A person who does not deny the existence of God. Agnostic: who is he and his main differences from an atheist

Some people believe in God, some don't. Faith is a strange thing. I have a rather complicated relationship with religion. More often than not, I don’t talk about it at all; believers are extremely nervous about those who think objectively in this matter. If they ask me persistently, I say that agnostic. And what is it?
We all know what a believer is, we all know what an atheist is.
But what is an agnostic? I want to shed some light on this direction of human thought. To begin with, I will say that many scientists and engineers are essentially agnostics (although they may not know this term or use it very rarely).

Today I want to give here an interview that can give an idea about this concept.

But let's start our research with Wikipedia.
Agnosticism (from other Greek ἄγνωστος - unknowable, unknowable) is a direction in philosophy that considers it impossible to objectively know the surrounding reality through one's own experience. Thus, agnosticism questions the truth or the possibility of proving or refuting statements in some area, especially in metaphysics and theology.

TV interview 1953. (What is an Agnostic? // Bertrand Russell: His works, vol. 11: Last Philosophical Testament, 1943-68. - ed. by J.G. Slater. - L.-N.Y.: Routledge, 1997).

Who is an agnostic?

The agnostic finds it impossible to know the truth about the existence of God or eternal life, with which Christianity and other religions are associated. Or, if it's not impossible at all, then at least it doesn't seem possible at the present time.

Are agnostics atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, believes that it is possible to know whether God exists or not. According to the Christian, we know that there is a God; According to the atheist, we know that there is no God. The agnostic refrains from judging, saying that there are no sufficient grounds for either confirmation or denial. At the same time, the agnostic may believe that the existence of God, while not impossible, is hardly probable; he may even consider this existence improbable to the extent that it is not worth considering in practice. In this case, he does not go far from atheism. His position may be reminiscent of the philosopher's cautious attitude towards the ancient Greek gods. If I were asked to prove that Zeus, Poseidon, Hera and other Olympians do not exist, it would be difficult for me to find convincing arguments. The agnostic may regard the existence of the Christian God as improbable as the existence of the Olympian gods; in this case, he practically takes the position of an atheist.

The agnostic does not recognize any "authorities", in the sense that religious people attach to this word. He believes that a person should decide for himself how to act. Of course, he relies on the opinions of others, but in this case he himself has to choose the people whose opinion he will take into account, and even this opinion will not be indisputable for him. He cannot fail to notice that the so-called Law of God is constantly changing. The Bible says that, on the one hand, a woman should not marry her dead husband's brother, and that, on the other hand, under certain circumstances she is obliged to do so. If you have the misfortune of being a childless widow with an unmarried brother-in-law, then it is simply logically impossible for you to avoid disobeying the Law of God.

How do you know what is good and what is evil? What does an agnostic consider sinful?

The agnostic is not at all as sure as some Christians of what is good and what is evil. He does not believe, as most Christians used to believe, that people who do not share the government's opinion on controversial theological issues should face an agonizing death. He is against persecution and tries to refrain from moral condemnation.

As for sin, he considers this concept useless. He, of course, admits that some behavior may be desirable and some not, but he believes that punishment for undesirable behavior can only be a means of correction or deterrence; it must not be imposed only insofar as evil, of course, must suffer. It was this belief in punitive measures that led to the rise of hell. The concept of sin has done many harms, including this one.

Does the agnostic do as he pleases?

On the one hand, no; On the other hand, everyone does as he pleases. Suppose, for example, that you hate someone so much that you would like to kill him. Why don't you do it? You can say, "Because religion tells me killing is a sin." But in statistical terms, agnostics are no more homicidal than anyone else; in fact, even less likely. They refrain from killing for the same reasons as everyone else. And, undoubtedly, the most effective of these reasons is the fear of punishment. In lawless conditions, such as the gold rush, anyone can commit murder, although under normal circumstances these people would remain law-abiding. They are held back not only by the possible prosecution under the law, but also by the fear that the crime will be revealed, and the loneliness to which the criminal dooms himself, forced to wear a mask even in the presence of those closest to him in order to avoid their hatred. Besides, there is such a thing as "conscience". If you have ever thought about killing, you must be horrified by the thought of the last minutes of your victim's life or the sight of a lifeless corpse. Of course, it all depends on whether you live in a law-abiding society, but there are enough non-religious reasons to create and maintain such a society. I said that, on the other hand, everyone does as he pleases. Only an idiot indulges his every whim, but every desire is always held back by some other desire. A person's antisocial desires may be restrained by the desire to please the Lord, but they can also be restrained by the desire to please his friends, or gain respect in society, or overcome self-contempt. But if he does not have such aspirations, then abstract ideas about morality are not enough to keep him within the framework.

How does an agnostic feel about the Bible?

The agnostic regards the Bible in exactly the same way as the enlightened churchmen regard it. He does not believe that it was created by divine inspiration; he regards its early history as legendary and no more true than the poems of Homer; he finds her moral teachings partly correct, and partly completely unacceptable. Here's an example: Samuel told Saul in a war to kill not only all the men, women, and children in the enemy's camp, but also sheep and other livestock. Saul, however, left the sheep alive, for which we must condemn him. I was never thrilled that the prophet Elisha cursed a child who laughed at him, and I could not believe that (as the Bible says) the generous God would send two bears to kill children.

How does an agnostic feel about Jesus, the virgin birth, and the Holy Trinity?

Since the agnostic does not believe in God, he does not consider Jesus to be God. Most agnostics admire the life and teachings of Jesus in the gospel, but no more than any other person's biography. Someone will put him on the same level as Buddha, someone with Socrates, and someone with Abraham Lincoln. They do not consider indisputable and proclaimed by Him, because they do not accept it as an absolute authority. They consider the virgin birth to be a doctrine taken from pagan mythology, where such phenomena were not uncommon. (Zarathustra, according to legend, was born a virgin; the Babylonian goddess Ishtar is called the Holy Virgin). Agnostics cannot believe in this, as well as in the Trinity, since this is impossible without faith in God.

Can an agnostic be a Christian?

The word "Christian" has had different meanings at different times. For many centuries since the time of Christ, it meant a person who believed in God and immortality and considered Christ God. But Unitarians, although they do not believe in the deity of Christ, nevertheless call themselves Christians, and most modern people do not give the word "God" the same unambiguous meaning that it once had. Many, when they say that they believe in God, no longer have in mind a person, or a trinity, but some obscure tendency, or force, or an immanent goal of evolution. Others go even further and by Christianity they mean nothing more than a system of ethical norms, which they, without understanding history, attribute exclusively to Christians.

In my book, I mentioned that the world needed "love, Christian love or compassion", after which many people thought that I had changed my views, although in fact I could always say this. If by a Christian you mean a person who loves his neighbor, deeply sympathizes with the suffering, a person who ardently desires to free the world from the cruelty and excesses that disfigure it in our day, then, of course, you can rightfully call me a Christian. Then, from this point of view, you will find many more "Christians" among agnostics than among believers. But I, for my part, cannot accept such a definition. Among other objections, one might argue that this would offend Jews, Buddhists, Mohammedans and all other non-Christians, who, as history shows, showed no less than Christians the desire to demonstrate the very virtues that some modern Christians arrogantly attribute only to their own religion. I also believe that all those who called themselves Christians in the past, and most of those who call themselves that way in our time, will consider faith in God and immortality as mandatory for a Christian. In light of this, I cannot call myself a Christian, and I must say that an agnostic cannot be a Christian. But if the word "Christianity" acquires only the general meaning of a kind of moral code, then, of course, an agnostic can be called a Christian.

Does an agnostic deny that man has a soul?

This question will not have a precise meaning until we define the word "soul". I believe that this means, in general terms, something non-material, existing throughout a person's life and even, for believers in immortality, continuing to exist in the future. If this is what is meant, then the agnostic is unlikely to believe that a person has a soul. But, I hasten to add, this does not mean at all that an agnostic must be a materialist. Many agnostics (myself included) harbor the same doubts about the body as they do about the soul, but it's a long story that plunges us into the wilds of metaphysics. Both matter and consciousness, I should note, are just convenient symbols for reasoning, and not things that actually exist.

Does an agnostic believe in life after death, in heaven and hell?

The question of the existence of life after death can have a solution. A possible way of proof, according to many, can be physical research or séances. The agnostic, on the other hand, will refrain from speaking about eternal life until he finds convincing evidence for or against. I, for my part, believe that there is no sufficient reason to believe in an afterlife, but if acceptable evidence appears, I am always ready to accept the arguments. Another thing is heaven and hell. Belief in hell is associated with the belief that sin should be punished, whether it is for correction or otherwise. Few agnostics would believe this. As for paradise, perhaps someday its existence will be proved through spiritualistic sessions, but most agnostics have not yet seen such evidence, therefore they do not believe in paradise.

Denying the existence of God, are you not afraid of His wrath?

Of course no. I also deny the existence of Zeus, Jupiter, Odin and Brahma, but this does not cause me any concern. As I see it, a fairly large part of humanity does not believe in God and is not subject to any punishments. And if God did exist, He would hardly be so vain as to be offended by those who doubt His existence.

How do agnostics explain the beauty and harmony of nature?

I don't understand where this very "beauty" and "harmony" can be found. If we are talking about the animal kingdom, then animals ruthlessly exterminate each other. For the most part, they either become victims of other animals or slowly die of starvation. As for me, I don't see any particular beauty or harmony in a tapeworm. And do not say that this creature was sent to us as a punishment for our sins, because it is much more common in animals than in people. I believe that the person who asked me this question meant, rather, the beauty of the starry sky. But we must remember that the stars explode from time to time, while turning everything that surrounds them into a shaky haze. Beauty, in any case, is subjective and exists only in the mind of the beholder.

How do agnostics explain miracles and other manifestations of the fact that God is omnipotent?

Agnostics do not recognize "miracles" if by this they mean something contrary to the laws of nature. We know that faith cures happen from time to time, and they are by no means miraculous. In Lourdes, some diseases can be cured, while others cannot. Those that can be cured at Lourdes can probably be cured by any doctor in whom the patient has confidence. As for other miracles, such as when Jesus stopped the sun, the agnostic denies them as legends and notes that in any religion there are enough such legends. Homer has as much miraculous evidence for the existence of the Greek gods as there is in the Bible for the existence of the Christian God.

Religion opposes base and cruel passions. If religious principles are abandoned, can humanity exist?

The existence of base and cruel passions cannot be denied, but I cannot find confirmation in history that religion opposes these passions. On the contrary, it sanctions them and gives people the opportunity to indulge in them without remorse. Severe persecution was much more common in Christendom than anywhere else. It is unconditional, dogmatic faith that justifies persecution. Kindness and tolerance grow proportionally only when this unconditional faith declines. In our day, a new dogmatic religion has emerged, namely communism. The agnostic opposes it, as he opposes any system of dogma. The oppressive character of modern communism is exactly like the oppressive character of Christianity in previous centuries. The fact that Christianity has eased the persecution is mainly the merit of free-thinking people who have made the dogmatists less dogmatic. If they remained as dogmatic as before, it would still be considered right to burn heretics at the stake. The spirit of tolerance, which some modern Christians consider to be exclusively Christian, is in fact the result of a temper that admits of doubt and is suspicious of assurances. It seems to me that anyone who looks at the past centuries with an impartial eye will come to the conclusion that religion has brought more suffering than it has prevented.

What is the meaning of life for an agnostic?

I would like to answer the question with a question: what is the meaning of the expression “the meaning of life”? I believe there is some common purpose implied. I don't think that life in general has any purpose. It just happens. But each individual has his own goal, and there is nothing in agnosticism that would make people abandon these goals. Of course, they cannot say with certainty that they have achieved the results they were striving for; but you would have a bad opinion of a soldier who would refuse to fight if he was not sure of victory. A person who needs religion to support his own aspirations is a timid person, and I cannot put him on the same level as a person who decides on something, although he admits the possibility of defeat.

Does not the denial of religion also mean the denial of marriage and chastity?

Here again we have to answer the question with a question: does the questioner think that marriage and chastity contribute to the earthly joys of being, or that, by causing suffering here on earth, they open the way to heaven? The one who holds the second point of view will no doubt consider that agnosticism leads to the desecration of the so-called virtue, but he will have to admit that the so-called virtue does not contribute to the happiness of mankind in earthly life. If, on the contrary, he holds the first point of view, namely, that there are secular arguments in favor of marriage and chastity, he must also admit that these same arguments will appeal to the agnostic as well. Agnostics, as such, have no definite views on sexual morality. But most of them admit that there are compelling arguments against rampant sexual indulgence. However, these arguments are of a secular nature in their view, and do not stem from any divine commandments.

Isn't believing only in thinking a dangerous creed? Doesn't the lack of spiritual and moral law make thinking imperfect and defective?

No rational person, whether agnostic or not, believes "only in thinking." Thinking is connected with the facts of reality, some of which are obtained by observation, and some - by logical conclusion. The question of the existence of eternal life, like the question of the existence of God, concerns the facts of reality, and the agnostic believes that they should be decided in the same way as the question of whether there will be a lunar eclipse tomorrow. But the facts of reality alone are not enough to cause action, since they do not tell us what goals we should pursue. When it comes to goals, we need something beyond logical reasoning. These goals are dictated to the agnostic by his own heart, and not commands from above. To give an example: suppose you decide to travel by train from New York to Chicago; you will use the logic of the mind to figure out when this train leaves. A person who imagines that he can do without a schedule, relying on some kind of insight or intuition, will seem rather stupid. But not a single schedule will tell him that it would be more correct to use it, for this a person will have to take into account other facts of reality. But behind the facts of reality there are goals that he considers necessary to pursue, and they, both for the agnostic and for any other, do not belong to the field of reason, although they do not in any way contradict it. I mean the area of ​​emotions, feelings and desires.

Do you consider all religions to be forms of superstition or dogma? Which of the current religions do you have the most respect for, and why?

All the great intentional religions that have embraced large numbers of people have been built more or less on dogma, but "religion" is a word with a well-defined meaning. For example, Confucianism can be called a religion, although it does not imply dogma. In some forms of liberal Christianity, the element of dogma is kept to a minimum. Of the great religions that have existed in history, I prefer Buddhism, especially in its early manifestations, because there was practically no persecution.

Communism, like agnosticism, is against religion - are agnostics communists?

Communism is not opposed to religion. He opposes only Christianity, as, for example, Mohammedanism. Communism, at least in the form promulgated by the Soviet government and the Communist Party, is a new system of dogmas of a particularly dangerous and cruel kind. Therefore, every true agnostic must oppose it.

Do agnostics think that science and religion are incompatible?

The answer depends on what is meant by "religion". If only a system of moral norms is meant, then it is compatible with science. If we mean a system of dogmas that is considered undeniably true, then it is incompatible with the spirit of science, which does not allow facts of reality to be accepted without proof, and also considers that complete certainty is hardly impossible.

What can convince you of the existence of God?

I think that if I heard a voice from heaven that predicted everything that would happen to me in the next day, including events that would seem unlikely to me, and if all these predictions came true, perhaps I would be convinced, at least least, in the existence of some higher mind. I could name some other proof of this kind, but as far as I know there is no such proof.
Translation by Maria Desyatova

Want to know more? ( Russell B. Am I an atheist or an agnostic?)
A call for tolerance in the face of new dogmas

I speak as one whom my father intended to become a rationalist. He was as much of a rationalist as I am now, but he died when I was three years old, and the court of the Lord Chancellor decided that I should partake of the benefits of a Christian education.

I think that maybe since then the judges could regret it. It didn't work out the way they had hoped. Perhaps it would be rather sad if Christian education were to disappear, because in this case there would be no one to educate rationalists.

They appear as a reaction to a system of education that considers it quite natural that a father may have his son brought up, say, in the spirit of the Muggletonian sect, or in the spirit of some other nonsense, but he should by no means be brought up as a person who thinks rationally. In my younger days, this was considered a crime.

Bishops and Sin

Since I became a rationalist, I have found that there are still ample opportunities in the world for the practical application of rationalist views, not only in matters of geology, but also in such issues as divorce and birth control, as well as in the matter of artificial insemination. that arose quite recently - in all those questions when bishops tell us that something is a mortal sin, but it is a mortal sin only because there is some text in the Bible on this subject. It is a mortal sin not because it hurts someone, that is not the point at all. As long as people continue to say that something should not be done just because there is some text in the bible to that effect, and as long as parliament can be persuaded of it, there will be a great need for application of rationalism in practice. As you know, I got into serious trouble in the United States only because, on some practical issues, I argued that the ethical statements of the Bible were not convincing, and that in some cases one should do things differently from what the Bible says. On this basis, the court has decided that I am not qualified to teach at universities in the United States, so I have some utilitarian reasons for preferring rationalism to other views.

Don't be too sure!

The question of defining rationalism is by no means an easy one. I don't think that it can be defined as a rejection of this or that Christian dogma. It is quite possible to be a complete and absolute rationalist in the true sense of the word, and yet accept this or that dogma. The question is how you come to a certain opinion, not what its content is. The main thing we are convinced of is the superiority of reason. If your mind leads you to generally accepted conclusions, great, you are still a rationalist. In my opinion, the main thing is that the arguments should be based on such grounds as are accepted in science, and at the same time you should not accept anything as absolutely true, but only as possible to a greater or lesser extent. I think that not being absolutely sure is one of the main components of rationality.

proof of god

There is one practical issue that often worries me. Every time I go to another state, or a prison, or any other place like that, I am always asked about my religious beliefs. I never know if I should say "agnostic" or if I should say "atheist". This is a very difficult question, and I believe that some of you have also come across it. As a philosopher, if I were to speak to an all-philosopher audience, I would have to describe myself as an agnostic, because I don't think there are arguments that can be used to prove that God doesn't exist.

On the other hand, if I am to give the right impression to the average person on the street, I will be forced to say that I am an atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is no god, I must add that it is equally not I can prove that there are no Homeric gods either.

None of us seriously considers the possibility of the existence of Homeric gods; but if you undertook to give a logical justification for the fact that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon and other gods do not exist, you would consider it a hell of a job. You simply couldn't construct such a proof.

Therefore, speaking about the Olympian gods in front of a philosophical audience, I would say that I am an agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us, referring to these gods, would say that they are atheists. I think that when we talk about the Christian god, we should follow the same line.

Skepticism

There is the same degree of probability and possibility of the existence of the Christian god as of the Homeric gods. I cannot prove that the Christian god or the Homeric gods do not exist, but I do not think that the possibility of their existence is an alternative worthy of serious consideration. I think, therefore, that in the papers offered to me in these cases it would be more correct to write "atheist," although this is a very difficult problem, and I sometimes say this and sometimes that, without following any clear principle. When one admits that nothing is certain, one must, I think, also admit that some things are more probable than others. That we are here tonight is more certain than that one party or another can lay claim to the truth. Of course, there are degrees of probability, and one must be very careful in emphasizing this fact, because otherwise one can fall into absolute skepticism, and such skepticism would be completely fruitless and completely useless.

persecution

It must be remembered that some things are much more possible than others, and may be so obvious that in practice it is not worth remembering that they are not absolutely certain, except when it comes to persecution. If it comes to the fact that a person can be burned at the stake for unbelief, it is worth remembering that in the end he may turn out to be right, and it is not worth persecuting him.

In general, if a person says, for example, that the earth is flat, I sincerely wish that he could spread his opinion as much as he likes. He may, of course, be right, but I don't think so. I think that in practice it is much better to believe that the earth is round, although, of course, we can be wrong. Therefore, it seems to me that we should aim not at complete skepticism, but at the doctrine of degrees of probability.

In general, I believe that such a teaching is what the world really needs. The world is full of new dogmas. Old dogmas may be dying, but new dogmas are emerging, and in general, I believe that the harm of dogma is in direct proportion to its newness. The new dogmas are much worse than the old ones.

The words "atheist" and "agnostic" conjure up many different associations and values.

When the existence of God is called into question, the very subject matter of the debate is complex and often misunderstood.

No matter for what reasons or how they view the issue, agnostics and atheists are fundamentally different, but at the same time they share a number of similarities.

Many people who start calling themselves an agnostic simultaneously reject the term "atheist," even though it technically applies to them as well.

Let's understand differences between what it means to be an atheist and to be an agnostic, and let's leave behind any preconceived notions or misinterpretations.
What is an atheist?

An atheist is a person who does not believe in any gods. This is a very simple concept, but it is often widely misunderstood. For this reason, there are many other definitions.

Atheism - lack or lack of faith in the gods, or doubt about their existence.

The most precise definition might be: an atheist is anyone who disagrees with the proposition “at least one god exists”. This statement is not made by atheists. Being an atheist does not mean an active or even conscientious person. All that is required is not to "confirm" the judgment made by others.

Who is an agnostic?

An agnostic is anyone who does not claim to know whether there are any gods or not. This idea is also quite simple, but it can also be misunderstood as atheism.

One of the main problems is that atheism and agnosticism deal with the same question regarding the existence of gods. It should be taken into account that atheism implies that a person does not believe that God exists, while agnosticism means that man does not know if God exists. Faith and knowledge are related, but, nevertheless, are separate concepts.

There is a simple test to see if you are an agnostic or not. Do you know for sure that any gods exist? If so, then you are not an agnostic, but a theist or a believer. Are you sure that gods don't exist or can't even exist? If so, then you are not an agnostic, but an atheist.

If you could not answer “yes” to any of the previous questions, then you are a person who may or may not believe in one or more gods. However, since such people also do not claim to be sure of their knowledge, they are agnostics. Then the only question is whether they are theist agnostics or atheist agnostics.

Agnostic theists or agnostic atheists?

The atheist agnostic does not believe in any gods, while the theist agnostic believes in the existence of at least one god. However, neither of them can claim to have any knowledge to support this belief. Essentially, one more question remains open: why are they agnostic.

This fact seems contradictory and difficult, but in fact it is quite easy and logical. Whether agnostics believe or not, they can safely agree that they cannot know exactly what is true and what is false. This rule can be applied relatively to any other topic, because believing in something is not the same as exact knowledge or truth.

Once it becomes clear that atheism is just a lack of faith in any gods, it also becomes clear that agnosticism is not a “third way” between atheism and theism, as many used to think. Having faith in God and not having faith in God does not exhaust all possibilities.

Agnosticism is about not about faith in God, but about knowledge. The concept was originally coined to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure whether any gods exist or not. This term was not intended to describe a person who has found an alternative between having or not having a particular faith.

And yet, many people have wrong impression, that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive concepts. But why? There is no "I don't know" that logically excludes "I believe".

On the contrary, not only are knowledge and belief compatible, but they are often related, because not knowing something often becomes a reason not to believe.

In most cases, it is a good idea not to admit that something is true unless you have sufficient evidence to describe it as knowledge or truth. A good example of describing such a situation is the court, where the judge issues a verdict on the guilt of the accused on the basis of certain evidence.

It is worth noting that there are double standards for atheists and agnostics. On the part of believers, a situation is often observed when they treat those people who claim that they do not believe in God (that is, atheists) worse, while agnostics are perceived more benevolently.

Some people position their view of religion as agnostic. What does this mean, an incomprehensible word to many, and who are agnostics, let's try to understand.

The term "Agnosticism" comes from the ancient Greek word ἄγνωστος, translated into Russian, meaning - unknowable, unknown. This concept was used by philosophers to denote the theory of knowledge of the world, which believed that it is fundamentally impossible to know the world around us.

The beginnings of agnosticism can be found already in ancient philosophy, in particular in the sophist Protagoras, who argued the impossibility of verifying the reality of the existence of gods, as well as in ancient skepticism. The ancient Indian philosopher Sanjaya Belatthaputta, who, like Protagoras, lived in the 5th century BC, expressed an agnostic point of view on the existence of any life after death. And in the Rigveda there is a hymn Nasadya Sukta (English) Russian. with an agnostic point of view on the question of the origin of the world.

Agnosticism, as such, arose at the end of the 19th century as opposed to the ideas of metaphysical philosophy, which was actively engaged in the study of the world through the subjective comprehension of metaphysical ideas, often without any objective manifestation or confirmation.

In addition to philosophical agnosticism, there is agnosticism and theological. In theology, agnostics divide religion into two separate components: cultural and ethical, based on moral human principles of behavior in society, and mystical, which includes, if considered from the point of view of Orthodoxy, the sacraments of the Church, eternal life, the Angelic world and, of course, Himself Creator of all things. It is this second component that agnostics do not attach significant importance to.

The scientific principle of agnosticism is such that any experience gained in the process of cognition is inevitably distorted by the consciousness of the subject, therefore, no subject is fundamentally able to comprehend an accurate and complete picture of the world. This principle does not deny knowledge, but only points to the fundamental inaccuracy of any knowledge and the impossibility of knowing the world completely. Denying the Lord God, who by His Law gives us a guide to the knowledge of the world, agnostics drive themselves into a dead end, where there is no Divine Truth.

The term "agnosticism" itself was coined in 1869. After becoming a member of the Metaphysical Society, Huxley wrote the following: “When I reached intellectual maturity and began to wonder whether I was an atheist, a theist or a pantheist, a materialist or an idealist, a Christian or a free thinker, I came to the conclusion that I was not suitable none of these names except the last." In his opinion, an agnostic is a person who does not deny the existence of any gods, but does not take the side of any religion or faith.

The revolutionary anarchist P.A. Kropotkin was sure that there were no agnostics as such, but there were atheists who tried to hide their denial of God with a new term. Here is what he wrote: "The word 'agnostic' was first coined by a small group of unbelieving writers meeting at the publisher of the Nineteenth Century magazine, James Knowles, who preferred the name 'agnostic', that is, denying the gnosis, the name of atheists.

And this, in general, is true, because. Agnostics admit the existence of God only because since a person cannot know the world, therefore he does not know for sure whether God exists or not. Denying explicitly God, they would begin to contradict themselves. This is only, exclusively, their difference from atheists, who are confident in the absence of the Creator. “I say that agnosticism, although it wants to be something special from atheism, putting forward the imaginary impossibility of knowing, is in essence the same as atheism, because the root of everything is the non-recognition of God,” wrote L. Tolstoy.

Agnostics, it should be noted, are criticized both from the standpoint of religious philosophy and from the standpoint of materialism. Here, for example, is what V. Ulyanov said about them: “Agnosticism is a wavering between materialism and idealism; in practice, there is a vacillation between materialistic science and clericalism. The agnostics include the supporters of Kant (Kantians), Hume (positivists, realists, etc.) and the modern “Machists.”

However, there is still a difference between atheists and agnostics. The fact is that atheists have their own concept of "faith": they believe that there is no God. They believe so strongly that not every Orthodox Christian can claim that his faith in God is stronger than the faith of an atheist in his absence. Agnostics, on the other hand, have no concept, because, according to their statements, nothing in the world is clear and incomprehensible. Is there a God or not? The idea of ​​denying everything on the basis that it is impossible to know anything exactly anyway is the principle of agnostics, who are in fact constantly hesitant and indecisive people, unable to take full responsibility for their thoughts and actions. After all, they themselves claim that no one knows anything for certain, in particular, whether they will do the right thing in this situation or not. And it doesn't matter whether it concerns religious worldviews or just life issues.

The ideas of metaphysical philosophy, actively engaged in the study of the world through the subjective comprehension of metaphysical ideas, often without any objective manifestation or confirmation.

In addition to philosophical agnosticism, there is theological and scientific agnosticism. In theology, agnostics separate the cultural and ethical component of faith and religion, considering it to be a kind of secular school of moral behavior in society, from the mystical (questions of the existence of gods, demons, the afterlife, religious rituals) and do not attach significant importance to the latter. Scientific agnosticism exists as a principle in the theory of knowledge, suggesting that since the experience gained in the process of cognition is inevitably distorted by the consciousness of the subject, the subject is fundamentally unable to comprehend an accurate and complete picture of the world. This principle does not deny knowledge, but only points to the fundamental inaccuracy of any knowledge and the impossibility of knowing the world completely.

Story

The term was introduced by the English zoologist, Professor Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, when the Metaphysical Society invited Huxley to become a member of its meetings. “When I reached intellectual maturity,” writes Huxley, “and began to wonder whether I was an atheist, a theist or a pantheist, a materialist or an idealist, a Christian or a free thinker, I came to the conclusion that none of these names, except for the last one. By his definition, agnostic- this is a person who does not deny the existence of gods, but does not take the side of any religion or faith. Also, an agnostic is a person who does not deny the existence of gods, but does not affirm it either, because he is convinced that the primary beginning of things is unknown, since it cannot be known - either at the moment of development, or in general. The term is applied to the teachings of Herbert Spencer, William Hamilton (English) Russian, George Berkeley, David Hume, etc.

P. A. Kropotkin gives his own version of the origin of this term: “The word“ agnostics ”was first introduced into use by a small group of unbelieving writers who gathered at the publisher of the magazine“ Nineteenth Century ”(“ Nineteenth Century ”) James Knowles who preferred the name "agnostic", i.e. denying gnosis, to the name of atheists.

Agnosticism can be found already in ancient philosophy, in particular, in the sophist Protagoras, who claimed the impossibility of verifying the reality of the existence of gods, as well as in ancient skepticism. Ancient Indian philosopher Sanjaya Belatthaputta Sanjaya Belatthaputta), who lived, like Protagoras, in the 5th century BC, expressed an agnostic point of view on the existence of any life after death. In the Rigveda there is a hymn Nasadya Sukta (English) Russian with an agnostic point of view on the question of the origin of the world.

Attitude towards religions

Hello, dear readers of the blog site. If you ask yourself: what is an agnostic, the answer is simple. This is a person who adheres to the worldview of agnosticism ().

The word "agnosticism", in turn, comes from ancient Greek and means in translation "unknowable". This means that the objective world around us cannot, in principle, be known through subjective perception (eyes, ears, brain), because such perception can distort reality.

Still not clear? Let's understand step by step.

Who are agnostics?

Anyone can be an agnostic. some political views. The "zest" is that people strive to know the truth and the meaning of existence by choosing available methods. But for any belief you need evidence. If the thesis cannot be refuted, proved, there can be no talk of judgments, because any side can turn out to be right.

Let's give an example: it is not known whether God exists, his existence has not been proven, not refuted. Agnostic does not want to follow behind the opinions of the majority, regardless of the "camp", he is ready to talk about something, having good reasons.

Quite often, adherents of such a worldview completely abandon philosophizing, since the phenomenon simply cannot be accurately defined. You should not think that agnostics are some kind of “crackers”, they don’t care about anything, except for the everyday component. They just do not care about those moments that do not concern them directly, do not worry about the meaning of being.

Wherein agnostics are not atheists in its pure form, but something in between him and the believer. They believe that a person cannot know everything because of his limitations and subjectivity (not the fact that what you see with your eyes and processed by your brain looks exactly like that).

By definition, any system cannot comprehend itself. What can we say about the divine and true nature of things. Therefore, agnostics, not believing in God, do not refute his existence, because it is impossible to prove either one or the other. It is foolish to deny what you cannot understand. But they also cannot believe in it, due to their special worldview.

Interesting: the term appeared thanks to Professor Thomas Henry Huxley. This happened in 1869. The English zoologist realized: he does not deny that gods can exist (he is not an atheist), but he does not want to accept any faith.

Agnosticism is found in ancient philosophy (Protagoras, Sagjay, Belatthaputt). There is an opinion that this trend originates from skepticism and agnostic is synonym for skeptic.

Introduction to the worldview of agnosticism

Agnosticism is not a religion, but There are several facts-answers to the question “what is it and who are agnostics”. A kind of checklist for identifying the rudiments of this view of the world:

1. Agnostics understand that modern humanity does not objectively cognize the world around us.
2. They are not accustomed to imposing an opinion, elevating an understanding of reality to an absolute.
3. Such a person is convinced that everyone has their own truth, there is no reason to “break spears”, to argue. Reality is not understood.

Agnosticism - faith in science, knowledge. What is real is what can be clearly explained, proved, substantiated. It is impossible, according to the agnostics, to talk about such topics as:

1. The existence of God.
2. Aliens.
3. Reincarnation.
4. Ghosts.

The philosophical question can be discussed, but not proven. The follower of this paradigm "trusts" only scientific, socially justified experiments, leaving theoretical quasi-scientific formats to others. Not in the rules of the agnostics prove, dispute, they expect the same from others, not tolerating "pulling" into their camp.

Remember the good old proverb that truth is born in a dispute? For agnostics, this is a false belief. Knowledge is objective, and “I believe” / “I don’t believe” are simplified answers for those who do not want to face the truth, look for evidence.

There is an opinion that the philosophy of agnosticism does not contribute to progress, because they do not try to find answers to new questions, but everything is somewhat different. Conversely, agnostics

1. Do not rely on other people's opinions.
2. They respect science, strive to find answers in it.
3. Imposed authorities are alien to them. Speaking about who they are and what kind of people, it is worth noting: for any religion not a "comfortable" personality, since in a religious community community of opinions is important, and for an agnostic this is practically impossible.

It is worth knowing: if we turn to philosophy, then agnosticism is even, but skepticism in knowledge, . Agnostics doubt objective reality. Remember Protagoras' statements: everything is as it seems.

In agnosticism, the search for a universal foundation is not welcome. Lenin believed that this worldview has an intellectual indecision, which did not prevent many great people from sharing their views.

The world through the prism of agnosticism

When you study history, you will find the names of many agnostics. Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Kant, Darwin. They are different, but they are united firmness of judgment. This is good and bad at the same time. Often, agnostic beliefs encourage a person not to delve into the essence of the problem, which leads to unpleasant consequences (conflicts, although agnostics do not tolerate them).

If you search the Internet for definitions of what an agnostic is, you can find many interesting interpretations and a lot of simplifications. Often it all comes down to the fact that these are people who, first of all, strive for independence of conclusions, which can be parallel or completely opposite to judgments generally accepted in society.

This is only one side of the coin, since the environment and circumstances influence a lot. The fact is that agnostics do not have an "encyclopedia" with formulaic answers to rhetorical questions that can be asked of them. Their views can be independent and contradictory at the same time, because it is always impossible to consider yourself right because of:

1. Lack of resources.
2. Minimum knowledge in a particular industry.
3. Lack of motivation.

Summing up, let's say: this view is a stable worldview. Its essence is that it is objectively impossible to know the world around us. There is no absolute truth, you have to come to terms with it. It is important to understand: agnosticism is not science, since there is already an urgent need to prove the truth of the facts.

Good luck to you! See you soon on the blog pages site

You can watch more videos by going to

You may be interested

What is epistemology Who is the godfather (a) - definition of the concept, role and responsibility Marginal or social outcast What is a patch - what are they for, can they be harmful and what patches distinguish Who is transgender and how do people become transgender Archaisms are the language of our ancestors