An agnostic - who is this in simple words. An agnostic - who is he and what does he believe in?

Agnostic - who is it? modern world? Questions of faith in God remain largely unanswered for a person who follows his own path, different from others. Without relying on any of the existing religions, such people are ready to believe in the existence of the Creator if this is proven.

Who is an agnostic?

An agnostic is a person who does not deny the existence of God, but also admits that he may simply not exist. The percentage of agnostics is increasing every day. For them there are no authoritative sources in various religions; all sacred scriptures for an agnostic are only literary monuments. All agnostics strive for the truth and understand that the world order is much more complex than it seems at first glance, but in the absence of evidence, knowledge becomes impossible for an agnostic, and an inquisitive mind questions everything.

The term “agnosticism” was first introduced into science by T.G. Huxley was a follower of Darwinian evolutionary theory to describe his views on religious beliefs. Richard Dawkins, in his work The God Delusion, identifies several types of agnostics:

1. Agnostic in fact. Faith in God is slightly higher than disbelief: not entirely convinced, but inclined to believe that there is a Creator after all.
2. Unbiased agnostic. Faith and unbelief are exactly in half.
3. Agnostic, inclined towards atheism. There is a little more disbelief than faith; there are a number of doubts.
4. An agnostic is essentially more of an atheist. The probability of the existence of God is absolutely small, but not excluded.

What do agnostics believe?

Can an agnostic believe in God? This is the question asked by people who are gradually moving away from religion, but continue to believe in “their” way. Typical Feature Agnostics helps to understand these issues:

• refrains from judgment: whether there is a God or not, i.e. can neither refute nor prove the existence or absence of the Creator;
• believes that a person must act on his own;
• even if God exists, he has nothing to do with man;
• the concept of good and evil is relative, it is undesirable behavior;
• a person’s conscience is the measure of his actions;
• most agnostics admire the personality and life of Jesus Christ, but see him as an ordinary person, albeit endowed with super qualities;
• doubt the existence of the soul and immortality;
• the meaning of life for an agnostic is life itself with its joys and sorrows and the goals that a person sets for himself;
• They consider the evidence of the existence of God or his absence to be a matter of time, while there are few of them and all are doubtful.

Agnosticism in philosophy

The German philosopher of modern times I. Kant studied the phenomenon of agnosticism and developed a coherent and consistent theory of this direction. According to Kant, agnosticism in philosophy is the impossible cognition of reality or reality by the subject, because:

1. Human abilities of knowledge are limited by his natural essence.
2. The world is unknowable in itself; a person can only know a narrow external region of phenomena and objects, while the internal remains “terra incognita”.
3. Cognition is a process in which matter studies itself with its inherent reflective ability.

D. Berkeley and D. Hume, other prominent philosophers, also contributed to this area of ​​philosophy. Briefly, who is an agnostic and the general features of agnosticism from the works of philosophers are presented in the following theses:

1. Agnosticism is closely related to the philosophical movement - skepticism.
2. An agnostic rejects objective knowledge and the ability to fully understand the world.
3. Knowledge of God is impossible, obtaining reliable information about God is difficult.

Gnostic and agnostic - difference

Atheism and agnosticism have united in such a direction as atheistic agnosticism, in which belief in any deity is denied, but the presence of divine manifestation as a whole is not denied. In addition to agnostics, there is also the opposite “camp” - gnostics (some philosophers consider them true believers). What is the difference between Gnostics and Agnostics?

1. Agnostics question the knowledge of God, Gnostics simply know that he exists.
2. Followers of Gnosticism believe in the truth of human knowledge through the knowledge of reality through scientific and mystical experience; agnostics believe that the world is unknowable.

Agnostic and atheist - what's the difference?

Many people confuse these two concepts - agnostic and atheist. Agnosticism in religion is perceived by many clergy as atheism, but this is not true. It cannot be said that an atheist and an agnostic are radically different representatives, and in some cases there are agnostics among atheists and vice versa, and yet there is a difference between them:

1. An atheist has no doubt at all that there is no God, unlike an agnostic.
2. Atheists are materialists in pure form, there are many idealists among agnostics.

How to become an agnostic?

Most people are moving away from traditional existing religions. In order to become agnostic, people must have doubts and questions. Often agnostics are former theists (believers) who doubted the existence of God. Sometimes this happens after tragic incidents or a person expecting divine support does not receive it.

Some people believe in God, some don't. Faith in general is a rather strange thing. I have a rather complicated attitude towards religion. More often than not, I don’t talk about this at all; believers are extremely nervous towards those who think objectively on this issue. 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 extremely rarely).

Today I want to bring here an interview that can give an idea of ​​this concept.

But let's start our research with Wikipedia.
Agnosticism (from ancient Greek ἄγνωστος - unknowable, unknown) 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 ability to prove or disprove statements in some field, especially metaphysics and theology.

TV interview from 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?

An agnostic considers it impossible to know the truth in matters of the existence of God or eternal life, with which Christianity and other religions are associated. Or, if it is not impossible at all, then at least it does not 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 God exists; according to the atheist, we know that there is no God. The agnostic withholds judgment, saying that there is no sufficient basis for either confirmation or denial. At the same time, an agnostic may believe that the existence of God, although not impossible, is hardly probable; he may even consider this existence incredible to such an extent that it is not worth considering in practice. In this case, he is not 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 the other Olympians do not exist, it would be difficult for me to come up with convincing arguments. An agnostic may consider the existence of a Christian God as incredible as the existence of the Olympian gods; in this case, he practically takes the position of an atheist.

An agnostic does not recognize any “authorities”, in the meaning that religious people give 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 has to choose the people whose opinions he will take into account, and even this opinion will not be indisputable for him. He cannot help but notice that the so-called Law of God is changing all the time. The Bible says that, on the one hand, a woman should not marry the brother of her late husband 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 a sin?

An agnostic does not have the same certainty as some Christians about what is good and what is evil. He does not believe, as most Christians once believed, that people who do not share the government's views on controversial theological issues should face a painful death. He is against persecution and tries to refrain from moral judgment.

As for sin, he considers the 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 should not be imposed only insofar as evil, of course, must suffer. It was this belief in punitive measures that led to the creation of hell. The concept of sin has done a lot of harm, including this.

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 this? You may say, "Because religion tells me murder is a sin." But in statistical terms, agnostics are no more likely to kill 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 fear of punishment. In a lawless environment, such as a gold rush, anyone can commit murder, although under normal circumstances these people would remain law-abiding. They are held back not only by possible prosecution under the law, but also by the fear that the crime will be revealed, and the loneliness to which the criminal condemns himself, forced to wear a mask even in the presence of close people in order to avoid their hatred. In addition, there is such a thing as “conscience”. If you have ever thought about murder, you would be horrified by the thought of your victim's final moments or the sight of a lifeless corpse. Of course, this all depends on whether you live in a law-abiding society, but there are plenty of 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 restrained by some other desire. A person's antisocial tendencies may be restrained by the desire to please God, but they may also be restrained by the desire to please his friends, or to gain respect in society, or to 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 view the Bible?

The agnostic treats the Bible in exactly the same way as enlightened churchmen treat it. He does not believe that it was created by divine inspiration; he considers its early history 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 ordered Saul 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 delighted that the prophet Elisha cursed a child who laughed at him, and I could not believe that (as the Bible says) the benevolent Lord would send two bears to kill children.

How does an agnostic view Jesus, the Immaculate Conception, and the Holy Trinity?

Since an agnostic does not believe in God, he does not consider Jesus to be God. Most agnostics admire the life and teachings of Jesus as set out in the Gospels, but no more than they admire the biography of any other person. Some will put him on the same level as Buddha, some with Socrates, and some with Abraham Lincoln. They do not consider what He proclaimed to be indisputable, since they do not accept it as absolute authority. They think virgin birth a doctrine taken from pagan mythology, where such phenomena were not uncommon. (Zarathustra, according to legend, was born of 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?

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

In my book, I mentioned that the world needed “love, Christian love or compassion,” which led many to assume that I had changed my views, although in fact I could always say so. If by Christian we mean a person who loves his neighbor, who deeply sympathizes with the suffering, a person who ardently desires to free the world from the cruelty and outrages that disfigure it in our days, 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, it can be argued that this will offend Jews, Buddhists, Mohammedans and all other non-Christians who, as history shows, have shown no less desire than Christians to demonstrate the very virtues that some modern Christians presumptuously attribute only to their own religion. I also believe that all those who called themselves Christians in the past and the majority of those who call themselves so in our time will consider faith in God and immortality to be obligatory 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 general meaning 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 what is meant by this is general outline, something intangible that exists throughout a person’s life and even, for believers in immortality, continues to exist in the future. If this is what is meant, then an agnostic is unlikely to believe that a person has a soul. But, I hasten to add, this does not mean that an agnostic must be a materialist. Many agnostics (myself included) have the same doubts about the body as they do about the soul, but it's a long story that gets us into the weeds of metaphysics. Both matter and consciousness, I must 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 may have a solution. In a possible way evidence, according to many, can come from physical research or seances. The agnostic will refrain from making statements regarding eternal life until he considers the evidence for or against convincing. I, for my part, believe that there is no sufficient reason to believe in life after death, but if acceptable evidence appears, I am always ready to accept the arguments. Heaven and hell are another matter. Belief in hell is associated with the belief that sin should be punished, whether it is for reform or otherwise. Rarely will an agnostic believe this. As for heaven, perhaps someday its existence will be proven through spiritualistic seances, but most agnostics have not yet seen such proof, so they do not believe in heaven.

By 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 trouble. As I see, quite a large part of humanity does not believe in God and at the same time is not subject to any punishment. And if God existed, 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 mercilessly exterminate each other. For the most part, they either become victims of other animals or slowly die of starvation. As for me, I do not see any special beauty or harmony in the tapeworm. And don’t say that this creature was sent to us as punishment for our sins, because it is much more common among animals than among people. I believe that the person who asked me this question was rather referring to the beauty of the starry sky. But we must remember that stars explode from time to time, turning everything that surrounds them into an unsteady haze. Beauty, in any case, is subjective and exists only in the imagination of the beholder.

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

Agnostics do not recognize “miracles” if this means something contrary to the laws of nature. We know that healing through faith does happen from time to time, and it is by no means miraculous. In Lourdes, some diseases can be healed, but 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 any religion has enough such legends. Homer has as many miraculous proofs of the existence of the Greek gods as there is evidence of the existence of the Christian God in the Bible.

Religion opposes base and cruel passions. If we abandon religious principles, will humanity be able to exist?

The existence of base and cruel passions cannot be denied, but I cannot find evidence 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 far more common in Christendom than anywhere else. It is unconditional, dogmatic faith that justifies persecution. Kindness and tolerance grow in proportion only when this unconditional faith declines. Nowadays, a new dogmatic religion has emerged, namely communism. The agnostic opposes it, as he does against any system of dogma. The oppressive character of modern communism exactly resembles the oppressive character of Christianity in previous centuries. The fact that Christianity has weakened persecution is mainly due to free-thinking people who made dogmatists less dogmatic. If they had remained as dogmatic as before, it would still have been considered right to burn heretics at the stake. The spirit of tolerance, which some modern Christians consider to be uniquely Christian, is in fact the result of a character that allows doubts and is suspicious of assurances. It seems to me that anyone who takes an impartial look at the past centuries will come to the conclusion that religion has caused 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 “meaning of life”? I believe that some common goal is implied. It doesn't seem to me that life in general has any purpose. It just happens. But each individual person has his own goal, and there is nothing in agnosticism that would force people to abandon these goals. Of course, they cannot say with certainty that they achieved the results they sought; but you would have a bad opinion of a soldier who would refuse to fight unless he was 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 to do something, although he admits the possibility of defeat.

Doesn't 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 believe that marriage and chastity contribute to the earthly joys of existence, or that, by causing suffering here on earth, they open the way to heaven? Anyone who holds the second point of view will no doubt consider that agnosticism leads to the desecration of so-called virtue, but he will have to admit that so-called virtue does not contribute to the happiness of mankind in earthly life. If, on the contrary, he takes the first 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. Agnostics, as such, have no definite views on sexual morality. But most of them recognize that there are compelling arguments against unbridled sexual indulgence. However, these arguments are in their view of a secular nature, and do not stem from any divine commandments.

Isn't believing only in thinking a dangerous credo? Doesn't the absence of spiritual and moral law make thinking imperfect and inferior?

No intelligent person, agnostic or not, believes in “mere thinking.” Thinking is associated with the facts of reality, some of which are obtained through observation, and some through logical inference. 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. To an agnostic, these goals are dictated by his own heart, and not by commands from above. Let's take this example: suppose you decide to take a train from New York to Chicago; you will use the logic of your mind to figure out when this train leaves. A person who imagines that he can do without a schedule, relying on some 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 deems necessary to pursue, and these, both for the agnostic and for anyone else, do not belong to the realm of reason, although in no 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 existing religions do you respect the most, 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 clearly 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 there.

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

Communism is not against religion. He speaks only against Christianity, such as Mohammedanism. Communism, at least in the form proclaimed by the Soviet government and Communist Party, - This new system dogmas of a particularly dangerous and cruel kind. Therefore, every true agnostic must oppose it.

Do agnostics think science and religion are incompatible?

The answer depends on what is meant by “religion.” If we mean only a system of moral norms, then it is compatible with science. If we mean a system of dogmas that is considered incontestably 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 would predict everything that would happen to me in the next 24 hours, including events that would seem unlikely to me, and if all these predictions came true, perhaps I would be convinced, at least to the extent that there is something higher intelligence. I could name some other proof of this kind, but, as far as I know, such a proof does not exist.
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 a man who was intended by his father to become a rationalist. He was as much a rationalist as I am now, but he died when I was three years old, and the Lord Chancellor's Court decided that I should share in the benefits of a Christian education.

I think maybe the judges might have regretted it since then. It didn't turn out at all the way they hoped. It would perhaps be rather sad if Christian education were destined to disappear, because then there would be no one left to educate rationalists.

They appear as a reaction to an educational system which considers it quite natural that a father may order his son to be brought up, say, in the spirit of the Muggletonian sect, or in the spirit of some other nonsense, but he should not in any case be brought up as a rational thinker. In my younger days this was considered a crime.

Bishops and sin

Since I became a rationalist, I have discovered that there is still ample scope for the practical application of rationalist views in the world, not only in matters of geology, but also in such problems as divorce and birth control, as well as in the question of artificial insemination , which has arisen quite recently, in all those matters where the bishops tell us that something is a mortal sin, but it is a mortal sin only because there is some text about it in the Bible. It is a mortal sin not because it harms someone, that is not the point. As long as people continue to argue 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 convinced of this, there will be a great need for application of rationalism in practice. As you know, I got into serious trouble in the United States simply 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 something different from what the Bible says. On this basis, the court has decided that I am unfit to teach in universities in the United States, so I have some utilitarian reasons for preferring rationalism to other views.

Don't be too confident!

The question of defining rationalism is not at all easy. I don’t think it can be defined by the denial 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 at the same time accept certain dogmas. The question is how you arrive at a certain opinion, not what its content is. The main thing we are convinced of is the superiority of reason. If reason leads you to generally accepted conclusions, great, you're still a rationalist. In my opinion, the main thing is that 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 question that often worries me. Every time I go to another state, or to prison, or some other similar place, 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 faced it as well. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to an audience of all philosophers, I would have to describe myself as an agnostic, because I don't think there are any arguments that can be used to prove that God doesn't exist.

On the other hand, if I were to give the right impression to the average man on the street, I would be forced to say that I am an atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that God does not exist, I must add that I equally cannot I can prove that Homeric gods do not exist.

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 the rest of the gods do not exist, you would consider it a hellish task. You simply could not construct such a proof.

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

Skepticism

There is the same degree of probability and possibility of the existence of a Christian god as there is for 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. Therefore, I believe that in those documents that are offered to me in these cases, it would be more correct to write “atheist,” although this is a very complex problem and I sometimes say this and sometimes that way, without following any clear principle. When one admits that nothing is certain, then, I think, one must also admit that some things are more probable than others. That we are gathered here this evening 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 may fall into absolute skepticism, and such skepticism would be completely sterile 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 in cases of persecution. If it comes to the point where a person can be burned at the stake for disbelief, it is worth remembering that in the end he may turn out to be right, and it is not worth pursuing 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 could be wrong. Therefore, it seems to me that our goal should not be complete skepticism, but the doctrine of degrees of probability.

Overall, I believe that teaching like this is what the world really needs. The world is full of new dogmas. Old dogmas may die, but new dogmas arise, and in general, I believe that the harm of a dogma is in direct proportion to its newness. The new dogmas are much worse than the old ones.

Agnosticism arose at the end of the 19th century as an antithesis to the ideas of metaphysical philosophy, which was actively engaged in the study of the world through the subjective understanding 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 a kind of secular scale of moral behavior in society, from the mystical (questions of the existence of gods, demons, 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 coined by the English zoologist, Professor Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, when the Metaphysical Society invited Huxley to become a participant in 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 thinking man“I came to the conclusion that none of these names suits me, except the last one.” By his definition, agnostic- this is a person who does not deny the existence of gods, but also 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, because he is convinced that the primary beginning of things is unknown, since it cannot be known - either this moment development, or in general. Term applied to the teachings of Herbert Spencer, William Hamilton (English)Russian, George Berkeley, David Hume, etc.

P. A. Kropotkin gives his version of the origin of this term: “The word “agnostics” was first introduced into use by a small group of non-believing writers who gathered with the publisher of the magazine “Nineteenth Century” James Knowles, who preferred the name “agnostics,” that is, those who deny gnosis, the name of atheists.”

Agnosticism can be found already in ancient philosophy, in particular, in the sophist Protagoras, who asserted 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, like Protagoras, lived in the 5th century BC, expressed an agnostic point of view on the existence of any life after death. There is a hymn in the Rigveda called Nasadya Sukta. (English)Russian with an agnostic point of view on the question of the origin of the world.

Attitude to religions

An agnostic considers it impossible to know the truth in matters of the existence of gods, eternal life and other supernatural beings, concepts and phenomena, but does not fundamentally exclude the possibility of the existence of divine essences, as well as the possibility of their absence. Only the possibility of proving the truth or falsity of such statements in a rational way is rejected. Therefore, an agnostic can believe in God, but cannot be an adherent of dogmatic religions (like Christianity, Judaism, Islam), since the dogmatism of these religions contradicts the agnostic’s belief about unknowability world - an agnostic, if he believes in God, it is only within the framework of the assumption of the possibility of his existence, knowing that he may be mistaken, since he considers the arguments given in favor of the existence or non-existence of God to be unconvincing and insufficient to come to an unambiguous conclusion on their basis.

At the same time, some religions initially do not have a doctrine of a personified God (Buddhism and Taoism), which eliminates the main conflict between religion and agnosticism.

There are also Ignostics - they cannot say whether they are atheists or theists until the questioner gives a definition of “god/gods” and, depending on this definition, they decide whether to believe in such a god or not.

Agnosticism in the history of philosophy

In philosophy, agnosticism is not called an independent concept, but a general skeptical position in knowledge: both doubt about the adequacy of the methods available to humans, and epistemological pessimism regarding objective reality in general. Such views were formulated in various forms in a variety of philosophical schools. For example, Kant’s subjective idealism considers knowledge of objective entities to be fundamentally impossible for the subjective mind, and positivism asserts the meaninglessness of asking questions that go beyond the limits of what is accessible to empirical verification.

For the first time, the agnostic tendency was voiced by the Greek sophists: Protagoras taught that “everything is as it seems to us” (in the spirit of epistemological relativism), and Gorgias formulated a kind of manifesto of agnosticism: “Nothing exists; but even if something exists, it is unknowable; but even if it is knowable, it is inexplicable for another.”

Empirical philosophers pointed out that the experience we acquire introduces us only to sensations, and not to the things themselves. D. Hume therefore concluded that we cannot know not only how much subjective perception corresponds to objective reality, but even whether it exists at all outside of our sensations. I. Kant, in his Critical Philosophy, postulated the existence of objective “things-in-themselves” (essences, noumena), the real sources of our sensations, but considered the only form of knowledge to be subjective sensory experience, and therefore concluded that knowledge is fundamentally limited by the structure of the cognitive capabilities of the subject himself: we cannot cognize a real object, but only how it appears in human experience - a phenomenon (“thing-for-us”, phenomenon).

Agnosticism ignores the fundamental imperative for philosophy to search for a universal objective basis, and therefore is subject to constant criticism both from the positions of religious philosophy and from the positions of materialism, which see such a basis in God and in matter, respectively. Thus, Leo Tolstoy wrote: “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.” And V.I. Lenin, discussing the opposition of materialism and idealism, on the contrary, reproached agnosticism for intellectual indecisiveness and reactionaryness: “Agnosticism is an oscillation between materialism and idealism, that is, in practice, an oscillation between materialistic science and clericalism.” Agnostics include supporters of Kant (Kantians), Hume (positivists, realists, etc.) and modern “Machists.” In Dialectical Materialism, the epistemological basis of agnosticism was the absolutization of relativity, and its historical prerequisite was the conflict of religious and scientific worldviews, the desire to avoid this alternative, or an attempt to synthesize them.

Famous agnostics

see also

Write a review about the article "Agnosticism"

Notes

1. / Edited by A. A. Ivin. - M.: Gardariki, 2004.
2. Berdyaev N. A.// = Berdyaev N. Philosophy of the free spirit. Problems and apologia of Christianity. Part 1-2. - Paris: YMCA-Press, 1927-1928. - M.: Republic, 1994. - 480 p. - 25,000 copies.
3. Vyshegorodtseva Olga.(Russian) . Retrieved August 1, 2011. .
4. Huxley T.// . - L.: Macmillan & Co, 1909.
5. Ethics. T. 1. M.: 1921
6. . - “If you ask me if there exists another world (after death), ... I don"t think so. I don"t think in that way. I don"t think otherwise. I don"t think not. I don't think not." .
7. Bhaskar (1972).
8. Lloyd Ridgeon.. - Taylor & Francis. - P. 63–. - ISBN 978-0-203-42313-4.
9. , The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Protagoras (c. 490 – c. 420 BCE), . Retrieved July 22, 2013.
10. Patri, Umesh and Prativa Devi.. Atheist Center 1940–1990 Golden Jubilee (February 1990). Retrieved June 29, 2014. .
11. Trevor Treharne.. - Universal-Publishers, 2012. - P. 34 ff.. - ISBN 978-1-61233-118-8.
12. Helmut Schwab.. - iUniverse. - P. 77 ff.. - ISBN 978-1-4759-6026-6.
13. // Tolstoy L. N. Complete collection essays. T. 53.
14. Lenin Vladimir Ilyich.// Full collection op. - T. 23. - P. 118.
16. Bertrand Russell, " Who is an agnostic?»
18. "Robert Anton Wilson." Contemporary Authors Online, Gale, 2007. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Thomson Gale. 2007
19. Stephen Jay Gould. (English) Natural History, 1997, 106 (March): 16-22, 61.
20. “I am agnostic towards God.” In a letter to M. Berkowitz, 10/25/1950. Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.
23. Faces of the New Atheism: The Scribe, by Nicholas Thompson, Wired Magazine, Issue 14.11, November 2006.

Literature

• Robert T. Carroll. Agnosticism // Encyclopedia of Delusions: a collection of incredible facts, amazing discoveries and dangerous beliefs = The Skeptic’s Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. - M.: Dialectics, 2005. - P. 13. - ISBN 5-8459-0830-2.

Links

• Bertrand Russell.
• Bertrand Russell.

Criticism of religion Similar currents Criticism Works Society: conflicts Society: progress Society: movement

A passage characterizing Agnosticism

Five days later, the young Prince Nikolai Andreich was baptized. The mother held the diapers with her chin while the priest smeared the boy’s wrinkled red palms and steps with a goose feather.
The godfather grandfather, afraid to drop him, shuddering, carried the baby around the dented tin font and handed him over to his godmother, Princess Marya. Prince Andrei, frozen with fear that the child would not be drowned, sat in another room, waiting for the end of the sacrament. He looked joyfully at the child when the nanny carried him out to him, and nodded his head approvingly when the nanny told him that a piece of wax with hairs thrown into the font did not sink, but floated along the font.

Rostov's participation in Dolokhov's duel with Bezukhov was hushed up through the efforts of the old count, and Rostov, instead of being demoted, as he expected, was appointed adjutant to the Moscow governor general. As a result, he could not go to the village with his entire family, but remained in his new position all summer in Moscow. Dolokhov recovered, and Rostov became especially friendly with him during this time of his recovery. Dolokhov lay sick with his mother, who loved him passionately and tenderly. The old woman Marya Ivanovna, who fell in love with Rostov for his friendship with Fedya, often told him about her son.
“Yes, Count, he is too noble and pure of soul,” she used to say, “for our current, corrupted world.” Nobody likes virtue, it hurts everyone's eyes. Well, tell me, Count, is this fair, is this fair on Bezukhov’s part? And Fedya, in his nobility, loved him, and now he never says anything bad about him. In St. Petersburg, these pranks with the police officer were something they joked about, because they did it together? Well, Bezukhov had nothing, but Fedya bore everything on his shoulders! After all, what did he endure! Suppose they returned it, but how could they not return it? I think there weren’t many brave men and sons of the fatherland like him there. Well now - this duel! Do these people have a sense of honor? Knowing that he is the only son, challenge him to a duel and shoot so straight! It's good that God had mercy on us. And for what? Well, who doesn’t have intrigue these days? Well, if he is so jealous? I understand, because he could have made me feel it before, otherwise it went on for a year. And so, he challenged him to a duel, believing that Fedya would not fight because he owed him. What baseness! That's disgusting! I know you understood Fedya, my dear count, that’s why I love you with my soul, believe me. Few people understand him. This is such a high, heavenly soul!
Dolokhov himself often, during his recovery, spoke to Rostov such words that could not have been expected from him. “They consider me an evil person, I know,” he used to say, “so be it.” I don’t want to know anyone except those I love; but whom I love, I love him so much that I will give my life, and I will crush the rest if they stand on the road. I have an adored, unappreciated mother, two or three friends, including you, and I pay attention to the rest only as much as they are useful or harmful. And almost everyone is harmful, especially women. Yes, my soul,” he continued, “I have met loving, noble, sublime men; but I haven’t met women yet, except for corrupt creatures - countesses or cooks, it doesn’t matter. I have not yet encountered that heavenly purity and devotion that I look for in a woman. If I found such a woman, I would give my life for her. And these!...” He made a contemptuous gesture. “And do you believe me, if I still value life, then I value it only because I still hope to meet such a heavenly being who would revive, purify and exalt me.” But you don't understand this.
“No, I understand very much,” answered Rostov, who was under the influence of his new friend.

In the fall, the Rostov family returned to Moscow. At the beginning of winter, Denisov also returned and stayed with the Rostovs. This first time of the winter of 1806, spent by Nikolai Rostov in Moscow, was one of the happiest and most cheerful for him and for his entire family. Nikolai brought many young people with him to his parents’ house. Vera was twenty years old, a beautiful girl; Sonya is a sixteen-year-old girl in all the beauty of a newly blossoming flower; Natasha is half a young lady, half a girl, sometimes childishly funny, sometimes girlishly charming.
In the Rostov house at that time there was some kind of special atmosphere of love, as happens in a house where there are very nice and very young girls. Every young man who came to the Rostovs’ house, looking at these young, receptive, smiling girlish faces for something (probably at their happiness), at this animated running around, listening to this inconsistent, but affectionate to everyone, ready for anything, hope-filled babble of a woman The youth, listening to these inconsistent sounds, now singing, now music, experienced the same feeling of readiness for love and expectation of happiness, which the youth of the Rostov house themselves experienced.
Among the young people introduced by Rostov, one of the first was Dolokhov, who was liked by everyone in the house, with the exception of Natasha. She almost quarreled with her brother over Dolokhov. She insisted that he was an evil person, that in the duel with Bezukhov Pierre was right, and Dolokhov was to blame, that he was unpleasant and unnatural.
“I don’t understand anything,” Natasha shouted with stubborn willfulness, “he’s angry and without feelings.” Well, I love your Denisov, he was a carouser and that’s all, but I still love him, so I understand. I don’t know how to tell you; He has everything planned, and I don’t like it. Denisova...
“Well, Denisov is a different matter,” answered Nikolai, making him feel that in comparison with Dolokhov, even Denisov was nothing, “you need to understand what kind of soul this Dolokhov has, you need to see him with his mother, this is such a heart!”
“I don’t know this, but I feel awkward with him.” And do you know that he fell in love with Sonya?
- What nonsense...
- I'm sure you'll see. – Natasha’s prediction came true. Dolokhov, who did not like the company of ladies, began to visit the house often, and the question of who he was traveling for was soon (although no one spoke about it) was resolved so that he was traveling for Sonya. And Sonya, although she would never have dared to say this, knew this and every time, like a redneck, she blushed when Dolokhov appeared.
Dolokhov often dined with the Rostovs, never missed a performance where they were present, and attended adolescentes [teenagers] balls at Yogel’s, where the Rostovs always attended. He paid preferential attention to Sonya and looked at her with such eyes that not only she could not stand this look without blushing, but also the old countess and Natasha blushed when they noticed this look.
It was clear that this strong, strange man was under the irresistible influence exerted on him by this dark, graceful, loving girl.
Rostov noticed something new between Dolokhov and Sonya; but he did not define to himself what kind of new relationship this was. “They are all in love with someone there,” he thought about Sonya and Natasha. But he was not as comfortable with Sonya and Dolokhov as before, and he began to be at home less often.
Since the autumn of 1806, everything again started talking about the war with Napoleon even more fervently than last year. Not only were recruits appointed, but also 9 more warriors out of a thousand. Everywhere they cursed Bonaparte with anathema, and in Moscow there was only talk about the upcoming war. For the Rostov family, the whole interest of these preparations for war lay only in the fact that Nikolushka would never agree to stay in Moscow and was only waiting for the end of Denisov’s leave in order to go with him to the regiment after the holidays. The upcoming departure not only did not prevent him from having fun, but also encouraged him to do so. He spent most of his time outside the house, at dinners, evenings and balls.

XI
On the third day of Christmas, Nikolai had dinner at home, which Lately rarely happened to him. It was officially a farewell dinner, since he and Denisov were leaving for the regiment after Epiphany. About twenty people were having lunch, including Dolokhov and Denisov.
Never in the Rostov house did the air of love, the atmosphere of love, make itself felt with such force as on these holidays. “Catch moments of happiness, force yourself to love, fall in love yourself! Only this one thing is real in the world - the rest is all nonsense. And that’s all we’re doing here,” said the atmosphere. Nikolai, as always, having tortured two pairs of horses and not having had time to visit all the places where he needed to be and where he was called, arrived home just before lunch. As soon as he entered, he noticed and felt the tense, loving atmosphere in the house, but he also noticed a strange confusion reigning between some of the members of the society. Sonya, Dolokhov, the old countess and a little Natasha were especially excited. Nikolai realized that something was going to happen before dinner between Sonya and Dolokhov, and with his characteristic sensitivity of heart he was very gentle and careful during dinner in dealing with both of them. On the same evening of the third day of the holidays there was to be one of those balls at Yogel (the dance teacher), which he gave on holidays for all his students and female students.
- Nikolenka, will you go to Yogel? Please go,” Natasha told him, “he especially asked you, and Vasily Dmitrich (it was Denisov) is going.”
“Wherever I go on the orders of Mr. Athena!” said Denisov, who jokingly placed himself in the Rostov house on the foot of the knight Natasha, “pas de chale [dance with a shawl] is ready to dance.”
- If I have time! “I promised the Arkharovs, it’s their evening,” Nikolai said.
“And you?...” he turned to Dolokhov. And just now I asked this, I noticed that this shouldn’t have been asked.
“Yes, maybe...” Dolokhov answered coldly and angrily, looking at Sonya and, frowning, with exactly the same look as he looked at Pierre at the club dinner, he looked again at Nikolai.
“There is something,” thought Nikolai, and this assumption was further confirmed by the fact that Dolokhov left immediately after dinner. He called Natasha and asked what was it?
“I was looking for you,” Natasha said, running out to him. “I told you, you still didn’t want to believe,” she said triumphantly, “he proposed to Sonya.”
No matter how little Nikolai did with Sonya during this time, something seemed to come off in him when he heard this. Dolokhov was a decent and in some respects a brilliant match for the dowry-free orphan Sonya. From the point of view of the old countess and the world, it was impossible to refuse him. And therefore Nikolai’s first feeling when he heard this was anger against Sonya. He was preparing to say: “And great, of course, we must forget our childhood promises and accept the offer”; but he didn’t have time to say it yet...
– You can imagine! She refused, completely refused! – Natasha spoke. “She said she loves someone else,” she added after a short silence.
“Yes, my Sonya could not have done otherwise!” thought Nikolai.
“No matter how much my mother asked her, she refused, and I know she won’t change what she said...
- And mom asked her! – Nikolai said reproachfully.
“Yes,” said Natasha. - You know, Nikolenka, don’t be angry; but I know that you will not marry her. I know, God knows why, I know for sure, you won’t get married.
“Well, you don’t know that,” said Nikolai; – but I need to talk to her. What a beauty this Sonya is! – he added smiling.
- This is so lovely! I'll send it to you. - And Natasha, kissing her brother, ran away.
A minute later Sonya came in, frightened, confused and guilty. Nikolai approached her and kissed her hand. This was the first time on this visit that they spoke face to face and about their love.
“Sophie,” he said timidly at first, and then more and more boldly, “if you want to refuse not only a brilliant, profitable match; but he is a wonderful, noble man... he is my friend...
Sonya interrupted him.
“I already refused,” she said hastily.
- If you refuse for me, then I’m afraid that on me...
Sonya interrupted him again. She looked at him with pleading, frightened eyes.
“Nicolas, don’t tell me that,” she said.
- No, I have to. Maybe this is suffisance [arrogance] on my part, but it’s better to say. If you refuse for me, then I must tell you the whole truth. I love you, I think, more than anyone...
“That’s enough for me,” Sonya said, flushing.
- No, but I have fallen in love a thousand times and will continue to fall in love, although I do not have such a feeling of friendship, trust, love for anyone as for you. Then I'm young. Maman doesn't want this. Well, it's just that I don't promise anything. And I ask you to think about Dolokhov’s proposal,” he said, having difficulty pronouncing his friend’s last name.
- Don't tell me that. I do not want anything. I love you like a brother, and will always love you, and I don’t need anything more.
“You are an angel, I am not worthy of you, but I am only afraid of deceiving you.” – Nikolai kissed her hand again.

Yogel had the most fun balls in Moscow. This was what the mothers said, looking at their adolescentes [girls] performing their newly learned steps; this was said by the adolescentes and adolescents themselves, [girls and boys] who danced until they dropped; these grown-up girls and young men who came to these balls with the idea of ​​condescending to them and finding the best fun in them. In the same year, two marriages took place at these balls. The two pretty princesses of the Gorchakovs found suitors and got married, and even more so they launched these balls into glory. What was special about these balls was that there was no host and hostess: there was the good-natured Yogel, like flying feathers, shuffling around according to the rules of art, who accepted tickets for lessons from all his guests; was that only those who wanted to dance and have fun, like 13 and 14 year olds want to, still went to these balls summer girls putting on long dresses for the first time. Everyone, with rare exceptions, was or seemed pretty: they all smiled so enthusiastically and their eyes lit up so much. Sometimes even the best students danced pas de chale, of whom the best was Natasha, distinguished by her grace; but at this last ball only ecosaises, anglaises and the mazurka, which was just coming into fashion, were danced. The hall was taken by Yogel to Bezukhov’s house, and the ball was a great success, as everyone said. There were a lot of pretty girls, and the Rostov ladies were among the best. They were both especially happy and cheerful. That evening, Sonya, proud of Dolokhov’s proposal, her refusal and explanation with Nikolai, was still spinning at home, not allowing the girl to finish her braids, and now she was glowing through and through with impetuous joy.

In the history of mankind, certain philosophical teachings and various religions have constantly appeared and disappeared. Often a person simply selects what is easier for him to live with, which better reflects his cultural, material values ​​and carnal desires.

Today it has become very fashionable to call oneself an agnostic. At the same time, people who consider themselves agnostics often even vaguely understand what the meaning of this philosophical teaching is. So many argue that agnostics are people who do not believe in God, but believe in the existence of a higher intelligence or some kind of higher power, or something like that. Therefore, let's try to figure out what agnosticism is.

The word agnosticism itself comes from the Greek ἄγνωστο - unknowable, unknown, inaccessible to knowledge. The main idea of ​​this philosophical doctrine is that real knowledge of the surrounding reality is impossible on the basis of one’s own experience, since experience is subjective. Based on this, agnosticism questions the possibility of proving or disproving truth in some areas of knowledge, especially those related to theoretical research, such as metaphysics and theology, since the subject is not able to comprehend the essence of an object, which is a “thing in itself.”

Although many people contrast agnosticism with religiosity, nevertheless, there is a movement of Christians - agnostics, who take from Christian teaching the moral, cultural and ethical components of faith, but at the same time deny the mystical aspects of this faith, such as hell, afterlife, the existence of demons.

But while denying all these points, they do not claim that God and everything connected with him do not exist; it’s just that humanity, and in particular agnostics, do not have serious evidence for this, both the existence of God and his non-existence. At the same time, they are ready to believe in the existence of all these divine theories as soon as reliable evidence of their reality appears.

The term “agnostic” was introduced by Professor Thomas Henry Huxley in 1876, who meant that an agnostic is a person who is convinced that it is impossible to prove the primary beginning of things, since it is unknown and cannot be known by definition.

As a philosophical direction, agnosticism is not a full-fledged philosophical doctrine. It can be included in almost any direction of philosophy, as well as any religious teaching that does not set as its goal the knowledge of absolute truth.

The most acceptable religion for agnostics is Buddhism, since this religious movement is quite peaceful and tolerant of other worldviews.

Agnosticism is a critical attitude towards the essence of knowledge, which determines the boundaries and reality of this knowledge.

In conclusion, I would like to say that it is also not worth attributing agnosticism to materialism, especially to dialectical one.
As for idealism, this teaching does not deny the possibility of its existence; today there is simply no evidence of the primacy of consciousness.

An agnostic is a person who lives based on his moral and ethical values ​​and believes in what he has evidence for.

Who are agnostics, and what views on life do they adhere to? Not everyone can answer this question today, although the word “agnostic” itself is used by many.

The emergence of the term "agnostic"

The term "agnostic" originally appeared in the late nineteenth century and implied a belief system about religion that was different from the position of the established church. If in the church presentation the essence of things was defined, but not substantiated, then agnostics were not going to take the unproven basis “on faith” and left the question of the origin of life and the existence of God open, assuming that someday humanity would be able to answer it.

The term was first used by the British Darwinian scientist Thomas Henry Huxley in 1876. Today, an agnostic is a person who denies all types of existing religions and creeds, but does not reject the very essence of the divine concept. Agnostics try to understand the essence of things based on the presence of objective evidence of the existence of a single creative principle of all surrounding life. They accept only evidence obtained through direct perception of the essence of things and their creation, not excluding the use of meditative techniques and practices, using descriptions of the experience of knowing the source of life by people who have achieved “enlightenment”, and also, often, leave the question of the presence of the creator of all things open, without denying its relevance.

How do atheists differ from agnostics?

Atheists are people who adhere to the concept of materialism. Materialism is a type of faith, because the concept is as unproven as the existence of God in a religious interpretation. The share of atheists in the world space does not exceed 10 percent.

Agnostics are fundamentally different people. Their concepts go beyond mere faith. When the agnostic does not receive convincing evidence, he leaves the question open. The number of agnostics in the world is steadily growing, gaining their supporters from among those who are disillusioned with the tenets of the official religion.

There are two main directions in agnosticism - theological and scientific. The first direction adheres to the belief that if mysticism is separated from the religious interpretation, then what remains is a concept of cultural and moral values ​​acceptable for human life. These values ​​are accepted by the current of theological agnosticism as the basis of existence and moral behavior. Thus, agnostic Christians left the mysticism inherent in Christianity, but left its morality as the basis of behavior.

Scientific agnosticism is fundamentally based on the concept that any knowledge of the essence of the creation of the world is not accurate, since it is distorted by human consciousness. Agnostics of this direction are convinced that as long as consciousness exists as an element of cognition and thought, the objective picture cannot be perceived. The direction does not deny that the possibility of knowledge may appear in the future.