I often call myself an agnostic, but what does that mean exactly?
Agnosticism is a notoriously difficult thing to define.
In the nearly two centuries since English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term "agnostic", people have attempted to elaborate upon the exact meaning of the term. Some find it a worthwhile distinction somewhere between atheism and theism. Others reject it outright, lumping it in with atheism. I'll let you dive into that rabbit hole here on Wikipedia.
For the purposes of this chost, here's the basic idea...
Defining agnostic 📖
The term "agnostic" is derived from Ancient Greek a- ('without'), gnosis ('knowledge'), and -ic ('an individual'), meaning "one without knowledge". Therefore, an agnostic does not claim [absolute] knowledge of the existence of any deity.
Because atheism and theism deal with belief and agnosticism deals with knowledge, they are actually independent concepts. This means that it is possible to be an agnostic and a theist. One can have a wide range of beliefs in gods and also not be able to or wish to claim to know for sure whether those gods definitely exist.[1]
On a personal level, this means you simply don't know or don't care to know whether any deity exists. It can also mean you're are actively grappling with the conceptual differences between atheism and theism, and haven't been convinced one way or the other.
Types of agnosticism 💭
There are three major types of agnosticism:
-
Strong agnosticism: the question of the existence or nonexistence of any deity is unknowable. On a personal level, this means you'll never know for certain.
-
Weak agnosticism: the question of the existence or nonexistence of any deity is currently unknown, but not unknowable. On a personal level, this can mean you aren't sure right now, but you could come to know the answer for yourself someday.
-
Apathetic agnosticism: the question of the existence or nonexistence of any deity is irrelevant. These "deities" don't seem all that interested in us so and don't seem to impact us on the day-to-day, so why bother with the question? On a personal level, this can mean you think the question is irrelevant or simply don't care about the question (which is valid).
In addition, there are are two terms closely incorporates both agnosticism and a position within the atheism-theism debate.
-
Agnostic atheism: a philosophical position where one does not believe in the existence of any deity because the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle, or currently unknown in fact. On a personal level, this can mean you aren't sure if a god exists so you prefer to disbelieve until reasonably convincing evidence presents itself. This could also mean you accept atheism on the basis of faith rather than knowledge.
-
Agnostic theism: a philosophical position where one believes in the existence of any deity because the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle, or currently unknown in fact. On a personal level, this can mean you aren't sure if a god exists so you prefer to believe until reasonably convincing evidence presents itself. This could also mean accept theism on the basis of faith rather than knowledge.
I find these last two definitions rather interesting, because they utilize agnosticism in order to justify a strong (or weak) position on one's atheism or theism. How one gets to this point is as unique as the individual themself. There's a whole field of philosophical study about the nature of knowledge called epistemology that's a fascinating subject to dive into.
Closing thoughts
Some atheists and theists like to think agnostics are just “missing something”. That it’s a temporary state of being between atheism and theism where they can convince the agnostic to join one side or the other. This is a rather misguided view.
People can identify as agnostic and leave it at that. It’s important to understand that not everyone is “searching” for the answer. Some have probably never thought of the question, or thought to question their beliefs. And some probably don’t care to place that much time or value into thinking about those things, which is valid.
“Sufficient evidence” tends to be the approach to how people eventually form their beliefs. You can learn more about what “sufficient evidence” entails by diving into epistemology, apologetics, and theology. I highly recommend giving Alex O'Connor's discussions and debates a watch. His videos have been a big part of my exploration of all this.
This chost is meant to break down what agnostic means not only for myself, but also to inform others and to start a conversation. I’ll share my thoughts on being agnostic another time.
Citations
- Cline, Austin. What is Agnostic Theism? - Believing in God, but not Knowing God. Learn Religions, 2019. Web. link
If you're interested, you can leave your thoughts in the comments or rebug this chost with your college thesis lmao
