Calvinist Cowboy
Puritan Board Junior
The following is a Facebook note written by a friend of mine who is an agnostic. I would like advice on the best way to respond to his arguments.
"Today, I'd like to talk about a source of boundless misunderstanding and a pet peeve of mine: Agnosticism. Now, before you grab your torches and pitchforks (though you wouldn't, since my friends seem to be fairly open minded), let me explain. Agnosticism is not what many people seem to think it is. It isn't synonymous with Atheism. In fact, it has as much in common with Theism as with Atheism. Which is not much, besides the subject matter. Agnosticism is no more connected with Atheism than Science and Religion, Church and State, Knowledge and Belief. Those last two are the root of the issue, but I'll get to that shorty.
First, an analysis of what people think Agnosticism is. The immediate answer from the majority of people is that it passes no judgment on whether or not God(s) exist, and therefore is the middle ground between Atheism and Theism. It is not. Unfortunately, this seems to be the most common usage. Common enough to be on Wikipedia, most of the time (one of the few times Wikipedia is wrong, but it's a misunderstood issue, so I think we can forgive it this once). But that doesn't make it right.
“So, what do Agnostics believe?” you might ask me. And I would respond: “Anything.” See, Agnostics don't believe anything specific. It's not a belief system. That is the biggest misunderstanding, so I'll repeat it again: Agnosticism does not relate to beliefs. What it does relate to is knowledge. As one can tell from the word, assuming one has a strong understanding of ancient Greek, is that it comes from the prefix “a-”, which means against or not, and the (Romanized) base word “gnosis”, which means knowing. So, the basis of the word itself is knowledge, not belief. This means that, regardless of what you belief, one will always also be an Agnostic or a Gnostic, either they know or they don't know. This groups everyone into one of four groups: Agnostic Theist, Gnostic Theist, Agnostic Atheist, and Gnostic Atheist.
The simple fact of the matter is, while one is alive, one cannot know for sure that God(s) exist, or that no God(s) exist. There is not sufficient proof against the existence of all of them, followed or potential, and there is not sufficient proof supporting the existence of any of them, simply by the nature of religion. What this means is that any logical person, regardless of the strength of their beliefs one way or another, must place themselves in the Agnostic camp. There simply isn't proof for either side of beliefs. Hence, Agnosticism is open-minded and logical group which most people should strive to fall into, whether they're Atheists, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Snake Handlers, or any other set of beliefs.
Gnosticism is essentially the mirror image of Agnosticism. It includes people who says “I know that God exists” or “I know that there are no Gods”. Mere assertions, presented as definite facts, and without enough proof to back it up. This is close minded, delusional, and Dogmatic. The exception would be if certain beliefs can be logically falsified, but even that's a very slippery slope, and should be avoided unless for some reason proven necessary. Gnosticism is not the way of tolerance or understanding, two assets which are all but required in the diverse modern world.
To get back to my original point, Agnosticism is not something to be scorned, and is separate from belief. It's the smartest path to take, since it's the only one founded on the one absolute truth that is universal, regardless of religion or set of beliefs: no one knows for sure if God(s) exists. Agnostics just accept that fact, and keep it separate from their faith."
"Today, I'd like to talk about a source of boundless misunderstanding and a pet peeve of mine: Agnosticism. Now, before you grab your torches and pitchforks (though you wouldn't, since my friends seem to be fairly open minded), let me explain. Agnosticism is not what many people seem to think it is. It isn't synonymous with Atheism. In fact, it has as much in common with Theism as with Atheism. Which is not much, besides the subject matter. Agnosticism is no more connected with Atheism than Science and Religion, Church and State, Knowledge and Belief. Those last two are the root of the issue, but I'll get to that shorty.
First, an analysis of what people think Agnosticism is. The immediate answer from the majority of people is that it passes no judgment on whether or not God(s) exist, and therefore is the middle ground between Atheism and Theism. It is not. Unfortunately, this seems to be the most common usage. Common enough to be on Wikipedia, most of the time (one of the few times Wikipedia is wrong, but it's a misunderstood issue, so I think we can forgive it this once). But that doesn't make it right.
“So, what do Agnostics believe?” you might ask me. And I would respond: “Anything.” See, Agnostics don't believe anything specific. It's not a belief system. That is the biggest misunderstanding, so I'll repeat it again: Agnosticism does not relate to beliefs. What it does relate to is knowledge. As one can tell from the word, assuming one has a strong understanding of ancient Greek, is that it comes from the prefix “a-”, which means against or not, and the (Romanized) base word “gnosis”, which means knowing. So, the basis of the word itself is knowledge, not belief. This means that, regardless of what you belief, one will always also be an Agnostic or a Gnostic, either they know or they don't know. This groups everyone into one of four groups: Agnostic Theist, Gnostic Theist, Agnostic Atheist, and Gnostic Atheist.
The simple fact of the matter is, while one is alive, one cannot know for sure that God(s) exist, or that no God(s) exist. There is not sufficient proof against the existence of all of them, followed or potential, and there is not sufficient proof supporting the existence of any of them, simply by the nature of religion. What this means is that any logical person, regardless of the strength of their beliefs one way or another, must place themselves in the Agnostic camp. There simply isn't proof for either side of beliefs. Hence, Agnosticism is open-minded and logical group which most people should strive to fall into, whether they're Atheists, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Snake Handlers, or any other set of beliefs.
Gnosticism is essentially the mirror image of Agnosticism. It includes people who says “I know that God exists” or “I know that there are no Gods”. Mere assertions, presented as definite facts, and without enough proof to back it up. This is close minded, delusional, and Dogmatic. The exception would be if certain beliefs can be logically falsified, but even that's a very slippery slope, and should be avoided unless for some reason proven necessary. Gnosticism is not the way of tolerance or understanding, two assets which are all but required in the diverse modern world.
To get back to my original point, Agnosticism is not something to be scorned, and is separate from belief. It's the smartest path to take, since it's the only one founded on the one absolute truth that is universal, regardless of religion or set of beliefs: no one knows for sure if God(s) exists. Agnostics just accept that fact, and keep it separate from their faith."