Agnostic theism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist is one who views that the truth value of certain claims particularly existence of god(s) is unknown or inherently unknowable but chooses to believe in god(s) in spite of this. There are contrasting views of the term.

1 Views of Agnostic theism
2 What is Agnostic Theism on About.com
- 2.1 Other pages
3 Criticism
- 3.1 George H. Smith's rebuttal
- 3.2 Rebuttal to Criticisms
4 See also
5 References
6 External links

[edit] Views of Agnostic theism

Many views exist depending on how Theism, Agnosticism, Belief, and Knowledge are defined.

[edit] Theism as belief in god(s), Agnosticism as don't/can't know

Agnostic theism is Belief in Truth but without Knowledge as seen in purple.
see: Epistemology

According to Theism, the opinion that gods or deities exist, and Agnosticism is that existence unknown or inherently unknowable. Belief is defined as a conviction of the truth of a proposition without its verification. Agnosticism does not violate this, and this definition of theism does not violate agnosticism.^[1]

The classical philosophical understanding of knowledge is that knowledge is justified true belief. By this definition, it is reasonable to assert that one may hold a belief, and that belief may be true, without asserting that one knows it. Agnostic Theism could be interpreted as an admission that it is not possible to justify one's belief in god(s) sufficiently for it to be considered known.

According to Fideism this logic statement was used:

Christian theology teaches that people are saved by faith in the Christian god. (i.e. trust in the empirically unprovable).
But, if the Christian God's existence can be proven, either empirically or logically, to that extent faith becomes unnecessary or irrelevant.
Therefore, if Christian theology is true, no immediate proof of the Christian God's existence is possible.

[edit] Theism as belief, Agnosticism as doubt of god(s)

[edit] Christian Atheism

A position that would qualify as agnostic theist, would be in a temporary state of doubt. In short, a theist becomes an agnostic theist when they lose their confidence in the existence of a divinity to some degree but still choose to believe in it. Theists may admit that they experience such doubts that they do not wish to question, in which case they become an agnostic theist. If they experience something that assures them of the existence of some form of divinity, then they will no longer qualify as agnostic theists.

[edit] Theism as belief in knowing of god(s), Agnosticism as doubt of god

According to Theologies opposed to fideism, other Christian views such as Catholicism, Theism requires 100% belief with no doubt at all, and Agnosticism is a form of doubt.

[edit] What is Agnostic Theism on About.com

On "What is Agnostic Theism?"^[1], the author talks about the position that agnosticism is more “reasonable” than theism because it eschews theism’s dogmatism being inaccurate, and how atheism and theism deal with belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge. Weak agnosticism is about personally not having knowledge of god, and strong agnosticism is believing that knowledge about god is impossible. Since belief and knowledge are independent, it's possible to be both. Faith contrasts with knowledge, and people believe through faith. Even Christians have to admit they don't know everything about god, especially using the phrase, “God works in mysterious ways.”

[edit] Other pages

On Atheism vs. Agnosticism, it distinguishes the differences in meanings of agnosticism and atheism, and explains how agnosticism is compatible with both atheism and theism. Also, if atheism is closed minded, then so is theism, and if theism can be open minded, then so can atheism.

[edit] Criticism

This position may be seen as a logical fallacy because the agnostic theist is holding a belief, even though he/she is in a state of doubt. In order to believe something, you give a conviction made on knowledge about something you find to be true; in which an agnostic does not do.^{[verification needed]} Additionally, to be in a state of doubt, you make no conviction.

This position may also be seen as a paradox, in so far as one knows about a deity but does not believe in that deity, and yet one believes knowledge is unattainable of a deity that one has knowledge of, yet doesn't believe in the knowledge one has of that deity of which one knows.

[edit] George H. Smith's rebuttal

In Atheism: The Case Against God^[2] George H. Smith argues that all agnosticism is a form of atheism (defined here as "lacking a belief in a deity"). His argument against agnostic theism is that it is contradictory to state that a being is inherently or currently unknowable, and yet positively assert a belief in its existence. His argument goes:

"One cannot possibly know that something exists without some knowledge of what it is that exists."
If it is declared unknowable, the concept of "god" becomes meaningless. The agnostic theist's statement of belief therefore becomes equivalent to "a blark exists."
- This unspecified belief ("I believe in 'something'") is equivalent to nonbelief ("I am not convinced by any particular religious claim"). Therefore the so-called agnostic theist is in fact an atheist (by being unable to assert a positive belief in any specific deity).
- It ensues that all agnosticism is a form of atheism.
If the agnostic theist still wishes to believe, he must ascribe attributes of some sort to the belief. However, they would then be claiming some knowledge of their deity and are therefore no longer agnostics but are theists instead.

Smith concisely describes the paradox on pg 44:

To posit the existence of something which, by its nature, cannot be known to man is to submerge oneself in hopeless contradictions. [...] When one claims that something is unknowable, can one produce knowledge in support of this claim? If one cannot, one's assertion is arbitrary and utterly without merit. If one can, one has accomplished the impossible: one has knowledge of the unknowable. [...] The theist who is called upon to explain the content of his belief - and who then introduces the "unknowable" as a supposed characteristic of the concept itself - is saying, in effect: "I will explain the concept of god by pointing out that it cannot be explained."

[edit] Rebuttal to Criticisms

According to the criticism, the position may be seen as a fallacy or a paradox because the agnostic theist is holding a belief, even though he/she is in a state of doubt. However, this assumes that Agnostic means to doubt, and that belief cannot have doubt. To summarize, these terms were defined as:

Agnosticism: state of doubt;
Theism: the belief in god(s) without any doubt.
Belief: conviction made on knowledge about something found to be true.

As defined by the criticism, the terms are contradictory. But all those definitions are debatable, by contrast, the terms can be defined as:

Agnosticism - the view that certain claims as truth are unknown, inherently unknowable;
Theism - the belief in the existence of one or more gods or deities.
Belief - a conviction of the truth of a proposition without its verification.

These latter definitions of the terms do not contradict. Based on the latter definitions, one can believe without contradiction that the existence of a god is true while claiming that this truth is unknowable.