0

I believe that the existence of god (or another deity) is unknownable

I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a god (or other deities) though I'm skeptical/doubtful about existence of a god.

am i an agnostic atheist? or something else? like hard or soft agnostic?

LinguisticsFanatic
  • 101
  • 1
  • Agnostic. That's all. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Mar 08 '22 at 17:56
  • If you a re e insistant on different types of Agnosticism then you would likely find those options outside of a Philosophy forum. Agnosticism only has one context here. In Psychology or Rhetoric forums you may find what you are seeking. – Logikal Mar 08 '22 at 21:06

2 Answers2

2

I believe that the existence of god (or another deity) is unknownable

If you mean it is inherently unknowable, rather than "not knowable given our current level of understanding" or something like that, then this is usually called "strong" or "hard" agnosticism (contrast "weak" or "soft" agnosticism, which usually means that a deity's existence is not known to you, based on current evidence). Strong agnosticism is an epistemic claim, that is, a claim about how knowledge works and what we can or cannot learn, while weak agnosticism is more of a claim about the evidence as it currently stands. Taken to its logical conclusion, strong agnosticism should be an a priori claim, meaning you can't convince such an agnostic of the existence of a deity even if (say) God walks right up to them and does a miracle before their very eyes (because, for example, it might be caused by a hallucination, a trick, some previously undocumented law of nature, etc.). However, this line of reasoning ultimately runs into many of the same problems as solipsism, unless you adopt a non-cognitivist position (i.e. claim that "god" and "deity" are ill-defined terms, for example because you don't think there is a logically coherent distinction between the natural and the supernatural - if the laws of physics may be broken, then they are not the true laws). This would make you a theological non-cognitivist instead of an agnostic, but it does not seem to match up with what you have described in the question.

Kevin
  • 2,028
  • 10
  • 18
  • yeah I believe that the existence of a god is inherently unknownable – LinguisticsFanatic Mar 08 '22 at 23:01
  • @LinguisticsFanatic -- that would make you an agnostic, as the term was introduced by Thomas Huxley. There are few strong agnostics, and the term is often misapplied. Note that Kevin's description itself noted the reason the term is not used often -- as adherence to strong agnosticism appears to require one to be a solipsist, and anti-cognitivist. Agnostic leaners generally do not want to adopt solipsism or anti-cognitivism, which makes hard agnosticism a rare POV. – Dcleve Mar 09 '22 at 03:24
  • @Dcleve: This is a simplification; it runs into the same philosophical problems as solipsism, but I'm not 100% convinced it requires you to actually be a solipsist. Meanwhile, a non-cognitivist position is entirely consistent with a more "normal" set of beliefs, because non-cognitivism is specific to the definition of "deity" and doesn't "care" about broader philosophical principles. – Kevin Mar 09 '22 at 03:59
  • @Kevin -- The rejection of any evidence because "there might be another explanation" is true for all empirical issues, and all of science. It is a rejection of the pragmatic/empirical response to solipsism that science has taken. BOUNDING this response solely to God claims -- is an ad hoc exception to good reasoning, which most people attracted to agnosticism don't want to make, because they want to ground a rejection of God claims on science and rationality, not on ad hoc rationalizations. The stronger and more attractive alternative is to claim God is "incoherent" and thus unevaluable. – Dcleve Mar 09 '22 at 17:33
  • @Dcleve: I am in no way trying to defend strong agnosticism. I'm just saying that I don't think it's 100% equivalent to solipsism in all possible interpretations. – Kevin Mar 09 '22 at 17:34
  • @Kevin -- yes not exactly like solipsism, but contemporary arguers uses the same argument structure. Accept it, and if one is being intellectually consistent then one should accept solipsism too. The better argument was the one made by Huxley and Flew, that God claims are intrinsically incoherent. The problem there is that Swinburne's "The Coherence of Theism" was accepted as a successful refutation of the "intrinsically incoherent claim" by Flew himself. – Dcleve Mar 09 '22 at 17:39
0

It's a bit incoherent to make distinctions between vague labels like "agnostic atheist" or "hard agnostic" and so on, and no one will really understand what you mean by one of those terms unless you go into detail. Instead, it's clearer to think in probabilities. What subjective probability would you assign to the existence of God, between 0% and 100%? If you say you assign a 5% subjective probability that God is real, that's a lot easier for others to interpret, if they are statistically literate.

Imagine you're betting on a horse race, and considering whether the horse named Paul Revere is going to win. Suppose you say you think it's "unknowable" whether Paul Revere will win, and say you are "skeptical/doubtful" about it. Does that really tell anyone what you think about Paul Revere's odds? Those words might describe anything from a 1% chance to win to a 49% chance. It's much clearer to give a specific number.

causative
  • 12,714
  • 1
  • 16
  • 50
  • 1
    I'd say that there's 10% chance that a God exists. – LinguisticsFanatic Mar 08 '22 at 18:14
  • 1
    @LinguisticsFanatic - perfect! This means that you are 90% atheist. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Mar 09 '22 at 15:11
  • small question, what if said 50% instead of 10%? – LinguisticsFanatic Mar 09 '22 at 17:03
  • Empirical reasoning uses a 4 category logic to evaluate a claim: a) currently indeterminate based on insufficient or contradictory justifications, b) accept based on sufficient justifications, c) reject based on sufficient justifications, d) incoherent/unevaluable claim in principle, no justifications are possible. Relative to God claims, a) is uncertainty, b) is theism, c) is atheism, and d) is agnosticism. 50% should put you in a), with an implied strong rationale to investigate further. 10%, one should operate with a tentative c), subject to re-evaluation. – Dcleve Mar 09 '22 at 17:50
  • @LinguisticsFanatic -- atting you so you see my comment above. – Dcleve Mar 09 '22 at 18:00
  • @LinguisticsFanatic 50% would be pretty solidly agnostic. But still it's better to say "50%" because some people who say they are agnostics might assign a 10% chance to God's existence, or even lower. Although someone who assigns a 10% chance of God's existence could also call themselves an atheist if they wanted - atheist or agnostic, the choice is theirs. – causative Mar 09 '22 at 18:34
  • ®Dcleve thank you for a thorough answer, I'd describe myself as d since I neither believe nor disbelieve the existence of god. – LinguisticsFanatic Mar 09 '22 at 19:27