Love and Religion

[Ava Estelle]

It was always my understanding that an Agnositic was not convinced that God existed and felt that it required to be proven. However they remained open to the possibility. An Atheist on the other hand had come to the conclusion that God did not exist.

Well according to Thomas Huxley, who coined the phrase, everyone is agnostic, because whatever you claim to know about such things you really don't. You may think you do, but by his criteria, unless your claim is demonstrable, it cannot be proved. So you could still be religious, deeply religious, and you could still believe all the tenets of your religion, but if you accepted the simple 'truth' that you simply don't know, you'd be agnostic. This would apply equally to atheists.

[JPaul]

It was always my understanding that an Agnositic was not convinced that God existed and felt that it required to be proven. However they remained open to the possibility. An Atheist on the other hand had come to the conclusion that God did not exist.

Well according to Thomas Huxley, who coined the phrase, everyone is agnostic, because whatever you claim to know about such things you really don't. You may think you do, but by his criteria, unless your claim is demonstrable, it cannot be proved. So you could still be religious, deeply religious, and you could still believe all the tenets of your religion, but if you accepted the simple 'truth' that you simply don't know, you'd be agnostic. This would apply equally to atheists.

No argument from me old bean. Any religion worth it's salt will tell you that it is based on faith. Christianity certainly does.

I don't actually know that China exists either, I just take that on faith. If you think about it pretty much everything we "know" is taken on faith. Anything outwith our own personal experience is taken on faith.

Feck for all I know you could be an Englishman in his fifites living in Australia and killing his days talking trash on the internet. You tell me you are not, so I take that on faith too.

However given that the chaps topic is actually about religion it's probably fairer to use the word as it pertains to that particular subject, rather than it's broader meaning.

[lynx]

Well according to Thomas Huxley, who coined the phrase, everyone is agnostic, because whatever you claim to know about such things you really don't. You may think you do, but by his criteria, unless your claim is demonstrable, it cannot be proved. So you could still be religious, deeply religious, and you could still believe all the tenets of your religion, but if you accepted the simple 'truth' that you simply don't know, you'd be agnostic. This would apply equally to atheists.

No argument from me old bean. Any religion worth it's salt will tell you that it is based on faith. Christianity certainly does.

I don't actually know that China exists either, I just take that on faith. If you think about it pretty much everything we "know" is taken on faith. Anything outwith our own personal experience is taken on faith.

Feck for all I know you could be an Englishman in his fifites living in Australia and killing his days talking trash on the internet. You tell me you are not, so I take that on faith too.

However given that the chaps topic is actually about religion it's probably fairer to use the word as it pertains to that particular subject, rather than it's broader meaning.

If we can't prove the existence of God and that makes everyone (believers or otherwise) agnostic, then the term is meaningless.

I think I prefer your original definition.

[JPaul]

No argument from me old bean. Any religion worth it's salt will tell you that it is based on faith. Christianity certainly does.

I don't actually know that China exists either, I just take that on faith. If you think about it pretty much everything we "know" is taken on faith. Anything outwith our own personal experience is taken on faith.

Feck for all I know you could be an Englishman in his fifites living in Australia and killing his days talking trash on the internet. You tell me you are not, so I take that on faith too.

However given that the chaps topic is actually about religion it's probably fairer to use the word as it pertains to that particular subject, rather than it's broader meaning.

If we can't prove the existence of God and that makes everyone (believers or otherwise) agnostic, then the term is meaningless.

I think I prefer your original definition.

Yup, I pretty much agree with that too.

Religion is based on faith, I suppose the obvious conclusion from you last is that Atheism is too.

[Ava Estelle]

However given that the chaps topic is actually about religion it's probably fairer to use the word as it pertains to that particular subject, rather than it's broader meaning.

You mean the Christian version? "He\she doesn't believe in God but admits they could be wrong."

That was coined by Dr Wace at a church congress in 1888. He wrote ...

"His difference from Christians lies not in the fact that he has no knowledge of these things, but that he does not believe the authority on which they are stated. He may prefer to call himself an agnostic; but his real name is an older one - he is an infidel; that is to say, an unbeliever."

This, of course, is completely untrue, as Huxley stated quite clearly ..

"When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble."

An unbeliever is the same as a believer, they both think they know the 'truth', whereas Huxley maintained the truth couldn't be known.

If we can't prove the existence of God and that makes everyone (believers or otherwise) agnostic, then the term is meaningless.

How can it be meaningless if it has a meaning?

You should remember here that Huxley coined the word to describe his own thoughts, the term was never intended to end up in general use, and certainly not as the Christian church interpreted it.

"So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant;"

[lynx]

If we can't prove the existence of God and that makes everyone (believers or otherwise) agnostic, then the term is meaningless.

How can it be meaningless if it has a meaning?

You should remember here that Huxley coined the word to describe his own thoughts, the term was never intended to end up in general use, and certainly not as the Christian church interpreted it.

"So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant;"

I meant meaningless in the sense of being pointless.

We generally use the word to define differences between groups or individuals. If we change the meaning so that there is no difference, then using the word at all has little purpose in that area.

Huxley's definition seems to be "not gnostic", an entirely different proposition from the usually accepted idea. While Huxley may have come up with this word to describe his own thoughts, it seems that another definition of the word arose concurrently.

[Ava Estelle]

While Huxley may have come up with this word to describe his own thoughts, it seems that another definition of the word arose concurrently.

Quite right, Huxley upset the Christian church by suggesting that the 'certain knowledge' (gnosis) upon which the Christian 'faith' was based was unknowable.

Look at these definitions here ... notice the one near the bottom ... "a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)"

This is similar to JP's definition ... "It was always my understanding that an Agnositic was not convinced that God existed and felt that it required to be proven. However they remained open to the possibility."

Neither of these is strictly true, a true agnostic would say only that the truth was unknowable, how can you be open to the possibility of the unknowable becoming knowable? We're not talking about the 'unknown' here, but the unknowable.

[lynx]

The problem with Huxley's definition of agnostic is that it is based on the presumption that there is something that is not knowable.

The definition of atheist is not (i believe) in dispute. Huxley's assertion is that even atheists must be agnostic, yet by definition an atheist rejects the argument that there is something that is not knowable and is therefore not agnostic.

Consequently, by the very act of denying that definition (of agnostic) the atheist is not defined by it, and therefore the very definition itself is invalid.

I think.

[Ava Estelle]

The problem with Huxley's definition of agnostic is that it is based on the presumption that there is something that is not knowable.

Absolutely, why's that a problem? Surely there are many things that are unknowable? In this particular case though, it's the proof or otherwise of the existance of a god or gods that's the issue.

The definition of atheist is not (i believe) in dispute. Huxley's assertion is that even atheists must be agnostic, yet by definition an atheist rejects the argument that there is something that is not knowable and is therefore not agnostic.

I would have thought the definition of an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. The atheist would say he's not agnostic, yet has no more chance of proving god doesn't exist than a theist has of proving otherwise. One could still be an atheist yet believe there are things that are unknowable, what happened before the big bang for instance.

Consequently, by the very act of denying that definition (of agnostic) the atheist is not defined by it, and therefore the very definition itself is invalid.

I don't think Huxley expected either side to agree with him, although he probably found more converts amongst atheists than theists.

[JPaul]

You mean the Christian version? "He\she doesn't believe in God but admits they could be wrong."

I thought most people used that version, irrespective of who had coined it. Or something similar. Do non-Christians have another meaning.