxley likely did not create the term agnostic to directly oppose Gnosticism but rather to distinguish it from atheism.
- Distinguishing Agnosticism from Atheism:
- Agnostic 1 points out that Huxley created agnosticism to be distinct from atheism. The distinction is discussed in terms of knowledge and belief. Some define agnosticism as dealing with knowledge and atheism with belief, while others see the difference in terms of disbelief in God's existence.
- Agnostic 1 suggests a possible distinction based on the acceptance or rejection of dogma, with agnostics viewed as those who don't engage in dogmatic thinking.
- Difference in Thinking and Actions:
- Agnostic 1 notes that even if some atheists define themselves as weak atheists lacking belief in God, their thinking and actions may still differentiate them. Agnostics are often seen as less dogmatic and more open-minded.
In summary, Huxley's intent in coining "agnostic" might not have been to create a term in direct opposition to Gnosticism but rather to establish a distinct position from atheism. The distinction could be related to the approach to knowledge, belief, and engagement with dogma. The perception of agnostics as less dogmatic and more open-minded is also highlighted.
It's crucial to recognize that the understanding and use of these terms can vary among individuals and may depend on the specific context and definitions adopted by different communities or scholars.
Agnostic 2: I think my point remains. Without a clear definition agnosticism remains hijacked by atheism/materialism.
If we are to assume the position of Agnostic, we have to agree to the "terms and conditions" defining Agnosticism and also we have to have those definitions heard and accepted by those in both materialist and supernaturalist positions, even giving weak atheists opportunity to become actual agnostics instead of presumed ones.
Therefore, without that particular dogma, the position will remain indistinct/foggy et al re understanding and application.
GPT: Agnostic 2 raises a valid concern about the potential lack of a clear and widely accepted definition of agnosticism. The challenge lies in ensuring that the term is defined in a way that accurately reflects its intended meaning and distinguishes it from other positions, such as atheism and materialism. Let's break down the key points:
- Defining Agnosticism:
- Agnostic 2 emphasizes the importance of having clear definitions for agnosticism. Without a well-defined understanding of agnosticism, there is a risk of it being perceived or interpreted in ways that align more with atheism or materialism.
- Avoiding Hijacking by Other Positions:
- The concern is expressed that agnosticism might be "hijacked" by atheism or materialism if its definition is not clearly established. This implies that there is a need for clarity to maintain the distinctiveness of the agnostic position.
- Seeking Acceptance Across Positions:
- Agnostic 2 suggests that the definitions of agnosticism should be heard and accepted not only by materialists and atheists but also by those holding supernaturalist positions. This implies a desire for a broad consensus on the meaning of agnosticism.
- Allowing for Transition from Weak Atheism to Agnosticism:
- There's a call to give weak atheists the opportunity to become actual agnostics, highlighting the idea that some individuals may currently identify as weak atheists when their perspectives might align more with agnosticism.
- Addressing Potential Indistinctness:
- The concern is raised that without clear definitions and without addressing potential "dogma," the position of agnosticism may remain indistinct, leading to challenges in understanding and application.
In conclusion, Agnostic 2 underscores the importance of establishing clear definitions for agnosticism, seeking acceptance across various belief systems, and allowing for individuals to transition from other positions to agnosticism. This effort is aimed at preserving the distinctiveness of the agnostic perspective and preventing it from being blurred or misinterpreted in discussions about belief and knowledge.
Me. Ag2 appears to be arguing for pro-activity from actual agnostics, to counter the “lazy” attachment associated with agnostics (re so-called “weak atheists”).
GPT: It seems that Agnostic 2 is indeed advocating for a more proactive and engaged stance from individuals who identify as agnostics. This proactivity is aimed at countering what Agnostic 2 perceives as a potentially "lazy" attachment to the term agnostic, especially in comparison to the term "weak atheists." The concern may be that some individuals might adopt the label of agnostic without fully engaging with or actively defining the position, allowing it to be overshadowed or misconstrued by other terms.
By emphasizing the importance of clear definitions, seeking acceptance across belief systems, and allowing for transitions from other positions, Agnostic 2 appears to be encouraging a more deliberate and assertive approach to the identity of being agnostic. This approach involves not only adopting the label but actively participating in shaping and communicating what it means to be an agnostic, with the goal of maintaining the distinctiveness of the position.