AJ

Atheos
Dec 3, 2020
11
2
Post moved to the appropriate section of the forum.
Can an atheist be agnostic?

Again, if we're considering the fullest sense of the word agnostic, which involves being anti-dogmatic, then the answer to the question is no. But if we're considering a limited sense of agnosticism that only deals with God's existence (as opposed to all intellectual matters), then yes, an atheist can also be agnostic.

When it comes to the first scenario (the fullest sense of the word agnostic), the first thing to consider in answering the question is if atheists are dogmatic. By definition, positive or strong atheists are dogmatic when they believe that God doesn't exist. Negative atheists are usually not dogmatic when it comes to God's existence, however, that alone does not make them an agnostic in the fullest sense of the word. The reason is because an agnostic has to be non-dogmatic on all intellectual areas and not just towards religion or God's existence. One good way I look at it is that an agnostic has to be scientific-minded when it comes to religion, politics, philosophy, and any other area where the intellect can be applied. While negative atheists are scientific-minded when it comes to God, but oftentimes you find them becoming dogmatic when it comes to philosophy and politics (e.g. many atheists are liberal when it comes to politics).

*When I bring up the fullest sense of the word agnosticism, I'm referring to what it meant to Thomas Huxley when he coined the word.

Return to Question Index
Hi AB.. I can't wrap my head around this. Atheism is a position on the existence of God. That's it! You are making a statement as if it involves politics. Do you agree that it doesn't?
 
Hi AB.. I can't wrap my head around this. Atheism is a position on the existence of God. That's it! You are making a statement as if it involves politics. Do you agree that it doesn't?
Good points to consider AJ. The tricky part is when it comes to agnosticism because I switch between the modern-day definitions and Huxley's description. I tried to explain that atheism is not compatible with Huxley's agnosticism but it is compatible with the modern-day usage of agnosticism.

I agree with you that atheism doesn't involve politics. But that again is just one more point of distinction to show why an atheist could not be an agnostic if we're going by Huxley's agnosticism. Huxley's standard applies in all intellectual matters so it covers politics, as well. Now, I would say that even if atheism does not apply to politics, but there are those that claim to be guided only by reason and science. If that is the case, then there is a problem if they only apply reason and science to religion only and not to other areas where intellect can be applied, like in politics. That's clearly inconsistent.
 
Why do you get to decide what agnosticism means? I can go by its etymology if I intended to go beyond modern day usage.

The term comes from the Greek. With "a" meaning "without" and the Greek word "gnosis" refers to "knowledge". Placed together it simply means "without knowledge". Thomas Huxley may have been the first to use the two words together but the words and their meaning existed before him.

I still can't wrap my head around your point about atheism and politics. It looks like you are wanting to connect the two in some way. I am also eagerly awaiting your response on consciousness.
 
AJ,

The forum will be closed to new posting on the weekends. I will respond to your post here and on the consciousness thread on Monday. Enjoy your weekend!
 
Why do you get to decide what agnosticism means? I can go by its etymology if I intended to go beyond modern day usage.

The term comes from the Greek. With "a" meaning "without" and the Greek word "gnosis" refers to "knowledge". Placed together it simply means "without knowledge". Thomas Huxley may have been the first to use the two words together but the words and their meaning existed before him.

I still can't wrap my head around your point about atheism and politics. It looks like you are wanting to connect the two in some way. I am also eagerly awaiting your response on consciousness.
The fact of the matter is that Huxley coined the term agnosticism and he offered his own meaning. If asked what a word means, then I suppose the majority of modern-day society can establish a meaning through common usage. But if asked, what it was supposed to mean or its original intent, then it is reasonable to go by the person who coined the word. The word agnostic is derived from the Greek, but that doesn't mean that Huxley has to restrict himself to its Greek meaning. The word "lesbian" is also derived from the name of the Greek island, "Lesbos" but its meaning has since been expanded to include sexual orientation.

I don't even care for the label so much as I do the description. If the label 'agnostic' is a problem, then I would still describe myself as an anti-dogmatic person who doesn't accept any view or conclusion unless it is backed by logic and evidence. That still doesn't fit atheism nor Christianity in some cases.

As for the part about politics, my main point is that agnostics have to apply reason even in areas that go beyond God's existence. If some atheists choose to apply reason only when it comes to God's existence, then they are not agnostics in the fullest sense of the word.
 
Hey AB, I honestly don't care about this issue enough to engage in some prolonged debate. If you want to identify as just being an agnostic, then I can't convince you otherwise. Good luck!
 
I can't wrap my head around this. Atheism is a position on the existence of God. That's it! You are making a statement as if it involves politics. Do you agree that it doesn't?

Politics? Where does that come from? Language is more complex than most believers or nonbelievers seem to recognize. When you say atheism is a position on the existence of God you are assuming an awful lot about the nature of God. Pretty surprising if in fact you haven't any experience of God or gods.

If I accept your framing of what atheism is I'd also self identify as atheist. But I'm not willing to accept a definition of God based on how believers define it. What I believe is that something actually gave rise to and still supports God belief. Whatever that is is as deserving of the God moniker as any articulation of what that was made by a true believer. God, for me, is that which gives rise to God belief. Personally I think what that is is something to be discovered by examining our psychic landscapes. Just as the brain is built up of layers so I think our consciousness is also layered. The simple unencumbered ego most atheists take themselves to be is a fiction, every bit as much as the God the Christians take to be the reason for belief in God.

On the superficial level, no, the mythologized versions of God do not 'exist', leastwise not in the sense my dog, my house or my wife exist. But what it is which gives rise to God exists every bit as much as that which I call my 'self'. Both are products of consciousness, something that is passed along by cultures as much as by biology, and usually communicated in narratives such as legends, myths and the stuff of religion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy