Agnosticism

[Zarnaxus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

 

In your opinion, do you think agnosticism is a good philosophy?

 

Do you agree with it? Do you not agree with it?

 

Is it the best way of looking at things, specifically religion?

 

Which type of agnosticism sounds most like your beliefs?

 

I'm just curious.

[john5746]

I think agnosticism is just intellectual honesty in regards to beliefs without evidence. So, I think it is a good philosophy in that it should keep one humble in regards to their beliefs. However, you shouldn't look at these as a personal attribute, but as approaches to certain beliefs. I would think most people would hold all of the different flavors of agnosticism, depending on the claims considered.

 

For example, I am Ignostic regarding the claim of an abstract God, Apathetic towards the Deist God, Agnostic atheist towards the Abrahamic God.

 

One issue with agnosticism is people tend to think it reduces everything to a 50/50 proposition. If you are not sure, then there is a 50/50 chance that there is a teapot circling Jupiter? Humility comes at a price and that price can be large if you are dealing with monkeys and bombs.

[keelanz]

personally i like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extropianism

 

i think if your honest with yourself agnosticism is the way too go however a belief in something is fundamental, its just an open ended belief so too speak.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm actually extremely agnostic in a sense; I acknowledge as known only tautologies. Everything else is based on assumptions, including science. So technically I can't claim to know the Earth is round, since that is based off of conclusions from unprovable assumptions. However, I'm still going to act as though those assumptions were true, as if the Earth really was round, even if I can't prove it.

[Marat]

You should really have a look at the old essay (1967?) by the Yale University philosopher Norwood Russell Hanson entitled 'Why I am Not an Agnostic,' as a play on the title of Bertrand Russell's famous essay, 'Why I am Not a Christian.' In it, Hanson offers a very good proof that the only religious belief which is totally incoherent is agnosticism -- in contrast to either atheism (which Hanson personally endorsed) or theism.

 

His proof begins by noting that we only seriously entertain doubts about hypotheses that we have good reasons to elevate to the level of genuine puzzles, rather than just empty, theoretical puzzles leading nowhere. So before we can say about something that we are agnostic with respect to its reality or existence, we need to have sufficient evidence that it could be real that we are induced to begin framing it in terms of the rational category of doubt-vs-conviction, or disproof-vs-proof. So if I come into the house from outside and say it is raining, and you have been asleep all day in the dark with the curtains drawn, you would have no reason to doubt my honesty, but you might begin to question my assertion if my clothes are not wet. So here there is good evidence to induct the whole question, 'Is it raining outside?,' into the doubt-conviction language game and to play it seriously. For the moment, because I have no reason to lie about whether it is raining, because you have not yet seen the weather outside for yourself, and because my clothes and hair are curiously not wet, you actively and seriously doubt my assertion.

 

But contrast with this situation the hypothetical case where I invite you into my very ordinary looking apartment in a skyscraper in the middle of a major city, which you have visited many times before, and tell you that I am keeping a pet giraffe in the front hall coat closet. There is absolutely no evidence of this and it appears impossible or self-contradictory as an hypothesis, since how would I get permission to keep a giraffe, how would it fit in such a small closet, why couldn't you smell or hear it, how would it survive in the closet, where is the food and water for it, why would I do such a ridiculous thing as keep a pet giraffe, etc. In the face of such an extraordinary and implausible assertion, you do not even induct it into the whole language game of doubt or certainty, but instead you just dismiss it as a joke, some absurdity on my part, or evidence of my having gone insane.

 

You are not actively 'agnostic' with respect to the giraffe's presence in the closet just because I won't let you actually unlock the closet and peer inside. You would have to be insane yourself to spend the rest of your life declaring yourself an agnostic as to whether there was really a giraffe in my front hall closet or not. And of course the same applies to the God hypothesis, which is so extraordinary that you would not even be agnostic with respect towards it unless there was much better evidence for it than there is.