There are agnostic theists, and there are agnostic atheists. What other group can there be?

Question

...coupled with agnosticism.

Note: My definition for atheist is non-theist, but the weak atheist definition coincides with my agnostic atheist, and the strong my gnostic atheist. I define agnostic as acknowledgement of not knowing it as certain and/or absolutely.

Basically:

Agnostic Atheist: One who does not positively affirm the existence of the personal theistic deity (non-theist) but accepts the possibility of one if new evidence would arise.

Agnostic theist: One who does positively affirm the existence of the personal theistic deity (non-theist) but accepts that he may not know for certain.

The reason that you see little of agnostic theists is that most do not accept the possibility of them being wrong (in my experience)


So, given my definition, how can there be any other agnostic group? If you answer in the negative but still make a distinction, explain where your definition diverges from mine.

Answer 1

First, I see myself as some sort of agnostic, and I don't think I fall into either of your categories. And I suspect most self-described agnostics would say the same if they read your definitions carefully.

I don't positively affirm the existence of the personal theistic deity, so I don't count as one of your Agnostic Theists.

And I accept the possibility of the existence of the personal theistic deity right now, without requiring any new evidence to arise before I do so, so I don't seem to count as one of your Agnostic Atheists either.

And I expect most agnostics would think the same, as a direct consequence of saying that they don't know whether 'God' exists or not.

But even once you reformulate your definitions to clear up this problem, other problems will remain.

First, people's attitudes aren't necessarily fixed. For instance, it probably makes sense to some people to choose to assume/ affirm/ believe/ know/ whatever-word-you-prefer/ that there's no God when in the brothel on Saturday, and that there is a God when accompanying the spouse and kids to Church on Sunday, and that there isn't a God when doing science on Monday, and that there is when attending a Republican prayer breakfast in Washington on Tuesday to lobby for political support for your science grant application, before reverting to atheism when meeting the grant application bureacrats on Wednesday, and so on.

Secondly the meaning of the words in your definitions are themselves necessarily unclear. What exactly is 'positive affirmation' (or, for that matter, 'belief', which is the more common word in such discussions). What precisely do you (or other speakers and listeners) mean by 'deity', let alone 'theistic deity', still less 'personal theistic deity'. The only reasonable certainty is that there will be many different understandings of such words.

In the case of the definition of 'agnostic', I note that an earlier answer to your question by Geezah gives us T.H.Huxley's alleged definition, without giving a source. This is the fourth different such definition (or quasi-definition) that I've seen attributed to Huxley (and at least two of these quasi-definitions were definitely genuine quotes of his). Needless to add many self-described agnostics have other definitions, and I most definitely would not be an agnostic if I had to conform to Geezah's quoted definition, and I suspect few other agnostics would either, probably including Huxley himself, at least at the times when he was writing the other quasi-definitions to which I referred.

Then there is the problem that an Agnostic who suspects that Polytheism is the least unlikely of the available possibilities gets labelled an Agnostic Atheist because he does not positively affirm the existence of the personal theistic deity.
Perhaps you think, as many do in our Western world, that polytheistic thought is nothing but primitive superstition, which your advanced labelling system can safely ignore. If so, think again. Our arguably rather insane Western world seems obsessed with the idea that the only plausible number of deities is either one or zero, even though there are literally infinitely more numbers which are neither one nor zero. If (many) scientists are right that an infinitely diverse multiverse is the simplest explanation for our existence, then the number of god-like beings in such a multiverse is almost necessarily infinite (though it's a separate question whether a 'god-like being' should count as a 'true' god or a 'false' god, and whether such a question ultimately makes sense or not). Fairly similar ideas were put forward by Epicurus over 2300 years ago, and I suspect he was merely rediscovering or repeating ideas which have been around since prehistory, and which may well explain why most societies seem to be polytheistic until some monotheistic 'Holy' book gets imposed on them, usually by brainwashing, or organised terror, or both.

Then there is the matter of misleading/confusing and/or gratuitously offensive labelling. It is simply confusing, and at least arguably deeply misleading, to imply that I am, and indeed must be, some sort of theist or atheist, as your labels do. And the same is probably true for many (perhaps most) self-described agnostics. Many ot these labels appear designed to maximize offence (for example 'Weak Atheist' instead of 'Soft Atheist' - softness can be nice, weakness is invariably seen as a fault). They may well offend atheists and theists too, because you're diluting and debasing the meaning of the words 'atheist' and 'theist', as well as pigeon-holing people together whose preferred labels indicate that they would prefer to be kept separate.

Finally, your labels appear badly chosen anyway. If you must insist on trying to pigeon-hole and sub-pigeon-hole Agnostics, it is less confusing or misleading to speak of Atheistic and Theistic Agnostics - at least that way the listener can guess that you're talking about Agnostics. By contrast, an Agnostic Theist or Atheist sounds like somebody who is saying 'I regard myself as a Theist/Atheist even though I'm not all that sure. For various reasons, such as my own personal happiness, I choose to believe/affirm that there is/is not a God, even though deep down I know I could be wrong.' (Such people are clearly Theists/Atheists, given their stated beliefs. And, incidentally, in my view they are by far the most sensible kind of Theists/Atheists, but that's another story).

Answer 2

The actual definition of an agnostic, when it was first termed by T.H. Huxley, is: the assertive belief that the existence of deities cannot be and never will be proven or disproven. And you're right that the term is not mutually exclusive with "theist" or "atheist".

As for what other kinds of agnostics there can be, we have to look at somebody who wouldn't fall into the category of atheist or theist. How about deists? Or do you consider deists to be a type of theist since they do believe in deity, albeit not a personal one?

Answer 3

I strive for commonsense in all matters pertaining to theology,since one can easily become mired in hair-splitting distinctions. To me an agnostic is one who accepts that the existence of a Supreme being cannot be proven or dis-proven; hence no actual position is taken - no effort is made to deny the existence of God - but the agnostic is also a non-believer,lacking a basis for belief. They do not acknowledge or deny the existence of God.
The atheist is a person - in practical terms,please let's not get bogged down in semantics - who fervently denies the existence of God and believes he is able to refute it. In our society,the atheist is generally anti-Christian,often quite virulently so. The agnostic is essentially neutral. There is no basis for hostility,nor any conviction that he can refute the existence of God. Anyway,in a plainspoken way,that is the distinction as I see it.

Answer 4

Seems to me agnostic non-theists exist. Those who accept the possibility of a non-personal diety, but do not accept the possibility of a personal diety.

Answer 5

We can all agree I suspect, that love and positivity are good for us. However, the best way of determining what is actually true is to see what people state as true and see if it stands up to some scrutiny. some theists dont appreciate that faith is a useful belief. Some atheists dont appreciate that a belief does not need to be true, for it to be beneficial to humans. The placebo effect is undeniable.

Answer 6

How about a pure agnostic...neither theist nor atheist. Dead center on the fense.

Answer 7

Agnostic agnostic: They admit they are unsure about what they are unsure about. They know they don't know something, and don't know what it is they don't know.