Yours and Rowe's definitions seem to be slightly at odds: you say that agnosticism can mean the belief that whether or not God exists is unknown or unknowable, while Rowe's definitions seems to limit it to the latter, phrasing it as a matter of the capabilities of human reasoning faculties.Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.
According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, "agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist" — Coldlight
We can go further by claiming that no absolute truth can be known, and that nothing metaphysical can be proven. I think that this view is wrong because it puts agnosticism itself as an absolute truth, as something we can know with certainty. — Coldlight
But despite that fact, your argument still doesn't work out. You can believe that the above is true without thinking that fact is absolutely certain. — Mr Bee
If Rowe's definition is to be accepted, that prompts the question as to what to call those who believe that whether or not God exists is in principle knowable, but is in practice currently unknown (to quote Jodie Foster's character from Contact: "there's no data either way").
I never said that a fact stated as absolute with certainly is to be believed without thinking. — Coldlight
We can go further by claiming that no absolute truth can be known, and that nothing metaphysical can be proven. I think that this view is wrong because it puts agnosticism itself as an absolute truth, as something we can know with certainty. — Coldlight
If you can swallow the idea of us not having access to the truth (ie letting doubt of us having the truth to replace what you consider to be the truth), then you might be able to understand what they are talking about. Right now you think this doubt of the truth is in a way the same thing as believing in a truth, which unfortunately for you it isn't. — dclements
Another way to put it, the world is much, much, much more complicated than we can understand so it is pretty much a given that any 'truths' we try to find will be distorted versions of what the actual 'truth' is. Hopefully this clears up things for you. — dclements
Another way to put it, the world is much, much, much more complicated than we can understand so it is pretty much a given that any 'truths' we try to find will be distorted versions of what the actual 'truth' is. Hopefully this clears up things for you. — dclements
Let's break this down. First, The question "can any absolute truth be known" has been at the heart of philosophy from the beginning. Maybe that's what separates philosophy from theology. I believe it cannot - not because our brains aren't big enough. More like they're too big. That's not typically what I call "agnosticism." — T Clark
Second - "nothing metaphysical can be proven." I also believe this is true because metaphysics does not address matters of fact which are true or false. It addresses ways of seeing the world which are more or less useful. The purpose of metaphysics is for us to get together and discuss which of these ways we are going to use in what situation. — T Clark
But then again, why do we not question why agnosticism isn't agnostic about itself? — Coldlight
I disagree: there have been many empirical arguments which purported to demonstrate the existence of God. The entire body of literature on the arguments from design, arguments from fine-tuning, natural theology, intelligent design creationism, and biblical archeology all, in some form or another, seek to provide evidence for the existence of God and (in cases) the veracity of the Bible. But, this is rather off-topic.Using God's existence as an example, it cannot be widely known because it's not something you can prove by using empirical evidence. It's not like scientists are going to discover God, they're not looking for him anyway. That's outside of their expertise. — Coldlight
The question is whether agnosticism says the existence of God is unknown or unknowable: your OP posited somewhat different definitions along those lines. That was the point my reply addressed.But then again, why do we not question why agnosticism isn't agnostic about itself?
Why can it not be said that we cannot imagine any way, and that no way has ever been shown, and that it certainly seems to be impossible in principle, that God's existence could ever be proven by logic? That would seem to be fair characterization and a consistent expression of agnosticism. — John
I disagree: there have been many empirical arguments which purported to demonstrate the existence of God. The entire body of literature on the arguments from design, arguments from fine-tuning, natural theology, intelligent design creationism, and biblical archeology all, in some form or another, seek to provide evidence for the existence of God and (in cases) the veracity of the Bible. But, this is rather off-topic. — Arkady
The question is whether agnosticism says the existence of God is unknown or unknowable: your OP posited somewhat different definitions along those lines. That was the point my reply addressed. — Arkady
You can, but then you're arguing for global skepticism, not agnosticism. — Michael
Which only relies upon your supplied definition of agnosticism, and so doesn't need to supply its own. It simply doesn't follow that an agnostic about God must be a skeptic about all metaphysical propositions. The reverse holds -- a skeptic about all metaphysical propositions would also be a skeptic about God, but you can surely be an agnostic about God and not a skeptic about everything. — Moliere
It still doesn't seem to be a valid position to me, to be, for example agnostic about God, rather than saying that I'm not yet sure about the answer, which only shows that I haven't dedicated enough time to properly look for an answer or to develop an argument for/against. If agnosticism was just ''I simply don't know'' type of attitude, then it could be easily dismissed as influenced by the culture, experiences and attitude of the person who makes the ''statement''. Therefore agnostic about God must mean that God's existence is improvable and that proposition has to be proved. — Coldlight
here have been many empirical arguments which purported to demonstrate the existence of God. The entire body of literature on the arguments from design, arguments from fine-tuning, natural theology, intelligent design creationism, and biblical archeology all, in some form or another, seek to provide evidence for the existence of God and (in cases) the veracity of the Bible. — Arkady
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.