Talk:Agnosticism

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2149:8286:5d00:fc1e:e047:b002:3866 (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Agnosticism isn't a worldview on the metaphysical actuality of the cosmos itself, but a state of mind of the individual or a limitation of the individual. That isn't tautological to the workings of the cosmos. The "limitations of the individual", either personally or cosmically posed, are not the "mechanism of the universe"; thus agnosticism is a worldview about the opinions of the individual, and not about the cosmic actuality. The possibly hidden nature of the cosmos, isn't its only attribute, nor its deepest mechanism. Agnosticism is not the purest metaphysics on the cosmos, but it is pure ontic metaphysics on the individual (the thinker). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4115:e96c:88ea:a31a:74f3:a24c (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence is this:

"Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable."

But this leaves entirely unstated the question of whose knowledge is being referred to.

Is it just the agnostic person whose knowledge is referred to here? (The existence of God is unknown or unknowable to that person?)

Or does the quote mean the agnostic believes the existence of God is unknown or unknowable to everyone?

Whatever the answer — which could be either of these, or both of these, or something else — the article desperately needs clarification. 2601:200:C082:2EA0:F171:81DE:843A:DA36 (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Should a clause not be added that agnosticism can mean "the belief that the existence of a god or gods is personally unknowable" or to mean an apathy towards religion without claiming anything about the nature of our reality? Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is inline with @2601:200:c082:2ea0:f171:81de:843a:da36's post above Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. The article has the maintenance tag "Over-quote" because its heavy reliance on on quotations undermines the encyclopedic style. A related problem is excessive reliance on primary sources, often to make interpretative claims that require secondary sourcing. For example, the article calls Russell's essay Why I Am Not a Christian "a classic statement of agnosticism" and supports this claim with the essay itself, which does not even use the term "agnosticism". The article also has issues with WP:PROPORTION: most of its content is devoted to the history of agnosticism, with a heavy emphasis on UK and US authors. It also includes detailed treatments of minor figures, like a lengthy subsection on Bernard Iddings Bell, who gets little to no coverage in standard overviews. Such details belong to child articles, not here. As a result, the article omits important thinkers and traditions that are commonly discussed in overview sources, such as Mansel, logical positivism, and Wittgenstein.

The article discusses the difference between strong, weak, and apathetic agnosticism, but there are many other types that should be mentioned, such as psychological vs epistemological agnosticism, grounded vs ungrounded agnosticism, and religious vs non-religious agnosticism. Another often-discussed topic in the academic literature that deserves more attention is the practical consequences of being agnostic. Our article discusses ignosticism as a related view. There are many other related views that are often compared to agnosticism and would be worth explaining, such as atheism, skepticism, fallibilism, and apatheism.

The current section on criticisms could be balanced with a section on arguments for agnosticism to avoid WP:UNDUE. There are also academic discussions about the relation to rationality and the conditions under which one should suspend belief, such as a lack of evidence or a balance of evidence for and against. While I agree that demographics should be discussed in some form, it may not merit a standalone section. This topic should focus specifically on agnosticism rather than more broadly on non-religious people, like our current two images. Our current definition section concentrates on the arguments of particular theorists, such as Huxley and Smith. It should probably be broadened to cover different definitions of the term (e.g., as suspension of belief vs as the claim that God is unknowable) and to note its application to other domains (e.g., being agnostic about the existence of free will).

Apologies for the lengthy explanation. There are more issues to consider, but they can be addressed later since the points mentioned so far will already involve a lot of work to implement. For more information on problems, see also the GA delisting discussion a few years ago. I plan to work on this article as part of the core contest. I was hoping to get some feedback on these ideas and possibly other suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi again, Phlsph7.

I agree with all of your comments broadly, but I do have one concern. The article currently seems to be about religious agnosticism specifically, and not about the more general sense you're suggesting, which would make your additions out of scope. If you want to change the scope of the article, it would probably be best to WP:SPLIT the content if the current article into a new Religious agnosticism article. I'm not sure if that would be controversial though, since the religious usage is (arguably) by far the most common, which might justify making another article like Agnosticism (philosophy) for the general sense instead. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Farkle Griffen and thanks for the feedback! I agree, this issue should be handled with care. I think the best approach is to treat it as a broad-concept article. The main meaning is concerned with the existence of God, and it should probably stay this way. However, we have to make readers aware that this is not the only meaning. This seems to be also how overview sources treat the subject. For example, Poidevin 2010 (Agnosticism: A Very Short Introduction) is primarily about the existence of God but also has a section on "'Local' versus 'global'" agnosticism where he writes Agnosticism is always agnosticism about something. It may be about God, or it may be about alien life, or the possibility of a Grand Unified Theory of physics, or the wisdom of taking vitamin pills, and so on. I'll see if I can get it to work, but I'll keep your idea in mind as an alternative approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I do not support you taking it upon yourself to rewrite this article. This page is about Agnosticism. You put a image of God? and removed all the Huxley quotes. You replaced Huxley talking about evidence based reasoning to form beliefs with your own perspective of what agnosticism is.This is unacceptable. You even added the common atheist argument that atheism is some default philosophical position in a page about agnosticism.

In re-reading your proposed article, no where do you describe what Huxley, the very person who coined agnosticism has to say about agnosticism. You have effectively removed what atheists call "Huxley Agnosticism" entirely from this article about agnosticism. I've said for years this article needs help, but please understand that atheists and agnostics have been battling ever since Huxley coined the term 150 years ago. IMO, the fair thing to do is represent the battle, not that one side has the "correct opinion." This article would be better served with explaining Huxley, why he felt a need to do something different in setting forth agnosticism and why it can be an attractive idea to some people. Once there is a proper introduction and explanation of agnosticism than the criticisms should be brought in. But making definitive statements that atheists have the correct opinion is not neutral. This is the agnosticism page and should, at the very least, have some explanation of what agnostics believe their own position is.IIXVXII (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello IIXVXII and thanks for your input. I made several adjustments to address your concerns: I removed the "God?" image, I restored a Huxley quote, and I added some additional information on Huxley. The version before the changes had a problem with WP:OVERQUOTE, so I think restoring all the quotes is a bad idea.

I agree with you that the article shouldn't claim that "atheists have the correct opinion". I couldn't find this claim in the article. Could you cite the passage which, according to you, makes it? Generally speaking, the article presents various sides and various arguments for and against, as in the sections "Arguments#For" and "Arguments#Against".

I aimed to represent the dominant views in the reliable sources, not "beliefs with [my] own perspective of what agnosticism is". The new version of the article has many references to high-quality sources, so if you think specific passages contain WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH we can look at whether the sources support it. I've worked on several broad-concept articles to bring them to good article and featured article status, so this is my attempt to do the same here, not some kind of WP:ADVOCACY, as you allege.

I agree with you that Huxley's view should be discussed, and the new version of the article discusses him in several places. However, Huxley is only one figure in the long tradition of agnosticism, so I don't think the article should overemphasize his personal view. Our article is, after all, about agnosticism, not about "Huxley agnosticism". To determine relative balance, I tried to follow reliable overview sources per WP:PROPORTION, such as Oppy 2018, Rowe 1998, Draper 2022, Archer 2024, and Poidevin 2010. They typically do not give the emphasis to Huxley that you suggest. For example, as far as I can tell, Oppy 2018 mentions Huxley only one time in the whole book: in a sentence listing several theorists on the last page. If you think there are specific claims about Huxley's views that need to be included because of their centrality in overview sources, I'm happy to look into it.

I'm open to working with you to address your concerns by implementing further changes. However, a total revert of every single, well-sourced change is not particularly helpful, especially given the consensus about the problems of the original version of the article (for feedback from other editors on the proposed changes, see here and here). If you have a personal problem with me as an editor rewriting the article, then I can acknowledge that this opinion is regrettable, but there may not be much I can do about that. We are both concerned about the quality of the article (thanks for your earlier contributions to the article, by the way), so constructive collaboration is likely to be more productive. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

You’re fundamentally changing the information on this page. The only reason you’ve given is WP:OVERQUOTE. You show no signs of trying to improve what was here.

Huxley is the founder of agnosticism. This was 150 years ago, of course he isn’t discussed much in modern literature. How many academic papers today do you think are published talking about Isaac Newton?

This is your standard for WP:PROPORTION ? The weight of the Wikipedia article should be the weight of what’s discussed in modern literature, not the weight of the person’s contribution to the subject matter. You want to discuss the modern outcomes of agnosticism without discussing how Huxley lays out agnosticism.

Now I understand why Avery Archer has all the sudden become so prominent, because he is modern literature. In the very first sentence you have Avery Archer with attitudes of agnostics. It’s no longer about knowledge, evidence, belief, it’s questioning attitude. I guess you dislike Jane Friedman since you didn’t endorse her question-directed attitude model for agnosticism that Archer was trying to refute. Either way, undue weight to one modern researchers endeavors with agnosticism is now your lead over decades of common usage.

You have many errors. Of course agnosticism is not restricted to theology. Huxley described it as a method or principle. If you would have simply explained agnosticism as Huxley introduced it, then the reader could have been introduced to it as well.

You refer to agnosticism as a theory when that is not a common reference. You have strange claims like agnosticism rejects knowledge is obtainable, that absence of evidence leaves disbelief when this is a confusion of what evidence of absence means. Agnosticism is a lifestyle that resembles atheism? You have this in the lead. You even throw in an agnostic theist, which is from George Smith and his rejection of agnosticism as a third alternative. You make no mention of this to the reader. No where do you elaborate how Huxley defined agnosticism and then atheists, like George Smith didn’t like agnosticism as a third alternative, so he developed a different interpretation. You actually have George Smith’s interpretation before mentioning Huxley. You offer zero description of Huxley’s contribution to the very topic he started.

I see no evidence of you understanding anything more than some basic research level. You searched some modern literature, stuck in a bunch of Avery Archer, even his terminology, used multiple statements multiple times as filler content and then pulled together various papers to make a giant mass of words about how agnosticism now has 22 categories. Types of agnosticism went from common usage of weak and strong to,

based on attitude, based on theory, other, psychological, epistemological, weak, strong, grounded, ungrounded, stored, optimistic, pessimistic, hesitant, local, global, existential, truth, semantic, meta-linguistic, secular, religious, and methodological agnosticism.

You took the common usage of weak and strong and made it 2/22 weight? You gave 22 categories equal weight. Show me your source that meta-linguistic agnosticism carries equal weight with weak or strong agnosticism.

How is pulling together various papers and then presenting them as the 22 categories of agnosticism not original research? Can you show me any evidence anywhere else of these 22 categories existing as a set? Or can this only be compiled from your research?

I find this to be wildly problematic. That you will sacrifice the integrity of understanding and quality of information for your surface level analysis so you can win a contest.IIXVXII (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. I implemented changes to the article to address some of your concerns. It's possible that various of our disagreements hinge on whether we should use modern overview sources or older primary sources to write this article. I responded to your different points below.

• You’re fundamentally changing the information on this page. The only reason you’ve given is WP:OVERQUOTE. I gave a detailed explanation right at the beginning of this discussion, see the first comment at Talk:Agnosticism#Changes_to_the_article.
• According to WP:PROPORTION, an article should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. To judge the weight of someone's contribution, we have to consult modern literature. Huxley's papers don't directly tell us what Huxley's long-term influence was. Maybe you are right that the modern overview sources should discuss Huxley in more detail. However, we should follow how the academic discourse treats the subject and not rewrite the dominant approach to reflect our personal preferences. Also: Huxley coined the term "agnosticism" but he did not "start the topic" and is not its "founder" in a strict sense. Philosophers explored agnostic ideas well before the 19th century, they just didn't use this specific term.
• I slightly reformulated the lead sentence to not imply that we side with the terminology of one scholar. I also added a footnote on the disagreement between Friedman and Archer.
• You have many errors. Of course agnosticism is not restricted to theology. Our article explicitly says In the broadest sense, agnosticism is not restricted to theology. Why do you think that this is an error if you endorse this view?
• You refer to agnosticism as a theory when that is not a common reference The problem is that different theorists use different definitions. One of them presents agnosticism as a theory/view/claim. For example, from Rowe 1998: In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.; or from Oppy 2018: Some people have suggested that agnosticism requires ... commitment to the further claim that it is unknown – or perhaps even unknowable – whether there are gods. Accordingly, we can't just present Huxley's definition as the definitive view. Instead, we have to make readers aware of the different senses of the term. I replaced the word "theory" with "claim" to reflect the formulation in the source more closely, but I don't think it makes much of a difference in this context.
• You have strange claims like agnosticism rejects knowledge is obtainable This is a common interpretation in philosophy. For example, Poidevin 2010 explains agnosticism saying that ... we cannot know whether or not God exists. There is something about the subject matter that makes knowledge impossible in this case.
• Agnosticism is a lifestyle that resembles atheism the lead says some of its forms are compatible with different lifestyles, including theistic and atheistic ones. This is discussed in detail in various sources, such as Fallon 2020.
• We have several sources on agnostic theism. This is not exclusively from George H. Smith and does not imply a rejection of agnosticism. For example, from Poidevin 2010: ...there most certainly are agnostic theists. Indeed, every major religion exhibits a substantial element of agnosticism somewhere within its traditional system of thought.
• No where do you elaborate how Huxley defined agnosticism Information on Huxley's definition is given in several places. For example, from our history section: Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–1895) coined the term agnosticism in a speech to the Metaphysical Society in 1869 as an alternative to theism and atheism. He understood it as the epistemological principle that one should not claim to know something without satisfactory evidence. Huxley saw it as a method of inquiry that refuses speculative conclusions, applying it specifically to theological and metaphysical problems.
• Concerning the different types of agnosticism, I share your frustration that so many different types are discussed in the academic literature, such as Rowe 1998, Draper 2022, Holloway 2003, and Poidevin 2010; Ferrari & Incurvati 2022 is exclusively dedicated to "The Varieties of Agnosticism". In our discussion, not all types get equal weight: the weight is given by the length of the treatment and where the type is discussed. For example, meta-linguistic agnosticism only gets a single sentence, while other types get full paragraphs. Our article does not claim that there are exactly 22 categories, so we do not need a source for this number (some of the categories you counted are section titles, not types of agnosticism). We just list and explain types commonly found in the sources. For comprehensiveness, I think we need to present this information in some form. There are different ways to arrange this information, in case you have suggestions. By the way, I moved meta-linguistic agnosticism to a footnote since you seemed to be concerned about its weight.
• As I told you before, my primary goal is to improve the quality of the article to merit the good article status. I hope our exchange can promote that goal. Please don't make false allegations about me sacrificing article quality because I intend to win a contest, see WP:ASPERSIONS. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I asked for neutral help when the page was delisted. I have complaints, but I'll leave it at that. I'm satisfied that you are putting agnosticism into the page and not atheism.

Thanks.IIXVXII (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)