Talk:Agnosticism/GA3

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)

• 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)