Agnosticism

src: agnostichumor.files.wordpress.com

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknown.

The British biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word "agnostic" in 1869, and said, "It simply means that one should not say that he knows or believes that he has no scientific basis for professing to know or believe." However, earlier thinkers have written works that promote an agnostic point of view, such as Sanjaya Belatthaputta, a 5th-century Indian philosopher who expresses agnosticism about life after death; and Protagoras, the 5th century BC Greek philosopher who expressed agnosticism about the existence of "the gods". Nasadiya Sukta in Rgveda is agnostic about the origin of the universe.

According to philosopher William L. Rowe, "agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rationale to justify the belief that God exists or the belief that God is not."

Agnosticism is an agnostic doctrine or principle relating to the existence of anything outside and beyond the material phenomena or knowledge of the First Cause or God, and not the religion.

Video Agnosticism

Defines agnosticism

Agnosticism is the essence of science, both ancient and modern. It simply means that one should not say that he knows or believes that he has no scientific basis for claiming to know or believe. Consequently, agnosticism overrides not only the greatest part of popular theology, but also the greatest part of anti-theology. Overall, "bosh" heterodoxy is more offensive to me than orthodoxy, because heterodox claims to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.

What the Agnostics deny and reject, as immoral, is a contradictory doctrine, that there is a proposition to be believed by man, without logically satisfying proof; and the denial must be attached to the profession of disbelief in such unsupported propositions.

Agnosticism is, in fact, not a belief but a method, the essence which lies in the strict application of one principle... Positively the principle can be expressed: In the case of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, regardless of other considerations. And negatively: In the case of the intellect does not pretend that the conclusions are certainly not shown or proven.

Being a scientist, above all, Huxley presents agnosticism as a form of demarcation. A hypothesis without supporting, objective, and testable evidence is not an objective scientific claim. Thus, there will be no way to test the hypothesis, so the result can not be concluded. Its agnosticism is not compatible with forming beliefs about truth, or falsehood, of claims in hand. Karl Popper will also describe himself as an agnostic. According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in this strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.

George H. Smith, while acknowledging that the narrow definition of the atheist is the general definition of the use of the word, and acknowledging that the broad definition of agnostic is the general use definition of the word, promoting the expansion of an atheist definition and narrowing the definition of agnosticism. Smith rejects agnosticism as a third alternative to both theism and atheism and promotes terms such as agnostic atheism (the view of those who do not believe in the existence of any god, but does not claim to know if/god or non-existent) and agnostic theism (the view of those who do not claim know about the existence of any god, but still believe in such existence).

Etymology

Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ? - (a -) , meaning 'without', and ?????? (gn? sis) , which means 'knowledge') was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a metaphysical Society meeting in 1869 to describe his philosophy, which rejected all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge.

Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe "spiritual knowledge". Agnosticism does not become confused with religious views that oppose the ancient Gnostic movement of religion in particular; Huxley used the term in a wider and more abstract sense. Huxley identifies agnosticism not as a belief but as a skeptical evidence-based investigation method.

In recent years, scientific literature dealing with neuroscience and psychology has used the word for "unknowable". In the technical and marketing literature, "agnostic" can also mean the independence of some parameters - for example, "agnostic platform" or "agnostic hardware".

Qualification of agnosticism

Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume argues that a meaningful statement about the universe is always qualified by some degree of doubt. He insists that the mistakes of the human mind mean that they can not obtain absolute certainty except in the trivial cases where the statement is true by definition (eg tautologies like "all unmarried bachelors" or "all triangles have three corners").

Type

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")

The view that the question of the existence or absence of a god or god, and the ultimate nature of reality can not be known by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience except for other subjective experiences. A strong agnostic will say, "I do not know whether a god exists or not, and you can not either."

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporary agnosticism")

The view that the existence or absence of a god is currently unknown but not necessarily unknown; therefore, one shall withhold judgment until proof, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I do not know if there is a god or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something."

Apathy Agnosticism

The view that no debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more gods, and if one or more deities exist, they do not seem to care about human destiny. Therefore, their existence has little or no impact on the personal affairs of human beings and should be of little interest.

Maps Agnosticism

History

Hindu Philosophy

Throughout the history of Hinduism there has been a strong tradition of philosophical speculation and skepticism.

The Rig Veda takes an agnostic view on the fundamental question of how the universe and the gods were created. Nasadiya Sukta ( Creation of the Hymn ) in the tenth chapter of Rig Veda says:

Hume, Kant, and Kierkegaard

Aristotle, Anselm, Aquinas, and Descartes presented arguments that sought to rationally prove the existence of God. The skeptical empiricism of David Hume, the antinomy of Immanuel Kant, and the existentialist philosophy of SÃÆ'¸ren Kierkegaard convince many later philosophers to abandon these efforts, since it is impossible to establish an unshakable proof for the existence or absence of God.

In his 1844 book, Philosophical Fragments , Kierkegaard writes:

Let us call this unknown something: God. It's nothing more than the name we set for it. The idea of ​​showing that this unknown (God) exists, can hardly reveal itself to reason. Because if God does not exist, it is certainly not possible to prove it; and if he does exist, then it is folly to try it. Because at first, as the beginning of my proof, I will require it, no doubt, but surely (the presumption never doubts, for that reason is presupposition), otherwise I would not start, easily understanding that it is entirely impossible if he does not there is. But if when I speak of the proof of the existence of God I mean that I propose to prove that the Unknown, which is, is God, then I express myself unfortunately. For in that case I do not prove anything, let alone existence, but only develop the content of conception.

Hume is Huxley's favorite philosopher, calling him the "Agnostic Prince". Diderot writes to his mistress, telling of Hume's visit to Baron D'Holbach, and describes how a word for the position Huxley later described as agnosticism does not seem to exist, or at least not common knowledge, at the time.

The first time M. Hume found himself at the Baron table, he sat down beside her. I do not know what the purpose of the English philosopher brought him into his head to comment to the Baron that he did not believe in an atheist, that he had never seen him. Baron said to him, "Count how many of us are here." We are eighteen years old. Baron added: "It's not too bad to show you fifteen at a time: the other three have not decided yet."

United Kingdom

Charles Darwin

Raised in a religious environment, Charles Darwin (1809-1882) learned to become an Anglican priest. While ultimately doubting part of his faith, Darwin continues to help in the affairs of the church, even while avoiding church attendance. Darwin stated that "it is absurd to doubt that one may be a persistent theist and an evolutionist." Although in 1879 he was reluctant about his religious views, he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God - I think that in general... an agnostic will be the most appropriate picture of my state of mind.

Thomas Henry Huxley

The agnostic view is as old as philosophical skepticism, but the term agnostic and agnosticism was invented by Huxley (1825-1895) to summarize his thoughts on the contemporary development of metaphysics about "unconditioned" (William Hamilton) and "unknowable" (Herbert Spencer). Although Huxley began using the term "agnostic" in 1869, his opinion has taken some form before that date. In the letter of September 23, 1860, to Charles Kingsley, Huxley discussed his views widely:

I do not affirm or deny human immortality. I see no reason to believe it, but, on the other hand, I have no means to prove it. I have no objection a priori to this doctrine. No one has to deal every day and every hour with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence to justify me in believing other things, and I will believe it. Why dont I? It is not half as beautiful as the conservation of strength or indestructibility of matter...

There is no point in talking to me about analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the box upside down, and I will not rest my life and my hope on a weaker belief...

That my personality is the most certain thing that I know may be true. But the effort to understand what caused me to be a mere verbal subtlety. I have collected all these deposits about the ego and non-ego, noumena and phenomena, and all others, too often do not know that in trying to even think about these questions, human beings intellectually surrender at once out of their depths.

And again, to the same correspondent, May 6, 1863:

I have never had the slightest sympathy with the reasons for a priori of orthodoxy, and I have the greatest possible attributes and dispositions for all atheist and pagan schools. However, I know that I, regardless of myself, are exactly what Christians call, and as far as I can see, justified in vocation, atheist and kafir. I can not see a shadow or little evidence that the great ignorance underlying the phenomena of the universe stands for us in the relationship of a Father who loves us and cares for us as Christianity says. So in relation to other great Christian dogmas, the immortality of the soul and the future of reward and punishment, what objections might I - who are compelled to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and very clearly the state of the present rewards and punishments for our deeds - should these doctrines be? Give me scintilla proof, and I'm ready to jump in their direction.

From the origin of the agnostic name to describe this attitude, Huxley gives the following explanation:

When I reach intellectual maturity and start asking myself whether I am an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or free thinker; I find that the more I learn and reflect, the less prepared is the answer; until, finally, I came to the conclusion that I had no art or parts with these denominations, except the last. One thing most of these good people agree on is one thing that makes me different from them. They are quite certain that they have achieved a certain "gnosis" -has been successful or less successful, solving the problem of existence; while I'm sure I do not have it, and have enough confidence that the problem can not be solved. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I can not think of myself as arrogant in holding that opinion...

So I think, and find what I consider to be the right "agnostic" title. It came into my head as an antithesis to the Church's "gnostic" history, claiming to know so much about things I did not know.... to my great satisfaction the term.

In 1889, Huxley wrote:

Therefore, although, as I believe, it can be proved that we have no real knowledge of authorship, or the date of the composition of the Gospels, as they have come down to us, and that nothing is better than the alleged being more or less able to the subject.

William Stewart Ross

William Stewart Ross (1844-1906) wrote under the name Saladin. He deals with Victorian Freethinkers and the British Secular Union organization. He edited the Secular Review from 1882; his name was changed to Agnostic Journal and Eclectic Review and was closed in 1907. Ross championed agnosticism as opposed to Charles Bradlaugh's atheism as an open spiritual exploration.

In Why I am Agnostic (c) 1889) he claims that agnosticism is "the very opposite of atheism".

Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) declared Why I'm not a Christian in 1927, a classic statement of agnosticism. He asks his readers to "stand on their own two feet and look fair and honest in the world with fearless attitude and free intelligence".

In 1939, Russell lectured on The Presence and Nature of God , in which he characterized himself as an atheist. He said:

The existence and nature of God is a subject I can only discuss in half. If one comes to a negative conclusion about the first part of the question, the second part of the question does not appear; and my position, as you may gather, is a negative thing in this.

However, later in the same lecture, discussing modern non-anthropomorphic concepts of God, Russell states:

That kind of God, I think, is not really denied, because I think an omnipotent and generous creator can.

In Russell's 1947 pamphlet, Am I an Atheist or Agnostic? (subtitle A Plea For Tolerance in Face of New Dogmas ), he pondered the problem of what he called himself:

As a philosopher, if I speak to a purely philosophical audience, I must say that I should describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is no God. On the other hand, if I want to convey the right impression to the common man on the street, I think I should say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I can not prove that there is no God, I must add equally that I can not proves that there is no Homer god.

In his essay of 1953, What Is An Agnostic? Russel states:

An agnostic thinks it is impossible to know the truth in things like God and future life with the Christian and other religions concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least not possible at the moment.

What Is Atheist Agnostic?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, thinks that we can know whether there is a God or not. Christians argue that we can know that there is a God; atheist, which we can know does not exist. Agnostics postpone judgment, saying that there is no good reason for affirmation or denial.

Later in the essay, Russell added:

I think if I hear a voice from the sky predict everything that will happen to me over the next twenty-four hours, including events that seem very unlikely, and if all these events then occur, I might be convinced at least of the existence of some super human intelligence.

Leslie Weatherhead

In 1965 Christian theologian Leslie Weatherhead (1893-1976) published The Christian Agnostic , in which he contended:

... many agnostics who claim to believe in the true God of many conventional church proponents who believe in the no-no body they call God.

Though radical and unpleasant to conventional theologians, Weatherhead's agnosticism fell far short of Huxley, and even short weak agnosticism :

Of course, the human soul will always have the power to reject God, because choice is very important for its nature, but I do not believe that anyone will eventually do this.

United States

Robert G. Ingersoll

Robert G. Ingersoll (1833-1899), an Illinois lawyer and politician who evolved into a famous and sought-after orator in 19th-century America, has been called the "Great Agnostic".

In an 1896 lecture titled Why I Am An Agnostic , Ingersoll recounted why he was an agnostic:

Are there supernatural powers - changing minds - the crowned God - the supreme will that swings the currents and currents of the world - that causes all things to bend down? I do not deny. I do not know - but I do not believe it. I believe that the natural is the highest - that of the infinite chain there is no link that can be lost or damaged - that no supernatural power can answer prayer - no worshiping power can persuade or change - no human caring power.

I believe that with Unlimited weapons Nature embraces everything - that there is no distraction - there is no chance - that behind every event is a necessary and countless cause, and that beyond any event will be and should be a necessary and unnecessary effect counted.

Is there a God? I do not know. Is man eternal? I do not know. One thing I know, and that is, that hope, fear, conviction, and rejection can change facts. As it is, and it will be as it should be.

In closing his speech he simply deduces the agnostic position as:

We can be honest as we do not know anything. If we, when asked what is beyond the known horizon, we must say that we do not know.

In 1885 Ingersoll explained his comparative view of agnosticism and atheism as follows:

Agnostic is an Atheist. Atheist is an Agnostic. The agnostic says, 'I do not know, but I do not believe there is a God.' Atheist says the same thing.

src: s-i.huffpost.com

Demographics

Demographic research services usually do not distinguish between different types of non-religious responders, so agnostics are often classified in the same category as atheists or other non-religious persons.

A 2010 survey published in EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica found that non-religious or agnostic people comprise about 9.6% of the world's population. The November-December 2006 poll published in the Financial Times provided tariffs for the United States and five European countries. The rate of agnosticism in the United States is 14%, while the agnostic level in European countries surveyed is much higher: Italy (20%), Spain (30%), England (35%), Germany (25%)), and France (32%).

A study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that about 16% of people in the world, the third largest group after Christianity and Islam, have no religious affiliation. According to a 2012 report by the Pew Research Center, agnostics comprise 3.3% of the US adult population. In AS. The Religious Landscape Survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center, 55% of agnostic respondents expressed "trust in God or universal spirit", while 41% said they thought they felt the tension of "becoming non-religious in a society where most people are religious ".

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011, 22% of Australians are "not religious", a category that includes agnostics. Between 64% and 65% of Japanese and up to 81% of Vietnamese are atheist, agnostic, or distrustful of gods. Official EU surveys report that 3% of the EU population is unsure about their belief in gods or spirits.

src: thisonevsthatone.com

Criticism

Agnosticism was criticized from different points of view. Some religious thinkers see agnosticism as limiting the ability of the mind to know reality to materialism. Some atheists criticize the use of the term agnosticism that is functionally indistinguishable from atheism; this often raises criticisms of those who adopt the term as avoiding atheist labels.

Theistic

The theistic critics claim that agnosticism is impossible in practice, because one can live only as if God does not exist (etti deus non-daretur), or as if God does exist ( etsi deus daretur ).

Religious scholars such as Laurence B. Brown criticized the abuse of the word agnosticism, claiming that it has become one of the most misrepresentations in metaphysics. Brown raises the question, "You claim that nothing can be known for sure... how, then, can you be so sure?"

Christian

According to Pope Benedict XVI, strong agnosticism is particularly against himself in affirming the power of reason to know the scientific truth. He blames exceptions for reasoning from religion and ethics for dangerous pathologies such as crimes against humanity and ecological disaster. "Agnosticism", Ratzinger says, "is always the fruit of rejection of the real knowledge offered to man... The knowledge of God is always there". He affirms that agnosticism is the choice of comfort, pride, power, and the utility of truth, and is opposed by the following attitude: the sharpest self-criticism, humble listening to all existence, persistent patience and self-correction of the scientific method, the readiness to be purified by truth.

The Catholic Church sees worthiness in examining what it calls "partial agnosticism," especially a system that "does not aim to build a complete, unknowable philosophy but outside a special kind of truth, especially religion, of the domain of knowledge." However, the Church has historically opposed the full rejection of the human mind's capacity to know God. The Vatican Council declared, "God, the beginning and the end of all, can, by the natural light of human reason, be known with certainty from the work of creation".

Blaise Pascal argues that even if there is absolutely no evidence for God, the agnostic should consider what is now known as Pascal's Wager: the infinite expectation of the acknowledgment of God is always greater than the limited expected value of not recognizing its existence, and thus it is a safer "bet" to choose God.

Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli cite 20 arguments for the existence of God, asserting that any request for evidence that can be tested in the laboratory basically asks God, the supreme being, to be a human servant.

Atheistic

According to Richard Dawkins, the difference between agnosticism and atheism is heavy and depends on how close to zero a person is willing to assess the possibility of existence for each entity like a given god. About himself, Dawkins continued, "I am agnostic just to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." Dawkins also identifies two categories of agnostics; "Agnostic In Practice While" (TAP), and "Permanent Agnostic in Principle" (PAP). He states that "agnosticism about the existence of God belongs to the temporary category or TAP, whether or not it exists, it is a scientific question, one day we may know the answer, and in the meantime we can say something strong enough about probability." PAP as "the inevitable type of fence-sitting".

src: i.ytimg.com

Related concepts

Ignosticism is the view that a coherent definition of a god should be asked before the question of the existence of a god can be discussed meaningfully. If the chosen definition is incoherent, ignostic holds a noncognitivist view that the existence of a god is meaningless or empirically unconquerable.

A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept the "gods" as meaningful propositions that can be debated or resisted.

src: previews.123rf.com

See also

src: i.ytimg.com

References

Source of the article : Wikipedia