Talk:List of agnostics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Standards for this list[edit]

  • New entries must include a reference confirming that the added person is or was an agnostic. Entries without a reference will be deleted.
  • Do not delete referenced entries without justification. If a deletion is contested, discuss it on this Talk page.
  • Remember that references must come from reliable sources. Personal websites or blogs, religiously or ideologically partisan websites, or poorly researched online directories are often incorrect, and might not be citable according to Wikipedia's policies. Other Wikipedia articles may not be used as sources. Please provide as direct a reference as possible. Direct quotes from the person about their agnosticism are preferred.
  • Please include relevant information or brief quotes from the person about their agnosticism in the body of the entry. Please also indicate instances in which the person has potentially contradicted themselves about their agnosticism, or information about their other (ir)religious identifications, to put their agnosticism in context.
  • Please enclose the reference information, additional notes or lenghty quotes in ref tags (for example: <ref>write reference and notes here</ref>) immediately following the last punctuation mark in the entry. Information enclosed in the ref tags will appear in the References section of the article, near the end.
  • Please include the years of birth and death in parentheses after the person's name, for example: (1921-1978). If the person is still alive, include their birth year as follows: (b. 1935).
  • It is very important that you provide a brief title for all external links. For example, type this: [http://example.com brief title here] and not this: [http://example.com]. Otherwise, the footnote numbering is off.
  • Please keep this list of standards, and dicussion relating to them at the top of the discussion page. If a subpage is created, please prominently link it from the top of the current discussion page.

The above standards will help prevent the accumulation of spurious entries, and will help ensure that the information in this article is accurate and in compliance with Wikipedia's verifiability policies. Please do not hesitate to help maintain the quality of this article by quickly deleting entries that have no reference, or by providing a proper reference. Rohirok 19:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please verify these "Agnostics"[edit]

The list as of November 18, 2005 contains many unverified, and possibly unverifiable members. I will begin deleting those whom I cannot verify as agnostics. This list needs help! Please check the following, and if you can find a reliable citation that supports inclusion of any of the following, please include it in the article.

I have deleted all people in the article whose biography on Wikipedia does not confirm their alleged agnostic views. If any of the above are added back in, they must be accompanied by citations verifying their inclusion as agnostics.

I would've just put a verify tag on this, but I got annoyed that many of the lists I'd worked at seemed set to be deleted so I overreacted. I apologized there and I want to now apologize to those who worked on this here. If it gets deleted it is my fault, because I put it to the vote, and I take responsibility for that. (Not total responsibility because many to most votes against it are irrelevant or even in spite of me) Remind me of any undeletion votes for it if it's killed. Again sorry if I caused four years of work to be flushed down the drain.--T. Anthony 07:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Four years? I doubt whether the total amount of work put into this article to date amounts to forty minutes. And as for "flushing," virtually all of the valid information on this page... up until a day or so ago... was in Wikipedia elsewhere. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist or Agnostic?[edit]

  • I noticed that Einstein, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russel and Stephen Jay Gould are both in the agnostic and in the atheist list. I think they were atheists and should only be left in the atheist list, instead of agnostic list. If you see "notes and references" in the atheist lists, it seems they aren't agnostics, instead, atheists. —Preceding Ggg-131 comment added by 189.35.67.48 (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions for the list[edit]

I took the liberty of patterning List of agnostics after List of atheists. The introduction is lifted almost word for word from that article. I liked it, because it made clear the criteria for inclusion, and also pointed out the inherent limitations of categorization, which I believe makes the list more authoritative. Whether this list of agnostics is divided up later in a way similar to the list of atheists will depend on whether enough agnostics make it to the list to justify that. For now, putting them all together is fine.

List of agnostics is superior to list of atheists in one way, however, in that it has begun to include documentation to an extent unmatched by the other list. I suggest that we keep the list entries relatively brief (as they are in the list of atheists), mentioning or summarizing their activities or words as agnostics, and also pointing out their other (ir)religious views that put their agnosticism in context. Quotes are ok, as long as they are brief and to the point. Longer stuff, including citations and multiple quotes, ought to go in the footnote section, using the formatting described above. The entries ought to be easy to read, and including a lot of quotes and citations in the body of the list tends to clutter it up. Rohirok 05:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rooney talking with God[edit]

JJay believes it is an open question as to whether Andy Rooney was being ironic when he claimed to have talked directly with God (see this article). If Rooney was not being ironic, then the quote indicates that Rooney was not an agnostic at the time he claimed to have spoken with God. If Rooney was being ironic, then the quote is perhaps further confirmation of Rooney's agnosticism, since it would seem to indicate that he doubts that God actually speaks directly with people.

It seems obvious from reading the entire commentary that Rooney is making fun of Pat Robertson for claiming to have spoken directly with God. Do you really believe Rooney thinks God calls him "Andrew" instead of "Andy"? Do you really believe that Rooney thinks he's quoting God word for word in this commentary (which is how it's presented)? He's representing people who claim they've talked directly with God as "wackos" here, not claiming that he has actually talked with God. To say that Rooney was only "perhaps" speaking ironically here is like saying that any compliment that David Spade pays a celebrity is only "perhaps" sarcastic, or that Sarah Silverman was only "perhaps" lying for shock value and twisted humerous effect when she said that Joe Franklin raped her. Rooney is known for consistently employing irony, sarcasm and derision in his commentaries. His commentary about "speaking to God" is no exception. Rohirok 23:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. It is not credible that Andy Rooney seriously believes that God talked to him and said "Mel [Gibson] is a real nut case. What in the world was I thinking when I created him? Rooney is obviously attacking Mel Gibson and Pat Robertson by using what he sees as their own methods—pretending to speak for God—against them. In brief, Pat Robertson says "God told me Bush will win;" and Rooney plays the "God told me" card back by saying in effect "God told me that Robertson is a wacko."
I think one of two things should be done. Either
    • (My strong preference) Not mention Rooney's column in this list, because it is patently ironic and not germane to the question of whether Andy Rooney is a prominent agnostic, or
    • Expand the quotation in the footnote to give enough context to make it clear what he is doing so that the reader can properly judge whether it is irony.
To summarize Rooney's column by saying that Rooney "has claimed to have spoken directly with God" distorts him by what is essentially a quotation out of context.
I just tweaked the article. I include the extra context and let the reader judge irony. I also just noticed that the URL is a transcript of an on-the-air broadcast. I have to wonder whether the tone of voice and body language in the broadcast might have made the irony clearer. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your strong preference. Making fun of people who claim to talk with God, while it might be rooted in agnosticism, is not itself evidence of agnosticism. I'd say that the "talking to God" piece needn't be mentioned, since it indicates neither agnosticism nor belief in God. If Rooney had been using a serious tone and said either "I don't know if God exists" or "I believe in God," such comments would be relevant to his inclusion on this list. But he does neither in the commentary, so it is irrelevant. Rohirok 05:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No hint of a double standard there. It's OK for Rooney to make fun of other people's beliefs, but let's take his ideas regarding god real seriously. -- JJay 06:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Could you rephrase it or expand on it? What approach do you sincerely think is best regarding the "talking to God" commentary? What bearing does the commentary have on Rooney's real or purported agnosticism? Rohirok 06:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like JJay's saying that because Rooney mocks the beliefs of other people, Rooney's own beliefs are irrelevant. Or maybe that's not what he's saying. Even though it looks like that, to assume so would almost seem like assuming bad faith, because it would be so absurd (what alternative is there? mocking and not taking seriously Rooney's own beliefs to 'get back at him' for having an actual opinion about other beliefs?). -Silence 07:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier comments[edit]

Why is Mark Twain on this page and on the list of atheists? Danny 16:23 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

I'd say Isaac Asimov was an atheist, since he was a passionate believer in science and claimed there was no scientific basis for God.

Bertrand Russell was most certainly an atheist, not an agnostic.

Luckily (for tolerance sake) he was both Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic? MeltBanana 20:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why is Bill Gates on this page and on the list of atheists?


Asimov was definitely an atheist (he said so explicitly). Bertrand Russell was a philosophical agnostic and a practical atheist. It is perfectly possible to be both things, if one doesn't define atheism in the most strict sense as "complete denial of the existence of God". If you acknowledge you don't know, you're an agnostic; and if you (aditionally) don't believe, then you're also an atheist.

I'm one of the maintainers of the List of atheists and personally don't see a problem in repeating people here and there, as long as some notes are provided in borderline cases. --Pablo D. Flores 15:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mark Twain[edit]

Mark Twain is obviously a borderline case, but he's been called an agnostic often enough that I think he belongs as long as the problems are made clear, so I listed him. Personally I'd say he was clearly a deist and neither an agnostic nor an atheist. I phrased the description as saying that he showed "skepticism and irreverence toward organized religion's claims to know God's nature" because he clearly holds no brief for anything the Bible or organized religion has to say about God, but it not only is not clear that he thinks God is unknowable, many of his statements suggest that he believes he does know something about God's nature.

I say he's been labelled an atheist because I'm sure he has been... but I haven't found a good source for that yet. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about including someone who has not described himself as agnostic, or whom we cannot document as expressing a view that is clearly agnostic. Thomas Paine was labelled by many as an atheist, yet it is clear to anyone familiar with The Age of Reason that he was not an atheist in any sense. However, if contemporaries familiar with Twain's words and work, or close friends of his referred to him as an agnostic, this does seem to hold some weight. I would add also that deism is not necessarily incompatible with agnosticism. One might believe in a distant creator God, yet still maintain that he or his existence are inherently unknowable, which is an agnostic position. Rohirok 05:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The strongest case I have for inclusion at the moment is the William Dean Howells quotation, Howells being both a friend and a contemporary familiar with Twain's words.
BTW there is a quotation all over the Net with no source given, which I rather suspect of being bogus, attributed to Twain: "If there is a God, he is a malign thug." Don't let anyone put this in without citing a source. A trivial detail is that in all of the Net quotes, "he" is never capitalized whereas AFAIK Twain always capitalized "He" when referring to the deity. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I considered adding J. D. Beresford, but I'm not sure. Later in life he was a pantheist who believed in faith-healing, but for much of his career he was quite agnostic. At the end of The Hampdenshire Wonder it not only says the existence of God is unkown and unknowable, but it also it adds it should always be unknowable. That it's just generally better if we don't know. Although maybe that makes you something else instead.--T. Anthony 15:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you can confirm that he ever held agnostic views, it would be ok to include him, as long as you acknowledge his later views. What was written in The Hampdenshire Wonder is not confirmation, since it is a work of fiction. Rohirok 15:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion debate[edit]

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 21:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that whole silly thing makes me look pretty bad to you. It is maybe the biggest blunder I ever did and I will never repeat it. If I get annoyed enough to be tempted to do such a thing again I'll try to remember to walk away for awhile. That said it was a bad thing that maybe had some positive spin-offs. Efforts to verify names on this list seem to have improved some. It doesn't excuse my mistake, which will likely dog me for awhile as I even admit it on my main page, but maybe it slightly mitigates it.--T. Anthony 02:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize for god's sake. You made no mistake. Think how horrible the page was before. You did an enormous service by nominating this. -- JJay 03:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Relax. You are guilty of WP:POINT, guilty, guilty, guilty! but on the other hand you were just applying the policy of being bold.

My personal position is that Wikipedia contains many, many useless, dubious, subjective, inaccurate, badly maintained lists and that they should be deleted unless someone is really going to take charge of rebuilding them from scratch. The problem is that most lists post an implicit challenge--"what can I add?"--and the additions are not properly researched, sourced, and just consist of throwing in an item with no additional explanation. I simply do not agree with those that believe that all poor articles will automatically improve in quality over time. However, "list of agnostics" in its present state, and with interested editors keeping an eye on it, is OK.

I doubt that even the people who are angry with the very idea of deleting the list are unhappy with the actual outcome. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome was good. A tag to verify might have been better, though I doubt that I personally would have made such urgent efforts to verify the people on the list unless deletion had been a possibility. I think that List of atheists ought to be improved in a similar way. That is, there ought to be footnotes and links within the article that confirm the atheism of those listed. Rohirok 17:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've had some success—with List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder—in doing basically the same thing you did with the List of agnostics. Namely, write an introductory article paragraph stating the criteria for inclusion—including a requirement that the name be accompanied by a brief description that makes it clear why this person is on the list, and source citation or link to a Wikipedia article that confirms that description; then remove the entire list, paste it into the Talk page, and state that names should not be reinserted unless the criteria are met.
I have to say that List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder requires constant attention. Probably one or twice a week people simply add a name with no further comment. Or a name accompanied by a statement, with no citation, that "he has said so in interviews" or something of the sort. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on Andy Rooney, "As God told me"[edit]

Andy Rooney is a self-described agnostic (see article for quote and link). However, he broadcast a commentary entitled As God Told Me in which he says:

Pat Robertson isn't the only one who has heard from God.
I heard from God just the other night. God always seems to call at night.
"Andrew," God said to me. He always calls me "Andrew." I like that.

Some feel that Rooney is being ironic; he is attacking Pat Robertson by playing the "God told me" card back at him, showing that anyone can claim authority for their opinion by saying it's not their opinion, it's God's. Some feel that it represents a self-contradiction to Rooney's claim to agnosticism.

I think that If there's clear consensus that the article is patently ironic, we should remove the mention in the article as being irrelevant. If there isn't clear consensus, we should leave it in and let the reader judge.

So, let's see what people think.

It's irony[edit]

As God Told Me is ironic, and does not show that Andy Rooney actually believes in the existence of a personal God.

  1. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rohirok 19:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not irony[edit]

As God Told Me shows that Andy Rooney's beliefs are not simply agnostic, but are complex and either are inconsistent or have changed over time.

Other[edit]

  • I don’t have time to expand on this now. But the real question is how do we know that Andy Rooney was being sincere in Sincerely, Andy Rooney? Perhaps that book was written to burnish his image as a serious thinker, since many people largely view him as a cantankerous crank. Perhaps the letter, from which we quote, which begins with the statement: I am not always clear what I think about religion --- was written merely to annoy his mother (since she, I believe, was one of the addressees). Maybe Mr. Rooney is a hypocrite and attends mass every morning in disguise. Maybe he’s not. Shouldn’t we take the man at his word?

The only thing that allows us to question Mr. Rooney’s irony, is that we know, from his TV work, that he is frequently an ironic man. We have a pre-formed subjective opinion of Rooney and who he is. How do we know that Protagoras was not being ironic in On The Gods, particularly as his entire surviving oeuvre consists of two sentences handed down by later writers? Maybe the next sentence in On The Gods was: But I believe in them anyway with all my heart. We don’t know, yet Protagoras is on the list. All I’m asking for is a little critical detachment and nuance regarding our notable agnostics. Give a few lines or footnotes that explain context and conflicts and opposing viewpoints and apparent contradictions. If their agnosticism coexists with, or was influenced by, perhaps extremist views on religion or race, why seek to hide that? These are human beings, full of conflict and doubt, yet, for the most part, the list seems to have a systemic bias to presenting them as perfectly rational thinkers who arrived at their agnostic beliefs through sheer force of reason. I find that strange and a bit sad. -- JJay 20:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I.e. you're agnostic about Andy Rooney's agnosticism? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm agnostic that List of Agnostics has any desire to be anything more meaningful than List of supermodels.-- JJay 20:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other, I guess. I think it could be ironic and still indicate a belief in God. For example I think a person who believes in God could do a similar, "Well God talked to me and he told me he was just joking with you." People who believe in God can have a sense of humor. Although I think the sketch is more about his view of Pat Robertson then his view of God and therefore is irrelevant. And although I get along with JJay okay I think this has as much right to exist as any other list based on creed, ideology, or faith. I'm not sure there's a way to say this list must die yet other religion/creed lists must live. (In a reverse way that's why I did the bad faith nom. I didn't see why this list should live if lists on other beliefs must die) Anyway I really do intend to work on my paper today.--T. Anthony 02:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well I will add that if Rooney's statements of irony or uncertainty are just about religion he should probably be taken off. Irony or uncertainty about organized religion is not the same as agnosticism, in least I don't think so.--T. Anthony 02:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. There is at least one place where Rooney says in so many words that he's an agnostic. JJay has dug up another place where Rooney claims ironically to have talked to God. If he had claimed sincerely to have talked with God, that would cast doubt on whether he's really agnostic and would thus be worth mentioning in the article. If it's a joke, it's not worth mentioning and should be removed.
As nearly as I can tell, JJay is saying that this list is totally subjective, that you can dig up self-contradictory information on anyone in the list, and is using Rooney as an example. When I say Rooney is ironic when he says he's talking to God, JJay's riposte is that how do I know that he's being sincere when he says he's an agnostic?
But I think the vast majority of people would perceive Rooney's "agnosticism" statement as sincere and his "talked to God" statement as ironic. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has remained dormant for a while, and I'd like to revisit it and see if we can't come to some sort of agreement on this. Dpbsmith and I have agreed that the commentary is patently ironic, and therefore doesn't indicate anything about what Rooney believes about God (except that maybe God, if he exists, doesn't really talk directly with Pat Robertson).
T. Anthony has said that it could be ironic and indicate a belief in God. Could you explain how this is possible? It seems to me that someone could easily have expressed everything that Rooney said in his commentary and either believe in God or not, which means that the commentary alone can't indicate whether he's agnostic or not. As an agnostic, I can easily imagine composing something very similar to what Rooney said, and find that it was totally consistent with my belief that knowledge about the existence of God is impossible. Similarly, it seems easy to imagine (as you have indicated) someone who does believe in God (but who doubts that he talks directly with specific indiviuals) saying every word Rooney said in the commentary. Given that the commentary can be consistent with either position (agnostic or nonagnostic), how can it indicate anything that is pertinent to Rooney's inclusion on this list?

Could I explain how this is possible? Well many interpretations of anything is possible, explaining them all is a rather tough trick. I said it could be ironic and simultaneously indicate a belief in God. I don't think it necessarily does and in fact I think the whole thing is irrelevant either way. That said in theory one can argue Rooney's approach is more consistent with someone who believes in God, but doesn't believe God talks to Pat Robertson, then with an agnostic. It could be argued, not by me, that an agnostic would be more disposed to use some other approach to mock Robertson's statements then a make-believe conversation with a being they're not even sure exists. Even in ye olden days an Eastern Orthodox Christian would generally not mock, for example, the Pope by saying the souls in Purgatory told her the latest encyclicals are just all wrong. That said I don't really believe that, I'm just saying it's an implausible yet possible interpretation. In practice I think the whole sketch, bit, monologue, whatever is irrelevant. I think agnostics could easily do this bit and an Orthodoxer could do the Purgatory bit if so inclined, they could also easily not do it. It's essentially meaningless on the topic--T. Anthony 12:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So given that you consider that particular bit from Rooney irrelevant and meaningless on the topic of his agnosticism, would you say we're better off deleting a reference to it? Rohirok 16:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd agree we're better off deleting it. JJay seemed to indicate he had something better to throw doubt on Rooney's agnosticism. If he does we should use that item. If he doesn't we should still go without it.--T. Anthony 00:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
JJay didn't really take a position on this particular issue. For the most part, his criticism relates to the list as a whole, and not whether or not Rooney's commentary is patently ironic, and how its irony or lack thereof pertains to whether we ought to make mention of that commentary. He raises some issues that have to do with the value of the list itself and the appropriateness of Rooney's inclusion on this list, and also expresses a desire to include a lot more biographical details to put their agnosticism and the supposed rationality of their agnosticism into context. These are all issues we can address, but the focus of the current poll is on the tone of Rooney's commentary as it pertains to whether said commentary ought to be mentioned in the list. What is your position on whether Rooney's CBS commentary is ironic, JJay?
Finally, I'm curious as to what Dpbsmith means by "clear consensus." Does a simple majority of votes constitute a clear consensus? Do comments that do not say one way or the other whether Rooney's being ironic count as votes? By my reckoning, there are 2 votes for irony/delete, maybe 1/2 vote for irony/don't delete (since T. Anthony says that the commentary might indicate a belief in God, even if it's ironic), and one nonvote (JJay hasn't taken a position on the reputed irony of the commentary, but calls into question other things relating to the list and Rooney's inclusion). Ok, I already know what people are going to say about my reckoning: an argument could be made that the poll result thus far is 2 votes for delete, and 2 votes for not deleting, regardless of the irony-based justification that Dpbsmith and I advocate, so I'll just back off until a fifth person weighs in, or to see if maybe T. Anthony will reconsider, given my comments above. I would like to hear an explanation of how the commentary could be ironic and indicate belief in God. And if it's true that the commentary merely might indicate a belief in God, is it not also true that the commentary merely might indicate an agnostic stance on God's existence, in which case the commentary still doesn't help us decide one way or the other whether Rooney is an agnostic? And again, what is your position on whether Rooney's CBS commentary is ironic, JJay? Rohirok 03:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One dictionary defines consensus as: 1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole; 2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus. I'd add that to me, what consensus means is that while there might be a few people in the group who do not agree with a decision, they nevertheless consent to it and acknowledge it as the group's decision. Within Wikipedia, I'll give a sort of circular definition. If someone removes the reference to "As God Told Me" and JJay doesn't revert, that means that although he may not agree with the decision, he has consented to it and therefore there consensus existed. "Clear consensus" means "it seems clear that everyone either agrees with a particular course of action or consents to it." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More other Rooney Tunes[edit]

My current work load leaves me little time to participate in the discussion here. Obviously, I submitted the info regarding Mr. Rooney's conversations with God because it seemed relevant. Considering all the work that should be done on this list, I fail to see the urgency in removing valuable information. I also do not feel qualified to try and judge Rooney's level of irony or lack thereof.

I haven't reviewed all the material I have on Rooney, but will post a few things now. The following selection is from a Rooney Op-Ed published in the San Francisco Chronicle, When Bad News Is Good News: A grand plan? Date: July 24, 1988. I got this from Newsbank, so no online link (bold here and below added for emphasis).

Whenever I hear of someone praying for rain in a drought, I think how little faith they have in God. God has so far ignored the prayers for rain and his supplicants should concede that, for reasons unknown to them, God knows what's best. Don't they believe there's some grand plan? Don't they have faith that there's something good about the drought?
I confess to not knowing whether there's a grand plan in which everything happens for the best or not, but it certainly seems as though something good for someone comes out of everything.


The next two statements from Rooney concern his atheism. The first is from the Boston Globe, Title: CONVERSATIONS / BY MARIAN CHRISTY\ ROONEY: WE MAKE OUR OWN DESTINY' Date: May 30, 1982 (also from Newsbank)

I am also aware of my lack of real intelligence. That bothers me. I wish I were not so flighty, not so much of a hedonist. Virtue seems to emanate from denial of instant pleasures. I wish I were more virtuous.
"Why am I an atheist? I ask you: Why is anybody not an atheist? Everyone starts out being an atheist. No one is born with belief in anything. Infants are atheists until they are indoctrinated. I resent anyone pushing their religion on me. I don't push my atheism on anybody else. Live and let live. Not many people practice that when it comes to religion.


The second is from a speech at Tufts University, Nov. 18, 2004 [[1]]

"I am an atheist," Rooney said. "I don't understand religion at all. I'm sure I'll offend a lot of people by saying this, but I think it's all nonsense."
He said Christian fundamentalism is a result of "a lack of education. They haven't been exposed to what the world has to offer."


I'm also reposting Rooney's one statement on agnosticism from the letter in his book Sincerely, Andy Rooney:

I call myself an agnostic, not an atheist, because in one sense atheists are like Christians or Muslims. They’re sure of themselves. A Christian says with certainty, there is a god; an atheist says with certainty, there is no god. Neither knows


Finally, another quote from Rooney that might help future poll voters:

Anyone who tells you he has spoken with God or can communicate with someone who has died is 1) crazy, 2) a dreamer or 3) a con artist. ( San Francisco Chronicle, A Very Long-Distance Call: Lame claims Date: April 3, 1988)


So is Andy crazy? a dreamer? a con artist? inscrutable? a notable agnostic? a lunatic? in love with the sound of his own voice? slightly demented? hard to pin down? flighty? a noted hatemonger? drunk all the time? mostly ironic all the time? a typical New Yorker? well past his sell-by date? howling at the moon? etc. etc.-- JJay 01:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for gathering all of this information and posting it here. From this, it is clear that Rooney cannot be listed as an unqualified agnostic, since he called himself an atheist at one point, even though he denied being an atheist at another point (and considered agnosticism and atheism to be exclusive, non-overlapping identifications). Rohirok 02:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I (Rohirok) am placing the current footnotes here for comparison and archive purposes. Three of the quotes JJay posted above are much more to the point concerning Rooney's self-identifications as an agnostic and/or atheist than these:

Rooney wrote: "If you apply the same reason and logic to religion that you use in assessing everything else in your life, you're considered an agnostic at best and an atheist at worst.... How this earth and all the life on it came about is, so far, beyond anyone's ability to understand but it seems wrong to stop trying by saying simply 'It's the work of God....' I don't differentiate much, except in degree, between people who believe in religion from those who believe in astrology, magic, or the supernatural." Sincerely, Andy Rooney (2001), Public Affairs ISBN 1586480456, pp. 311-2.
In a broadcast editorial attacking Pat Robertson, who claims God talks to him, Rooney said "I heard from God just the other night.... God said to me.... 'I wish you'd tell your viewers that both Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson strike me as wackos.... I think I'd remember if I'd ever talked to Pat Robertson.'" As God Told Me ..., 60 Minutes, Feb. 22, 2004
Well, here's where I am. Based on what JJay has collected: Rooney has self-identified both as an agnostic and as an atheist? Yes.
Rooney doesn't seem to care about using these terms precisely? Yes. Rooney has seriously claimed that he talks with God? No way.
JJay, I don't think you really believe this either. So far you have not been willing to say in so many words "he was dead serious, he really thinks he talks to God." I believe you put "As God told me" forward, not as evidence that Rooney is a deist, but as evidence that he's a jerk. So, I'd suggest using some of the material you collected, but removing the reference to "As God Told Me." Reasonable? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you hit the nail on the head, Dpbsmith. I went ahead and changed the footnotes for Rooney, since three of the quotes JJay provided above were much better as far as Rooney's self-identification. Rooney's not consistent with himself, is maybe overly critical of religion at times, isn't totally rational about his (dis)beliefs, and probably has motivations for some of the things he says that aren't entirely noble or honest (like we all do). And, there is some amount of subjectivity in judging when he's being sincere (but without authors making some subjective judgments, an encyclopedia would consist of nothing but syllogisms). All of these things are true, but the important point in all of this, for purposes of this list, is that Rooney has, in at least one instance, self-identified as an agnostic. We should note the other instances in which he's contradicted himself or changed his self-identification, but this one instance, in which Rooney emphatically identified himself as an agnostic, is sufficient to justify his inclusion on the list. Rohirok 03:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like it now. Thanks to JJay for finding those references. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys. I didn't have a chance to get back here, but I think you've done a great job of incorporating some of the material I found on Rooney. I would have preferred a bit more of his contradictions, but the footnotes let the man speak in his own words, I think, to a far greater extent than what we had before. If I have some free time, I'll try to look into someone else on the list. Cheers, -- JJay 02:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polls are evil[edit]

  1. No-one said I couldn't vote for two options, so I'll vote for this one also. Actually, I don't think polls are evil, or even that this one is evil. But I am frustrated that the irony of Rooney's commentary is being put to a vote when it is so obviously ironic. Can you imagine anyone saying these words with a sincere tone? The thing positively drips irony, from beginning to end. Have you guys ever seen one of Rooney's televised commentaries? In every one that I've seen, if he's not commenting wryly on the unnoticed peculiarity of everyday things, he's poking fun at the earnest idiocy of other human beings, all with that nasally, sometimes patronizing, slightly superior voice of his. I can imagine the treatment he would give this little dialogue in Wikipedia in which we're trying to build consensus about his "allegedly" ironic tone in the "As God Told Me" commentary. Rohirok 02:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You make some excellent sense here. I would have added nasty and mean spirited, but that's not important. However, given your take on the man, why does the list present him as someone who wrote that agnosticism follows from applying logic to religion? This description (along with the doctored quote we have used) is my main objection, not that he is on the list. I mean really, is he an enlightenment philosopher as we present him, or actually more of a guy who is paid to spout off on any topic that's in his head at any time?
Also, I've done a lot of research on Rooney, including looking at every article he has published, text from speeches, CBS transcripts, and all his books + articles about Rooney. Based on this mass of material, I could submit passages showing that he believes in god, worries about god judging his soul, often cites god, dreams about god, has sworn to god (but complained about it), etc. He also frequently states that he knows nothing about religion and does not understand religion, then alternately both supports and attacks religion. In all these docs, I have found only two affirmative statements where he applies a label to himself. One where he calls himself agnostic and one where he calls himself an atheist. -- JJay 03:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's different. I just didn't like using As God told me. Can you find a better succinct quote that doesn't sound ironic indicating his deism? And the place where he self-describes as an atheist? We should have that. That would make him more like Mark Twain, all over the map. (I'm trying to find a succinct way of describing Twain's views in later life, which seem to indicate definite belief in the existence of a callous and malicious deity). Dpbsmith (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to return to the original issue addressed by the poll: regardless of whatever else might be found concerning Rooney's (ir)religious beliefs, what is the consensus (such as it is, with only 4 active editors currently contributing to this discussion) concerning whether the quote from As God told me is ironic? Because if it is, it ought to be deleted, since the piece then would not indicate one way or the other whether he believed in God or thought his existence was knowable. Yes or No: Is Rooney being ironic when he claims to have talked directly with God? Rohirok 01:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A problematic List to make[edit]

Isn't having a "List of agnostics", and then including all kinds of people (not just agnostic philosophers), kind of like having a "List of people with no opinion on UFOs"? I see at least two major problems with such a list: 1) It is very difficult to determine if someone is "agnostic". The Rooney and Twain examples are instructive. 2) In modern Western civilization, if somebody is not actively religious, AND does not actively deny the existence of God, then he/she can be considered "agnostic". It is simply the default position, and as such does not make for an interesting list. - 18:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your first point: It is not always difficult to determine if someone is an agnostic. Many agnostics say it of themselves quite clearly, uttering some variation on the claim "I am an agnostic." Even where there are difficulties, these difficulties can be surmounted. Even if they can't be surmounted, a particular entry need only be deleted. It does not invalidate the whole list. Rooney has called himself an agnostic, even though he has also called himself an atheist. While he contradicts himself, it's a fact that he has called himself an agnostic, and documenting this is all that's needed for this list. His other claims concerning his beliefs about God are also mentioned and cited, to put his claim of agnosticism in context. The entry for Twain is more nuanced, but still not insurmountably difficult. That a close friend describes Twain as an agnostic is compelling, even if it must be mentioned that some of Twain's words cast doubt on whether he was consistently agnostic.
Concerning your second point: Depending on how it is defined, agnosticism need not always be a default position. Simply not believing in God is quite different from believing that God is inherently unknowable, or that it is impossible to know whether God exists. All three positions can be accurately called "agnosticism," but only the first is a default. The other two positions make significant epistemological claims. Even the first default position is significant in a culture where so many people take God's existence for granted, so listing of the first type of agnostic is not trivial or uninteresting. Please note also that most of the agnostics included on this list describe themselves as agnostic, which indicates that they view it as a distinction significant enough to mention. It is not comparable to an identification as someone who doesn't believe in UFOs. Rohirok 17:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Rohirok. There's no problem, as long as a) the names on the list are accompanied by sources, and b) the description jibes with the sources and presents enough context to let a reader decide whether the person named fits their own conception of "an agnostic."
Calling someone an agnostic because he "is not actively religious, AND does not actively deny the existence of God" goes too far. One dictionary definition, for example, is "a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism."
Definition a is reasonably narrow. And I think the requirement of definition b, that the person at least express skepticism about the existence of God, combined with the usual requirement of citing a source, narrows down the field to a manageable number. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kuan Yew[edit]

There are a number of online sources that call Yew agnostic, a claim based on an interview with the Straits Times. While I did not access that publication directly (it required a paid subscription), I found a transcript of the interview. It is clear from this that Yew's use of the word "agnostic" has been taken out of context, and that this interview does not justify Yew's inclusion on this or any other list of agnostics. The Straits Times asked "If there were no election, would you consider it a good thing or an unhealthy development?" Yew responded "No, I'm completely agnostic on that." This quote does not at all indicate that Yew is agnostic about God, so it fails as a citation for purposes of this list. While some relevant citation might be found later to justify Yew's inclusion, Yew ought to remain off the list until that is found. Rohirok 17:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Kwaśniewski[edit]

The former president of Poland is an atheist, not an agnostic, and has said so many times[2], despite the single quotation attributed to him here by a Catholic news agency. His article has repeatedly been changed (anonymously) to make him agnostic, not atheist. I'll flag this in the article, although this entry should probably be deleted.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 09:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the footnote on the Aleksander Kwaśniewski entry, he once called himself an agnostic when speaking about a reference to Christianity in the European Constitution as quoted by Catholic Information Agency. I don't read Polish, but "Ja, agnostyk" seems quite likely to mean "I, agnostic," as translated by the editor who made the citation. I wonder if this same quote was what was translated for the Telegraph article you mention above, as he seems in both instances to be speaking about his beliefs about religion and the European Constitution. Did the Catholic Information Agency misquote Kwaśniewski, or did the Telegraph mistranslate? Or are they separate quotes, and Kwaśniewski has referred to himself both as an atheist and as an agnostic? The categories agnostic and atheist are not necessarily exclusive of each other, so it is possible for someone to consider themselves to be both. Such might be the case with Kwaśniewski. Also, a person may be included in List of agnostics if they once referred to themselves as agnostics, even if they later say things that seem to contradict this, as the list encompasses both current and former agnostics. See, for example, the Andy Rooney entry. Rohirok 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Fierstein[edit]

Here's a snippet an interview with the New York Times:
Q. Are you generally religious?
A. No, but I am Jewish. I was brought up in a home where my father spoke Yiddish, but we were High Holy Day Jews -- and I'm not a High Holy Day Jew at all now. I'm of the community, not necessarily of the religion. But this has really brought out the Jew. I mean, I don't believe in God, I don't believe in heaven or hell, but I pray three or four times a day.
Q. Has your praying increased during rehearsal?
A. Only when I forget a line. You know how they say there are no atheists in the foxholes? Well, there's no atheist at the Minskoff either.

I'm inclined to add him to the list of agnostics because "I don't believe in God, but I pray just in case" is classic agnostic behavior. Anyone have a better idea? Chris Croy 19:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's a better candidate for List of nontheists. We ought to avoid making judgments about religious (dis)belief based on behavior. There's too much speculation involved in that. Nick Graves 00:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Hawke[edit]

I put him back, at the request of an editor, using the same reference cited in the Bob Hawke article. See User_talk:Dpbsmith#Added_Bob_Hawke_to_List_of_Agnostics. I'm not crazy nuts about that reference since I've no idea what it means... is it a book by an author named Blanche d'Alpuget or what?... but I assume it's valid. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Robert J. Hawke: A Biography By D'Alpuget, Blanche, published 1982, so the "87" might be the page number... ????

I'm going to put a query about this at Talk:Bob Hawke. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein[edit]

Albert Einstein is not agnostic, rather a theist or if you prefer a pantheist.There're many sources in web if you want check out. In fact, Einstein he did many asserts & sentences about it [Preceding unsigned comment left by User:Eleutealado.]

Einstein's religious views have been pretty thoroughly discussed. He definitely called himself an agnostic, in the quote used for this list, and in another quote mentioned here. Since he identified himself as an agnostic, we can confidently list him here. He specifically stated that he did not believe in a personal God, so he is not a theist. He may have been a deist, but I have not seen a definitive quote or source to confirm this (deism is not necessarily incompatible with agnosticism). He denied being a pantheist. See also the discussion here: Talk:List of atheists/Archive 4#Einstein. Nick Graves (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, the general definition of "theist" is simply one who believes in a deity. It doesn't have to be a personal or impersonal god. Deism is a subset of theism. Even the WP article on theism agrees with that here. 67.135.49.42 (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of different definitions for theism--one general (the one you are using), and one more specific. I was using it here in its more specific sense. Theism and Deism were originally terms used to denote distinct (and opposed) positions. Nick Graves (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But in terms of Einstein, this article, and the articles about scientists' religious faiths (or lack thereof), Einstein most definitely belongs under the header of "theist." 67.135.49.42 (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. In a letter from late in his life, recently discovered, he makes it clear he has no use for the word "God." Nick Graves (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely true. What he made clear was that he believed that the use of the word "God" was child-like. (I somewhat agree with that sentiment.) However, I don't think he ever called it useless and, in fact, he still used the word several times himself whatever the connotation. He clearly and unquestionably believed in some sort of deity, whatever his idea of such a deity was, which places him firmly under the header of "theist" (with the sub-header of "deist"). 67.135.49.42 (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Former agnostics[edit]

We have a List of former atheists We should include a list of former agnostics also. I'm one and there have to be some that are famous.--Ted-m (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the list of former atheists to include former agnostics too. (In the case where agnostics became something other than atheist) I worried there is sufficient differences to make doing that odd, but in some cases it was hard to tell if the pperson was a former atheist or former agnostic and anyway former agnostics were constantly added. That said Christian B. Anfinsen, Avery Dulles, and Gabriel Marcel are the only "agnostics turned theists" I've been able to source.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnadas Kaviraja Goswami described in Chaitanya-charitamrita Adi 6.38:


‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana

seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana


If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee.


So all the great atheists which comprise of 99.99% of the world’s population can become maha-vaishnavas if they get the supreme good fortune of reading this book. Thus in my personal opinion, when this book is published and distributed in mass quantities all over the world, it will break open the gates of the flood of the love of Godhead brought by Lord Chaitanya and His associates and will hasten the advent of the predicted Golden Age in all its glory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.26.30 (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kuan Yew (2)[edit]

According to this link, Lew Kuan Yew is an agnostic - in the religious sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.21.58.7 (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we considering agnosticism atheism?[edit]

According to atheism, there are definitions of atheism that include agnosticism. Should some people on this list also be placed on List of Atheists? Mr. Anon515 04:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, however Richard Dawkins should be placed on this particular list, because he wants to be known personally as an Agnostic(from Primary Source), probably an Agnostic Atheist(Due to the secondary sources), but none the less Agnostic(Primary Source outweighs the secondary sources). He should definatly be on this list, BUT he could really be on both lists. This is the list he should however primarily be on. Colliric (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colliric, you have to wait for the RfC, which is going-on in Richard Dawkins talk page, before making any such comments. Abhishikt (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that RFC is for that particular article. This is another article altogether. I would be inappropriate to put this discussion on the Dawkins talk page, when it concerns this Article and not that one. Colliric (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As that RfC clearly shown that Dawkins is in no-way a "Agnostic", so there is no point of including him in this particular list. Abhishikt (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lucretius.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Lucretius.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 13 March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Lucretius.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General copyediting[edit]

I have looked at the Authors list for Wikifying, grammar and other general copyediting areas, but the remainder of the article needs reviewing.--Soulparadox 18:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Buddha?[edit]

There is no consensus that Siddhartha Gautama can be called an agnostic at any point. Moreover, when he becomes Buddha he is certainly not an agnostic for all the knowledge is contained in the state of Buddha. The sceptical inquiry of an agnostic cannot be applied to Gautama Buddha who has the knowledge of all existence. Whether you agree or not, that is what the concept of Buddha is: one who knows. It is another talk if a Buddhist practioner can be also an agnostic.

--Emil K2 (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

00:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)69.234.190.118 (talk)--69.234.190.118 (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)--69.234.190.118 (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)--69.234.190.118 (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)--69.234.190.118 (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)--69.234.190.118 (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)--69.234.190.118 (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Søren Kierkegaard listed?[edit]

He was a Christian existentialist. Sure, he didn't think that one could prove or disprove the existence of God using reason, but he argued that belief in God was a matter of faith alone, and he certainly expressed that he had that faith. I'm not sure how someone could classify him as an agnostic in a meaningful way, and having him on this list looks misleading at best. Even listing Kant on here is probably a bit of a stretch.

HawkeyE (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being an agnostic doesn't deny a person from being a Christian or any other religious faith for that matter. Based on the guidelines for entries on this article which states: "Listed here are persons who have identified themselves as theologically agnostic. Also included are individuals who have expressed the view that the veracity of a god's existence is unknown or inherently unknowable." I don't see any issues here since Kierkegaard (based from my understanding of him) thought the knowledge of God is actually impossible but choose to believe in God based on faith. He would be classify as a Christian agnostic. Kant as well would be describe as a agnostic theist as well. Which are good additions to this article. Please read this wiki article for more evidence for my claims: Agnostic theism. Ninmacer20 (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are a multitude of Christians out there who believe that God is unknowable through rational apprehension, we would have to classify a good portion of the theistic population as agnostic; but this is ridiculous at best and disingenuous at worst. The standard definition of agnosticism is that God's existence cannot be known. There's a world of difference between saying the existence of God is unknowable and saying God Himself is unknowable. There are plenty of theists who subscribe to the latter. I include myself in that category of theists and I certainly do not classify myself as an agnostic. Putting Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein in this list is simply ridiculous, since both can be proven to have been theistic and to have made no statements indicating theistic doubt. PanoramicRomantic— Preceding unsigned comment added by Panoramicromantic (talk • contribs) 05:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your point that Kierkegaard thought that the knowledge of God was unknowable, I accept your argument that Kierkegaard was not an agnostic (in the general sense of the word). However, in regards to Wittgenstein, he was (in a general sense) an agnostic. According to one of the biographies of Wittgenstein, it states: "Was Wittgenstein religious? If we call him an agnostic, this must not be understood in the sense of the familiar polemical agnosticism that concentrates, and prides itself, on the argument that man could never know about these matters. The idea of a God in the sense of the Bible, the image of God as the creator of the world, hardly ever engaged Wittgenstein's attention..., but the notion of a last judgement was of profound concern to him." - (Engelmann), William Child (2011). Wittgenstein. Taylor & Francis. p. 218. ISBN 9781136731372. According to the Wikipedia article on him, it states: "Wittgenstein was said to be greatly interested in Catholicism and was sympathetic to it. However, he did not consider himself to be a Catholic. According to Norman Malcolm, Wittgenstein saw Catholicism to be more as a way of life rather than as a set of beliefs which he personally held, considering that he did not accept any religious faith. He was said to be agnostic, in a qualified sense, in the last years of his life." - Text taken from the Ludwig Wittgenstein article. Ninmacer20 (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The average person who uses wikipedia is not going to be interested in a revised meaning of the term agnostic. The average user will simply go by the standard definition of agnostic i.e. someone who believes there is not enough evidence to support the claim for God's existence or non-existence. Both Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein made positive statements regarding God's existence so they cannot be considered agnostic in any genuine sense. It is misleading, if not completely dishonest, to include them in a list that will carry common assumptions. The Greek term agnostic (meaning without knowledge) is not in reference to God as subject but is in reference to God's existence as subject. The former position must a priori accept that God exists in order for Him to be the subject, otherwise the notion is absurd. Very few people will notice or care that you have changed the reference of agnosticism to refer to God Himself as subject. A Christian agnostic is itself an absurd idea. Broken down to basics agnosticism would be neither positive nor negative in regards to theistic belief. An adherent to Christianity can only be regarded as positive in regards to theism. It matters not one wit whether the Christian in question holds that God can only be approached through faith; all genuine Christians believe that such is the case. Biographies on Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein are of very little value. Only what they actually said is of value. Wittgenstein referred to God not a little. If he believed that God's existence was personally unknowable, his positive references are dishonest and comical. His major writings and his letters all contain theistically positive statements. The kind of theism he practiced -regardless if it was even Christian- is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is whether or not he believed in God. His writings prove that he did, so he cannot be considered an agnostic in the genuine and traditional sense of the word. Kierkegaard not only made positive theistic statements in his writings but they also show absolute accord with traditional Christianity. Once again, it is misleading to introduce a revised definition for agnosticism on unwary wikipedia users. The case can easily be made that it is instances like this that justify the idea that wikipedia is not a trustworthy source for information. 69.234.190.118 (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see your point. I hate to argue over semantics, however, unless Wittgenstein has explicitly states that he was agnostic, it would be best not to include him on this list. However, you cannot say that Wittgenstein accepted any religious faith. According to Norman Malcolm, who himself is a notable Christian philosopher and personal close friend of Wittgenstein, states in his book on him ("Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir."): "I believe that Wittgenstein was prepared by his own character and experience to comprehend the idea of a judging and redeeming God. But any cosmological conception of a Deity, derived from the notions of cause or of infinity, would be repugnant to him. He was impatient with 'proofs' of the existence of God, and with attempts to give religion a rational foundation. ...I do not wish to give the impression that Wittgenstein accepted any religious faith — he certainly did not — or that he was a religious person. But I think that there was in him, in some sense, the possibility of religion. I believe that he looked on religion as a 'form of life' (to use an expression from the Investigations) in which he did not participate, but with which he was sympathetic and which greatly interested him. Those who did participate he respected — although here as elsewhere he had contempt for insincerity. I suspect that he regarded religious belief as based on qualities of character and will that he himself did not possess. Of Smythies and Anscombe, both of whom had become Roman Catholics, he once said to me: 'I could not possibly bring myself to believe all the things that they believe.' I think that in this remark he was not disparaging their belief. It was rather an observation about his own capacity." - Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir. Oxford University Press. 2001. pp. 59–60. ISBN 9780199247592. Wittgenstein himself states "I am not a religious person, but I cannot help seeing every problem from a religious point of view." - Edward Kanterian (2007). Ludwig Wittgenstein. Reaktion Books. pp. 146. ISBN 9781861893208. Ninmacer20 (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not attempt to press the point that Wittgenstein was religious; only that he wasn't agnostic in the traditional sense of the term. I'm not going to make a big deal about Wittgenstein. I really only cared that Kierkegaard was not misrepresented. He's been removed from the list as far as I can tell and that is good enough. Wittgenstein made it difficult to tell where exactly he stood in terms of religion and Christianity specifically. Bertrand Russell believed his falling out with Wittgenstein was due to him (Russell) not being a Christian; it was probably due more to his not finding anything of value in Christianity as Wittgenstein did. Since Wittgenstein was not very forward about his spiritual convictions I feel no particular need to fight for his removal even though I do think it's pretty obvious that he was not agnostic. Panoramicromantic (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla[edit]

Please join the conversation here about whether Nicola Tesla should be on this list. KillerChihuahua 13:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, as consensus is clear. Link KillerChihuahua 21:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested[edit]

Please offer your view on an Rfc here to decide whether of all the "List of atheist (profession)" lists, the philosophy list should be expanded to include agnostics as well, as "List of atheist and agnostic philosophers" instead of "List of atheist philosophers". The discussion may be found at Talk:List_of_atheist_philosophers#This_list. As a side note, some of the entries which I removed here may be suitable for inclusion here. Please place your input on the Rfc there, and keep discussion about who to include on this list here, thanks. KillerChihuahua 19:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Locke[edit]

In An_Essay_Concerning_Human_Understanding Locke makes it clear that he believes in the existence of God. Brett epic (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly he did!. The fact that he was included in a list of agnostics only demonstrate how deceitful some claims may be. He wrote a whole & large book about his Christian faith, where he studied a lot the Bible and what was required to be saved. It is in his work: The reasonableness of Christianity, (1695).--Goose friend (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Dunant[edit]

It is well known that Henry Dunant, founder of the Red Cross, was a committed Christian. The "Samaritan of Europe" began with the aim of being "more effective in Christian charity," "to heat up the lukewarm" believers, and to "convert those who had not met God" (as stated in the Société; by Henry Dunant). The société quotes him as rejecting the Catholic Church and the State, but embracing the cause of the Gospel, empathethic with primitive Christianity, as well as talking about the prophecies of the Scriptures. In A memory of Solferino he calls "gracious" the self-sacrificing Christian devotion. The two sources that claim that he became an agnostic "in his last years" do not point to any original source, nor have any documented quotation of him on the subject. Neither Oscar Riddle nor the NNDB give any reference to an original source to support their claims, which make their assertion unreliable. While Riddle's "evolutionary thought" book claims that Dunant became an agnostic, ChristianHistory.net (from Christianity Today, claims that he was a Christian humanitarian to the last. Inasmuch as there isn't a really reliable source to clarify this matter with documented writings by him, I seriously call into question the claim that he "became an agnostic", while many other sources say exactly the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goose friend (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk Agnostic or Atheist?[edit]

I don't know if Elon Musk qualifies as an Agnostic according to his statement. He realy more seems like a devoted atheist to me and should be included in one of the atheist lists. ColdCase (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NB: There is no proof of Richard Strauss's core lifelong religious/spiritual beliefs or lack thereof[edit]

So very very much ink has been spilled in speculating (and that is what they all are -- speculations and nothing else) what Strauss's core religious/spiritual beliefs were, that it is no wonder that Kennedy's title for his biography of Strauss calls him "Enigma". Let us all please remember that authors' writings about these subjects are making enormous inferences and using quotes in and out of context, and in many cases projecting that they want onto the enigmatic and extremely long-lived blank and mysterious slate of Richard Strauss. For that reason, there should be no claims that Strauss was a believer, an atheist, or an agnostic, or any variation of the above, in Wikipedia. There is no proof one way or another or another. Just as many authors claim to prove he was an atheist, and Gilliam and others claim to prove he was an agnostic [3], Schmid and others claim to prove he always had faith in a higher power [4]. So let's all please step back and admit we'll never know. And this article should not state anything one way or another. I am removing him from the list. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infoboxes of individuals that have no religion.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Maher[edit]

Bill Maher changed his opinions about religion and religious labels over the years. In 2002, for instance, he made it pretty clear he was not an atheist: "I'm not an atheist. There's a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn't believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don't need. But I'm not an atheist, no". He also stated several times he was an agnostic, but this only lasted until 2008. From 2009 on, he started refering to himself as atheist (and apatheist), never to return to the "agnostic label" again. Seeing as labelling him "agnostic" is outdated, I think he should be removed from this list (he's already on the List of atheists with proper sources). I also thought about adding him to the List of former atheists and agnostics, but it seems to be a list for people who were atheist and agnostic and converted to some religion and became theists, not for people who changed from agnosticism to atheism and vice-versa. What's your opinion, people ? Clausgroi (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of agnostics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of agnostics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of agnostics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of agnostics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on List of agnostics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_agnostics&oldid=1208199227"