@EvidenceVsFaith,
Thanks for that explanation, EvF. It evidences thought and care; a thing always deserving of applause. Now, I'd like to offer a little positive reinforcement, in the form of critique.
First of all, it would always be good to verify sources in things;
gnosis is a Greek word, a feminine noun, meaning (depending on contextual settings)
knowledge,
a knowing,
acquaintance with,
recognition of, or
a being known (of). It is general in nature, so if we were to suffix an '
epi,' it would become more specific in nature (the quality of the knowing, that is).
In classic usage, the term
agnostic would simply be the state of not knowing, or being known of, etc., as you have spelled out for us. However, it will be found that it is not always the case that application of, or idiomatic usage of terms or cliches will always fit their brute meanings/usages.
Gnosticism is a branch of early Christian theology, and while the term had been derived from that noun (and verb)
gnosis (
gignosko), that term referred to their practice of claiming to know certain secrects and such, in opposition to what had been becoming mainstream Christianity at that time. The descriptive terms 'agnostic' and 'agnosticism,' used today came from the coined phrase by T.H. Huxley in 1869. With a little bit of refinement by some, it can be said to have changed just ever so slightly from his words of that time.
'
Atheos' is also a Greek term which primarily referred to one who was without the gods, one who denied the gods, or the ungodly. I am not aware of any Greek word which would match as an opposite of
atheos, but perhaps '
theosebes' is as close as we can come; it means, basically, fearing god, or in service to god, or religiousness.
Again, we will see that the term
atheist today, carries a more modern spin on it. Checking any detailed dictionary (Oxford English Dictionary (in 12 volumes) is very good; Webster's International 3rd is a good one, among others) we will find that
atheist is held today to describe a person who believes there is no god. Richard Dawkins shaded this a bit (as it should be, of course) in his book The God Delusion. The strong atheist (of which we'd probably find very few) would say that they 'knew there was no god.' A weaker version would say that they 'believed there was no god;'
and that would usually be said to be because evidence pointed in that direction much more so than not.
Checking the term
angostic, doing a check on the possible shadings, we'd arrive at the conclusion that the agnostic will usually say they 'don't know of the evidence to prove one way or the other, at the moment (a TAP agnostic, as Dawkins has suggested). To use the term as a modifier, as you have suggested, is of course possible, yet due to present English (not Classical Greek) usuage at large, it automatically carries a contradiction. For that reason, we'd be much better off simply using a more typically English adjective or modifier.
The prime reason for this, is due to the more general atheistic position that the evidence goes to show that there is no god, against the more general agnostic position that there isn't evidence to decide either way--
for the moment. The raw Greek word
gnosis is not a member of the English language today, and for that reason, using the Greek word to modify an adopted and used-in-today's-English loan word, while being a freedom of choice, may well be seeable as a bad choice.
I see my position as being a non-theist agnostic. The main reason for that nuance, is because the god-models humans have come up with have not stood the test of nature.
).
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace