The definition of Agnostic

[brimstoneSalad]

Agnostic has a few common definitions that are rather in conflict.

This was recently brought up in Alexander's intro post, so I've split this here so others may follow the topic and provide their views as well:

I know some people prefer to think of the theist/atheist gnostic/agnostic divide as a quadrant diagram, but I think the spectrum representation with agnosticism in the middle does more justice to the actual psychology of the varying degrees of certainty people can have.

From: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... =30#p11773

That's an interesting thought. With respect to epistemology, I actually find what I view as the more original definition more compelling, which has nothing to do with "god", but instead deals with "gnosis".
You might find some of the accounts of Huxley's coining of the term, and his own words on the topic, to be interesting.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnost ... huxley.htm

Huxley would later become famous again for coining the term agnosticism. In 1889 he wrote in Agnosticism:

"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle ...Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

When a word is coined, I generally like to give the original creator the most say regarding what it means.

Huxley was trying to say, in an important sense, that he wasn't explicitly a+theist (he had no commitment to the rejection of a deity), but that he was a+gnosis (he did overtly reject direct spiritual "knowing"/revelation/faith as a source of knowledge).

From my perspective, both uses (as a quadrant diagram, and as a linear one) are wrong. Although both are much more common than the original, so it may be a lost cause.
Although, as to which one is more psychologically useful, that could be a compelling argument for a new term if the old is found to be problematic.

The way I see it, people can be 100% certain that there is or isn't a god, and also be agnostic, provided their reasons for holding that belief are founded in logic or overwhelming scientific empirical* evidence, and not feeling, faith, or "gnosis", and moreover, that they reject arguments that are founded upon "gnosis" and explicitly disbelieve in that as a source of legitimate knowledge.

* Of course, empirical evidence can never get us to 100%, but let's assume we've rounded up from five nines or whatever.

[Mateo3112]

The way I see it, people can be 100% certain that there is or isn't a god, and also be agnostic, provided their reasons for holding that belief are founded in logic or overwhelming scientific empirical* evidence, and not feeling, faith, or "gnosis", and moreover, that they reject arguments that are founded upon "gnosis" and explicitly disbelieve in that as a source of legitimate knowledge.

If a person is 100% sure that god exists they cannot be agnostic, those two ideas contradict themselves. An agnostic, from what i understand, is a person who is unsure on a certain matter. Therefore, if i'm an agnostic, i cannot be, by definition, "100%" sure. Because if i was 100% sure i wouldn't be unsure. I would be certain that my claim is correct. I would be a dogmatic being.

As for the

theist/atheist gnostic/agnostic

division, i'd say a few other groups are missing. I think a person can either be an atheist gnostic (An atheist who claims to know), an atheist agnostic (An atheist who isn't sure), a theist gnostic (A theist who claims to know), a theist agnostic (A theist who isn't sure) and an agnostic, which i'll define as a person who is unsure on neither of both postures but instead of leaning towards one like the atheist agnostic or the theist agostic, simply doesn't take part in any of those.

But this is all just my opinion.

[bobo0100]

If a person is 100% sure that god exists they cannot be agnostic, those two ideas contradict themselves. An agnostic, from what i understand, is a person who is unsure on a certain matter. Therefore, if i'm an agnostic, i cannot be, by definition, "100%" sure. Because if i was 100% sure i wouldn't be unsure. I would be certain that my claim is correct. I would be a dogmatic being.

In epistemology what we believe (what we claim, or our opinions) is a separate thing from what we know (what is backed up by scientific or logical proofs). In epistemology gnosticism is a claim about the quality of the evidence you have for your belief. It is not about the conviction of the persons belief, (how sure they are). In the example of someone who is 100% sure, they can have there claim backed up by good evidence or not. You can be 100% sure and an agnostic (if you use faith for example).

[Mateo3112]

In epistemology what we believe (what we claim, or our opinions) is a separate thing from what we know (what is backed up by scientific or logical proofs). In epistemology gnosticism is a claim about the quality of the evidence you have for your belief. It is not about the conviction of the persons belief, (how sure they are). In the example of someone who is 100% sure, they can have there claim backed up by good evidence or not. You can be 100% sure and an agnostic (if you use faith for example).

But, isn't the quality of evidence rather subjective? We all have different standards as to what we should accept as fiable evidence or not.
I can for example believe in god based on faith and consider my evidence fiable based on my standards of evidence, calling myself a theist gnostic.
There are many theists who have a high standard or even sometimes impossible to fill standards of evidence, and thus they do not accept what we claim to be strong evidence.
Based on that definition of gnostic, we could all change the term and use it according to our own, personal bias. And because in epistemology gnostic is the term used for the quality of evidence, there wouldn't technically exist any "wrong" or "non-fiable" evidence, given the subjectivity of the matter.

[bobo0100]

But, isn't the quality of evidence rather subjective? We all have different standards as to what we should accept as fiable evidence or not.
I can for example believe in god based on faith and consider my evidence fiable based on my standards of evidence, calling myself a theist gnostic.
There are many theists who have a high standard or even sometimes impossible to fill standards of evidence, and thus they do not accept what we claim to be strong evidence.
Based on that definition of gnostic, we could all change the term and use it according to our own, personal bias. And because in epistemology gnostic is the term used for the quality of evidence, there wouldn't technically exist any "wrong" or "non-fiable" evidence, given the subjectivity of the matter.

I do not agree that quality of evidence is subjective. But I am aware that arguments of this type tend to be a stalemate for continuing discussion in the words of Sam Harris "If someone does not accept scientific consensus, what argument could you use to change his mind... all we can do is appeal to scientific values, and if they do not share those values than the discussion is over." In this case the values I advocate is objectivity.

In epistemology methodology is tested for accuracy and non contradictory logic, and not all methodology's are equal. Faith for example has very low accuracy, and personal whims do not score much better. Scientific methodology, on the other end of the scale, is an incredibly accurate methodology. And how convinced someone is of a claim does not come into it. It's all about accuracy of methodology used to draw appropriate conclusions.