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?

2
  • Agnostic. That's all. Commented Mar 8, 2022 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
    Commented Mar 8, 2022 at 21:06

2 Answers 2

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.

6
  • yeah I believe that the existence of a god is inherently unknownable Commented Mar 8, 2022 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
    Commented Mar 9, 2022 at 3:24
  • @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
    Commented Mar 9, 2022 at 3:59
  • @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
    Commented Mar 9, 2022 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
    Commented Mar 9, 2022 at 17:34
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.

7
  • 1
    I'd say that there's 10% chance that a God exists. Commented Mar 8, 2022 at 18:14
  • 1
    @LinguisticsFanatic - perfect! This means that you are 90% atheist. Commented Mar 9, 2022 at 15:11
  • small question, what if said 50% instead of 10%? Commented Mar 9, 2022 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
    Commented Mar 9, 2022 at 17:50
  • @LinguisticsFanatic -- atting you so you see my comment above.
    – Dcleve
    Commented Mar 9, 2022 at 18:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .