Talk:Agnosticism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"Agnostic" as used of people who believe in God but don't go to church

Aren't there some people who call themselves agnostic because they believe in God but don't belong to a particular church? Is there another word for that? Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would someone who believe in A god be connected to a church? - you seem to mixing up the term "God" with "christian God concept". --Fredrick day (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

An agnostic is someone who believes the existence of God or Gods to be unknowable. For many agnostics, the concept of God is irrelevant. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, an agnostic is someone who doesn't believe or disbelieve in gods. You're referring to the more narrow group that Dawkins calls PAPs (permanent agnosticism in principle). Richard001 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, my definition of agnosticism is correct. You can check it. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone please add this to the article? Richard001 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Improvement

I think this article should be improved. The article atheism is a Featured Article. This article should achieve at least Good Article status. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Ratzinger

I have just added this, with the indents that follow the style of this page.

According to Ratzinger, if the question of the knowability of God is not addressed, then “agnosticisim would in fact be the only correct attitude for man,” an “honest and devout” acknowledgement of that which eludes our field of vision. Ratzinger (later elected as Pope Benedict XVI also cautions against a premature objection to agnosticism, one that is merely based on affirming the “thirst for the infinite.” He says that the best critique lies in the practical realm: The true way to call agnosticism into question is to ask whether its program can be realized. Is it possible for us, as human beings, purely and simply to lay aside the question of our origin, of our final destiny, and of the measure of our existence? Can we be content to live under the hypothetical formula “as if God did not exist” while it is possible that he does in fact exist? I am forced in practice to choose between two alternatives: either to live as if God did not exist or else to live as if God did exist and was the decisive reality of my existence. What is at stake [in agnosticism] is the praxis of one’s life. Ratzinger thinks that human reason has the power to know reality, and attain the truth. For this, he alludes to the achievements of the natural sciences. He believes that agnosticism is a self-limitation of reason rooted in Kant: reason imposes limits on itself which can lead to dangerous pathologies of religion, such as terrorism and pathologies of science, such as ecological disasters. He thinks that this self-limitation is contradictory to the modern acclamation of science. When people argue that God is unknowable because he cannot be experienced, Ratzinger differentiates God from other knowable objects: This question regards not that which is below us, but that which is above us. It regards, not something we could dominate, but that which exercises its lordship over us and over the whole of reality. Ratzinger thinks that there is a natural knowledge of God, and agrees with Paul of Tarsus that “agnosticism that is lived out as atheism” is an not “an innocent position.” Agnosticism is always the fruit of a refusal of that knowledge which is in fact offered to man… Man is not condemned to remain in uncertainty about God. He can “see” him, if he listens to the voice of God’s Being and to the voice of his creation and lets himself be guided by this. The history of religions is coextensive with the history of humanity. As far as we know, there has never been an epoch in which the question of the One who is totally other, the Divine, has been alien to man. The knowledge God has always existed.

I've done something similar at Truth#Ratzinger. This was discussed here: Talk:Truth#Ratzinger. I believe Ratzinger is a highly notable author, who wrote about truth and agnosticism. His ideas concern contemporary issues as well, making them doubly notable. Marax (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• The reason there are no sources that can be used to show the unoriginality & lack of focus in Ratzinger's presentation is that only his supporters take him seriously. The section, besides wandering off-topic, appears to be little more than a cheering section to get his name to appear in the article. While HE may be notable, his views are not notable except among his supporters and they do not form anything new in the history of discussion on the topic. The focus on personality (getting HIS name & HIS picture in the article) detracts from whatever relevant (repackaged) points that might be worth adding to the article. --JimWae (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think it is highly inappropriate to include the views of Joseph Ratzinger in this article. He is certainly not an advocate of agnosticism. I am removing his views. --Masterpiece2000 04:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To Masterpiece2000: Whether or not he was an advocate of agnosticism should not be criteria for keeping or removing Ratzinger's material. Verifiability of the source is more important than the source's position on a topic. To JimWae: Ratzinger's views do not have to be notable to be included. Content within the article is not required to meet notability guidelines. A scholarly and verifiable work should be sufficient for inclusion, don't you think? --Ds13 (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree advocacy cannot be a requirement, but how is a work that is virtually unnoticed by scholars to be judged scholarly? Those who have noticed it, have not examined it, they have done little more than repeat the views to achieve a kind of bandwagon. Just because he is notable, does not mean he has said anything notable. All he has said is 1> Kant is wrong (remarking only that his conclusion was wrong, and not saying anythiing about his argument) & 2> some people who may have (or may not have) agreed with Kant were dangerous people. Ratzinger has not contributed anything new, and his views, while repeated by a few proponents, have not become part of scholarly discussion. --JimWae (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ratzinger also is not writing to explain what agnosticism is, but rather is writing to criticize it. He should not be in the same list as Huxley & Russell & Ingersoll. I believe there are some wiki-guidelines about criticism sections which could be worth another look --JimWae (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• If Ratzinger is not being published in a peer-reviewed media or he's not considered scholarly by peers then I agree with you — keep his material out of Wikipedia. I may have made the mistake of assuming he was seen as scholarly. Maybe not the most original scholar, maybe not the brightest, but still a reliable scholar... No? Then I yield. --Ds13 (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

D13: You are very very right. Benedict XVI belongs to the French Academy. He replaced Andrei Sakharov. Secular thinkers hold him in very high esteem. here. Thank you. Pradeshkava (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No to censorship!

I strongly agree with Ds13. The attempt to remove Ratzinger's ideas is a blatant censorship of a notable author and reliable scholar, and ideas published in highly reliable sources. Their removal is a clear violation of NPOV. Some people only want to hear a one-sided view of Agnosticism: only of Agnostics!! A unilateral perpective is most alien to Wikipedia. An abomination. You have to read and abide by Wikipedia policy first. Never anyone's policy. NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. All Ratzinger's quotes are from a reliable source. They are not from tabloids. They are from well-known publishers. Any censorship in Wikipedia should stop. Lafem (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because your edits aren't supported does not make it censorship; its removing inappropriate soapboxing. Kindly drop the "censorship" nonsense and discuss any merits your desired edits may have for improving this article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Marax, Lafem and Ds13 are correct in saying that Ratzinger has a place in Wikipedia's article on agnosticism. Ratzinger wrote about agnosticism; a bright mind such a Ratzinger deserves a place in this encyclopedia. Ran9876 (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

He has a place in this encyclopedia; in fact he has an entire article, as well as numerous quotes etc. in various other articles which pertain to Catholicism. What he does not have is any reputation as an expert on Agnosticism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

People at the UN regard him as an expert on world matters and matters related to religion. They heard him speak a few hours back. Many people all over the world read his regensburg address, his book on truth, his works that deal with kant. Millions have read Ratzinger more than they have read Ingersoll!! Lafem (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agnostics are not the only people who understand agnosticism. Indians, Africans and Latin Americans look up to Benedict XVI as a spokesman for religion and the rights of God. The vast majority of world population are religious. We have a right to be heard when we talk about unbelief or lack of belief or lack of knowledge of our God. Pradeshkava (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's rediciulous! Agnosticism is a non-religious ideology. The views of Benedict XVI should be in his biography. Please don't push your POV. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The attempt to remove Ratzinger's ideas is not a blatant censorship. I respect Benedict XVI. I have no problem with him. His views should be presented in religion-related articles. This article is about agnosticism—a non-religious ideology. Here, we have to describe about agnosticism, not promote the views of a religious leader. Pradeshkava, most people in this planet are religious. However, there are over one billion non-believers (atheists, agnostics, humanists, rationalist, etc.). If you have any constructive suggestion for the article, feel free to make your point. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pradeshkava and RAN9876. Maserpiece2000 and killerchichuaha, this is not the Secularists Encyclopedia. This is Wikipedia. Here there reigns a Neutral Point of View: the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. The sentence speaks volumes to defend what I have done and every word condemns the vandalistic removal of Ratzinger's POV. Wikipedia should contain the agnostic's and secularist's point of view, the Catholic theological point of view, the protestant point of view, the muslim point of view, and whatever point of view. It is not your interpretation of agnosticism that matters. It is the prominent writers interpretation that matters. Are you more prominent than Ratzinger? Better still, is Ratzinger's viewpoint published by a reliable source or not? Is he prominent or not? On both counts your erasure is a violation of NPOV! Lafem (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Lafem, what about WP:CIVIL? When did I claim that I am more prominent than Ratzinger? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the categories at the bottom, this article is under Theological Thought. Ratzinger is a prominent theologian, right now one of the most prominent. I would say the most prominent!! Lafem (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Until people have satisfactorily overcome D13's arguments above and below and my arguments (ratzinger is prominent theological thinker writing about an article under category of theological thought), any unilateral removal of content related to ratzinger's thought is to be considered vandalism, not just an NPOV violation. Any goodstanding administrator knows this commonsensical rule. Lafem (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Lafem: You are very very right. I admire Benedict XVI. He belongs to the French Academy. Secular thinkers hold Benedict XVI in high esteem. here Pradeshkava (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ratzinger's section in this article is totally inappropriate. It's akin to having the views of a prominent atheist published in the Roman Catholic Church article. It should be removed. Standardtheme (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We could debate whether you have a valid analogy there but fortunately we don't need to judge content by analogy. The standards of 1) Verifiability, 2) Neutral Point of View, and 3) No Original Research are the final words when deciding to include or exclude content. It would be helpful to present your objection to the content in terms of which principle it violates. --Ds13 (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians generally consider irrelevant that other stuff exists. And yes to D13's point-- NOR, NPOV and Verifiability are the ultimate Wikipedia policy standards. Lafem (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize that Standardtheme is a newbie. This is his second edit. You might want to brush up on Wikipedia policies, Standardtheme, so your contribution can be meaningful. Lafem (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop biting a newbie. Standardtheme is right. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy on contradictory sources of Agnosticism

We're not navigating any new WP territory here so this shouldn't be controversial. If the Ratzinger content is 1) verifiable and 2) not original research, and as long as the article presents a 3) neutral point of view (e.g. via structure, balance, characterizing the content, etc.)... then the content should be included. When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page. Ratzinger is a reputable source if he is considered a scholar and is published in peer-reviewed media. So it just comes down to that question, doesn't it? --Ds13 (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Original question asked: Ds13, will you include the views of Richard Dawkins in the article Christianity? Dawkins has spoken about Christianity. His views are 1) verifiable and 2) not original research, and presents a 3) neutral point of view (e.g. via structure, balance, characterizing the content, etc.). Similarly, we cannot include the views of Ratzinger in this article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Masterpiece2000, I would most certainly support the inclusion of Dawkins' views on Christianity in the Christianity article if the content satisfied the criteria you suggest. That's not just the ideal for any article's content, it's the only standard. Any editors who find themselves surprised by new material edits just need to reflect on those criteria to find the answer. Reliably sourced critical commentary on a topic and, in turn, reliably sourced counterarguments against the criticism can all live happily in the same article if it maintains a neutral point of view and original research isn't being done. Hopefully the Christianity article isn't pro-Christianity and the Agnosticism article isn't pro-Agnosticism. These articles are never "done", are they? :) --Ds13 (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ds13, will you include the views of Bertrand Russell on Christianity in the article Christianity? Russell has spoken about Christianity. His views are 1) verifiable and 2) not original research, and presents a 3) neutral point of view (e.g. via structure, balance, characterizing the content, etc.). I don't think you will include the views of Russell in the article Christianity. Similarly, we cannot include the views of Ratzinger in this article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Masterpiece2000, emphatically YES, I would love to see Russell's views on Christianity in the Christianity article if they are as V, NOR, and NPOV as you claim. --Ds13 (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ds13, I like the way you argue. Your comments are civil. If I were to include Russell's views on Christianity in the Christianity article, many users will oppose the inclusion. I don't think Ratzinger's views add anything to the article. I am planning to rewrite the whole article. Look at the article atheism. It's a Featured Article. This article is start-class. The views of Ratzinger will create problem. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to challenge the Ratzinger enthusiasts to put in point form what Ratzinger says. I think, if we could eliminate the original syntheses we'd be able to better discuss HOW to include this opposing viewpoint. Right now, appearing as a separate section at the end of the article, it functions as a critism section - something wiki-guidelines advise against. The section has many other problems besides being an original synthesis. It is so congested that the main points are obscured, and there is also questionable attribution.
  • We should always be wary of any attribution of any idea to someone when it is contained in a 35 word sentence with THREE separate SPLIT quotes of just 6 words, 7 words, and just 3 words. The following appears only in blogs and mirrors of this site

    agrees with Paul of Tarsus that “agnosticism that is lived out as atheism” is not “an innocent position.”

  • googling: [agnosticism "lived out as atheism" tarsus] yields 11 hits - all mirrors of wikipedia or blogs

--JimWae (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• It is indeed true that the article seems nowhere to deal with any criticisms of agnosticism. It is also detrimental to the article to have the only criticism come from such an unfocussed and unoriginal source as Ratzinger. NOTHING he says has not been said MUCH more clearly by others. --JimWae (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ingersoll is not in point form. So why should Ratzinger be in point form? DS13 is absolutely correct. DS13's point hits the nail on the head. So nobody wants to answer D13. If you want other POVs, Jim, then wait for them to come. Else look for more. Do not remove what is there. Lafem (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am asking for point form here -- not in the article... --JimWae (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the following:

Ratzinger thinks that human reason has the power to know reality, and attain the truth. For this, he alludes to the achievements of the natural sciences. He believes that agnosticism is a self-limitation of reason rooted in Kant: reason imposes limits on itself which can lead to dangerous pathologies of religion, such as terrorism and pathologies of science, such as ecological disasters. He thinks that this self-limitation dishonors reason and is contradictory to the modern acclamation of science, whose basis is the power of reason.[14][15]

When people argue that God is unknowable because he cannot be experienced and tested scientifically, Ratzinger differentiates God from other knowable objects:

This question regards not that which is below us, but that which is above us. It regards, not something we could dominate, but that which exercises its lordship over us and over the whole of reality.[13] [To] impose our laboratory conditions upon God...implies that we deny God as God by placing ourselves above him, by discarding the whole dimension of love... [To think thus] would make God our servant.[16] There are many things that we do not see but they exist and are essential...We do not see our intelligence and we have it: we do not see our soul and yet it exists and we see its effects, because we can speak, think and make decisions.[17] Ratzinger thinks that there is a natural knowledge of God "through the things he has made," and agrees with Paul of Tarsus that “agnosticism that is lived out as atheism” is not “an innocent position.”[13][18]

Agnosticism is always the fruit of a refusal of that knowledge which is in fact offered to man… Man is not condemned to remain in uncertainty about God. He can “see” him, if he listens to the voice of God’s Being and to the voice of his creation and lets himself be guided by this. The history of religions is coextensive with the history of humanity. As far as we know, there has never been an epoch in which the question of the One who is totally other, the Divine, has been alien to man. The knowledge of God has always existed.[13]

These paragraphs are not about agnosticism. These paragraphs should be in religion-related articles. These paragraphs have nothing to do with agnosticism. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Masterpiece: These sentences of Benedict XVI are about agnosticism, aren't they? agnosticism is a self-limitation of reason, when people [agnostics] argue that God is not knowable, agnosticism lived out as atheism is not an innocent position. You did not include other things Benedict XVI said that uses the word agnosticism. All these Benedict XVI explained very very well in all those paragraphs. Lafem is very right. It is vandalism when you remove Benedict XVI's words of wisdom about agnosticism. Pradeshkava (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pradeshkava, do you know what vandalism is? Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I grow a bit weary of this surprising controversy. Anyways... my final thoughts on this article for a while... When a topic can be seen from multiple viewpoints (e.g. supporters, different sects among supporters, detractors, etc.) then an appropriate amount of weight in the topic's article must be given to all significant views on the topic even when they are in the minority. This is non-negotiable and no size of article is excluded from this standard. This ensures NPOV. To not do this, proportionately, even in a start-class article means we're starting off without NPOV. Masterpiece2000, if you rewrite this article, that's great. Don't give the Catholic viewpoint undue weight, but since Catholic scholars such as Ratzinger have written significantly and specifically about Agnosticism, I believe it will always be necessary that you include something from a prominent and reliable adherent of this non-fringe view of Agnosticism, even in a very young article. --Ds13 (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Doxastic and Epistemological Senses of 'Agnostic'

'Agnostic' has a newer, doxastic (for want of a better word) sense in addition to the original, epistemological one that this article focuses on.

In the doxastic sense, in the context of religion, 'agnostic' is contrasted with 'theist' and 'atheist':

• Theist – believes in God
• Atheist – disbelieves in God
• Agnostic – neither believes nor disbelieves in God

The American Heritage Dictionary, as quoted by dictionary.reference.com, gives the definition 'one who is doubtful or noncommittal about something'. There's some logic to this usage: asked 'Does God exist?', I might reply 'I don't know'; and surely I'd be expressing a lack of conviction on the matter rather than a view about my epistemic state.

The doxastic sense must be intended by the 'demographic research services' mentioned in the second paragraph of the article – hence my provisional amendments. If the epistemological sense were intended, there would be no reason to range 'agnostics' alongside atheists and against theists, as the existence of 'agnostic theists' demonstrates.

Ed Jarvis 86.144.92.245 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Disbelieves" is too vague & open to too much interpretation. It would also be necessary to explain somewhere how one could neither "believe P" nor "not believe P". The meanings that needs more exposition in the article include doubt and vacillation about "P".
• Recently a request for support was removed for "the 3 logically exclusive positions" - while the positions might be logically exclusive, people can shift their position 20 times in one day, so saying they must "belong" to one of the 3 groups is unsupported hyperbole --JimWae (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• agnostic theists claim to believe, yet not know. Some think knowledge might still be possible. Some do not know, and do not know what to believe. The standard for what counts as "knowledge" differs immensely among theists. Many theists agree "knowledge" of existence of a deity is not possible, yet do not count themselves as agnostics at all. Other theists claim not just personal certainty, but some kind of "knowledge" (but if pressed, many would agee it is not knowledge to the standard of math or science)
• I caution against taking at face value any dictionaries assertion that atheists all claim any certainty about what they do not believe. --JimWae (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

All fascinating stuff, but kind of irrelevant to what I've written:

• '"Disbelieves" is too vague ... .' Too vague for what? I haven't asked for a new section to be added to the article. I've just given a sketch of my reasons for amending the second paragraph.
• 'Recently a request for support was removed ... .' Ditto.
• 'Agnostic theists claim to believe ... .' Well, yes. Why are you telling me this?
• 'I caution against taking at face value ... .' So do I, but I haven't appealed to any dictionary definitions of 'atheist'.

For the record, by 'disbelieves in God' I mean 'believes that God doesn't exist'. I, for example, neither believe nor disbelieve in God, because I have no opinion on the matter.

Ed Jarvis 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this would help to alleviate your first worry:

• Theist – believes that God exists
• Atheist – believes that God doesn't exist
• Agnostic [in the doxastic sense] – believes neither that God exists nor that God doesn't exist [i.e. is noncommittal or 'doesn't know']

NB I haven't written 'believes that God neither exists nor doesn't exist', which would indeed call for explanation.

Ed Jarvis 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, then all the more reson for my comments. "Disbelieves in God", as you "define" "disbelieves", is not an adequate definition of an atheist and the 3-way contrast you propose would be misleading - see [atheism]] article --JimWae (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary – and this is what you seem to be overlooking in your missionary zeal – the focus of this section is the doxastic sense of 'agnostic' and not the ambiguity of 'atheist' (or, for that matter, the vagueness of 'believe'). I've defined 'theist' and 'atheist' heuristically, to offset 'agnostic', but if this is unhelpful to you, just ignore my definitions. It makes no difference whatsoever to my main points, which are a) that in addition to the original, epistemological sense of 'agnostic', there's a newer, doxastic sense according to which someone is agnostic about P if and only if he believes neither that P nor that not-P, and b) that this must be the sense intended by the 'demographic research services' mentioned in the second paragraph of the article, since 'theist' and 'atheist' are themselves doxastic terms.

Ed Jarvis 86.134.190.0 (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The Thomas Henry Huxley and agnosticism article was split from the Agnosticism article in 2003. Since then it has hardly changed and differs little from the section on Huxley in this article. I propose that any additional info be added here, which, if any, doesn't seem like much, and then the Thomas Henry Huxley and agnosticism article should be redirected to Agnosticism#Thomas Henry Huxley. Any thoughts? ascidian | talk-to-me 20:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote for Yes: As a contrib. to the main THH page, I have no objection to the merger of THH & Agnosticism to the main Agnosticism article. The split between the two latter happened early, when the THH page was little more than a copy of the weak Encyc Brit 11th ed article. It seems sensible now to put the two agnostic articles together. Incidentally, I notice his use of agnosticism was fairly narrow, but was connected to his rather demanding standards of scientific proof. THH differed from Darwin in having a rather old-fashioned inductive view of 'facts' – Darwin was more hypothetico-deductive. For those who care about such things! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support the merger. This article should be improved. The merger will be helpful. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends: I am not sure what is in the other article, but the agnosticism article already focusses too much on individuals & not enough on theory. The focus on individuals is a magnet for others wanting to include their favorite individuals (such as Ratzinger, whose only "contribution" to the field seems to be only to re-iterate the conclusions of 19th century Vatican Councils & encyclicals). Any text on individuals needs to be fairly concise, focussing on what they have contributed to the topic --JimWae (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Improvement!

I think this article should be rewritten. It is a poor article. The article atheism is a FA. This article is just a start-class. Others are invited to contribute. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Ratzinger (another heading with same name)

Joseph Ratzinger is not an expert on agnosticism. He has not contributed to agnosticism. T. H. Huxley coined the term agnosticism. Robert G. Ingersoll was a major American agnostic. Bertrand Russell was probably the most influential agnostic of the 20th century. That's why their views are included in the article. Ratzinger has contributed nothing to agnosticism. He is not an advocate of agnosticism. He is not considered as a major figure by non-believers.

I am interested in the sociology of religion. Theologians have claimed that "God exist". Agnostics, on the other hand, argue that the existance of God is unknown. All the major agnostic thinkers such as Huxley, Ingersoll, Mills, Russell, Darwin, Durkheim‎, Sagan, and others have been religious skeptics. Historically, agnosticism has been an intellectual justification for a disregard of theology. Thus, it is highly inappropriate to include the views of a theologian in this article. I strongly oppose the inclusion of views of Joseph Ratzinger on agnosticism in this article. I am removed the views of Joseph Ratzinger. I would like to know what other users think. After the discussion, we can make the final decision. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Masterpiece, it is altogether unethical to (1) start a new discussion when there is an ongoing one elsewhere, (2) to disregard a foregoing discussion where your views have failed to convince and where the arguments contrary to your position are much better argued and grounded on Wikipedia policy, (3) to imply that your arguments are the only basis for a final decision when in fact they have been answered thoroughly in a previous discussion (I repeat this is not the non-believer's encyclopedia nor the encyclopedia of agnosticism advocates and contributors to further the cause of the unknowability of God; all significant views on the matter should be included as long as they are prominent is Wikipedia policy; inclusion of Ratzinger furthers the cause of Wikipedia), (4) decide unilaterally to remove one entire section, (5) to act according to your personal ideas despite all arguments against it.

I am proud that Wikipedians have seen through your move and have not accepted your invitation to restart the discussion.

Masterpiece, You still have an opportunity to regain your good status as a Wikipedian, and rectify by rejoining the previous discussion, by replying to the arguments and above all by returning what you have removed -- please bring back the section on Joseph Ratzinger. Lafem (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lafem, please be civil. 1) I have started the discussion in the talk page of agnosticism. That's not unethical. 2) My views have not failed to convince others. There are four Wikipedians who have opposed the inclusion of Joseph Ratzinger's views. 3) I have never said that my arguments are the only basis for a final decision. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. I have never suggested that this is a non-believer's encyclopedia. 4) The material you included were included with out consensus. 5) I have never act according to my personal ideas despite all arguments against it.

Other Wikipedians will take part in this discussion. I will not respond to your uncivil comments. Others can see your comments and my comments and decide who is being uncivil. Lets wait for two weeks. Let's see what other users think about it. If enough Wikipedians think that Joseph Ratzinger's views should be included, we can include his views. I don't have any problem with that. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ratzinger is not a known expert or commentator or in any other way known as an expert or even knowledgeable about agnosticism. He is known as a Catholic theologian, and his views are appropriate on articles about Roman Catholicism, not here. The Catholic view is already present in the article; attempts to expand that violate WP:UNDUE and attempts to insert a section about Ratzinger, presenting him as knowledgeable about agnosticism, is not supported by any sources, thus violating WP:V - as well as probable violations of WP:SOAP and WP:DISRUPT. Lafem, unless and until R gains notoriety as an expert of agnosticism, cease this attempt to unbalance this article by adding a religious polemic. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree. Unless we have verification that Ratzinger's views are notable to agnosticism and he has recognition as an expert in the field, his statements represent his own or Roman Catholic views and belong in his biography or a suitable article about that religion, not here. .. dave souza, talk 12:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Lafem is very very right. Benedict XVI belongs to the French Academy. Secular thinkers hold Benedict XVI in high esteem. here

D13 is very very right. Remove Benedict XVI and you are not NPOV. Pradeshkava (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Pradeshkava, please stop pushing your POV. Benedict XVI belongs to the French Academy and some secular thinkers hold Benedict XVI in high esteem. However, he is not an expert on agnosticism and he has not made any significant contributions for agnosticism. His views should not be included. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• but the Catholic dogma on agnosticism - starting with a 19th century papal encyclical & repeatd in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia (& reiterated by Ratzinger) DOES belong in the article - as does any agnostic response to that view. It is altogether misleading to attribute this view to Ratzinger - he did not originate and it was not even the main focus of his work --JimWae (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, I like Ratzinger too. He's good. He should be included definitely. He balances the article correctly. Unlike now this reads like a pro-atheist almanac. Is Wikipedia pro-atheist? If not why don't we allow more convervative views. Ok? Scrape off what is original. Ok to JimWae's contribution. Put it in. But keep that thing on Ratzinger's pathologies, terrorism and ecological disaster. Sounds so modern, I bet its original. Hellohigudby (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• from what I can tell, that part is mostly original to blogs interpreting what R wrote, not what R originally wrote --JimWae (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• the pathology of science he MAY have written about was nuclear bombs. Even if he also said "ecological disaster" (btw, how many of those have there been?), I see no way he connects that to agnosticism --JimWae (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• terrorism he gives as a pathology of religion. What's that got to do with agnosticism? How many religious terrorists are agnostic? --JimWae (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

JimWae, it is inappropriate to include the views of Ratzinger because it is off-topic. It is also misleading to attribute the Catholic dogma on agnosticism to Ratzinger. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, he is not the source of that view - however, it would be ridiculously uninformative (&POV) not to include opposing viewpoints. --JimWae (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The opposing viewpoint is more correctly attributed to Pope Pius IX and the First Vatican Council--JimWae (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, JimWae, we have to include opposing viewpoints. However, we have to improve the article first! The article just a start-class. We have to add more information. At this point, I am more interested in improving the article instead of adding criticism. And, Jim, I really appreciate your constructive comments. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

JimWae is very very correct. To add oppossing viewpoint is to improve the article. Would be many times better. Masterpiece: do not push your POV only. Jimwae is correct. It is ridiculously uninformative and POV not to include different views. Do not push your POV Masterpiece. I approve addition of Pius IX and Vatican I. Include original thought of Benedict XVI is also very right. Thank you. Pradeshkava (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pradeshkava, I am not pushing my POV. When did I suggested that there should be no criticism of agnosticism? If JimWae is very very correct, then you are wrong. JimWae doesn't support the inclusion of Ratzinger's views. The opposing viewpoint is more correctly attributed to Pope Pius IX and the First Vatican Council and their views can be included after the discussion. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I hurt certain sensibilities. I support the compromise that is starting: remove ideas of Ratzinger which are not original but belong to Pius IX and The First Vatican Council. And I continue to support the inclusion of Ratzinger's modern ideas based on the unanswered argumentation presented by DS13 in a foregoing discussion and supported by other editors:

If Ratzinger is not being published in a peer-reviewed media or he's not considered scholarly by peers then I agree with you — keep his material out of Wikipedia. I may have made the mistake of assuming he was seen as scholarly. Maybe not the most original scholar, maybe not the brightest, but still a reliable scholar... No? Then I yield. --Ds13 (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We could debate whether you have a valid analogy there but fortunately we don't need to judge content by analogy. The standards of 1) Verifiability, 2) Neutral Point of View, and 3) No Original Research are the final words when deciding to include or exclude content. It would be helpful to present your objection to the content in terms of which principle it violates. --Ds13 (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

since Catholic scholars such as Ratzinger have written significantly and specifically about Agnosticism, I believe it will always be necessary that you include something from a prominent and reliable adherent of this non-fringe view of Agnosticism, even in a very young article.--Ds13 (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I quoted these words of DS13 because they are the best arguments for keeping some of the significant contributions of Ratzinger on agnosticism. Ratzinger is known all over the world as somebody who has discussed the dictatorship of relativism, the problem of agnosticism, the problems of truth, the issue of reason. His books have been read by millions. In this article, Ratzinger is but a small fraction of the whole. So the argument that his contribution (now to be cut even further when we include Jim's contribution) is given undue weight is most absurd. Lafem (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lafem, Ratzinger is not particularly known for his views on agnosticism. In fact, Ratzinger is more well-known for his critical views of atheism. His books have been read by millions; however, he has not written significantly about agnosticism. However, other Catholic and religious scholars have written about agnosticism. We should include their views. I think we should include criticism section and we can include the views of religious scholars on agnosticism. Are we in agreement? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that we include the views of Catholic and religious scholars. I continue to agree with DS13 that Ratzinger has written significantly and specifically about Agnosticism. The only way to prove otherwise is to deny that he wrote those things that were quoted and were affirmed by Pradeshkava as ideas about agnosticism. Those were significant points and were direct quotes from different Ratzinger books. Lafem (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who supported the inclusion of Ratzinger and the inclusion of other religious scholars. :) I am happy to see that there is support for "Catholic and religious scholars who have written about agnosticism," in the words of Masterpiece2000. I will try to gather some materials which can express the point of view of these religious scholars. Perhaps a minor improvement that can help is to rename the section "Philosophical Views" to "Famous agnostics" then create a new section titled "Religious views" or "Views of religious writers." Marax (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Any inclusion of Joseph Ratzinger view(s) will need to cite significant third-party secondary sources to establish their notability. Ratzinger/church publications are not third-party secondary sources. Modocc (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up this point, Modocc. I tried to check WP:NOR and WP:Notability and I did not really see any prohibition in using church publications in citing a church figure talking about a non-church issue. I believe that Ratzinger's independence from the topic of agnosticism is even greater than the independence of Russel from the topic under discussion. As you know, presently the sources of the ideas of the famous agnostics are from the words of the agnostics themselves. I believe it would be consistent with the sourcing of this article and other articles which follow Wikipedia policies to allow sourcing of materials on Ratzinger from publications which may be church related.

Perhaps I might have misunderstood your point as you might have been referring to additional third party sources in order to boost the claim that the work of Ratzinger is notable enough to be cited. I have found this site of First Things which features an article about the book Truth and Tolerance of Ratzinger. The writer is Paul Griffiths of the University of Illinois. He is Schmitt Professor of Catholic Studies in that university. There is this other site from the prestigious Acton Institute which also reviews the book. I have also recently read a series of articles in Scripta Theologica of the University of Navarra analyzing Ratzinger's famous Regensburg Address which discusses agnosticism and Kant. I hope this helps to clarify this issue. Marax (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't misunderstand me, as it was my fault for the confusion, as I should have said that secondary sources are needed instead of third-party sources. It can get confusing because the best third-party sources tend to also be secondary sources. It is fine to cite primary sources(Ratzinger’s views), but only if it is also possible to establish that the views are notable to the subject. No Original Research requires that such evaluations of primary sources(Ratzinger's views) be made by secondary sources. Ideally, secondary sources are independent of(or removed from) the primary source. But because of Ratzinger's position in the church, the publications by the church itself are not independent and should not be considered secondary sources. Even publications by the University of Navarra might be problematic because it is under the authority of the Holy See. The two book reviewers do applaud Ratzinger’s defense of monotheistic truth against other mystic forms and against skepticism. According to Griffiths, “ The world is accessible to human rationality because of the nature of its creator and redeemer.” Of course, Ratzinger and many theists would agree. That being said, these two sources do not directly address agnosticism, nor do they address Ratzinger’s criticisms of agnosticism and do not state their notability. Normally, if someone’s views are notable, there are specific cites available from multiple secondary sources. Thus far, the attempted inclusion in this article of Ratzinger’s views has been original research involving the cherry-picking of the primary source material to give the appearance of notability. This should stop until secondary sources are provided that evaluate his views on the subject. Modocc (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Modocc, Thanks for the clarification! I appreciate your use of wikipolicy and I do understand that you are not a wikilawyer (as mentioned in my talk page). I think in a case like this, which can be contentious, it is really best that we be guided by "Wikilaws", so that there is a "third-party" arbiter (please excuse the word play).

I've re-checked WP:NOR more carefully and its more specific sub-article on attribution and this is what I found. Wikipedia allows use of both primary and secondary sources. For primary sources it says: Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

The general principle is this: Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. (the idea of this policy is that the quote does not come from me but from a published reliable source.)

I firmly believe that Ratzinger quotes I placed are from a reliable publication (Ignatius Press); they definitely do not come from me. :) The author, Ratzinger, is regarded as trustworthy or authoritative by many people to talk about the subject of agnosticism-- its historical roots, effects, its consistency or inconsistency with other ideas (he was elected Pope, a position of trust and authority; he was also a great academic theologian; his Regensburg address was an academic lecture). It should also be noted that the work Truth and Tolerance is a collection of articles previously written in academic journals. I do not think there is a prohibition within Wikipedia of using church related academic journals. If not, most journals wold not be permitted since hundreds of universities were founded by the Catholic church.

I also firmly believe that those quotes could either be seen as good primary sources which Wikipedia accepts and could easily be checked that they are faithful to the original thing written by Ratzinger. Or good secondary sources because they analyze the ideas and writings of the agnostics such as Kant.

I also did not see within those policy descriptions any necessity (ideal is the word you used) that there be another secondary source abetting a secondary or primary source. Marax (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Marax, yes Wikipedia allows the citing of both primary and secondary sources and Ratzinger is notable, that is why he has his own article. Of course, any of his primary sources can be cited there. But, lets address the content of this article please. Are there any secondary or tertiary sources that establish any of Ratzinger's varied criticisms of agnosticism as either notable or substantially different from other critics? For instance, perhaps the Encyclopedia Britannica mentions Ratzinger in its agnosticism article? Modocc (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Modocc, please allow me to address your concerns one by one. First, my thanks for agreeing to the citation of Ratzinger's primary sources. I believe that this is a big step forward. Second, as to the the content of this article, I agree with the consensus that was formed earlier that the POV of Catholic and other religious scholars be included in this article as long as they have spoken about agnosticism, and that Ratzinger's contribution which are "substantially different from other critics" as you say, or which are not original as Lafem and Hellohigudby have said above, should not be included, but as it were be merged with the opinions of other scholars. I have more things to say but please allow me to return to this discussion later. Thanks. Marax (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Modocc! To continue our discussion: Given the two things above (our agreement that Ratzinger primary sources can be cited, plus the consensus on Catholic scholars), it would be unnecessary to to find secondary or tertiary sources to establish Ratzinger's criticisms of agnosticism to be notable. Wikipedia is trying to be better than Britannica and other encyclopedias by opening the possibility of better research on primary sources or secondary sources which directly touch on the subject as long as the author's work is published by reliable publication and the author is "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Just to further bolster the reasoning I have laid down above and the reasoning of other editors as to the authority of Ratzinger on matters concerning agnosticism, here are the names of authors on the history of theology which have mentioned Ratzinger as one of the great theologians: Nichols 1988, Fermet Marle, Schulz 1970, Illanes Saranyana 1995. And here are articles about Ratzinger: [1] But basically, let me go back to your agreement to the use of Ratzinger primary sources. That I think is the bottomline. It's the minimum required by Wikipedia and I don't think we have to complicate matters. And I can also assure you that agnosticism is one of the topics in the study of theology. I know: I read books on theology, teach theology and have a doctorate in theology. Marax (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Marax, as I've stated from the outset, I oppose inclusion of Ratzinger's views in this article unless you can show that unbiased secondary sources validate those views are notable. Your argument, that there is no need to cite anyone else (secondary sources) but Ratzinger, does not wash at all. Ratzinger is just one of the many thousands of published theologians (including most Popes and many Protestant theologians here in the United States such as those at Duke University). Also, as JimWae has asked, be clear as to what Ratzinger has contributed to the topic. I've had my say for now, and have other things to do other than to repeat myself again. Best. Modocc (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

One last note on policy, just in case you overlooked its importance, policy also states to "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." Thus, Ratzinger's criticisms of agnosticism are notable when secondary sources evaluate them as such. The erroneous inference that his criticisms are notable because Ratzinger is a great theologian is a synthesis (that led to not giving some of his criticism proper attribution). Modocc (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I ask again that R's "contributions" to the topic be identified, preferably in point form. All I have found so far has been a reworking of the 1870 Vatican Council + stuff that appears only in blogsites. --JimWae (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

1907 Catholic Encyclopedia on Agnosticism

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm

Catholic Encyclopedia > Agnosticism

The Agnostic denial of the ability of human reason to know God is directly opposed to Catholic Faith. The Council of the Vatican solemnly declares that "God, the beginning and end of all, can, by the natural light of human reason, be known with certainty from the works of creation" (Const. De Fide, II, De Rev.) The intention of the Council was to reassert the historic claim of Christianity to be reasonable, and to condemn Traditionalism together with all views which denied to reason the power to know God with certainty. Religion would be deprived of all foundation in reason, the motives of credibility would become worthless, conduct would be severed from creed, and faith be blind, if the power of knowing God with rational certainty were called in question. The declaration of the Council was based primarily on scripture, not on any of the historic systems of philosophy. The Council simply defined the possibility of man's knowing God with certainty by reason apart from revelation. The possibility of knowing God was not affirmed of any historical individual in particular; the statement was limited to the power of human reason, not extended to the exercise of that power in any given instance of time or person. The definition thus took on the feature of the objective statement: Man can certainly know God by the "physical" power of reason when the latter is rightly developed, even though revelation be "morally" necessary for mankind in the bulk, when the difficulties of reaching a prompt, certain, and correct knowledge of God are taken into account. What conditions were necessary for this right development of reason, how much positive education was required to equip the mind for this task of knowing God and some of His attributes with certainty, the Council did not profess to determine. Neither did it undertake to decide whether the function of reason in this case is to derive the idea of God wholly from reflection on the data furnished by sense, or merely to bring out into explicit form, by means of such data, an idea already instinctive and innate. The former view, that of Aristotle had the preference; but the latter view, that of Plato, was not condemned. God's indirect manifestations of Himself in the mirror of nature, in the created world of things and persons, were simply declared to be true sources of knowledge distinct from revelation.

Written by Edmund T. Shanahan. Transcribed by Rick McCarty. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Published 1907. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

NPOV tag

There should be an NPOV tag. I placed it. Until Benedict XVI's words of wisdom are returned, this article is not balanced and not NPOV. Lafem is very very correct. Benedict XVI is a brilliant expert on agnosticism in Catholic parts of India, Nigeria, Kenya, Latin America, now North America, Christian universities in Asia, in the Philippines, in Christian parts of Australia, in etc. etc. He is world-wide expert. Secular writers hold him in high esteem. Thank you. Pradeshkava (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Entire Point of the Article

I've read everyone's view points on this article and believe the text from Benedict should not be included in this article for one main reason:

I came to this article interested in learning WHAT IS AGNOSTICISM. And, quite frankly, I could care less if the viewpoint of agnosticism, theism, or atheism is correct. The ONLY reason Benedict would have written concerning agnosticism is to criticize it (unless he is a closet agnostic) and, from reading the original content, Benedict does, unsurprisingly, oppose agnosticism.

So, to keep this short: The article should be re-written to state how the term came into existence, why it came into existence, and what it means. There should be absolutely NO article content that is for agnosticism or against agnosticism. I think we can all agree the easiest way to balance the NPOV part of the article is to simply have no POV in the first place. If there is a need to have a point of view, and someone such as Benedict has written on the subject (regardless of his knowledge of the subject), I say we should either create a page for Benedict or add to the existing page (if one exists) and to add a link to that part of his article at the bottom of the page under the "other sources" section or something similar.

Quick Recap: What, When, Where, Why (why did this opinion arise), and How are the only questions that should be answered...and that should be done concisely.

Is X correct? Why is X wrong? ... Who cares!? I just want to know what it is! And, exactly 0% for and 0% against means there is a perfect balance.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.202.69 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Article on Agnosticism vs. Wikipedia's Article on Christianity

Which is worse?? Personally, I find both articles to be poorly-written, full of POV, full of errors, offensive and even annoying!! It's articles like this which is why so many people hate Wikipedia. Agnosticism is NOT Atheism!! Retro Agnostic (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

- Why don't you contribute something? You have a lot of criticisms with no examples and conclude with a cryptic statement that no one will dispute, but I doubt they'll understand the point. I don't know all that many people that hate Wikipedia - I do know a lot who use it as a source with the knowledge that they have to use their brains and maybe a little research to decide on some things. Hey, maybe they check the discussion page to see what the different opinions are. Your opinions are that it's all garbage, but you offer no reason why anyone should rely on your unsupported rant - unless maybe they can decipher that cryptic conclusion of yours. And, just curious, what additional flaw in this article makes it 'even' annoying - with all the other flaws it just seems so redundant. YAC (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What Am I?

Sorry if this is the wrong place, but I've been wondering about this. I'm not sure whether I'm an atheist or agnostic because if someone were to ask me if I could say with 100% certainty that the Christian God (for instance) didn't exist, I'd have to say no, I couldn't. But, on the other hand, if the idea had never been introduced to me, I don't think it would ever occur to me that there might be an entity that took an interest in me or even the planet I was on.

I probably would wonder how it all came about and absent the scientific method I would probably think fairly strongly that there was some form of 'intelligence' behind it all. And I still don't discount that possibility because I have no way of knowing for sure one way or another; in truth, some things do seem too complex to be the result of evolution (the spider that lives in a submerged net containing trapped air and surfaces to hunt), but I'm not a scientist. I'm content to keep letting science unravel the mysteries we know about already and I don't think there is any agenda against religion aside from the anti-scientifc bias.

Anyway, my point is I would be an atheist, but once the idea of a 'God' has been introduced to me, how can I be anything stronger than an agnostic? Is this too fine a point? Sorry if it was answered somewhere, but if so, the language was too dense for me. YAC (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me answer your question. Let's say we have a proposition "God exist". If you think that this proposition is false, you are an atheist. If you think that this proposition is probably false, you are technically an agnostic. Why? Because when you say 'probably false', you are leaving a small possibility that God might exist. Thus, technically, that's agnosticism. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• It is possible to be both. Only in a narrow view is atheism defined as asserting deities do not exist. A broader view is that atheism includes the rejection of belief in deities. I do not agree that the essential difference is in the assessment of the degree of probabilty that some "proposition" is false. There is no clear boundary between "thinking P is false" and "thinking P is probably false" - in both cases one thinks P is false. If being an agnostic meant thinking "At least one deity exists" is probably false, there would be no agnostic theists. Often the atheist/agnostic distinction is just a matter of what label one is comfortable/uncomfortable with. --JimWae (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

- I don't think that addresses my point. If someone asserts that God exists I can't say with absolute certainty that they are wrong. But if no one had ever put the proposition to me, then it would never occur to me to evaluate it. So, if no one ever brought up the subject of God, I would be an atheist because it would never occur to me that there was the idea of God to believe in. But, once the idea is proposed, I can't refute it because I can't actually 'know' one way or another, although I have a very strong opinion - so by necessity I become an agnostic. So that's my conclusion at this point, but I'd like to hear what others think. In my opinion, the only things one can actually 'know', ignoring the issue that everything is perceived through the senses, is what is right in front of them. So I'm comfortable with asserting with certainty that a white dog I'm looking at is white, for instance. But that's about it, especially given what's going on with quantum physics.

Incidentally I agree there is no difference between thinking something is false and thinking something is probably false. At least for the purpose of my question. I'm pretty sure an atheist is someone who is sure God doesn't exist. Otherwise, you'd have to have another category, like uber-atheist. YAC (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I went back and tried to read the section on atheism again. I've come to the same conclusions as I did about Kant - reduce an interesting line of reasoning to something that cannot be known, then keep obssessing over it until all the usefulness has been sucked out of the concept. So I'm ok with not knowing whether I'm technically an agnostic or atheist - with the current 'definitions' it's arbitrary and intellectually trivial; remind you of anyone? (hint - his name rhymes with Tim Spaniel's Aunt). YAC (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

---

• You do not need to be 100% certain of something to believe it & you do not need to be 100% certain something is false to either 1> just not believe it and/or 2> think that believing it would be an unsound choice. You say you are pretty sure an atheist is someone who is sure God doesn't exist - but that is not the only way the word is used among intelligent speakers. Categories do overlap - often simply because they are expressed in words used in a linguistic community & people have different perspectives. If you find you simply do not believe in any gods, you do qualify as an atheist under some definitions. If you further think that it would be unsound for you to believe in gods, even more people would agree that you are an atheist. If you moreover think that it is unsound for anyone to believe in gods, very few would not agree that you are an atheist.
• If you went further & said you were 100% certain there are no deities, people might wonder HOW you can be so sure, and accuse you of being dogmatic. You might even be asked to explain what it IS that you are so certain does not exist.
• Your other point seems backwards - if you had never heard of gods, you could not call yourself an atheist (though others might). MORE: you don't actually KNOW one way or the other about gods before you've ever heard of them. Do you KNOW there are no flugocites in your body before you've ever heard of them? This is a strange view of what it means to know something--JimWae (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Part of the confusion is the usage of the word "technically" - as in "what am I technically?". Natural language is not a technical language & not every word has a precisely defined meaning that does not overlap with the meanings of other words (not even when the words are thought to be at the same level of categorization). Philosophy also must use natural language. It is considered "stacking the deck" to insist in philosophy that words be used in some unnaturally restricted way. See stipulative definition --JimWae (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• An agnostic is anyone who accepts that they do not KNOW whether at least one deity exists or not. (It's easier to define agnostics than agnosticism.) Actually, many theists are in this camp, as are many atheists. SOME people (like the Pope) claim to KNOW at least one deity exists. (How they KNOW this defies rational examination.) Also some people claim to KNOW there are no deities - This is where agnostics & atheists do not overlap. In both cases, this is also where people use KNOW in a way different from its usage in science, in math & logic, and in (most current) philosophy. (Knowledge means about 2 or 3 different things in just these 4 fields, none of them have exclusive "rights" to the criteria for knowledge)
• For some people this "knowledge" is somehow something even stronger than "strong belief". I think they mean some kind of "inner certainty", but this again defies rational examination. Some people base it on one or more traditional metaphysical proofs for the existence of God - the teleological (ID) argument is enjoying a resurgence. These are the arguments that Kant's antinomies negate.
• The pope (and he is not the originator of this view) specifies one (or maybe two) ways in which he knows that people can know God exists: 1> revealed truth (scripture [Paul]) says people can know God exists (depending though on the translation) - which not only defies rational examination, it is completely circular & 2> some kind of moral necessity. (As much as he objects to Kant, he never seems to acknowledge that this was Kant's main justification for maintaining his own theism) --JimWae (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Thanks, the arguments I understand are cogent, and I think more or less you're agreeing with me that it's pretty arbitrary. But you make a good point; I'd say an atheist, as I define the word, is dogmatic by definition (picture light-bulb going on above head). Regarding the flugocite scenario, there's a difference in evaluating gibberish that someone makes up and a concept that I've never been introduced to before but I can easily understand. But, I'm equally agnostic/atheistic on flugocites - if you hadn't brought them up I'd never have thought of them, and I definitely can't make a call on whether they exist because I have no idea what they are, so, like God, you'd have to explain. Now, if you said "On a plane in our space-time continuum the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line" I'd be confident in saying I absolutely disagree. A priori knowledge as it were, which is as far as I want to go along that route, except to say I have none of that when it comes to God or flugocites.

Maybe I approach atheism asymptotically. Probably my response when the concept of God was explained would be: "I guess anything's possible, but why would you come up with something like, what did you call it, 'God'?". Why don't you just make up something else equally arbitrary and call it a 'flugocite', or a 'hobbit' or a 'leprechaun'?" Their answer would prbobaly be that a whole lot of people believe it and there's somewhat of a paper trail. The first means nothing to me and the second is completely unreliable. Many great themes that apply so many places "After you're saved you don't stop sinning, but the pattern of your life is changed" - great stuff, but it doesn't prove anything - especially since they picked and chose to decide what went into the perfect and unchanging document.

My weird concept of "knowledge" in this instance has something to do with the idea that if you can conceive of God it proves he exists. Actually that's what got me started down this road - I never would have conceived of God if people weren't so pushy with their ideas; thanks Mom and Dad.

I'm into promoting visualization combined with action as a way to creat an energy feedback cycle that encourages daily exercise - I call it "Energy Focused Exercise". I'm trying to figure out where the useful part of philosphy ends and the part where your mind gets sucked into a vicious cycle begins. I got into Kant to help me to gain insights to use promoting the idea that literally everything is a visualization, including "reality", so potentially the mind can be just as affected by purposeful visualization as by the visualization required to conceptualize the physical world. Somehow I ended up on this page and my old question occured to me.

Thanks, your answer really helped. The atheist/agnostic question was just an intellectual curiousity, but I think the discussion really gave me some other insights. YAC (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Religious and Catholic scholars

Based on the consensus built on the suggestion of Masterpiece2000 that we include "Catholic and religious scholars" who "have written about agnosticism", I am adding a new section on religious thinkers or scholars. Here is the edit.

This new section includes the writings of two Muslim scholars, and some Christian scholars such as Peter Kreeft, Blaise Pascal and Joseph Ratzinger. I don't see any reason for discriminating against the latter, and I have not seen any Wikipedia rule prohibiting his inclusion. On the contrary Wikipedia supports primary sources which belong to authors who are considered authorities on the topic. He may not be considered an authority by strong agnostics, but he is considered an authority by millions of Christians and also by a secular entity such as the French Academy. He has also been called "Sexy" for the secular intellectuals. What I have also seen here is the support of several editors and Masterpiece's point on including Catholic and religious scholars, among whom he is numbered. Marax (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the citation for the first sentence of the third paragraph with a citation needed tag. Use of that reference was a great and insiduous evil, fundamentally misrepresenting in every way both the character of the source and the intent of its author. =) — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Robbiemuffin, Thanks for bringing this up. Please allow me to quote what I believe is the source I was referring to. It is Brown's sentence: "In the opinion of those of religion, all mankind should also accept the existence of God and of the human spirit, for the overwhelming evidence witnessed in the many miracles of creation support the reality of The Creator to the point where the confidence level approaches infinity and the ‘P’ value diminishes to something smaller and more elusive than the last digit of Pi." In fact he uses something stronger: Overwhelming evidence.

The first sentence of this paragraph you refer to also links with Kreeft and Tacelli's 20 arguments. If you deem these two references are not enough. I can find more and develop the sentence further. Marax (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Marax. As these are two separate issues I've divided it up. Thanks for brushing off my ironical humor and taking my edits seriously. I'll write more in a second, just want to reoganize now. — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 04:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the article you are quoting from has been rewritten and republished many times, I am familiar with it from well before 2007. The paragraph you quote from is the second paragraph in this line of thought in his article. The first paragraph goes on to elaborate the nature of common sense beliefs. The second paragraph, whose contents include the quoted line, describes god as a common sense belief. The people that have this common sense belief are, of course, common people. That is, the everyday-religious person, not relgious scholars.

It stands out in the text because, the article is full of appeals to authority. I assume this is where the confusion stems from. Why this sudden change from "he said" statements to "everyone thought"? I'm not sure. That's actually a good reason not to use this article as a source. But it isn't those religious scholars, it is the everyday person. It is also not that god seeded evidence throughout the world, like the easter bunny hiding eggs (or maybe more rationally, like relic pre-dark ages maps of the world that have Eden clearly marked as the continent of africa), but rather: overwhelming evidence witnessed in the many miracles of creation. That is, in the actuality of creation. — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 04:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe no reader is being asked to believe in the authority of the religious scholars or of Bertrand Russel. :) I think what we do in Wikipedia is just present what these important guys have said, no matter what they have said.

Essentially I think one of the problems you are bringing up has to do with the role of a topic sentence. The first sentences in the section and in the third paragraph are topic sentences. They really refer to the general tendency among these scholars then move to the particular examples which support the general tendency expressed in the topic sentence. Thus, the refs for the general sentences are just particular supports for something general, but these particular refs need to be bolstered by the other refs within the same paragraph. I hope this somehow, no matter how lousily I have explained it, explains the logic behind the refs. Marax (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The section ascribed to the pope is also backwards. It ascribes his writing to agnosticism, when in reality he was speaking to relativism. In my personal reading of it, I think he is basically addressing relativism in the lens of cultural relativism, especially as it applies in the unitary case (one culture looking at itself). That it is the de facto morality, and thus the basic morality of western culture. He feels that this is divisive, that it leads to pathologies of isolation, not of ecology (so far as I know). He feels that scientists are responsible morally for the use of their craft. That polticians are responsible for the outcomes of their culture. That teachers are responsible for the resulting morality from teaching what it is that they teach. — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In the Pope's earlier work which I just referenced (Yes to Jesus Christ) he equates limitation to the empirical sphere with agnosticism. From p. 9 to 27 he discusses agnosticism and this self-limitation. If you would like a clearer link, you may go to page 19 last paragraph to 20 first paragraph. Hope this helps. Marax (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Robbiemuffin, Thanks for the appropriate breaking up of my post. :) If you wish to find out more about the link of agnosticism, self-limitation of reason, to these pathologies, kindly read my posts here: Talk:Truth#Ratzinger_again.21.21, in response to JimWae's comments. I quote the original context. Marax (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he does exactly that, thank you for pointing me to the reference. What caught my eye was the second sentence here:

When reason imposes limits on itself on matters of religion and ethics, this leads to dangerous pathologies of religion and pathologies of science, such as ecological disasters.

This lead me to go back up to the beginning of the paragraph, where I saw agnosticism. The problem is that these two sentences come from different sources and are effectively talking aobut two sides of th same coin, but are not in fact the same thing. In the second sentence, from truth and tolerance, he is talking about something he calls "science", for some god-awful reason (pardon the pun). He uses different constrcuts because, presumably, he is at different points in the formation of this general idea. Neither agnosticism, nor science, nor relativism (the term used on the wiki page for him, relavant to this section), is an apt term. I think once I heard someone speak of "relativism of conscious" talking about this, and that to me seems pretty good. He's talking about the misapplication of some de facto moralities in societal contexts. The ecological disasters aren't drummed up by our use of scientific reasoning, nor are they born in agnosticism. If you take a ten-second window and edit for select parts, you can get some pretty funny things from the mouths of anyone, not only George Bush but the right 10-second window around bertrand russel might leave him looking like a cult worshipper of tea kettles. We need to be careful not to do that here. — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 05:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think overall I am seeing a pattern here, in how you have written at least this paragraph, if not the section. You conflate the different ideas together in a natural but most definitely original fashion. While it is entertaining, and in places you may have a point, wikipedia strives to have no original research. Can we revert individual sources to individual claims, and in the separating out of each statement, also eliminate your novel work? -- even though, it is rather novel. :) — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 05:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to help ourselves in discussing the same thing, here is the specific quote from Ratzinger's Truth and Tolerance: "Within the specific path followed by natural science, this limitation is necessary and right. If, however, it is declared to be the absolute and unsurpassable form of human thought, then the basis of science itself becomes contradictory; for it is both proclaiming and denying the power of reason. But above all, a self-limiting reason of that kind is an amputated reason. If man cannot use his reason to ask about the essential things in his life, where he comes from and where he is going... but has to leave these decisive questions to feelings, divorced from reason, then he is not elevating reason but dishonoring it. The disintegration of man, thus brought about, results equally in a pathological form of religion and a pathological form of science."

The portion I italicized is obviously referring to this Wikipedian definition of strong agnosticism: "Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of an omnipotent God and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience."

I would beg to disagree that what I placed is original research, given this latest post and given what I wrote above about Ratzinger's definition of agnosticism as a limitation of reason.

I'm trying to understand your concern. Thus, given what I wrote above, I changed the sentence to: According to Pope Benedict XVI, agnosticism or more specifically strong agnosticism is a self-limitation of reason that contradicts itself when it acclaims the power of science to know the truth. Marax (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the specifics you are going into there are fun ... I think I already have said somwhere that I agree with or find novel a lot of your work here. I'll go so far right now as to say that the reason you don't see "agnosticism" in "truth and tolerance" is because at that point he hadn't yet attached these concepts about pragmatic morality to any overt philosophy (and so, that whole book does not belong as a reference here). But no matter, this is still getting very deep into interpretation; there is no common source sited which unifies all these things. Their unity is your gift to the text. Since it changes their meaning, I call that original work. — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 15:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, your point that he was talking about relativism, does not jibe with the text as relativism is defined differently: "Relativism is the idea that some element or aspect of experience or culture is relative to, i.e., dependent on, some other element or aspect. Some relativists claim that humans can understand and evaluate beliefs and behaviors only in terms of their historical or cultural context. The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture." This does not refer to : If man cannot use his reason to ask about the essential things in his life, where he comes from and where he is going. As I said this refers without any doubt to agnosticism. Marax (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was wrong about that. It's close, and it seemed such a good fit I jumped right into it when I read it on his main page. (One feels especially the fool when one finds he is copying fools.  ;) Just kidding of course! I earn that title even excluding the assistance of others.) Maybe some consession about ethics de facto would be better? — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 10:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Robbiemuffin, Nice to have tangled with you on this issue! It's good to receive feedback, especially from people who know how to laugh at themselves and are "open to the truth," as Ratzinger says. :) I believe it is time to remove the NPOV tag. Thanks. Marax (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Pleased to meet you here, too.  :) About the NPOV, that's awesome. I didn't catch that part of this section addition. I think it was basically ready from the start. My concern is with citations and a couple of very subtly tangled ideas in the text. Tangled is different, it's NPOV: it's just not necessarily accurate. Still, it's "best available" for the moment. — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 02:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very very much Marax. I am very happy to read your contribution in Agnosticism. Very well done. Ratzinger is a spokesman for all religious people in India and other parts of the world. It is right to remove NPOV tag. Thank you. Pradeshkava (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Chaotic Agnosticism" and "Paranoyd Agnosticism"

It is incredible how many categories. If we add the categories of atheism, I'm sure I will be a chaotic agnostic, as I cannot understand where I can fit. It is the lowest level of agnosticism. Also, I suggest the paranoyd agnosticism, where I can never know what you know even if you tell me, because I won't trust you. It's the strongest level. Ok I exposed it funny, but the real problem is that you shouldn't absolutely mix the positions coming from the knowledge and the positions coming from personal believings. I mean: you shouldn't mix them when you write the article. The article is based upon the fact that it is possible for a single person to fit several categories. This must not be used to mix the structure of the article. One side, the knowledge. Other side, belief. Thanks.213.140.11.141 (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Biases"? Yahweh-like god POV; neglect of other supernatural beings and supernatural in general

As far as I know, "agnosticism", both etymologically and "pragmatically", is not a god-centered concept, nor concerns itself only with monotheism or Yahweh-like gods (omnipotent and etc). Rather it can be applied to many gods, superpowerful supernatural beings below the "god" rank, and many "supernatural" claims in general -- even regarding phenomena without "minds" or something like it, like some supernatural "energy" -- unless one posits that there are means to actually know whether some specific supernatural claim is true or not.--Extremophile (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What is agnosticism?

In a sense being an agnostic is about choice. You choose the position, where you simply do not take a stand on being neither a theist nor an atheist. It is often put forth by atheists, that if you do not choose, then you are an atheist by default (absence of belief), but then a theist could justly argue, that you could as well be a theist, if you do not take a stand - you simply don't realize it. Now here comes the tricky part. If you choose not to take a stand on something, there is a time-dimension added (e.g. I have not taken a stand on whether I will go training, but I may - may not tomorrow). Now by choosing not to take a stand on the subject theism - atheism, I have not chosen not to be a theist, and yet mysteriously I am an atheist by default (abscence of belief). It would be as obscene as to believe that by choosing not to take a stand, I would have chosen not to be an atheist, and yet mysteriously I am a theist by default. If you choose not to take a stand you are either both by default, none by default, or you have the potential in time to be either. Some believe that subconsciously you can actually believe something, and yet it doesn't appear in your conscious mind, but if we keep to the conscious level, it does not make much sense to say, that you are both a theist and an atheist, so that leaves us with the point, that if you do choose not to take a stand on the subject of theism - atheism, then you are neither by default. What is left then? - agnosticism

I believe that rather than removing complete sections from an article one should discuss it first! Anyways... I think a while back someone mentioned that agnostic theism and agnostic atheism should be removed as they are not forms of agnosticism, but forms of theism - atheism. The correct terms would rather be atheistic agnosticism or theistic agnosticism. I am also of the firm belief that the argumentation about theism - atheism and the choice of agnosticism as a middle stance is important when defining what agnosticism is in reality - because as I see it, it is neither theism nor atheism. (Jazzdrummers (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

• Are you not taking a position on what label to apply to yourself, or are you not taking a position on what you do or do not believe? Do you think you believe in a deity or not?. Atheism is not only defined as "absence of belief", nor only defined as the assertion that there is no deity, it is also defined as explicitly maintaining that belief in deities is (at least, presently) not warranted. --JimWae (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• • The label I would apply to myself would be agnostic. The arguement I posted above is in my oppinion what separates agnosticism from atheism and theism. I simply do not take a stand. By taking even the weaker atheistic stand where you believe that belief in gods is not warranted you - in my oppinion - move away from agnosticism and into being an atheist.(Jazzdrummers (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC))
  • However I do acknowledge that there doesn't seem to be a general consensus on the terms in speak. Rather it seems that different groups seems to take the stance that best fits what they want to promote - be it theism or atheism. (Jazzdrummers (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzdrummers (talk • contribs) 11:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ignoring labels for a moment, Do you think you believe in a deity or not? --JimWae (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't think neither. I simply do not take a stance on it. There is not substantial empiric evidence/material to take a stance on theism - atheism. By the arguement above I thereby am neither. (Jazzdrummers (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

• I am not asking you what you ARE, I am asking if you have a belief in a deity. --JimWae (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • And I am telling you that I am not taking a stance on belief in terms of theism - atheism. It is purely indecisive. ;) (Jazzdrummers (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC))
• I am not asking you to make a binding decision, nor am I asking you to "take a stand on atheism-theism". I am asking you to think about your beliefs & see if one of them is a belief in a deity. Perhaps that belief comes & goes, or perhpas you cannot figure out if you believe or not. If you can find a scholarly source that agrees that such vacillation or confusion is also agnosticism, then it should be included in the article --JimWae (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Why would you ask of me to find out if I have a belief in a deity and if it comes and goes or if I cannot figure out if I believe or not. I 'can' figure it out. I can figure out, that I do not want to take a stance on neither theism nor atheism - not because I am confused, but because there is not substantial empiric evidence/material to take a stance on theism - atheism. Thus you may say I put my decision on hold in the perspective of time, but that does not make me a theist nor does it make me an atheist. To me it is the pure form of agnosticism. :-) (Jazzdrummers (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC))
    • You are like an empty bucket attempting to claim that you don't want to take a stance an whether or not you contain water. A person is either an atheist or a theist in the same way that a bucket either contains water or does not contain water. You refuse to take a stance on theism - therefore you do not have a stance on theism. So, if you don't have a stance on theism then you are not a theist. If you are not a theist then you are an atheist. If there is no water in the bucket then the bucket does not contain water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.110.120.223 (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • A key issue to me is f.ex. as far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." I believe that we are born agnostic - inherently undecisive on something we do not know the nature of. Atheism or theism cannot - in my oppinion - come into speak until we know the nature of the terms and as a result decide to take a stand, but, as clearly as we can decide to take a stand, we can also choose not to take a stand - based on learning that there is no conclusive empiric evidence. (Jazzdrummers (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

• It is only under one narrow definition of atheism (assertion that there are no divinities) that you would not be an atheist. Under the two other definitions of atheism, you are an atheist - particularly since you (at least presently) either reject theism or find it unwarranted. The definition of atheism if far broader than the assertion there are no deities. One does not need to decide there definitely are no deities to be an atheist.
• Agnosticism cannot be implicit. You cannot say you don't/cannot have knowledge of whether Xs exist or not, if you have never heard of an X --JimWae (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing how this discussion is related to improving the article. Surely there are better places to discuss personal belief systems (or lack thereof)... Quietmarc (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Jazzdrummers has made substantial additions to the lede. There are problems with both the style and substance of what he has added, and nearly all of it needs to be removed. He has also added similar material to the atheism article. Rather than engage in two revert wars, I have attempted a discussion about whether atheism & agnosticism can overlap --JimWae (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• JimWae - Well Huxley seemed to believe that agnosticism was not equal to atheism. I quite agree. I don't reject theism - I simply do not take a decision on theism - atheism. I do not believe I have made that substantial changes to this article, nor the one on Atheism. I just believe that it should figure in the articles that there is not consensus on agnosticism in relation to atheism - theism. After all that is what wikipedia is for - information -, no? I did voice both sides to this article btw - also the opposite of what I believe.

• Quietmarc, I have been told that wikipedia is not a discussion forum - since I am new to this I did not know, that you could not discuss things here - I just assumed that it was so. I am sorry if I stepped on someones toes. :) (Jazzdrummers (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

• The difficulty arises because we confuse belief and knowledge. The agnostic denies the possibility of knowledge on this subject and accepts the claims of the theist or atheist merely as beliefs. Being an agnostic I do not have to take a stand on belief. With belief there is often a question to be resolved by additional evidence, but in the case of the agnostic he doubts that as well. Major theologians have reached similar conclusions. Hans Kung finds the question cannot be settled by rational argument. Either view is allowable and cannot be established solely on the basis of reason. Niebuhr finds the question "Does God exist?" mistaken, because in his theology God is the ground of all existence, not part of it. I am agnostic because knowledge is impossible on this question, not because I can't make up my mind. This is why I changed in the article. I think it is biased only to mention that agnosticism can be paired with theism - atheism. It can naturally stand on its own two feet too. (Jazzdrummers (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

• JimWae - To reach a compromise I think that your last edit is fine. I know that it doesn't quite satisfy my oppinion, but in general I think it will cover most people on this subject and that is all I wanted. :-) (Jazzdrummers (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Atheism is atheism, agnosticism is agnosticism. It is in my opinion that reference to atheism in this article should be kept from little to none. If people want they can read both and compare them themselves. After all, I could reference prejudice in racism to no end, but each article needs to hold enough merit by itself so that it does not require the other wholly to exist. If agnosticism isn't notable enough it should be deleted, but since it very well is, it should hold itself above water without having to lean on other ideas or concepts. It would only serve to further confuse the belief or idea by keeping all the random mentions of atheism throughout. One of the first things we learn in grammar class in school during vocab quizzes is you can't define a word by using the word itself, or it's opposite. Atheism, Agnosticism, and all the other religions shouldn't be phrased in any way like darkness is defined as the absence of light. These shouldn't be put as opposites, or opposing views, but as different facets and definitions of the same crystal named belief. I do not know what changes were made, reverted, or changed, but I wanted to make a mention of this view I have. I also apologize if this was in any confusing since I find my grasp of English weak. – Saphseraph (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Agnostic Atheism

Yes, it is possible to be an agnostic atheist, however:

• agnosticism cannot include certainty that deities do not exist
• some forms of strong atheism assert certainty and/or knowledge that deities do not exist
  • agnosticism is distinct from that form of atheism --JimWae (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The pope is not a scholar

Why is the Pope's opinion on agnosticism given a whole fucking paragraph in here?

This is silly to the extreme. PyroGamer (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Types of Agnosticism

I propose that this entire section be removed. It doesn't cite a single source, it's dubious, and I suspect it of being original research. Please let me know what your thoughts are. Thadeuss (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Distinctive categories

Agnosticism-

Agnostic athiests-An agnostic that holds belief that there was a supreme diety but there is none now Agnostic theist- A persons belief in a god but does not want o try and distinctify him

different levels —Preceding unsigned comment added by MyCheMiCaLrOmAnCeown (talk • contribs) 21:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)