In the first case, it only really makes sense to conjoin the two clauses with “but,” because they are epistemologically distinct–belief is dependent on a certain lack of knowledge, while knowledge simply is knowledge. In the case of gnosticism, the epistemological distinction obviously still prevails, but neither a contrastive or comparative preposition really works to conjoin the two clauses. What does it mean to both know something AND or IN DESPITE OF THAT believe that same something? Gnosticism has nothing to do with theism or atheism, which as matters of belief are inescapably agnostic because as beliefs they admit a certain lack of knowledge.

Thanks for commenting on my blog post regarding my friend’s claim to agnosticism. Your explanation here of agnosticism helps me a lot.

I don’t think that I would call Dawkins’ claim to gnostic atheism irrational. If one looks at different cultures all over the world, the god(s) that they invent are very different from one another unless two cultures have interacted. It is evident, then, that belief in a god is simply an element of culture and is not grounded in any factual basis. Since all the gods can’t be the right one, it is likely that none of them are. We know that there are lots of proposed gods and we know that they are invented by the cultures that worship them. Thus, I think one can logically claim to know that no gods really exist. I think the worry we experience when saying that we know God with a capital G doesn’t exist is because he is the god of our culture.

I think it would be rational to say your were a gnostic atheist about all gods in general (as in they can’t all exist together), but in respect to each individual God, there is no way of knowing for sure.

To understand this, or at least to understand why Dawkins doesn’t think he’s silly, you have to understand the concept of limits as taught in Calculus. If gnostic Theism is the infinite belief in god (100% to an infinite number of decimal places) and gnostic a-theism is infinite belief in no-god, then agnostic belief/disbelief can approach this limit so closely that the difference seems non-existent. In a rational world, one can only approach the limit, not achieve it, however. Infinity is a limit, not a quantity.

Were a being to appear, and satisfactorily prove once and for all that it is God, the scientific method would demand that atheists admit that they are wrong. Guess what my opinion of the odds are of this happening?

To put this another way, there is a limit to my suspension of disbelief, and the godstruck minions and clerics alike have exceeded that limit, proving to my satisfaction that they are irrational.

Right…and that makes more sense how? My statement was that the modern usage of the word “agnostic” is often misinterpreted / misused. I’d find it hard to start redefining the word “agnostic” in it’s proper form without actually mentioning “agnostic” or “agnosticism” in the first place.

Your logic is either screwed or you didn’t read the article very well. The whole point of the article was to explain agnosticism (it’s actual meaning). If people don’t read the article with that knowledge in mind (and I thought the subtitle “Misconception” might hint towards that…) then they might be confused, hence why I made sure I set out my goals at the beginning.

Unrelated to this discussion, I don’t agree with your final statement either. Hacking (breaking into a computer system using security vulnerabilities) is very different from Cracking (breaking the software copy protection and/or gaining encrypted passwords). You don’t have to be a hacker to crack things, and vice versa.

I firmly believe that “agnostic” does refer to what it used to. You only need to read a dictionary to find that out! The problem occurs when people mistakenly claim to be “agnostic” when they are actually either agnostic atheists or agnostic theists. Just because there are a large number of people who have the concept wrong, doesn’t mean they are right. I think most people assume “agnostic” means being unsure of God, which is fine as long as they realise they are agnostic about the concept of God specifically.