Since the term Agnosticism (coined in 1896 not 1986) usually simply means not knowing whether or not God exists it can hardly be right or wrong. My father, on joining the British army in 1939 was asked his religion, he said he was an agnostic to which the sergeant replied 'I don't think theyve got a church near here'.

Whether a given person accepts the definition of agnosticism as correct in relation to the existence or non-existence of God depends on the argumentation used.

In the case of:

> non-rational argument - Huxley's religious agnosticism sounds "correct"

> argumentum ad rem - Huxley's religious agnosticism is reduced to the level of a fanciful, non-rational, senseless view.

PS: I wouldn't be worried about the sergeant's opinion!

I think the whole discussion is put in wrong terms. You criticize the unclarity about the concept of God, but you do not criticize the unclarity about existence. When you consider the question about the existence of God, you should clarify what “existence” means in your speech, which instead is completely ignored. Do you mean existence in the sense that is normally applied to scientific topics? In that case the question doesn’t make sense, because God is not a scientific topic. So, there isn’t much point in criticising the use of the word “agnosticism” if you don’t clarify first what you mean by “existence”, when you want to refer it to God.

Salut Angelo,

If you read my post or listen to my video lecture on YouTube carefully (*see below), you won’t miss the clear determination of the term “existence” referring to both the physical being as well as the imaginary ones e.g. gods. Shortly, according to the Kant’s Maxim, the term "existence” does not clearly define where a god might exist. Thus it cannot be a real predicate. In other words, the term "existence" cannot be an essential uniquely determined property of anything. In consequence, gods can exist in myths and don't exist in reality at the same time which is in line with the CANI's PRINCIPLE OF COEXISTENCE OF INDEPENDENT BEINGS (CANI's Imperative of Independent Beings), based on the Laws of Nature (Physical Laws) according to which:

"GOD EXISTS FOR BELIEVERS AND

DOES NOT EXIST FOR NON-BELIEVERS"

Every common-sense person, especially academic, when asked about the real, I mean – physical, existence of god, should answer:

"This Question Makes No Sense" or "I Have No Idea What The Question Is About" BUT IN NO CASE – "I DON'T KNOW",

which is typical of "almost certainly" agnostics such as for example Richard Dawkins, who is paradoxically considered by some to be the "King of the Atheists" or the “Pope of the Atheists”, what borders on paranoia.

*More detailed information on this subject you’ll find in my online lecture:

THE FICTION OF AGNOSTICISM: CANI vs HUXLEY. TIME FOR NEW DEFINITIONS!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HqS7dSXlLQ&t=4s

(two slides taken from the above lecture are enclosed to this post)

PS: More on agnosticism can be also found on YouTube under my name “Jean-Marc Kania”

When I say that "existence" is unclear, I am not referring to the ambiguity between existence in reality and existence in imagination. Existence in reality is already unclear enough, without need of referring to existence in imagination. The existence of God cannot be thought by adopting the mental categories of existence in nature as conceived in Physics. God is not something belonging to nature as conceived in Physics. God is, or must be, beyond physics. In this context, saying that God exists as real or doesn't exist as real is anyway nonsense, because this way we are referring to God the idea of existence that we use for the reality as conceived in Physics.

Salut Angelo,

Huxley, defining religious agnosticism, simply confused the concepts that require diametrically opposed methods of cognition because of the nature of the things they refer to.

After all, reality is cognized by experience and reason whereas the religious realm is cognized through faith based more on non-rational than irrational perception of the world and therefore has no cognitive value.

When the argumentum ad rem concerning the existence or non-existence of god is used, then the term "agnosticism", concerning the existence of god in terms of the physical realm, signs more than senseless (why – answer in my *video lecture).

Of course, asking about the existence of god in the imaginary realm is the most appropriate question, just like asking about the existence of gnomes or Saint Claus. As I've emphasized in my earlier post, nothing prevent any god from existing in myths and not existing in reality at the same time, because the word “existence” is not a real predicate thus it cannot be an essential uniquely determined property of anything. This is consistent with the Kant's Maxim, according to which the term "existence” does not clearly define where god might exist, and is in line with the CANI's PRINCIPLE OF COEXISTENCE OF INDEPENDENT BEINGS, according to which:

"GOD EXISTS FOR BELIEVERS AND DOES NOT EXIST FOR NON-BELIEVERS"

As stated in in your post, “God is, or must be, beyond physics” (based on philosophy of mind) means that a being (like e.g. a god) exists outside of the physical reality. Such a being is nothing else than just an imaginary construct, existing entirely in human brains. In consequence, its physical existence, as many other products of human fantasy such as, e.g., gnomes or Santa Claus, is neither subject to physical laws, nor can their existence be verified experimentally. Whether someone believes or not in their existence is a matter of faith, not scientific considerations!

Using Huxley’s agnosticism to determine own or others' religious views proves intellectual inertia and a lack of willingness to understand things. Above all, religious agnosticism robs people of the courage to adopt the clear-cut position to the root of the matter – referring to the existence or non-existence of god.

On the other hand, in the context of real beings such as Nature (real being, governed by physical laws), agnosticism, (the so-called "CANI's Real Agnosticism or Vero Agnost) corresponds to the essence of Nature and the human's cognitive abilities. It is therefore the most appropriate term to be used in relation to the real beings. And only to this extent the term "agnosticism" makes sense, which imposes the necessity to clarify the Huxley's definition of agnosticism.

PS: Angelo, I’ve already explained to you the term “existence”. If this is not enough for you, please take a few minutes of your time to listen carefully to my video lecture (*see below) to learn about agnosticism in the context of the term “existence”.

_________________

*More detailed information on this subject you’ll find in my online lectures:

> THE FICTION OF AGNOSTICISM: CANI vs HUXLEY. TIME FOR NEW DEFINITIONS!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HqS7dSXlLQ&t=4s

> INTERMEDIALISM vs AGNOSTICISM: CANI'S COMPLEX PLANE OF RELIGIOSITY vs DAWKINS’ LINEAR SCALE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBrOH2T8kx0&t=877s

In your words, two way only of existing are accepted as conceivable: physical existence and imaginary existence. As a consequence, according to your logic, God has two only alternative ways of existing: either physically or in human imagination. In other words, God is allowed to exist in the two ways that you can understand only. God is not allowed to be superior to your understanding, that is, your alternative between physical and imaginary existence.

After establishing these boundaries around God, you decide that agnosticism doesn’t make sense, because it can be referred properly to physical objects only.

As I said, the radical defect that I see in your reasoning is the exclusion of anything that you cannot understand: what about ways of existence that are both beyond physical existence and beyond human imagination? What about ways of knowledge that are different from scientific knowledge? In this sense, the meaning of “agnosticism” is to be referred to itself first, because this is the only way to be agnostic in an open minded way: “I don’t know if there are ways of knowing that, at the moment, I cannot figure out”: this is properly agnosticism. If you establish in advance what can be known and what cannot be known, agnosticism is impossible, because the opposite has already been established, that is, knowing all the possibilities of knowledge.

The defect of your reasoning is very evident in your video at 1:54 when, in reference to God, you say “we don’t know what his physical parameters are”! Really? What physical parameters would you like to know about God? His length? His temperature? His speed? How would you measure the physical parameters of God? Would a tape measure do the job? How can you expect of yourself being able to measure God?

Later your attitude becomes arrogant and offensive, when you say, at 3:36, “degrading God to a mythical figure imagined by our ignorant and barbarous ancestors, whose knowledge was limited to magic and witchcraft”. This is not what experts say. Only ignorant people can despise our ancestors. Whenever I have studied our ancestors, by learning from those academics who are professionally competent in their field, I have never seen such attitude of contempt towards their object of study. For example, I have never seen a professional academic Egyptologist despising ancient Egyptians, or experts about prehistoric cultures despising our prehistoric ancestors. Have you ever seen an expert academic about ancient Greeks despising ancient Greeks? On the contrary, I have always seen the opposite: the more expert academics are deeply inside the knowledge of ancient cultures, the more they have an extraordinary appreciation of what they study and they show an extraordinary ability to let us enjoy the same appreciation; the opposite happens as well: the more people are ignorant about what they are talking about, the more they show a tendency to depreciate it.

Existence may referto care. Do we care God's being? It matters, though.

Angelo, further discussion with you, however some ways interesting, is pointless. And that's because your reasoning is based on imagination and the apparent underestimating human intelligence which, as known, allows us to distinguish fiction from reality. Your overconfidence, based on your beliefs and convictions, perhaps satisfies your ego and personal beliefs but denies the essence of nature and facts.

Unfortunately, we are on different wavelengths: you – the spiritual one based on faith that “God is, or must be, beyond physics”, and me – the real one based on physical beings and science. It looks that you just discovered another "world" – a divine world. Although your conception is exciting, but unfortunately nonrealistic, in other words – endopsychic, i.e. arising and existing within your mind.

You know, or rather believe, that something or someone (e.g. a god) is outside our reality and imagination. How could this happen otherwise than in the human mind? On the other hand, how anyone could know that a being exists if it is entirely outside of human experience? Isn't it just another sort of imagination? If there were no imagination, there would not be its products like e.g. deities. Unfortunately, all of them permanently reside in the minds of their creators who, against reason and the laws of nature, are convinced that the products of their imagination exist in a reality unknown to humans. As known, all non-physical beings, including all gods created so far, are nothing else as imaginary constructs created in the human brains exactly the same way as any other fairy-tale and mythical human-made creatures. No one with a bit of common sense will say that something or someone exists somewhere outside our reality and imagination. Such nonrealistic, non-physical beings can only arise in the human mind thanks to imagination and/or faith.

Based on D. Hume’s reasoning, one can state that non-physical being existing outside physical reality is nothing else as “… a violation of the laws of nature and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against the “existence” of non-physical being, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined….”.

The views represented in your post, unfortunately, smack of blind faith, which is, as you emphasized, more important than facts and science. Theology is not a science or even a philosophy of religion. It does not even qualify as parascience, but it can be considered pseudoscience because it uses creationist "theories" devoid of logic and cognitive values. It is based on religious dogma and faith in the existence of a god. Therefore, it cannot meet the requirements set by nature and science and any attempts to make it more scientific come down to discrediting the preached theological arguments. To avoid this, one should never even try to oppose theology to science and the laws of nature.

Following D. Hume reasoning, “…Our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is, by no means, fitted to endure…”.

It is generally known that syncretizing science and theology, due to the polar opposite of these two fields: the first – rational based on reason and experience, and the other – non-rational based on faith, is impossible, and all the so-called arguments in favor of syncretism (i.e. combining science and religion), as stated in the book "Rocks of Ages" by S.J. Gould (religion-friendly, by the way), disintegrate into a series of vague and illogical statements wrapped in (the wildest) metaphors which, one should think, theologians must know of. Despite this fact they try to syncretize these two different fields of knowledge, coming to nonrealistic, inconclusive, nonsensical conclusions.

In your post you state that my “…attitude becomes arrogant and offensive, when you say, at 3:36, “degrading God to a mythical figure imagined by our ignorant and barbarous ancestors, whose knowledge was limited to magic and witchcraft”….” – THIS IS, ANGELO, NOT IGNORANCE OR AGGRESSIVENESS BUT THE STATEMENT CONSISTENT WITH HISTORICAL FACTS. Opinions similar to mine are expressed by many famous scientists and thinkers, such as David Hume, who in his book: Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, states, among others:

“….Here then we are first to consider a book (refers to Bible), presented to us by a barbarous and ignorant people, written in an age when they were still more barbarous…”

By the way, as you mentioned: “the more people are ignorant about what they are talking about, the more they show a tendency to depreciate it.” – Doesn't that reflect your views, Angelo?

Ref. to Existence may refer to care. Do we care God's being? It matters, though. Paul Kuei-chi Tseng

Paul, If God existed and took care of people, there would be no crimes committed by people and natural disasters. Goodness and wisdom, not evil and silliness, would guide human behavior.

By the way, physical existence has nothing to do with "care", which is a feature of human concern or interests in relation to someone or something.