Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,518
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: + + + + + + +
→Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on agnosticism
Huxley's agnosticism seems nevertheless to go with an extreme empiricism, nearer to Mill's methods of induction than to recent discussions of the hypothetico-deductive and partly holistic aspect of testing of theories. Though we might not be able to prove the existence of God might we be able to disprove it? Many philosophers hold that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God is empirically refuted by the existence of evil and suffering, and so would be happy to be called atheists rather than agnostics.Of course the existence of a non-benevolent creator God would not be so refutable and atheism would have to depend on arguments other than that of the mere existence of evil. More commonly the theist will continue to include benevolence in the concept of God and attempt to deal with the problem of evil with the help of various auxiliary or even ad hoc hypotheses or considerations, much as a scientist may attempt, often successfully, to shore up against empirical refutation a previously well tested theory. Bayesian considerations may determine rationally, though roughly, the appropriate degree of belief or unbelief.<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ Atheism and Agnosticism], Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref>}}
Huxley's agnosticism seems nevertheless to go with an extreme empiricism, nearer to Mill's methods of induction than to recent discussions of the hypothetico-deductive and partly holistic aspect of testing of theories. Though we might not be able to prove the existence of God might we be able to disprove it? Many philosophers hold that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God is empirically refuted by the existence of evil and suffering, and so would be happy to be called atheists rather than agnostics.Of course the existence of a non-benevolent creator God would not be so refutable and atheism would have to depend on arguments other than that of the mere existence of evil. More commonly the theist will continue to include benevolence in the concept of God and attempt to deal with the problem of evil with the help of various auxiliary or even ad hoc hypotheses or considerations, much as a scientist may attempt, often successfully, to shore up against empirical refutation a previously well tested theory. Bayesian considerations may determine rationally, though roughly, the appropriate degree of belief or unbelief.<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ Atheism and Agnosticism], Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref>}}
== Agnosticism debates ==
''See also:'' [[Agnosticism debates]]
Despite there being more self-described agnostics in the world than self-described atheists (See also: [[Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic]])<ref>[http://www.internationalbulletin.org/issues/2015-01/2015-01-029-table.html Table on the projected global shrinkage/growth of various worldviews including atheism and agnosticism] (Source: Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary)</ref>, since at least the latter part of the 20th century, there have been more [[atheism vs. Christianity]] debates than atheism vs. agnosticism debates (see: [[Atheism debates]] and [[Christianity vs. atheism debates]]). In recent times, however, there have been notable cases of atheists being unwilling to engage in debates (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]).
For a listing of notable agnosticism related debates, please see: [[Agnosticism debates]]
== Notes ==
== Notes ==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}
[[Category: Agnosticism]]
[[Category: Agnosticism]]