Which variety of agnosticism do you identify with most?

[Anonymous]

It turns out that a number of us participating here are agnostic. A basic definition of agnosticism is the position that the existence of a god (or gods) is not currently known and possibly unknowable. But there are different nuances to this position. I am curious what type of agnostic you feel you are—which variety or flavor(s) or combinations thereof you identify with the most.

Agnostic theism — The view that you can’t claim to know god exists, but you still choose to believe. The characteristics of the god you choose to believe in may be under question, but you do believe.

Agnostic deism — The same as agnostic theism, but with the added view that god is not involved with our lives.

Agnostic atheism — The view that you do not believe god exists, but you don’t claim to know for sure either way.

Strong agnosticism — The view that it’s impossible for anyone to know whether God exists. Also called permanent agnosticism.

Weak agnosticism — The view that it may be possible to prove god’s existence at some point, even if we don’t know now. Also called temporary agnosticism—you are withholding judgment. Closely allied with the view that the existence of god cannot be disproved, and that atheism requires just as much a leap of faith as theism does.

Pragmatic agnosticism — The view that there is no proof of god’s existence either way, and since god doesn’t appear concerned about us, the question isn’t important (though living a good life may be important).

Apatheism — The view that the question of god’s existence is not relevant or meaningful. You do not care.

Ignosticism — The view that the existence of god can’t be debated or tested until we’ve all agreed on a definition of what god is.

Fideism — The view that faith is not related to intellectual or rational thought, that belief in god can be chosen for reasons of comfort, hope, or intuition without regard for logic or evidence.

[Anonymous]

I don’t know.

[Anonymous]

While I agree that no one can know there is a God, your definitions make everyone some sort of agnostic – which is true to an extent. I don’t actually consider myself agnostic at the moment (I do believe there is a God), but I have gone through some agnostic phases and once was what I would consider an agnostic atheist (by your definition). If I had to pick one definition above I’d go with agnostic deism because I have thought myself a deist for a number of years now. However, I will also throw in the caveat that this also depends on one’s definition of God. If by “God” we mean the Trinity/Godhead (or some form of it) then I think God does interact with us to some extent through the Holy Ghost. If we are referring to God only as God the Father, I’m definitely deist. As I have pondered God of late I have come to understand that when we refer to God in general (I’m talking all Abrahamic faiths in this case, not just Mormons) we are actually almost always referring to the Holy Ghost, and this is especially true of the Christians – it does appear to be that most Godly interaction with humans is mostly through the Holy Ghost, who is apparently a God himself.

[Anonymous]

All of the above. :angel:

[Anonymous]

As I said in the other post, I think Agnostic Theism, but it depends on the day. I bounce back and forth between that and Agnostic Deism too. Both ideologies make it hard to pray though. I pray at meals and such to make DH happy, but my personal praying is more like having a conversation with powers in the cosmos. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to go back to praying the way I did when I was a believer. I know it’s off topic, but has anyone been able to do that?

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

While I agree that no one can know there is a God, your definitions make everyone some sort of agnostic – which is true to an extent.

Just curious, which definition of the word “know” are you using when you make this statement? It seems to me that many people use the word “know” to mean they are completely convinced of something. Using that definition I think many people can say truthfully that they know there is a God. However, I get the feeling you are using a different definition. I bring this up because my self identification with any of Daeruin’s definitions depends on which definition of this word is being used.

[Anonymous]

Leap wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

While I agree that no one can know there is a God, your definitions make everyone some sort of agnostic – which is true to an extent.

Just curious, which definition of the word “know” are you using when you make this statement? It seems to me that many people use the word “know” to mean they are completely convinced of something. Using that definition I think many people can say truthfully that they know there is a God. However, I get the feeling you are using a different definition. I bring this up because my self identification with any of Daeruin’s definitions depends on which definition of this word is being used.

The definition of “know” certainly does come into play, and to “completely convinced of something” is a definition of the word. I prefer a more narrow definition as in “to be absolutely certain or sure about something (which cannot happen with God since none of us have seen him). I think knowing is beyond a firm belief or being thoroughly convinced. I will also note, like I usually do when the word “know” is the topic of discussion, that the General Authorities, especially the Q15, rarely use the word in the context of “I know the church is true….” All that said, this is my definition of know and not necessarily that of the general membership, general public, or anyone else for that matter.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Agnostic theism — The view that you can’t claim to know god exists, but you still choose to believe. The characteristics of the god you choose to believe in may be under question, but you do believe.

Agnostic deism — The same as agnostic theism, but with the added view that god is not involved with our lives.

Agnostic atheism — The view that you do not believe god exists, but you don’t claim to know for sure either way.

Strong agnosticism — The view that it’s impossible for anyone to know whether God exists. Also called permanent agnosticism.

Weak agnosticism — The view that it may be possible to prove god’s existence at some point, even if we don’t know now. Also called temporary agnosticism—you are withholding judgment. Closely allied with the view that the existence of god cannot be disproved, and that atheism requires just as much a leap of faith as theism does.

Pragmatic agnosticism — The view that there is no proof of god’s existence either way, and since god doesn’t appear concerned about us, the question isn’t important (though living a good life may be important).

Apatheism — The view that the question of god’s existence is not relevant or meaningful. You do not care.

Ignosticism — The view that the existence of god can’t be debated or tested until we’ve all agreed on a definition of what god is.

These are great. I would like to alter them for my own belief system. I am a theist, and accept Christ intellectually. For me, the issue is with the restoration.

Weak/Temporary Restorationism: The view that it may be possible to prove the restoration happened at some point, even if we don’t know now. Also called temporary agnosticism—you are withholding judgment.

Pragmatic Restorationism — The view that there is no proof of the restoration’s existence either way, and since god doesn’t appear concerned with telling us blatantly, the question isn’t important (though living a good life may be important). This means living the basic standards of the church and supporting your family in doing so.

I also hold this belief toward all True Blue Mormons:

Fideism — The view that faith is not related to intellectual or rational thought, that belief in god can be chosen for reasons of comfort, hope, or intuition without regard for logic or evidence. That way I won’t try to detract from their faith.

[Anonymous]

Pragmatic makes the most sense to me

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

Pragmatic makes the most sense to me

Ray — isn’t this broaching the definition of orthopraxy?

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

I don’t know.

Har har. 😆

DarkJedi wrote:

While I agree that no one can know there is a God, your definitions make everyone some sort of agnostic – which is true to an extent.

Leap wrote:

Just curious, which definition of the word “know” are you using when you make this statement? It seems to me that many people use the word “know” to mean they are completely convinced of something. Using that definition I think many people can say truthfully that they know there is a God. However, I get the feeling you are using a different definition. I bring this up because my self identification with any of Daeruin’s definitions depends on which definition of this word is being used.

DarkJedi wrote:

The definition of “know” certainly does come into play, and to “completely convinced of something” is a definition of the word. I prefer a more narrow definition as in “to be absolutely certain or sure about something (which cannot happen with God since none of us have seen him). I think knowing is beyond a firm belief or being thoroughly convinced. I will also note, like I usually do when the word “know” is the topic of discussion, that the General Authorities, especially the Q15, rarely use the word in the context of “I know the church is true….” All that said, this is my definition of know and not necessarily that of the general membership, general public, or anyone else for that matter.

I’m glad you asked. It’s something I was thinking about as I was writing up those definitions (which come almost directly from Wikipedia—I should have put a link in my OP). In an everyday sense or even a somewhat more strict sense, I think the definitions you and DarkJedi mention work just fine, which is part of the reason why I have been able to calm down about people using the word “know” while bearing their testimonies at church. In philosophical circles, for something to be considered “knowledge” it generally has to meet three criteria: (1) you must believe it, (2) you must be able to justify it (evidence, etc.), and (3) it must actually be true. As with anything in the philosophical world, that’s up for debate, but it’s generally accepted. If one of those three criteria is missing, you can’t really say you know something.

By that strict philosophical definition, I think you’re right—pretty much everyone is an agnostic in some sense, because we simply don’t have objective evidence for the existence of God. There are some logical reasons why you might be justified, but those aren’t well accepted (though potentially true). You might be absolutely certain or completely convinced, but that only meets the belief criteria—justification and truth are still up in the air. I think this is why Ray in other recent posts has clarified that intellectually he’s agnostic, but emotionally/spiritually he’s a theist. When you look at things from an intellectual point of view, basically all religious people are really agnostic theists, even if they claim to “know.” Some might be fideists like Ray probably is.

But really the definitions I listed are more about what you personally claim to know and believe. Whether you actually know or not, if you claim to know that God exists, you’re not really agnostic. Other people might think you’re deluded, but your personal beliefs can’t be said to be agnostic.

I was listening to a podcast today (On Being by Krista Tippett, a great podcast) and one of the guests said:

Quote:

Even God must agree with this: The existence of God doesn’t matter; doing the best with what you’ve got does.

I think that comes closest to what I personally believe, and it falls under the tent of pragmatic agnosticism. I think if God really wanted us to know for certain that he exists, he would have let us know by now. Therefore I think that if he does exist, he must find our moral decisions more important than our specific beliefs about him. I lean towards weak agnosticism, because I do see some weird and seemingly unexplainable things in the world that may point to the existence of God, but I don’t claim to know anything and I can’t say I really believe. Maybe I’ll call it skeptical weak agnosticism. I do have hope, but it’s a dim hope. More of a wish, really.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Ray — isn’t (pragmatism) broaching the definition of orthopraxy?

Yes, it is one (very strong) reason/motivation for orthopraxy and heterodoxy to co-exist in someone – even in cases of extreme heterodoxy, like atheism. It certainly isn’t the only reason, but it is a very compelling one.

[Anonymous]

Daeruin wrote:

Fideism — The view that faith is not related to intellectual or rational thought, that belief in god can be chosen for reasons of comfort, hope, or intuition without regard for logic or evidence.

I have never heard this name, but it comes close to a corner of my world.

[Anonymous]

I guess I am weak agnosticism by your definition. I think if God exists he/she/it could appear and clear things up (if only!) Although I don’t think there is really any way to prove it without some miraculous event or appearance. But I am probably moving towards strong agnosticism as time passes and the lack of proof continues!

[Author]

Posts