AGNOSTICISM
The word "agnosticism" was coined by 1869, by Huxley. What is agnosticism ? Most people would answer to this question : "agnosticism is someone who is neither atheist or theist ; someone who is not sure". Unfortunately, this view is flawed. Indeed Madalyn Murray O'Hair wrote about this confusion :
"Popularly, the word agnostic has been corrupted (just as the words Atheist and Epicurian have been corrupted) to mean to the man in the street, `I don't know whether there is a god or not` ''.
If such a definition was correct, weak atheism would be included in agnosticism. Weak atheism is not a pretention of certainty, it is therefore "not sure". Also, no one can be "neither atheist nor theist", indeed the two terms do not accept a third alternative. Either you believe in gods, or you do not : the law of excluding middle prevents otherwise.
What then would be an acceptable definition ? The #atheism web site provides us the answer :
"Agnosticism is the belief god is either unknown or unknowable. An agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist".
As atheism is disbelief in gods, agnosticism is the belief that god is unknowable, a metaphysical zero. The position of agnosticism denies all proof, and is openly against any possibility of proving atheism or theism.
Let's see some other definitions of agnosticism that have been proposed.
Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the term agnosticism, defined it thus :
"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable" ("Agnosticism", 1889).
In that case, agnosticism would be equivalent with using one's reason within its limits. But this principle is indeed part of the concept of reason itself. It is not a valid excuse to refuse to acknowledge proof outside of your own reasoning.
Graham Oppy distinguishes between strong and weak agnosticism. This is his thesis :
"strong agnosticism, i.e. 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".
"weak agnosticism, i.e. 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".
By these definitions, a strong agnostic could not take either side of certainty, while a weak agnostic could possibly be either atheist or theist.
An agnostic is either theist or atheist. It
is not a middle ground, since agnosticism is concerned about the nature of gods,
not in existence of gods. Basically, it's the idea that gods are unknowable,
that they are undefined and therefore a nebulous concept, which implies a denial of
present atheist arguments against the existence of the divine concept, which of course are
based on the definition of said concept.
Thus it is not on the same plane of debate then atheism and theism. Indeed someone can
believe in gods without knowing what it is, as someone can disbelieve without defining. A
weak agnostic is either atheist, theist, or outside of the debate, while a strong agnostic
is necessarily outside of the debate.
Whenever you agree with this distinction or not, we have to conclude that agnosticism in
itself is outside of the atheism/theism debate. The belief that gods, if they would have a
possibility of existence, would be unknowable, is undeniable in view of the current use of
positive and negative theology, which denies any nature to the divine essence.
Now, people mean very different things when they say "agnostic". They can indeed
designate the following things : 1. Someone who is indecise, or cannot decide, 2.
weak-atheist, 3. someone holding the belief that no proof of any side is possible (or,
similarily, someone holding the belief that either proposition - there is a god / there is
no god - is not qualified as knowledge) or 4. someone holding that there is no more
evidence on one side then on another. (1) is not a statement about the nature of god, but
simply indecision. This places the person outside of the atheist/theist plane. (2) is a
common confusion with people who take atheism to be exclusively a positive belief. (3) and
(4) are also compatible with weak-atheism, but since the evidence and proof so far resides
on the atheistic side, they are also illogical positions.