 | This article possibly contains original research. (October 2010) |
 | This article or section possibly contains synthesis of material which does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic. (October 2010) |
| Part of a series on |
| Irreligion |
|---|
Weak agnosticism, or empirical agnosticism (also negative agnosticism), is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deities is currently unknown, but not necessarily unknowable. Strong agnosticism or positive agnosticism is the view that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist.
Neither type of agnosticism is fully irreconcilable with theism (belief in a deity or deities) nor atheism (rejecting belief in all deities). Agnostics who also consider themselves theists are likely to acknowledge they have some doubt, though they are not necessarily having a crisis of faith. Agnosticism often overlaps with negative atheism, which also does not claim that it is false that any deities exist. However, agnosticism is less easily reconciled with positive atheism, which asserts some degree of certainty that no deities exist, a degree that is indistinguishable from a knowledge-claim among some atheists.
Weak agnosticism edit
Weak agnostics assert that presently they do not know whether there exists a deity, but allow that such might become knowable. Agnostics maintain that no irrefutable or sufficiently strong evidence exists proving or disproving the existence of god(s). Weak agnostics differ from strong agnostics in that they believe the existence or non-existence of god(s) might yet be proven by science or philosophy. Weak agnostics simply feel that humanity is not there yet, weak agnosticism is not a belief or faith which one can hold in the light of extreme amounts of rational coherent scientific evidence to support the existence of god(s), "godlike" entity, or non-existence, so if it can be proved, either way, then the weak-agnostic will acknowledge it.
Strong agnosticism edit
The viewpoint has also been described in a semi-humorous fashion as "militant agnosticism", with the tagline "I don't know, and you don't either". Strong agnosticism is usually justified on the epistemological grounds that humans can only experience the natural world and thus cannot know about anything which may exist outside it, including deities. One criticism is that this justification is only valid if deities are viewed as exclusively supernatural beings, but to support such a view one must have at least some knowledge of the nature of deities. The agnostic reply is, as the natural world can be explained by science, the defining feature of any deity must be supernatural.
Criticism of agnosticism edit
Agnostics have often been accused of indecision, that is, "fence-sitters". This arises from a misunderstanding of weak agnosticism. The principle of weak agnosticism is not about a belief in God or a disbelief in God but about the belief in the statement "God exists" or the belief in the statement "God does not exist". Given that, to a weak agnostic, nothing has been shown to support either statement conclusively, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the data is inconclusive and believing in either is a leap of faith.
Other meanings edit
According to Graham Oppy, weak agnosticism is "the view which is sustained by the thesis that it is permissible for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question of God's existence", and strong agnosticism is "the view which is sustained by the thesis that it is obligatory for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question of God's existence."[1]
References edit
- ^ Oppy, Graham (December 1994). "Weak Agnosticism Defended". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 36 (3): 147–167. doi:10.1007/BF01316921.
 | This philosophy-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |