Agnosticism

I know it's been a while since I've posted on this blog, but, life. That is not intended to

People often put agnosticism on a continuum between theism and atheism, but that really isn't where it belongs.

First, we can be 'agnostic' about several things; for example, in the technology industry people talk about something be 'device agnostic'. While I may disagree about what it means when something is 'device agnostic', I think we can all agree that the users of that particular phrase do not intend to imply that the something that is device agnostic doesn't know whether there is a device or not...and they certainly aren't implying that the device is unable to determine whether or not there is a god.

Second, to place agnosticism on a continuum between theism (there is a god) and atheism (there is not a god) misunderstands the term. This misunderstanding probably stems from the Hellenistic era (approximately 330 BC to 30 BC) mystery cults use of the term. Part of the misunderstanding probably also stems from the idea that the word comes from a •· gnosis (knowledge) - which would indicate that something is unknown. In this case then, while the denotation of the word is a lack of knowledge, the connotation is that one does not know whether or not there is a god.

Neither of these, however, prove the posit above - if proof is even possible. Let me, therefore, offer another explanation. Agnoticism comes from a •· gnostikos and is an adjective that describes not only something that is unknown but something that is unknowable; something outside of the realm of the intellectual and cognitive, just as something that is amoral is outside of the realm of morality and eternal is outside of the realm of time (in contrast to everlasting...which is another discussion).

How does this apply in the theistically-specialized sense? Certainly better than a •· gnosis - let me explain.

If we look at most languages, there are what I like to call companion words. We can, perhaps, see this in Greek more readily than most other languages. For example, we might look at rhema and logos - both can be translated as 'word', but that's an inadequate translation, for one is related to the spoken word and one is related to the written word. Likewise, if we look at gnosis, its companion is episteme - both can be translated as 'knowledge' but that's an inadequate translation, for one is related to experiential knowledge and one is related to theoretical knowledge. If we were to follow this line and attempt to relate it to god-knowledge on a continuum between theism and atheism, we would need to use the negation of episteme, not the negation of gnosis.

So, is being agnostic (in this theological sense), as the theists and atheists claim, simply yielding to superior arguments and figuratively throwing our hands in the air in despair? No, I do not believe so.

First, we readily admit that there are things that are unknowable (present quantum state is a good example). It appears that it does not matter which tools we apply or how much more research we do, some information simply cannot be known. The statement that a present quantum state is not knowable is not physicists the world over taking a middle road between those who say that we can know the present quantum state and those that say we cannot.

Second, if we are to speak in theological terms, it is more coherent to speak of something that is inherently unknowable. In fact, to speak of "god" as something knowable in any fashion seems nonsensical, for we define god, at the very least, as beyond nature (supernatural)...and often in terms of infinity, and it makes little difference if that infinitude is mathematical or simply logical.

Humanity is such a wondrous entrant to the cosmos that I would argue that little for us should be described as agnostic, and yet we readily accept that some things are - why would we resist the idea that whatever gods there may be are not as unknowable as the smallest particles we can see?