One of the commonly misunderstood positions on the proposition of the existence of a god is agnosticism. It is often incorrectly perceived that agnosticism is somewhere in between atheism and theism and that it amounts to undecided or is some less dogmatic version of atheism.
The fact is that there are no other possible positions with regards to belief in a god than theism or atheism. You either have belief or you lack belief. Being uncertain is not having belief. Furthermore, theism is a position of belief while gnosticism is a position of knowledge. So, what is the difference between belief and knowledge?
Belief: the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true
Knowledge: justified true belief
Truth: a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, or principle; conformity with fact or reality
It is important to note that the definition of belief, above, does not require that a proposition is true. It is also not necessary that an individual has justification for maintaining a belief. Knowledge, on the other hand, requires both. The diagram below depicts the relationship between knowledge, belief, and truth.
Since belief and knowledge are not mutually exclusive, and since theism and gnosticism are positions of belief and knowledge, neither are theism and gnosticism mutually exclusive. The diagram below shows how these various positions on the proposition of the existence of a god may overlap.
This is why some atheists refer to themselves as agnostic atheists. This means that they lack belief in a god and have no knowledge proving or disproving the existence of a god. I would argue that with regards to the existence of a god it is not possible to be gnostic. The proposition is not provable or disprovable so neither a theist nor an atheist may be gnostic on the subject. Of course this does not stop someone from claiming that they know with certainty one way or the other. Certainty is not knowledge though. It is necessary to prove that their position has justification and can be universally acknowledged as truth.
This is only a brief overview of a few aspects of epistemology. I highly recommend reading more about this topic if you are still uncertain where you stand or if you disagree with the conclusions presented here.
Comment
Most atheists I know only say that there is no proof of any god at any time.
I have said many times, "Shown undeniable proof, I will change my mind on anything, including religion. What will it take to change your mind?" When anyone even tries to reply, it is usually "Nothing will change my mind." Often, that same person will then accuse me of being "closed-minded." They are too intentionally ignorant to see the irony in that.
@Howard Dunn – You can take the definition of any word to such an extreme so as to be ridiculous. It amazes me when people do that with these terms.
'Gnostic' is not an “arrogant label” at all. What part of “believing in something that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt” is arrogant?
Your example of the Higgs-Boson is a perfect example of agnosticism. The fact that there are certain characteristics of physics that need to be explained, and the fact that the HB particle explains them coupled with the fact that the HB has not been conclusively proven is, by definition, belief without conclusive fact. However, no physicist would go around claiming to have “knowledge” of the HB. Also, this example has absolutely nothing to do with superstition.
If you want to take the definition to the extreme that you protest, you MUST be agnostic about the concept that there are invisible pink unicorns dancing on your head. How can you know there aren’t? Based on your logic, just because there is absolutely no evidence supporting such a supposition, and all your senses and the facts surrounding it says that there it’s not true, how can you REALLY be sure?
It is the exact same case for religion. There is and never has been ANY evidence supporting ANY religion’s assertion of its validity. Especially any of the abrahamic religions that support contradictory beliefs. Based on that, I believe that it is perfectly acceptable to be a Gnostic Atheist. I put believing in a god in the same category as believing that there are leprechauns living at the end of rainbows with pots of gold and boogie men sleeping under your bed. Or talking wolves that eat little old ladies and then dress up in their cloths in order to trick little girls into getting close enough to eat them, too. Yes, technically, we can’t know beyond our perception and ability to comprehend reality, but within those realms, we can be absolutely sure of certain things.
However, I do not believe that it is possible to be a Gnostic Theist. People might (and unfortunately do) “believe” in deities, divinity, superstition and fairy tales, but until there is the slightest shred of evidence to support any of these, there can never be true “knowledge”.
New here, just sign in because of this post.
I agree with everything you wrote and I think is a real nice semantic essay.
Beign an agnostic I will put it this way thou:
So huge the difference between "knowledge" and "belief" that after realizing you're an agnostic, what difference your belief will make? What relevance will it have for the main proposition?
© 2018 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!
Join Atheist Nexus