Talk:Agnosticism

Agnostotheism: make page

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2149:8286:5d00:fc1e:e047:b002:3866 (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Agnosticism isn't a worldview on the metaphysical actuality of the cosmos itself

Agnosticism isn't a worldview on the metaphysical actuality of the cosmos itself, but a state of mind of the individual or a limitation of the individual. That isn't tautological to the workings of the cosmos. The "limitations of the individual", either personally or cosmically posed, are not the "mechanism of the universe"; thus agnosticism is a worldview about the opinions of the individual, and not about the cosmic actuality. The possibly hidden nature of the cosmos, isn't its only attribute, nor its deepest mechanism. Agnosticism is not the purest metaphysics on the cosmos, but it is pure ontic metaphysics on the individual (the thinker). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4115:e96c:88ea:a31a:74f3:a24c (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Unclear first sentence

The first sentence is this:

"Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable."

But this leaves entirely unstated the question of whose knowledge is being referred to.

Is it just the agnostic person whose knowledge is referred to here? (The existence of God is unknown or unknowable to that person?)

Or does the quote mean the agnostic believes the existence of God is unknown or unknowable to everyone?

Whatever the answer — which could be either of these, or both of these, or something else — the article desperately needs clarification. 2601:200:C082:2EA0:F171:81DE:843A:DA36 (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Definition

Should a clause not be added that agnosticism can mean "the belief that the existence of a god or gods is personally unknowable" or to mean an apathy towards religion without claiming anything about the nature of our reality? Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is inline with @2601:200:c082:2ea0:f171:81de:843a:da36's post above Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the article

I'm thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. The article has the maintenance tag "Over-quote" because its heavy reliance on on quotations undermines the encyclopedic style. A related problem is excessive reliance on primary sources, often to make interpretative claims that require secondary sourcing. For example, the article calls Russell's essay Why I Am Not a Christian "a classic statement of agnosticism" and supports this claim with the essay itself, which does not even use the term "agnosticism". The article also has issues with WP:PROPORTION: most of its content is devoted to the history of agnosticism, with a heavy emphasis on UK and US authors. It also includes detailed treatments of minor figures, like a lengthy subsection on Bernard Iddings Bell, who gets little to no coverage in standard overviews. Such details belong to child articles, not here. As a result, the article omits important thinkers and traditions that are commonly discussed in overview sources, such as Mansel, logical positivism, and Wittgenstein.

The article discusses the difference between strong, weak, and apathetic agnosticism, but there are many other types that should be mentioned, such as psychological vs epistemological agnosticism, grounded vs ungrounded agnosticism, and religious vs non-religious agnosticism. Another often-discussed topic in the academic literature that deserves more attention is the practical consequences of being agnostic. Our article discusses ignosticism as a related view. There are many other related views that are often compared to agnosticism and would be worth explaining, such as atheism, skepticism, fallibilism, and apatheism.

The current section on criticisms could be balanced with a section on arguments for agnosticism to avoid WP:UNDUE. There are also academic discussions about the relation to rationality and the conditions under which one should suspend belief, such as a lack of evidence or a balance of evidence for and against. While I agree that demographics should be discussed in some form, it may not merit a standalone section. This topic should focus specifically on agnosticism rather than more broadly on non-religious people, like our current two images. Our current definition section concentrates on the arguments of particular theorists, such as Huxley and Smith. It should probably be broadened to cover different definitions of the term (e.g., as suspension of belief vs as the claim that God is unknowable) and to note its application to other domains (e.g., being agnostic about the existence of free will).

Apologies for the lengthy explanation. There are more issues to consider, but they can be addressed later since the points mentioned so far will already involve a lot of work to implement. For more information on problems, see also the GA delisting discussion a few years ago. I plan to work on this article as part of the core contest. I was hoping to get some feedback on these ideas and possibly other suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi again, Phlsph7.

I agree with all of your comments broadly, but I do have one concern. The article currently seems to be about religious agnosticism specifically, and not about the more general sense you're suggesting, which would make your additions out of scope. If you want to change the scope of the article, it would probably be best to WP:SPLIT the content if the current article into a new Religious agnosticism article. I'm not sure if that would be controversial though, since the religious usage is (arguably) by far the most common, which might justify making another article like Agnosticism (philosophy) for the general sense instead. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Farkle Griffen and thanks for the feedback! I agree, this issue should be handled with care. I think the best approach is to treat it as a broad-concept article. The main meaning is concerned with the existence of God, and it should probably stay this way. However, we have to make readers aware that this is not the only meaning. This seems to be also how overview sources treat the subject. For example, Poidevin 2010 (Agnosticism: A Very Short Introduction) is primarily about the existence of God but also has a section on "'Local' versus 'global'" agnosticism where he writes Agnosticism is always agnosticism about something. It may be about God, or it may be about alien life, or the possibility of a Grand Unified Theory of physics, or the wisdom of taking vitamin pills, and so on. I'll see if I can get it to work, but I'll keep your idea in mind as an alternative approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I do not support you taking it upon yourself to rewrite this article. This page is about Agnosticism. You put a image of God? and removed all the Huxley quotes. You replaced Huxley talking about evidence based reasoning to form beliefs with your own perspective of what agnosticism is.This is unacceptable. You even added the common atheist argument that atheism is some default philosophical position in a page about agnosticism.

In re-reading your proposed article, no where do you describe what Huxley, the very person who coined agnosticism has to say about agnosticism. You have effectively removed what atheists call "Huxley Agnosticism" entirely from this article about agnosticism. I've said for years this article needs help, but please understand that atheists and agnostics have been battling ever since Huxley coined the term 150 years ago. IMO, the fair thing to do is represent the battle, not that one side has the "correct opinion." This article would be better served with explaining Huxley, why he felt a need to do something different in setting forth agnosticism and why it can be an attractive idea to some people. Once there is a proper introduction and explanation of agnosticism than the criticisms should be brought in. But making definitive statements that atheists have the correct opinion is not neutral. This is the agnosticism page and should, at the very least, have some explanation of what agnostics believe their own position is.IIXVXII (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello IIXVXII and thanks for your input. I made several adjustments to address your concerns: I removed the "God?" image, I restored a Huxley quote, and I added some additional information on Huxley. The version before the changes had a problem with WP:OVERQUOTE, so I think restoring all the quotes is a bad idea.

I agree with you that the article shouldn't claim that "atheists have the correct opinion". I couldn't find this claim in the article. Could you cite the passage which, according to you, makes it? Generally speaking, the article presents various sides and various arguments for and against, as in the sections "Arguments#For" and "Arguments#Against".

I aimed to represent the dominant views in the reliable sources, not "beliefs with [my] own perspective of what agnosticism is". The new version of the article has many references to high-quality sources, so if you think specific passages contain WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH we can look at whether the sources support it. I've worked on several broad-concept articles to bring them to good article and featured article status, so this is my attempt to do the same here, not some kind of WP:ADVOCACY, as you allege.

I agree with you that Huxley's view should be discussed, and the new version of the article discusses him in several places. However, Huxley is only one figure in the long tradition of agnosticism, so I don't think the article should overemphasize his personal view. Our article is, after all, about agnosticism, not about "Huxley agnosticism". To determine relative balance, I tried to follow reliable overview sources per WP:PROPORTION, such as Oppy 2018, Rowe 1998, Draper 2022, Archer 2024, and Poidevin 2010. They typically do not give the emphasis to Huxley that you suggest. For example, as far as I can tell, Oppy 2018 mentions Huxley only one time in the whole book: in a sentence listing several theorists on the last page. If you think there are specific claims about Huxley's views that need to be included because of their centrality in overview sources, I'm happy to look into it.

I'm open to working with you to address your concerns by implementing further changes. However, a total revert of every single, well-sourced change is not particularly helpful, especially given the consensus about the problems of the original version of the article (for feedback from other editors on the proposed changes, see here and here). If you have a personal problem with me as an editor rewriting the article, then I can acknowledge that this opinion is regrettable, but there may not be much I can do about that. We are both concerned about the quality of the article (thanks for your earlier contributions to the article, by the way), so constructive collaboration is likely to be more productive. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

You’re fundamentally changing the information on this page. The only reason you’ve given is WP:OVERQUOTE. You show no signs of trying to improve what was here.

Huxley is the founder of agnosticism. This was 150 years ago, of course he isn’t discussed much in modern literature. How many academic papers today do you think are published talking about Isaac Newton?

This is your standard for WP:PROPORTION ? The weight of the Wikipedia article should be the weight of what’s discussed in modern literature, not the weight of the person’s contribution to the subject matter. You want to discuss the modern outcomes of agnosticism without discussing how Huxley lays out agnosticism.

Now I understand why Avery Archer has all the sudden become so prominent, because he is modern literature. In the very first sentence you have Avery Archer with attitudes of agnostics. It’s no longer about knowledge, evidence, belief, it’s questioning attitude. I guess you dislike Jane Friedman since you didn’t endorse her question-directed attitude model for agnosticism that Archer was trying to refute. Either way, undue weight to one modern researchers endeavors with agnosticism is now your lead over decades of common usage.

You have many errors. Of course agnosticism is not restricted to theology. Huxley described it as a method or principle. If you would have simply explained agnosticism as Huxley introduced it, then the reader could have been introduced to it as well.

You refer to agnosticism as a theory when that is not a common reference. You have strange claims like agnosticism rejects knowledge is obtainable, that absence of evidence leaves disbelief when this is a confusion of what evidence of absence means. Agnosticism is a lifestyle that resembles atheism? You have this in the lead. You even throw in an agnostic theist, which is from George Smith and his rejection of agnosticism as a third alternative. You make no mention of this to the reader. No where do you elaborate how Huxley defined agnosticism and then atheists, like George Smith didn’t like agnosticism as a third alternative, so he developed a different interpretation. You actually have George Smith’s interpretation before mentioning Huxley. You offer zero description of Huxley’s contribution to the very topic he started.

I see no evidence of you understanding anything more than some basic research level. You searched some modern literature, stuck in a bunch of Avery Archer, even his terminology, used multiple statements multiple times as filler content and then pulled together various papers to make a giant mass of words about how agnosticism now has 22 categories. Types of agnosticism went from common usage of weak and strong to,

based on attitude, based on theory, other, psychological, epistemological, weak, strong, grounded, ungrounded, stored, optimistic, pessimistic, hesitant, local, global, existential, truth, semantic, meta-linguistic, secular, religious, and methodological agnosticism.

You took the common usage of weak and strong and made it 2/22 weight? You gave 22 categories equal weight. Show me your source that meta-linguistic agnosticism carries equal weight with weak or strong agnosticism.

How is pulling together various papers and then presenting them as the 22 categories of agnosticism not original research? Can you show me any evidence anywhere else of these 22 categories existing as a set? Or can this only be compiled from your research?

I find this to be wildly problematic. That you will sacrifice the integrity of understanding and quality of information for your surface level analysis so you can win a contest.IIXVXII (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. I implemented changes to the article to address some of your concerns. It's possible that various of our disagreements hinge on whether we should use modern overview sources or older primary sources to write this article. I responded to your different points below.

• You’re fundamentally changing the information on this page. The only reason you’ve given is WP:OVERQUOTE. I gave a detailed explanation right at the beginning of this discussion, see the first comment at Talk:Agnosticism#Changes_to_the_article.
• According to WP:PROPORTION, an article should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. To judge the weight of someone's contribution, we have to consult modern literature. Huxley's papers don't directly tell us what Huxley's long-term influence was. Maybe you are right that the modern overview sources should discuss Huxley in more detail. However, we should follow how the academic discourse treats the subject and not rewrite the dominant approach to reflect our personal preferences. Also: Huxley coined the term "agnosticism" but he did not "start the topic" and is not its "founder" in a strict sense. Philosophers explored agnostic ideas well before the 19th century, they just didn't use this specific term.
• I slightly reformulated the lead sentence to not imply that we side with the terminology of one scholar. I also added a footnote on the disagreement between Friedman and Archer.
• You have many errors. Of course agnosticism is not restricted to theology. Our article explicitly says In the broadest sense, agnosticism is not restricted to theology. Why do you think that this is an error if you endorse this view?
• You refer to agnosticism as a theory when that is not a common reference The problem is that different theorists use different definitions. One of them presents agnosticism as a theory/view/claim. For example, from Rowe 1998: In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.; or from Oppy 2018: Some people have suggested that agnosticism requires ... commitment to the further claim that it is unknown – or perhaps even unknowable – whether there are gods. Accordingly, we can't just present Huxley's definition as the definitive view. Instead, we have to make readers aware of the different senses of the term. I replaced the word "theory" with "claim" to reflect the formulation in the source more closely, but I don't think it makes much of a difference in this context.
• You have strange claims like agnosticism rejects knowledge is obtainable This is a common interpretation in philosophy. For example, Poidevin 2010 explains agnosticism saying that ... we cannot know whether or not God exists. There is something about the subject matter that makes knowledge impossible in this case.
• Agnosticism is a lifestyle that resembles atheism the lead says some of its forms are compatible with different lifestyles, including theistic and atheistic ones. This is discussed in detail in various sources, such as Fallon 2020.
• We have several sources on agnostic theism. This is not exclusively from George H. Smith and does not imply a rejection of agnosticism. For example, from Poidevin 2010: ...there most certainly are agnostic theists. Indeed, every major religion exhibits a substantial element of agnosticism somewhere within its traditional system of thought.
• No where do you elaborate how Huxley defined agnosticism Information on Huxley's definition is given in several places. For example, from our history section: Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–1895) coined the term agnosticism in a speech to the Metaphysical Society in 1869 as an alternative to theism and atheism. He understood it as the epistemological principle that one should not claim to know something without satisfactory evidence. Huxley saw it as a method of inquiry that refuses speculative conclusions, applying it specifically to theological and metaphysical problems.
• Concerning the different types of agnosticism, I share your frustration that so many different types are discussed in the academic literature, such as Rowe 1998, Draper 2022, Holloway 2003, and Poidevin 2010; Ferrari & Incurvati 2022 is exclusively dedicated to "The Varieties of Agnosticism". In our discussion, not all types get equal weight: the weight is given by the length of the treatment and where the type is discussed. For example, meta-linguistic agnosticism only gets a single sentence, while other types get full paragraphs. Our article does not claim that there are exactly 22 categories, so we do not need a source for this number (some of the categories you counted are section titles, not types of agnosticism). We just list and explain types commonly found in the sources. For comprehensiveness, I think we need to present this information in some form. There are different ways to arrange this information, in case you have suggestions. By the way, I moved meta-linguistic agnosticism to a footnote since you seemed to be concerned about its weight.
• As I told you before, my primary goal is to improve the quality of the article to merit the good article status. I hope our exchange can promote that goal. Please don't make false allegations about me sacrificing article quality because I intend to win a contest, see WP:ASPERSIONS. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I asked for neutral help when the page was delisted. I have complaints, but I'll leave it at that. I'm satisfied that you are putting agnosticism into the page and not atheism.

Thanks.IIXVXII (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Agnosticism/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 17:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 02:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll be taking this review during The Core Contest, as I have made a pledge to review another contestant's entry before the end of the contest. I've always admired your dedication to very large, philosophical and societal topics, so I'm glad to get around to reviewing one of your articles. This article looks fairly solid but I have a few critiques about whether or not to include certain statements. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Hi Vigilantcosmicpenguin and thanks for reviewing this nomination! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead reflects the points as discussed in the article. Layout is good. No WTW issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are very well done.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources are reliable for their statements, with a focus on scholarly books.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The statements of the article are based on statements included in sources about agnosticism.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig says 36.7%, but only flags phrases that are unavoidable.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article reflects the relevant literature about agnosticism, which is mostly focused on philosophical conceptions.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article only includes details that are discussed in sources about agnosticism.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is very thorough in representing philosophical views on the subject, and it cites philosophers with differing perspectives in a neutral way.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are free.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are of subjects discussed in the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	A very good article, especially for such a large topic.

Initial comments

• A few notes on the breadth and scope of the article:
  • It seems like the article mostly discusses agnosticism as a philosophical school of thought, with relatively little information about identification as agnostic. This might make sense if the reliable sources are disproportionately philosophical, but is there not more sociological or anthropological information? For example, could the history section include some information about when or how it became common for ordinary people to identify as agnostic?

    Our article covers agnosticism in various places as a psychological attitude suspending judgment rather than a philosophical claim that God's existence is unknowable (e.g. see the first paragraphs of the sections "Definition" and "Based on attitude"). Practical implications are also explained in the section "Lifestyles and implications". Unfortunately, agnosticism is not a major topic in sociology or anthropology. For example, demographic studies often do not distinguish between agnosticism and atheism, lumping them together into a single category. However, I'm open to expanding a little on this part if you know of good sources on agnosticism in particular. I followed your suggestion to mention the increasing popularity and added a sentence to the history section. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

    Makes sense. I just wanted to make sure this article reflects the sourcing; I'll take your word for it when you say there is not as much coverage in other fields. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 09:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  • I think there are some excessive details about atheism and theism, without a clear, direct connection to agnosticism. In some cases, I think it might even count as original research. I'll have more specific notes as I go through each section.

    This is probably easier to discuss in relation to specific passages to assess whether they give irrelevant or unsupported information. Generally speaking, many sources explicitly define agnosticism through its contrast to theism and atheism, so both of these positions loom large in the literature. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Most of the sourcing is solid, but:
  • Two statements are cited to books from Dorling Kindersley, which isn't quite an academic publisher. Upon checking the cited pages, it doesn't look like either of them mention agnosticism, so I don't think it's relevant enough anyway. I think these sources should simply be removed as the statements have other sources already.

    I think they are both only used to support trivial information about the time frame of the tradition that is being discussed. For example, Fletcher et al. 2020 supports the part In the 6th century BCE...the school of Ajñana. You are right that they are not the best sources, but I have the impression that they fulfill the minimal standards, at least for the information that they support. In both cases, they are accompanied by other sources that support the more crucial information. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

    Hmm, I see how Fletcher et al is useful for verifying the date. The other DK source is also used to verify a date, but I disagree with the use of the statement Some agnostic themes [...] are also found in Buddhist philosophy, a tradition that arose roughly in the 6th century BCE. I think this is not relevant because, even though Buddhist philosophy as a whole arose at that time, that does not mean that agnostic themes were present, so it might have a misleading implication. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 09:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

    This implication is not entirely wrong. For example, Horwitz 2011 mentions Buddha's agnosticism. You are probably right that the date is not particularly essential here. However, I had several FA nominations where reviewers insisted that all the main schools of thought in history sections should have rough dates in the text, so I think keeping the date here doesn't hurt either. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

    Makes sense. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  • I'm not very experienced with articles about philosophy, so I'm not sure about when to consider philosophical sources biased. But the article cites Richard Dawkins, who surely doesn't reflect a neutral view on the subject. I understand that Dawkins is important enough for his views to be representative, but I think maybe he should only be used as a primary source. We also cite James A. Lindsay, who (according to his Wikipedia article) is a conspiracy theory who has created hoaxes to oppose the academic establishment.

    You are right that Dawkins is not neutral: he is an atheist and criticizes both theism and agnosticism. In such cases, it depends on how this type of source is used in the article. Our article explains arguments for and against agnosticism without endorsing any of them in wikivoice. We cite Dawkins to explain the burden-of-proof argument against agnosticism. We don't say that this argument is successful, so I don't think it's a problem.

    I don't think we cite Lindsay on any particularly controversial claim. For example, the first quote is on the definition of the term "ignosticism". The claims in question are well supported by the remaining sources, so I removed him. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• All the images are relevant. However, why is the image of Dawkins in the "Arguments" section? He is only mentioned in the "History" section, so I think it's undue to include him in an unrelated section.

  Done. There is not enough place for all the images in the history section, so I moved Kenny's image up.Phlsph7 (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think this quite solves the problem, as Kenny is also not mentioned in this section. However, this is simply my opinion, and it is far beyond the GA criteria, so I won't press it any further. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 09:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• I'll be doing some small copyedits myself for conciseness, etc.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Lead section

• I don't think On a psychological level is the best phrasing as the article says very little about psychology per se. Perhaps On a personal level or As a lifestyle?

  This is directly from Draper 2022: ...the term “agnosticism” is often defined ... not as a principle or any other sort of proposition but instead as the psychological state of being an agnostic. Call this the “psychological” sense of the term. I think in this context, "psychological level" refers primarily to the mind of an individual rather than to psychological research.

  Makes sense. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 09:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• There's a few phrases in the lead that use the word "God" when it could be replaced with "the divine" to be less specific. (Such as God's existence → the existence of the divine)

  I also wrestled with this point. In the end, I decided against it because the expression God is just so much more common in the sources than the expression the divine. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Hmm... I would probably lean toward saying the divine, since it's better to use a term that's more encompassing (at least for the lead). But this is just a minor suggestion, and it is acceptable either way. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 09:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Agnosticism is commonly contrasted with for conciseness

  Simplified. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• I think from those who lack a belief because they have never considered the issue would also be more concise, as it is clear enough that the statement is about lacking belief.

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Perhaps the statement about "critics" could be rephrased to be more obvious that it's referring to two separate groups of critics (theists and atheists).

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Definition

• I think the footnote about the computing term is irrelevant and should be removed. The only citation is to a guidebook about computing, so there's no indication that it's relevant to this article.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 09:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• You are right that it is not relevant to the rest of the article. However, the passage is about the broadest sense of the term and I don't think the footnote is particularly intrusive at this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree; I believe the use of the term in the computer science sense is in a metaphorical sense that goes even beyond the "broadest sense" described in the article. I would argue its inclusion is essentially equivalent to including a popular culture reference; it needs sourcing that's relevant to the broader subject. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  I removed the footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Types

• Should the term "doxastic" be wikilinked, or is the term being used in a subtly different sense?

  Doxastic redirects to Doxastic logic, which is only vaguely related. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete the phrase not what they actually believe for conciseness. I think the sentence is more clear without it.

  The phrase is not essential, but I think it helps clarify the difference between the normative and the descriptive meaning. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• important enough to merit an in-depth examination → important enough for conciseness

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• In the sentence about optimistic agnosticism, delete the phrase current evidence is insufficient, but, as this is redundant with the previous sentence.

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• The terms extraterrestrial life and alien life are used in the same paragraph; I suggest choosing one or the other for consistency.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• When defining secular agnosticism, perhaps include a brief definition of the word "secular".

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 09:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• I think the clause starting with "which doubts the existence..." already clarifies the meaning that is relevant in this context. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Related views

• Suggestion: in the illustration of the difference between Christian and Hindu conceptions, the image of Hinduism should depict multiple gods, to illustrate polytheism.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• replaces belief with disbelief is imprecise phrasing; nothing is being "replaced" here.

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• I think the concepts of local and global atheism are irrelevant to the subject of agnosticism. There is no clear connection to the subject, and the terms are not used later in the article, so there is no need to define them.

  There is some overlap with local agnosticism. I condensed the passage into a single sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• The phrase they are closer to agnosticism than their dogmatic counterparts is unclear, as some readers might not know the word "dogmatic".

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• This section seems to imply that ignosticism is a related but different view on God, while the "Types" section implies it is a subset of pessimistic agnosticism.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 09:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I slightly reformulated the passage in the types section to avoid this implication. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Arguments

• The statements about evidentialism and the Lockean hypothesis appear to be irrelevant. The sources cited for these statements are about these respective ideas, not about agnosticism. And the other sources cited in the paragraph do not include the terms "evidentialism" or "Lockean", so this is not a case where it's just filling in details. It looks like these statements have no connection to the subject, so it's original research (unless I'm missing something).

  I clarified the relation to agnosticism and added citations that explicitly support the link. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• a common view is that I don't think the sources verify the word "common".

  Oppy 1994 says that it is "characteristically defended" by appealing to this principle. The issue probably depends on what we mean by "common" in this context. I changed it to "one view" to avoid these difficulties. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• I think another word might be more clear than "stalemate". Perhaps "equal status"?

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete but calls for a neutral attitude for conciseness.

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• In the "Against" section", some of the listed arguments are not quite arguments against agnosticism, but arguments for theism/atheism, without a clear indication that they are connected to agnosticism. Some are cited to sources about related topics, not about agnosticism: the statements about the first-cause argument and the appeal to scripture are cited only to chapters that discuss theism, and the paradox of the stone is cited to an article about atheism. If they are not discussed in sources directly about agnosticism, they're not worth including here. (Besides these, the statements are discussed in sources about agnosticism, so they are relevant enough to meet the GA criteria.)

  The first sentence of the section clarifies the relation to agnosticism: critics argue against it by providing evidence for God's existence (or non-existence), such as the different arguments that follow. Concerning the sources cited, Oppy 2006 also discusses agnosticism. The first-cause argument and the appeal to scripture are also discussed in sources explicitly dedicated to agnosticism. For example, Oppy 2018 and Poidevin 2010 each have a full chapter dedicated to the different arguments. I could add more sources, but I don't think it's essential. I removed the stone example: there are sources about agnosticism and contradictory divine attributes but I'm not sure that they mention this specific example. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Makes sense. I stated earlier that I was concerned about original research, but you have done a good job explaining why this is relevant, so my concerns have been mitigated. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Another atheistic objection focuses not on the presence of evidence for the non-reality of God but on the absence of evidence for the reality of God. → Another atheistic objection focuses not on the presence of evidence for the non-reality of God but on the absence of evidence for the reality of God. The current phrasing is just too lengthy to be clear.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 09:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• I reformulated the passage, I hope it's clearer now.

Lifestyles and implications

• I don't think the detective metaphor is necessary (as the phrase "unsolved mystery" is already clear), but I'll accept it either way.
• Do we have more information about that 2008 survey of different countries? Could be useful to list more of the survey's results, perhaps as a map.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 09:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• I expanded a little, but just drowning the reader in numbers on individual countries may not be particularly helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  That's why I suggested a map. I think a map would be a concise way to convey useful information. This is just a suggestion, of course; I think it would go above and beyond the GA criteria. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

History

• Just a suggestion, but I think it would make sense for the subsections to be divided into before and after Huxley, as everything before him could be considered a precursor.

  It could be done in principle, but I think the structure as it currently is works well. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• remain neutral rather than take sides → remain neutral for conciseness

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Is there a reason some of the statements are non-chronological? I can understand why Russell and Dawkins are in the same paragraph, but why is Wittgenstein placed after them?

  In sections on intellectual history, I usually try to find a compromise between chronological order and thematic coherence. In this case, Wittgenstein is in a different paragraph because his view of faith as a form of life rather than a theoretical conclusion fits better with the discussion of meaning in that paragraph. We could reverse the order of the last two paragraphs, but that would probably introduce more chronological tension. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  In my personal opinion, Wittgenstein does not need to be in the same paragraph as Kenny and Plantinga, as the latter two were not responding to Wittgenstein or part of the same movement. This is just a suggestion, though. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  I have split the paragraph into two. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• We mention George Eliot, but the source lists her alongside a handful of other figures. I think it makes more sense to mention them all instead of singling out Eliot.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 09:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

• Of the 134 citation notes in this article, I will randomly select 12 to review, checking all the sources cited for each one (excluding sources I cannot access). Citation numbers as of this revision: — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

24. Y However, I don't think the phrase the considerations for and against God's existence cancel each other out is the best reading of the example given in Poidevin 2010 (which appears to be the relevant source for this part). Your phrasing describes that an agnostic would believe a certain volume of evidence exists; the source's phrasing is more about how evidence could exist, but would have to be strong.

    I added a citation that covers this point more explicitly. From Fallon & Hyman 2020: ‘Cancellation agnosticism’ holds that there are reasons supporting both belief and disbelief in God’s existence (thus cancelling out either conclusion).... The other options (that there is no evidence either way) is discussed right before the passage you cited. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

40. Y Although I don't think any of the sourcing really verifies the phrasing of mutually exclusive. This phrase could be removed without changing too much, so I think it's an easy fix.

    In this context, "mutually exclusive" means that there is no overlap. From Oppy 2018: The fourfold distinction between atheists, agnostics, innocents, and theists is recommended on various grounds. First, at least in principle, there is no overlap between the four categories. We qualify the sentence with According to one framework..., so we are not saying that this is universally accepted. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

54. Y
66. Y I would suggest that the specific part about pluralistic co-existence should be attributed to Poidevin, but the general statement is good.

    I weakened the statement instead. I don't think that, in its current form, this possibility is particularly controversial. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

76. Y Except it doesn't really verify the word "typically".

    I slightly reformulated the passage. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

82. Y
83. Y
90. Y I'm not seeing which part verifies the phrasing guided by hope, but it might just be that I can't access that part of the source.

    Poidevin 2010 pp. 106–107 talks of emotional commitment to the possibility that religious teachings are true. It's possible that there is more on this in the sources where the leap of faith is discussed, but I would have to check. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

95. Y
100. Y
115. Y
121. Y Also, just to be sure: this source says Huxley coined the term at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society, while we say he gave a speech at the Metaphysical Society. I did a quick check of the other sources and I don't think they mention that detail; I think this should be corrected to change "speech" to "meeting".

     I added a citation that talks of the introduction of the term in Huxley's speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• The only remaining concerns are a few small details I brought up in the source spotcheck. These are very small and nitpicky issues, and this article is pretty much at GA quality already, but I'll give you a moment to address these.
• As for the breadth criterion, this article is satisfactory at addressing the most important points. I still think it'd be useful to include more information from Poidevin 2010 source about history—as I said at the beginning, philosophical interpretations are not the only important, and Poidevin gives some useful information about how agnosticism became well-known and controversial within Huxley's lifetime, and remains so today. But that's beyond the GA criteria—I would perhaps consider it necessary for the FA criterion, but not for GA—so it's just a suggestion. Besides that, I see only minor details that have been excluded.

  I hope to bring the article to FA status, so I'll look into your suggestion. I assume you mean chapter 2 of Poidevin 2010. I'll see if I can expand a little; maybe something from the section "The word spreads" can be included. Otherwise, I think we already cover the most important points it raises (Huxley, Stephen, Spencer, Mansel, Kant, Hume, and Pyrrho). Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree that "The word spreads" would provide most of the missing information; the book's introduction also has some broad statements that could supplant it. In particular, I think the article should place more emphasis on how agnosticism became a prominent idea among the public. I think the current statement that it gained "cultural traction" is an understatement, as the source says it became "common currency", during Huxley's lifetime, beyond Huxley's expectations—for example, it notes that the term was included in the first Oxford Dictionary and that an entire journal was specifically dedicated to the movement. These are just some possible points to consider if you're bringing it to FA, but I don't actually have experience with FA, so take my word with a grain of salt. In any case, this solidly meets the GA criteria, so I'm marking this as passed; well done. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Overall, a well-written article. Although you and I would place slightly different weight on certain details, it is well within the GA criteria. It's a very good article for a topic of this magnitude—and will certainly . — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot for the detailed and thoughtful feedback! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer review

Agnosticism

I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Metalicat

Happy to offer a read with a view to FAC, though I should say at the outset that I am not a philosophy specialist; I have come at this as an interested general reader, so please weigh my points accordingly.

Hi Metalicat and thanks for reviewing this article! Phlsph7 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Prose

• In "Lifestyles and implications": fosters cultural tolerance. "Fosters" is faintly editorial; a plainer choice such as encourages cultural tolerance or promotes cultural tolerance would sidestep it.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• In "Against": intricate biological organisms. "Intricate" leans evaluative where the point is just complexity; complex biological organisms reads more neutrally in my opinion.

  I used "highly organized" instead to avoid repeating the term "complex". Phlsph7 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• The example of agnosticism about intelligent extraterrestrial life appears in both "Definition" and the "Others" subsection of "Types". Not wrong, but a different illustrative example in one of the two places would reduce the sense of repetition.

  I changed the example in the definition section. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Structure and MOS

• There are two subsections both titled "Others" (one under "Types", one under "Related views"). They are far enough apart not to hinder navigation, but slightly more descriptive headings would help the table of contents.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness and balance

• The prevalence paragraph rests on a 2007 estimate and A 2008 survey. Do more recent figures exist? The survey landscape has moved on since 2008. If newer reliable data is available it would strengthen this; if not, a short note that comparable recent global figures are scarce would pre-empt the question.

  I agree, more and more recent data would be better. The problem is that we need a high-quality source that is global and explicitly discusses agnosticism. There are more recent sources on agnosticism that are not global, such as agnosticism in the US, and there are global sources that do not distinguish between agnosticism and atheism, such as . If you or someone else knows of peer-reviewed studies that fit our requirement, I would be happy to include them. This difficulty is also mentioned in the text. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• The "Modern and contemporary" history is almost entirely Western. That may simply reflect where the literature sits, given the term's nineteenth-century origin, but as a non-specialist I would ask whether any modern non-Western reception merits even a sentence, or whether the sources genuinely treat this as a Western development. A line either way would settle it for the reader.

  I added a sentence on Hu Shih. However, overview sources typically have little to nothing to say on non-Western agnosticism in this period, so there is not much we can do. There sources on non-Western agnosticism in earlier periods, so we can't really say that it is an exclusively Western development. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• In "Lifestyles and implications": religious individuals report higher mental well-being than atheists and agnostics. This effectively rests on one study (Hayward et al. 2016); the other source bundled there supports the separate reflectiveness sentence. Stated flatly it reads as settled fact, so attribution would be safer, e.g. A 2016 study by Hayward and colleagues found that religious participants reported higher overall well-being than atheists and agnostics, with a word on whether the finding is consistent. The same caution applies to the personality-trait sentences that follow.

The article is in good shape and most points are tidying. The two I would prioritise are attribution of the well-being claim and the currency of the prevalence data. Nice work on a genuinely difficult subject. Metalicat (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for working through these so quickly, @Phlsph7: and the changes all look good to me, including the Hu Shih addition, which answers the non-Western question neatly.

On the prevalence figures, I had a look myself for a global, post-2008 source that separates agnostics specifically, and I think you are right that there is not a usable one. The recent global rounds either count "convinced atheists" with no agnostic category (Gallup International's 2025 survey) or fold agnostics into the wider "religiously unaffiliated" total (Pew's 2025 figures), which is the very difficulty the article already notes.

The one point I do not see a reply to is the well-being attribution in "Lifestyles and implications": the statement that religious individuals report higher mental well-being than atheists and agnostics rests on a single study (Hayward et al. 2016), so attributing it in the text, along with the personality-trait sentences that follow, would read more safely than stating it as settled fact.

Metalicat (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, it's a good point but I didn't have the time to address it in my last session. I added an additional source that provides an overview of research on this topic, which is probably better than attributing the observation to a single study. It also mentions discussions about the source of this effect, so I added a short passage on that. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, apologies I assumed it was missed. Yes that works well. Metalicat (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the help. I currently have another FA nomination open, so it will probably take a few more weeks before I start this one. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)