Agnostic theism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agnostic Theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist is one who views that the truth value of certain claims particularly existence of god(s) is unknown or inherently unknowable but chooses to believe in god(s) in spite of this. There are contrasting views of the term.

1 Views of Agnostic theism
2 Atheism vs. Agnosticism
3 Problems and Criticism
- 3.1 George H. Smith's rebuttal
4 See also
5 References
6 External links

[edit] Views of Agnostic theism

Many views exist depending on how Theism, Agnosticism, Belief, and Knowledge are defined.

[edit] Theism as belief in god(s), Agnosticism as don't/can't know

Agnostic theism is Belief in Truth but without Knowledge as seen in purple (see: Epistemology).

According to Theism, the opinion that gods or deities exist, and Agnosticism is that existence unknown or inherently unknowable. Belief is defined as a conviction of the truth of a proposition without its verification. Agnosticism does not violate this, and this definition of theism does not violate agnosticism.^[1]

The classical philosophical understanding of knowledge is that knowledge is justified true belief. By this definition, it is reasonable to assert that one may hold a belief, and that belief may be true, without asserting that one knows it. Agnostic Theism could be interpreted as an admission that it is not possible to justify one's belief in god(s) sufficiently for it to be considered known.

According to Fideism this logic statement was used:

Christian theology teaches that people are saved by faith in the Christian god. (i.e. trust in the empirically unprovable).
But, if the Christian God's existence can be proven, either empirically or logically, to that extent faith becomes unnecessary or irrelevant.
Therefore, if Christian theology is true, no immediate proof of the Christian God's existence is possible.

[edit] Theism as belief, Agnosticism as doubt of god(s)

[edit] Christian Atheism

A position that would qualify as agnostic theist, would be in a temporary state of doubt. In short, a theist becomes an agnostic theist when they lose their confidence in the existence of a divinity to some degree but still choose to believe in it. Theists may admit that they experience such doubts that they do not wish to question, in which case they become an agnostic theist. If they experience something that assures them of the existence of some form of divinity, then they will no longer qualify as agnostic theists.

[edit] Theism as belief in knowing of god(s), Agnosticism as doubt of god

According to Theologies opposed to fideism, other Christian views such as Catholicism, Theism requires 100% belief with no doubt at all, and Agnosticism is a form of doubt.

[edit] Atheism vs. Agnosticism

In an article on About.com: Atheism vs. Agnosticism, the author talks about the differences in meanings of agnosticism and atheism, and claims that agnosticism is compatible with both atheism and theism. In the article the author disclaims the position that agnosticism is more “reasonable” than theism because it eschews theism’s dogmatism being inaccurate.

One of the main points the author addresses is a belief he attributes to agnostics that, "If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists."

He also discusses how atheism and theism deal with belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge. Weak agnosticism is about personally not having knowledge of god, and strong agnosticism is believing that knowledge about god is impossible. The article summarizes that since belief and knowledge are independent, it's possible to be both.

[edit] Problems and Criticism

This biggest problem and criticism of agnostic theism is the simple argument that in order to be religious, you must believe in God, whether or not you have proof. If you acknowledge you don't have proof, but you still believe in God, this is consistent with Fideism. If you acknowledge you don't have proof, and you let that knowledge affect your belief, then you can not really consider yourself religious.

If the former statement (that proof does not negate belief) is to be considered a proper definition of agnostic theism, then there is no difference between it and Fideism.

[edit] George H. Smith's rebuttal

In Atheism: The Case Against God^[2] George H. Smith argues that all agnosticism is a form of atheism (defined here as "lacking a belief in a deity"). His argument against agnostic theism is that it is contradictory to state that a being is inherently or currently unknowable, and yet positively assert a belief in its existence. His argument goes:

"One cannot possibly know that something exists without some knowledge of what it is that exists."
If it is declared unknowable, the concept of "god" becomes meaningless. The agnostic theist's statement of belief therefore becomes equivalent to "a blark exists."
- This unspecified belief ("I believe in 'something'") is equivalent to nonbelief ("I am not convinced by any particular religious claim"). Therefore the so-called agnostic theist is in fact an atheist (by being unable to assert a positive belief in any specific deity).
- It ensues that all agnosticism is a form of atheism.
If the agnostic theist still wishes to believe, he must ascribe attributes of some sort to the belief. However, they would then be claiming some knowledge of their deity and are therefore no longer agnostics but are theists instead.

Smith concisely describes the paradox on pg 44:

To posit the existence of something which, by its nature, cannot be known to man is to submerge oneself in hopeless contradictions. [...] When one claims that something is unknowable, can one produce knowledge in support of this claim? If one cannot, one's assertion is arbitrary and utterly without merit. If one can, one has accomplished the impossible: one has knowledge of the unknowable. [...] The theist who is called upon to explain the content of his belief - and who then introduces the "unknowable" as a supposed characteristic of the concept itself - is saying, in effect: "I will explain the concept of god by pointing out that it cannot be explained."