Anonymity is one of the great gifts of the internet. This is why I have ceased to use facebook for the time being. I’ve been listening to Point of Inquiry for the last few weeks and figure I have some time to spend, so why not spend a bit here. Technically I suppose I could be called an agnostic theist, a term coined by my good agnostic atheist friend and co-worker ****** *****.

Still not sure what if any good will come of any contributions I could possibly give here. But if nothing else I suppose I am up for a good internet form style ego-stroking. It’s what the internet is good for, right?

So… any questions?

Don’t you think an agnostic theist is just an agnostic?

Nope. I do not. Gnosis being the common Greek noun for Knowledge, agnosticism, or a-gnosis, means a lack of knowldege, or in the modern colloquialism, an assertion of ones own lack of knowledge. This being said, in my mind, there being a difference in the spectrum of knowledge and the spectrum of belief, one can place themselves wherever they want on the two spectrum. On the spectrum of belief I claim theism, because I do believe in a God. On the spectrum of knowledge, I claim I know very little of anything with any certainty, hence agnostic. (though in my good friend and my opinion,  when it comes to the spectrum of belief or non belief in God, there are few, if any, who really ever get to cross into gnostic territory.)

I can appreciate your linguistic precision, T-A, however, if one wishes to communicate effectively, one does have to recognize that using words with a definition not commonly used will obstruct your transfer of ideas.  While the derivation of agnostic you state would seem to apply to every human, it’s far more general than the more specific one most people accept. 

While we “know” only a microscopic part of the reality of the universe,  even essentially all of that which we think we know is only done so at a high probability. 

I have to disagree with your final parenthetical comment.  As you pointed out earlier, they are spectra.  As such, there is a range of belief from complete lack of knowledge to complete certainty.  Most scientists who would say they are atheists would, on careful examination, agree that there is a probability, extremely (maybe ten to the minus 1000th) that a god exists.  In other words, unless one falls at the 100% level of belief the existence or nonexistence of a god, one is agnostic.

Occam

Occam. - 31 January 2013 06:17 PM

I can appreciate your linguistic precision, T-A, however, if one wishes to communicate effectively, one does have to recognize that using words with a definition not commonly used will obstruct your transfer of ideas.  While the derivation of agnostic you state would seem to apply to every human, it’s far more general than the more specific one most people accept. 

While we “know” only a microscopic part of the reality of the universe,  even essentially all of that which we think we know is only done so at a high probability. 

I have to disagree with your final parenthetical comment.  As you pointed out earlier, they are spectra.  As such, there is a range of belief from complete lack of knowledge to complete certainty.  Most scientists who would say they are atheists would, on careful examination, agree that there is a probability, extremely (maybe ten to the minus 1000th) that a god exists.  In other words, unless one falls at the 100% level of belief the existence or nonexistence of a god, one is agnostic.

Occam

Occam,

I completely agree with the first paragraph. This is unfortunately one of the complications of being on the internet, you are much more likely to run into communities who use terms in very different ways then your IRL community. It is one of the reasons I am ever hesitant to jump into an online form like this. Trust me when I say I have a thorough understanding of the messy-ness of language. While this knowledge definitely helps me avoid simple struggles like senseless debates on semantics, it does make the concept of communicating through text only with a bunch of strangers a rather daunting task. So forgive me while I struggle to adapt to the lingo of this particular community.

As it still remains, the question was whether or not “I” consider agnostic theists to be the same thing as simply an agnostic. To which I still reply with a resounding, no. But if you prefer I can try to describe myself in other terms. I think that there has been a term thrown around here that might fit a bit better, a deist? Though, this is another interesting trouble of introducing oneself. I am an individual, not really a stereotype. Yet the only words I have to try to describe myself are pretty much stereotyping words. deist doesn’t convey who I am either…

As for your second half… Forgive me, I am confused… I think your last sentence summed up what I meant by agnostic, but I think you were trying to convey that the last sentence is not your view? is this correct? If it is then that is ok, we may simply have two different systems of epistemology. I will try to accommodate.

Danda, Welcome. Yeah, you could say that this is like a movie where someone hires a killer. You hang around me long enough and you will find I politely shred your views down to minute parts for examination… It can sometimes be a frustrating and unpleasant experience

To clarify, I’m a scientist who will readily say, if asked, that I’m an atheist, however, if one tries to pin me down by demanding that I offer incontestable proof for my position, I’ll drop back to the agnostic position, however, with the ten to the minus 1000h level of uncertainty.  Sticking with the theism area rather than introducing the complications of general knowledge in other areas, I can understand and accept anyone who declares him/herself a theist at any level of certainty, and who may wish to define the difference between that level and absolute certainty as agnosticism. 

Make sense?

Occam

I think I got it.

So am I still confusing when I say agnostic leaning theist/atheist? Or do you think I would be better off staying away from such terms for clarity sake?

I’m happy with that based on our discussion, however, you may find that you need to do a bit more explaining when you use that description for the first time to someone new.

Occam

That seems to be the usual. I have an odd use of vocabulary for most people. But I’ve gotten used to explaining myself.