Not meaning to start a conversation on Theology, Religion and Phlosophy but just an FYI.
For those who need the correct information. (IMHO After reading almost everything by Jung, Freud, Neitsche, Heidegger, Berkeley, Plato et al.... it really is the only philosophical tangent that is cohesive on all levels.)
It has NOTHING to do with souls or human actions. It is a school of thought first formerly brokered by Huxley. It is focused along the lines of not knowing or believing in Dieties(gods) or higher life forms(creator).
Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:
—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
- Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
—the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out."
—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[
citation needed]
—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, and do not believe in any.
[9] —the view of those who do not claim to
know of the existence of any deity, but still
believe in such an existence.
Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must
believe:
"If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." (
See Knowledge vs. Beliefs.)
—the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the
noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.
A.J. Ayer,
Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.
[10][
dubious – discuss]