Agnosticism – How to spot an agnostic in 2021

This article was developed under the heading: Psychology. Section: Philosophy.

You have probably asked yourself more than once questions of a global nature - about faith, God, religion in general. Most likely, you discussed this topic with loved ones, friends, and colleagues. If we look at the people around us, we increasingly hear from them the phrases “I don’t believe in anything”, “If I haven’t seen it, then it doesn’t exist.” And such phrases are used in relation to many issues of knowledge and existence. One of the most widespread philosophical concepts at the moment is the theory of agnosticism. Representatives of agnosticism - agnostics - claim the impossibility of knowing all aspects of human life. But is it? What is the basis for such views? Let's figure out together what agnosticism is and who agnostics are.

Let's look at what the phenomenon of agnosticism is

Who is an agnostic

The term “agnosticism” is directly related to such phenomena as religion and atheism, which is characteristic of many people. In reality, agnosticism is a middle position between belief in God and atheism (complete denial of the existence of God). Agnosticism is a special vision of the world, which is expressed in a position that assumes that the world cannot be known, and accordingly it is impossible to say with certainty “there is a God or not” unless this can be investigated. But who are agnostics?

An agnostic is a person who believes (according to his own beliefs) that it is impossible to fully understand the world. Hence, this phenomenon is actually broader than just an attitude towards religion.

By big mistake, agnostics are almost always equated exclusively with issues of faith and religion, but the views of agnostics themselves cover many sciences (philosophy, physics, chemistry, etc.). Agnostics represent a phenomenon in which the reality of the world is questionable, and only those factors that can be proven are accepted as objective reality. At the same time, every agnostic will say that fully understanding the world is an illusory possibility.

Scientific agnosticism

We have already mentioned above that the term “agnosticism” was proposed in 1869 by the scientist Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), who, by the way, was not even a philosopher, but became famous for his scientific works in the field of zoology and comparative anatomy.

Moreover, this term was born in response to the question whether a scientist considers himself an atheist or a believer. Huxley considered himself a free-thinking person and stated that, we quote: “a person should not think that he knows something that he has no scientific basis for knowing.”

The term "agnostic" is a symbiosis of the ancient Greek α (alpha), which means "without", and γνῶσις (gnosis), which means "knowledge". So briefly, in one word, the essence of an entire direction in philosophy, science and theology was indicated. Elements of agnosticism can be found in the works of a number of scientists who most people do not associate with either philosophy or theology.

Famous agnostic scientists:

• Charles Darwin.
• Albert Einstein.
• Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein were classified as agnostics by biographers who studied their lives and views, but American astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson classified himself as a follower of this trend after he was accused of atheism.

Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein, in addition to physics, was keenly interested in the philosophy of science. He wrote that the world around us is a huge eternal mystery, only partially accessible to our perception and our mind. However, the fact that the surrounding reality cannot be completely ordered by reason is the great miracle of science.

This understanding of the relativity of human knowledge probably made it possible for Einstein to create the theory of relativity. For a great scientist, what could not be completely ordered by reason was not at all an obstacle to scientific research, but a challenge that had to be accepted.

Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin did not hide the fact that his attitude towards religion and knowledge changed throughout his life. He is credited with the phrase that, we quote: “There is nothing more remarkable than the spread of religious unbelief, or rationalism, during the second half of my life.”

At the same time, Darwin himself emphasized that he was not an atheist in the generally accepted sense, i.e. does not deny the possibility of the existence of God. And he believed that the theory of evolution he developed did not in any way contradict his views on religion and the process of cognition. Moreover, Darwin wrote that “the more we understand the laws of nature, the more incredible miracles become to us.”

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Neil deGrasse Tyson became famous for his initiative to change the classification of planets and move away from simple counting and assigning a serial number. In his opinion, planets should be grouped according to their common characteristics: terrestrial planets, gas giants, etc. In a sense, Tyson became an “atheist” even in the world of science, having swung at the foundations familiar to everyone.

It is not surprising that he was often accused of almost all mortal sins, including atheism. To this Tyson replied that he is a scientist and thinks with his own head, so the definition of “agnostic” is more suitable for him, i.e. a person who, we quote: “is ready to accept evidence if it exists.” Apparently, this also applies to evidence of the existence of God, if any is found.

Now let’s summarize the main postulates of agnosticism:

1. Any knowledge is relative.
2. Any statement may turn out to be true.
3. Any statement may turn out to be false.

So what is agnosticism anyway - the path to freedom of knowledge or a relic of the past? Rather, this is the path to freedom of knowledge and new discoveries, if we accept the relativity of human knowledge not as a limiter, but as a challenge for further movement forward. This is also an opportunity to question the practical sufficiency and finality of any of the previously made discoveries, which, in turn, opens the way to new scientific achievements.

Well, now you can test yourself and find out how well you understand agnosticism, based on the material in the article:

By the way, if you are interested in the topic of cognition, we invite you to our program “Cognitive Science. Development of Thinking”, where you will master about two dozen thinking techniques.

We wish you new knowledge and impressive discoveries!

We also recommend reading:

• Storytelling
• Paul Feyerabend's Epistemological Anarchism: Promise or Delusion?
• Neopositivism and the principle of verification
• The emergence of positivism
• Theory of knowledge
• Empiricism in modern philosophy in simple words
• Machism: Ernst Mach's contribution to the development of the philosophy of positivism
• Philosophy of conventionalism
• Materialism and idealism in philosophy
• Why understand philosophy?
• Philosophical foundations of the linguistic concept of Wilhelm von Humboldt

Key words:1Cognitive science

What is the essence of agnosticism

So, agnosticism is a special direction of thought, a philosophical movement. But what is it? Let's look at the main criteria of agnosticism.

The word “agnosticism” itself comes from the Greek “agnostos”, which directly translates as unknowable.

Agnosticism itself is a perception of the world in which nothing can be known objectively, since behind such a perception there will necessarily be a human factor, which is necessarily subjective in nature. Hence, in general, the very process of proving something in agnosticism does not make sense, since the possibility of knowledge is denied.

At the same time, agnosticism is characterized by the presence of certain contradictions.

No position (including scientific) can be considered reliable, since it is impossible to prove reliability from an objective point of view.

Not a single position can be refuted, since knowing the truth is unattainable for human consciousness.

Thus, agnosticism in simple words does not refute anything, but at the same time it does not prove anything.

The essence of the concept of Agnosticism

An agnostic is a person who refutes the complete knowledge of the world and phenomena due to the limited perception of man. He is sure that people do not know what is the truth and what is the lie. It is rather a person’s worldview and different perceptions of the world.

The concept of “agnosticism” appeared in science in 1869. It was introduced by the English naturalist and biologist Thomas Huxley. From Greek this word is translated as “unknowable.”

Huxley explained his concept: a person cannot say that he is right about something if he does not have scientific grounds. For example, a scientist cannot speak confidently about a problem if he does not have the facts. Agnosticism is more of a way of examining a hypothesis from a scientific point of view. It cannot be taken on faith without experiments and evidence. Every scientific hypothesis is either refuted or confirmed by a factual basis.

Agnostic Thinking:

1. The modern world is studied by man subjectively. 2. Agnostics do not impose their opinions because they deny a unified and accurate knowledge of the world. 3. We are sure that everyone has their own point of view and there is no point in arguing, because everyone will be wrong.

The theory of agnosticism is based on science and evidence because it is a belief in knowledge. Only that which has an evidentiary basis is real.

Directions and forms of agnosticism:

• Relativism. It is based on relativity. This is the principle of knowledge, in which the basis is sensuality, and it does not reflect objective and stable phenomena. If a concept is untrue and subjective, then it is denied by the objectivity of knowledge and leads to agnosticism. • Irrationalism. Translated from Lat. - unreasonable, illogical. It is based on the assertion that there are many areas of understanding of the world that are inaccessible to the mind of an ordinary person.

The history of agnosticism

But when did agnosticism itself begin? Unofficially, agnosticism originated in ancient times. So, if you turn to the works of ancient Greek philosophers, you can see some statements similar to the positions of agnosticism.

In history, it is generally accepted that agnosticism as a full-fledged philosophical phenomenon originated in the 19th century, when Spencer, Hamilton, Berkeley and Hume (the main agnostic philosophers) expressed the position that it is impossible to know the existing world through human subjective perception of metaphysical phenomena. In general, this teaching was justified by the desire to oppose metaphysics (the way of knowing the world), based on the works of the sophists (another direction of philosophy), skeptics, and ancient philosophers.

Over time, agnosticism as a phenomenon acquired religious overtones, as the movement of atheists (people who do not believe in God and the divine origin of the world) developed. Today, agnosticism is a special school of thought that covers not only religion and philosophy, but also other sciences and spheres of human life.

Historically, agnosticism was not associated with religion and belief in God

Survival Tool

Only constant control and responsibility for their actions will allow people to slowly and carefully move along the path of improvement. Every power conflict that leads to death must be perceived as a mistake. And the steps that led to it must be carefully analyzed in order to prevent this from happening in the future.

In the 20th century, human integrity is disintegrating. The previously unified sense of reason, goodness and beauty has lost its meaning today. Rationalism, fashionable at the beginning of the last century, is often blamed for this. It was agnosticism that became a kind of inoculation against the total mechanism into which many areas of positivist philosophy have turned. The future lies in criticism and skepticism. But we should not forget that there are such unshakable concepts in the world as love, goodness and beauty.

What do agnostics believe?

Agnostics see the human world in their own way. In order to correctly understand the essence of agnosticism, it is necessary to understand what exactly representatives of time agnosticism believe:

1. Man cannot understand the world and its phenomena;
2. Regarding religion, it is impossible to accurately determine whether God exists or not. That is, such a religious concept cannot be either proven or disproved by man;
3. It is impossible to accurately determine the boundaries of good and bad. That is, the eternal debate about good and evil is ineffective and will not bring any results;
4. All confirmed knowledge can always be refuted in the future. This means that knowledge is not valid;
5. At the same time, agnostics do not refute the possibility that someday humanity will be able to unambiguously determine the existence of certain phenomena.

Agnostics hold certain beliefs and positions

Famous agnostics: who they were

Representatives of agnosticism are the previously mentioned Protagoras and Immanuel Kant, as well as the largest Scottish philosopher of the 18th century, David Hume. He was a lawyer, diplomat, businessman and writer. Hume published a Treatise of Human Nature, published in three books. Among his contemporaries he was known as a politician, diplomat and historian. David Hume is the author of the multi-volume History of England, which has found its readers in all countries of the European continent. As a diplomat, he worked at the British embassy at the court of King Louis in France. It is known that Hume corresponded with Voltaire, a former active admirer of his works.

The epistemological agnosticism of this famous Scottish philosopher influenced the intellectuals of subsequent generations: Adam Smith, Auguste Comte, Charles Darwin, Bertrand Russell. David Hume argued that the basis of knowledge is experience and sensations. He did not deny the existence of so-called extra-experimental knowledge, the example of which he considered mathematics. Human perception is objective. But the activity of consciousness, according to the philosopher, is not such. The existence of the external world cannot be confirmed or refuted by anything.

The agnostic usually takes the position of a detached observer. At the same time, he can argue with both sides of the dispute. Agnosticism as a critical attitude and polemical position is an important part of the modern scientific approach to the study of the world. This is not a philosophical theory or a holistic concept. Agnosticism is, rather, a path to knowledge of truth that will never be completed to the end, because the Universe is limitless, like the microworld.

Examples of how agnostics see the world

So, we figured out what the ideology of agnosticism includes. But how then do agnostics see our world? Let's look at a few examples to help you understand this.

A person is free to choose his own actions and his life. That is, fatalism as such is denied

Existing categorical concepts (for example, good and evil) are relative in nature - they are not absolutely true and can be refuted

The meaning of life quite often comes down to the concept of hedonism (pleasure, joy and pleasure)

For more specific examples, let's look at specific areas of science and knowledge:

1. Religion. Agnostics do not deny the identity of Jesus Christ. Moreover, many representatives of this movement admire the very life of this person. But at the same time, there is no evidence of the presence of divine power and presence in our world;
2. The theory of rebirth (reincarnation) and the afterlife. Since this knowledge has not been confirmed in any way (there are only different opinions of people - witnesses of the paranormal, whose catches cannot be subjected to a critical determination of reliability), then agnostics cannot define it as existing. By analogy with religion, agnostics also do not deny their existence;
3. The theory of parallel universes. Although many physicists say that Malich’s experiments prove the existence of parallel universes, this is not known for certain. Therefore, agnosticism assumes the existence of other universes, but does not consider such a statement as true knowledge.

Do you consider yourself an agnostic?

Yes, I am agnostic.

100%

No, I am a supporter of other ideological concepts, including religious ones

0%

Voted: 5

Examples[edit]

• “The Flying Tavern” by G. K. Chesterton - the main antagonist, Lord Ivywood, is an agnostic, who decided to promote in England some principles of Islam, such as teetotalism (though with all sorts of reservations, which meant that the upper classes could drink), which did not please ordinary Englishmen .
• "Dune" by Frank Herbert - among the sources of beliefs of Arrakis, along with the religions themselves, the agnosticism of the ruling classes, including the Cosmogation Guild, is named. True, this is not quite the same agnosticism: “...for whom religion has always been something like a puppet theater - to entertain the public and keep it in check - and who believed that all and all phenomena, not excluding religious phenomena, can be in essence, reduce to mechanistic explanations.”
• Zelazny's novel Creatures of Light and Darkness. Preacher and fighter Madrak is a consistent agnostic; for example, the absolution in his performance begins like this: “As far as I can be heard by anyone or anything that may or may not listen to what is said by me, I ask, if forgiveness means anything, that there be you are forgiven for everything you have done or not done that requires forgiveness.” Even more curiously, he prays: “Our Father or not Our Father, who thou art, perhaps in heaven, hallowed be thy name, if thou hast a name and thou desirest that it should be sanctified...” Subsequently, Madrak helps destroy something that seems to be real deity; this realization plunges Madrak into a deep crisis.
• “Heritage” - the elves of Alagaësia adhere to such views (they do not worship anyone or anything and believe that there is no evidence of the existence of any gods, and the Universe develops according to its own laws, but they agree to change their views if, “for example, before the god Helzvog will appear among them”), which at first shocks the protagonist.
• “South Park” is a family of agnostics, in which it is generally not customary to say anything for sure, and therefore their family drink is Dr. Pepper, because it is not really clear whether it tastes like cola or not.
• The film “Exodus: Kings and Gods” is quite agnostic with its wick screwed on. God's appearances to Moses can be interpreted as hallucinations after hitting his head, and all miracles can be interpreted as fortunate natural phenomena (although the Darkness of Egypt and the death of the Egyptian firstborns, perhaps, can only be explained by a great coincidence), and in the end God says to Moses, writing the commandments on the tablets: “If you don’t agree, don’t write.”
• Rudazov’s metaverse is someonetothamism, a quasi-religion with an agnostic philosophy: we don’t know whether there really is Someone Out There, and if there is, what it is, but we do not exclude any options, and therefore we will never forget to thank Someone There - what if He (She? It? They?) still exists and does something good for us? Nobody really knows.

Problems of agnosticism

Like many other philosophical and religious movements, agnosticism has both supporters and opponents of this theory. In this regard, people who refute agnosticism express various problematic aspects of the ideology in question. Let's look at them in more detail:

• The problem of cognition. Since nothing can be objectively known and studied by man, the possibility of any reliable knowledge is refuted. This makes it impossible for the further development of agnosticism as a school of thought;
• The problem of methods of proving and researching the world. Since a person cannot describe everything he saw and heard, the possibility of knowledge is limited. Accordingly, agnosticism is a constant life in the unknown world;
• You can only know those things that exist in the present time. Accordingly, agnosticism rejects the possibility of knowing such categories as “death”, “life”, “time” and others.

Agnosticism is accompanied by certain contradictions

Expanding the scientific horizon

Scientific discoveries confirm this. Having studied molecules, and then atoms, scientists faced the problem of subatomic particles and quarks. And the study of star systems and galaxies naturally leads to questions related to dark matter and energy.

The constant expansion of scientific horizons does not deny the knowability of the world. Agnosticism as a condition for the continuous development and improvement of knowledge lies at the basis of all modern civilization. All phenomena and laws of nature are studied by man. Therefore, the characteristics of the knowing subject are the focus of attention of philosophers.

Today, agnosticism can be viewed from two perspectives. In an extremely broad sense, this trend is a prerequisite for modern scientific knowledge. In a narrower interpretation, this doctrine is associated with the totality of all philosophical trends based on the recognition of the multiplicity of equivalent ideas, opinions, assessments and positions.

Pros and cons of agnosticism

Agnosticism is not a religion. If you are considering the possibility of adhering to the principles of agnosticism in life, then you need to familiarize yourself with the main advantages and disadvantages of such a concept. This will allow you to determine whether such views are suitable for you or not. Let's look at the main advantages and disadvantages next.

Advantages

The advantages are the following:

1. Agnosticism, despite the principle of “impossibility of knowing the world,” is a definite faith. This belief presupposes that the representative believes in the impossibility of objectively assessing the phenomena of the world;
2. Agnostics allow the existence of many seemingly impossible and unreal things and phenomena;
3. Agnostics are tolerant of all areas of science, philosophy, religion, since they cannot refute them;
4. Agnosticism is a fairly peaceful position for justifying peace.

Agnosticism, in other words, is the belief in the possibility of the existence of almost all theories

Flaws

Uncertainty (nothing is knowable, nothing can be proven or disproved)

It is always necessary to confirm your position with philosophical positions and views

Absurd understanding of religion and faith

Knowledge of the world according to agnosticism should be based exclusively on human senses (hearing, smell, vision, touch)

When maintaining agnosticism, there is no possibility of using methods of deduction and induction

The need to constantly explain one’s position in life

Everything about everything

Darlock wrote:
> And if tomorrow I find a philosophical concept that more effectively reflects reality, I will with great pleasure throw agnosticism into the trash. And I will apply a new concept. quoted1

Of course, you can change your worldview. Who can prohibit if there is a need?

I just spoke about something slightly different, and in order to illustrate this, I will model my idea of ​​the subject.

In that twisting thread, you sculpted and polished a lot of things, so I’m here separately and “especially 4th”)))))))))))))))))

Take it philosophically because this is pure abstraction.))))

In my opinion, a worldview is a way of thinking. This way of thinking is formed in an individual around the age of three.

Of course, kindergarten, school, doctoral studies add facts and methods to the individual. But all these “additives” teach the individual to explain his point of view, but have nothing to do with his way of thinking.

People are born different. And we easily perceive that this person is stronger or faster than us, but the fact that someone is smarter..., for us there is a complete pipe and rejection...)))

And how can you measure intelligence? I have a friend who took the ICU test for the first time and got a result of something like 90. He was terribly upset.

However, after a month or two of training, he got a result of about 170, which he is immensely proud of.

What is he?.. Has he become smarter? I don't think so. I just learned how to solve problems.

I divide people into three mental types (simplified a little))))

Type 1 is individuals who are in a small two-by-two room. They do not know how to move and besides vision they have no other senses. They can only look at the murals that someone painted on the walls of their cell. And there... The vast ocean is drawn or the vastness of space. Here by choice. The main thing is that it is boundless and limitless. Such an individual feels very good and comfortable in his cell.

I love them very much))) Depending on the acuity of the “vision” of the “cameraman,” his picture can be improved. Two or three “strokes” and he already sees something else. And sometimes a very careful elaboration of the “perspective” is needed, but the result is always the same - the individual sees something different. What you need. )))))))))))))

Type 2 These can move. Slow and puffing. And they can feel the walls of their “bubble”. Some are even able to dig a hole into the adjacent “chamber”. These ones are more interesting - they can be used to make “doors” or some kind of “holes” in the walls of cells. But they always crawl in the right direction.))))

Type 3 These can run. They see the walls, but this is not important to them. Doesn't interfere. Rather, they only get an idea of ​​the “walls” when they “return” to the starting point. Well, something like - “Oh... it was a wall”... These are the most vile.))))

No matter how carefully you build the gate through which they need to pass, they will calmly sneak next to the gate, look at the flaws in your technology, chuckle and... go on about their business. It’s good if this miracle is interested in your technological delights)))) It’s impossible to convince such people according to Schopenhauer - you can only shoot them))))

I assume that you yourself will be able to correlate your terms of fanaticism, atheism and agnosticism with the proposed model.)))))

As for the “dispute” about God and the Big Bang model, there is no “dispute” here, in my opinion.

Both points of view are based on the everyday experience of humanity. We “know” that everything has a beginning, a certain duration, and a natural end to the process of duration.

In theological models, the basis is God, the beginning is the Act of Creation, duration is being, the end is some kind of cataclysm. In scientific ones - the basis is the Universe, the beginning is the Explosion, the duration is development, the end is thermal death (let's say))))) This is simplified, but I think you understand the idea of ​​​​the “chain” of reasoning.))))

The theologian in his reasoning will refer to “sacred sources”, and the Non-Theologian to “reliable facts”. Not the Theologian on the model formula of the Great Scientist, but the Theologian on the statements of the Great Saint.

The pattern of reasoning for both is the same from my point of view. There is no novelty and there is nothing to apply “different in that...”))))

I don’t know whether the young man himself came up with the idea to talk about the Explosion or who taught him, but this is a “set-up” that will not lead to any result in the “dispute.”

Although, of course, it’s very Slavic to talk about God.))))

The fact is that the Slavic mentality has no boundaries, does not know about limits and, what is most interesting, does not want to know about them.

But in order not to scatter in space, some generalized point is needed, understandable to everyone. By a strange whim of fate, the “divine harbor” became such a lighthouse.

It’s easier for Westerners - they are “crawlers” by nature. But those who respect the neighboring borders are “creepers”. Where the Slav passes without noticing, the Westerners will merge their cells and build new borders, which they will be proud of.

That is why a Westerner, when he gets to the Slavs, can easily build new structures. The material is through the roof. And he becomes a good manager. But at home, who would accept it?))))

And the Slav, getting to the Westerners, easily pushes the boundaries of their perception, mixing and combining their wretched cells in a new way. And he becomes a good scientist or engineer. A creative person in general)))) At home, all his ideas are already clear to everyone - why try?)))))

This is why I believe that we can talk about worldviews, but there is no point in arguing. A dissident is not your enemy, but he can become a good friend.

You can tell a person about your vision of his world, but convince him... Why?

His little world can always be adapted to suit your needs. Which could be much more useful.

For all… ))))))))))))))))

Types of agnosticism

We have already mentioned that agnosticism is not only associated with faith, but also with all other branches of knowledge. Let's look at certain types of agnosticism that stand out at the moment:

1. Skepticism. You've probably heard the phrase “I'm a skeptic, I don't believe in it” more than once. But what does it mean? Skepticism itself represents a movement in which the truth obtained as a result of human thinking is subject to opinion. That is, any knowledge cannot be true;
2. Relativism. This type of skepticism assumes that there is no knowledge in the world and society that is worthy of trust. Literally, this position means that everything in this world is contested and should be questioned;
3. Irrationalism. Unlike other types, irrationalism is part of religious, or even mystical philosophy. This means that a person receives knowledge from the outside, but is not aware of it.

There are many types of agnosticism in the modern world.

Agnosticism in philosophy

The movement under consideration was originally developed and born in philosophy. If we consider directly the philosophical positions on agnosticism, we can distinguish the following characteristics:

1. Man's weakness is his inability to understand the world;
2. Lack of objective possibilities of knowledge;
3. Used as a justification for irrational thinking, religion, faith, and human life itself.

In philosophy, the concept of agnosticism is directly related to the search for the meaning of life and the trend of hedonism. That is, a person cannot cognize reality - he cannot determine the meaning of his life in knowledge - the meaning of life lies in pleasures and joys (hedonism).

Agnosticism in religion

Agnosticism in religion is directly related to atheism. However, these two phenomena have different meanings. In religious thought, agnostics assume that God may exist, as well as a divine power, but this cannot be proven and therefore impossible to disprove.

Thus, agnosticism exists as if in parallel with all existing religions. He does not deny any of them, does not single out the most faithful and correct, and does not compete with the positions of world religions. Hence, agnostics, like atheists, are a peaceful element for any existing religion.

No religion rivals the positions of the agnostics

Scientific agnosticism

Agnostics in science adhere to the basic principles we have already discussed. So, for example, in science, agnostics believe that not a single theory can be unambiguously proven, since it can be refuted at any time.

Very often in science, agnostics equate any knowledge with “misconception.” This means that even if a theory is proven (for example, an axiom in geometry), it can be the result of human error.

Philosophical agnosticism

Agnosticism in philosophy is a discussion of a subject, but not its proof, because philosophy is based on subjectivism. Representatives of this worldview are confident only in scientific and social justification. Philosophy is just a pseudo-scientific theoretical question that needs to be challenged. There is an opinion that philosophy in agnosticism is only a regression, a backward movement, because they are not looking for answers.

Agnostics are associated with stability of judgment. Because of their own beliefs, they do not look for the essence of the problems, and everything comes down to the emergence of independent conclusions that may be incompatible with social structures.

Representatives of agnosticism have standard answers to all rhetorical questions, so they can never feel that they are right. They lack competence in certain areas. This is a stable worldview that does not change at all over time, because agnostics say that a person cannot fully understand the world around him, since there is no absolute truth, and you just need to come to terms with this.

What is the difference between agnostic and atheism?

In this article, the parallel between agnostics and faith, as well as agnostics and atheists, was often heard. Both do not recognize the existence of God. But what then is the difference between them?

Agnostics

They do not adhere to any faith or religion, but do not deny the rationality of a person’s faith in a higher power

Agnosticism is the belief that the world is unknowable

Do not deny the possibility of the existence of God

Do not contradict existing religions, since they are not denied

Agnosticism is characteristic not only of religion, but also of science, philosophy, etc.

Atheists

Deny the need for spiritual practices and attitudes towards any faith

Deny belief in anything as such

Deny divine power and divine participation in the creation of the world

They are opposed to existing world religions

Atheists exclusively consider matters of religion

Religious agnosticism

We see the most striking application of this concept in theology. An agnostic considers it impossible to establish the fact of the existence of God, as well as to refute the fact of his existence. Therefore, a thinking person can believe in God only within the framework of the assumption of the possibility of his existence, but not as an adherent of any religion with all its dogmas and rituals.

The dogmatism of any religion contradicts the agnostic’s beliefs about the unknowability of the surrounding world, therefore any superpowers attributed to deities cannot be taken on faith, nor can they be refuted. Accordingly, the requirement to observe religious rituals is also not justified, and it certainly cannot be explained why they should be this way and not some other.

The very fact of attempts to impose certain dogmas is unacceptable from the point of view of agnosticism, because any evidence provided for the existence or absence of God cannot be sufficient and convincing due to the subjectivity of the process of cognition itself. Moreover, the very requirement to accept something on faith, without requiring logical proof, must be considered unacceptable and immoral. In other words, agnosticism does not deny knowledge itself, but points to its subjectivity.

This approach allowed philosophers of the past to contrast agnostics with both believers and atheists, because both believers and atheists spoke clearly either for or against the fact of the existence of God, but no one is ready to admit that they cannot know whether this is so. Note that there are quite a lot of supporters of agnosticism among philosophers.

Should you become an agnostic?

Today, the number of agnostics and atheists is constantly growing in the world. This is primarily due to the progressive development of society and science. And also with the fact that more and more states are becoming secular (non-religious). Therefore, the question of “Should you become an agnostic” rests solely on you and your views. You must decide for yourself which views and positions are more true for you.

How to become agnostic

Since agnosticism is not a religion, the procedure for becoming a representative of this movement is quite simple. Awareness of the reality of “I am an agnostic” requires going through a certain process of familiarization with the relevant literature. Let's look at this process:

1. Study the literature on agnosticism;
2. Decide whether such positions are suitable for you personally;
3. If you are a representative of any religion, then you need to renounce it. Since faith presupposes absolute faith in the presence of higher powers. There should be no hesitation here;
4. Just start sticking to agnostic principles.

You cannot remain, for example, a Jew if you are an agnostic

How to stop being agnostic

The procedure is as easy as becoming an agnostic. Just stop classifying yourself as an agnostic. There are no special ways out of this “faith.” You, like all people, are constantly developing, and accordingly, your worldview and outlook on life may change with age.

The basis of modern civilization

It is a critical attitude towards acquired knowledge that moves science forward. Let's imagine what would happen if every theory was taken on faith and considered unshakable. This will no longer be science. Careful experimental testing and periodic revision of the generally accepted paradigm underlie the development of civilization. Nobody calls this approach agnosticism, but it is a foundation deeply hidden at the very beginning of the formation of society.

Agnosticism is a kind of antidote to many things. For example, from boundless faith in scientific and technological progress. People tend to look for a panacea - salvation from all misfortunes. At the same time, the search is aimed at the outside world, and not at the person himself. Agnosticism warns against this.

Why is Kant's philosophy called agnosticism?

In 1770, Kant transitioned to the views of the “critical” period; in 1781 the Critique of Pure Reason appeared, followed by the publication of the Critique of Practical Reason (1788) and the Critique of Judgment (1790). They consistently set out: the “critical” theory of knowledge, ethics, aesthetics and the doctrine of the purposiveness of nature, in the works of the “critical” period, Kant proves the impossibility of building a system of speculative philosophy (“metaphysics”, according to the then accepted terminology) before a preliminary study of the forms of knowledge and limits of our cognitive abilities. These studies lead Kant to agnosticism—to the assertion that the nature of things, as they exist in themselves (“things in themselves”), is fundamentally inaccessible to our knowledge: the latter is possible only in relation to “appearances,” i.e., the way in which things are revealed in our experience. Reliable theoretical knowledge is available only in mathematics and natural science.

Reason, according to Kant, contains an ineradicable desire for unconditional knowledge, resulting from the highest ethical demands. Under the pressure of this, the human mind strives to resolve questions about the boundaries or infinity of the world in space and time, about the possibility of the existence of indivisible elements of the world, about the nature of the processes occurring in the world (from the point of view of the presence of necessity, chance and freedom in them), about the existence of God as an absolutely necessary being. Kant believed that opposite decisions can be justified with equal evidence: the world is both finite and has no limits; there are indivisible particles (atoms) - and there are no such particles; all processes proceed as causally determined - and there are processes (actions) that occur freely; there is an absolutely necessary being - and there is no such being. Thus, reason is antinomic in nature, that is, it bifurcates in contradictions.

11. The concept of the absolute idea in Hegel's philosophy

Hegel is a mute philosopher, an objective idealist, a representative of mute. class F. Merit - for the first time introduced the entire environment. the world in the form of a process, i.e. in continuous movement, change, transformation and development, and made an attempt to reveal the internal connection of this movement and development. The meaning of FG is that the dialectical worldview and the corresponding dialectical method of research were presented in a systematic form. Hegel developed dialectics as a science that generalizes the entire history of knowledge and explores the most general patterns of development of objective reality. According to the Hegelian idealistic system, the basis of all phenomena of nature and society is the world spirit - the absolute idea, the absolute spirit, God, which is considered in movement and dialectical development. Development is presented in the form of a spiral and has 4 levels: thesis (absolute spirit), antithesis (development of the spirit at the level of the human mind), synthesis (human mind), removal of all contradictions. There is no further development. All laws are considered in relation to the absolute spirit. Thus, the dialectical method shows that the absolute idea is in constant development, during which the results of each stage are accumulated through the negation of what is outdated and the repetition of the initial features of the previous stage at higher levels (development proceeds in a spiral). The final result of the movement of the absolute idea is the acquisition of absolute knowledge (synthesis).