Part of a series on
Irreligion
Irreligion
Secular humanism Secularism Secularity Freethought Post-theism Nontheism Anti-clericalism Antireligion Criticism of religion Parody religion
Atheism
Demographics History State New Implicit and explicit Negative and positive Criticism Discrimination Existence of God Antitheism Atheism and religion
Agnosticism
Strong Weak Agnostic atheism Agnostic theism Apatheism Ignosticism
Naturalism
Humanistic Metaphysical Methodological Religious
People
Atheists Agnostics Humanists Pantheists Deists
Books
The God Delusion God Is Not Great The End of Faith Letter to a Christian Nation Why I Am Not a Christian
Organizations
Atheist Alliance International Freedom From Religion Foundation Reason Rally World Pantheist Movement
Atheism portal WikiProject Atheism
v t e

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.^[1][2] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who is undecided about the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.^[2] In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).

Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1869.^[3] However, earlier thinkers and written works have promoted agnostic points of view. They include Protagoras, a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher,^[4] and the Nasadiya Sukta creation myth in the Rig Veda, an ancient Sanskrit text.^[5] Since Huxley coined the term, many other thinkers have written extensively about agnosticism.

Defining agnosticism[link]

Demographic research services normally do not differentiate between various types of non-religious respondents, so agnostics end up in the same category as atheists and/or other non-religious people.^[6] Some sources use agnostic in the sense of noncommittal.^[7] Agnosticism often overlaps with other belief systems. Agnostic theists identify themselves both as agnostics and as followers of particular religions, viewing agnosticism as a framework for thinking about the nature of belief and their relation to revealed truths. Some nonreligious people, such as author Philip Pullman, identify as both agnostic and atheist.^[8]

Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Etymology[link]

Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning "without", and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning "knowledge") was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869^[9] to describe his philosophy which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge. Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe "spiritual knowledge." Agnosticism is not to be confused with religious views opposing the ancient religious movement of Gnosticism in particular; Huxley used the term in a broader, more abstract sense.^[10]

Huxley identified agnosticism not as a creed but rather as a method of skeptical, evidence-based inquiry.^[11]

In recent years, scientific literature dealing with neuroscience and psychology has used the word to mean "not knowable".^[12] In technical and marketing literature, "agnostic" often has a meaning close to "independent"—for example, "platform agnostic" or "hardware agnostic."

Qualifying agnosticism[link]

Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume contended that meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt.^[13] He asserted that the fallibility of human beings means that they cannot obtain absolute certainty except in trivial cases where a statement is true by definition (i.e. tautologies such as "all bachelors are unmarried" or "all triangles have three corners"). All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin "I believe that ...." are simply shorthand for, "Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the prevailing evidence, I tentatively believe that...." For instance, when one says, "I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy," one is not asserting an absolute truth but a tentative belief based on interpretation of the assembled evidence. Even though one may set an alarm clock prior to the following day, believing that waking up will be possible, that belief is tentative, tempered by a small but finite degree of doubt (the clock or its alarm mechanism might break, or one might die before the alarm goes off).

The Catholic Church sees merit in examining what it calls Partial Agnosticism, specifically those systems that "do not aim at constructing a complete philosophy of the Unknowable, but at excluding special kinds of truth, notably religious, from the domain of knowledge."^[14] However, the Church is historically opposed to a full denial of the ability of human reason to know God. The Council of the Vatican, relying on biblical scripture, declares that "God, the beginning and end of all, can, by the natural light of human reason, be known with certainty from the works of creation" (Const. De Fide, II, De Rev.)^[15]

Types of agnosticism[link]

This Euler diagram represents the relationship between some common theological positions, including some types of agnosticism, as sets and regions.

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several categories, some of which may be disputed. Variations include:

Agnostic atheism

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.^[16]

Agnostic theism

The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.^[16]

Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism

The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.^[17]

Ignosticism

The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.^[18]

A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")

The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")

The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, when there is evidence, we can find something out."

Spiritual Agnosticism

The view that universal ethics and love can guide actions more effectively than questioning the existence of deities. A spiritual agnostic would say "It doesn't matter what religion you call yourself a follower of, nor does it matter whether or not you believe in God. What matters is what you do, not what you believe."^[19]

History[link]

Since Huxley first used the term, several writers have defended agnosticism as a philosophical viewpoint. A number of earlier thinkers and writings have also explored agnostic thought.

In Hindu philosophy[link]

The Rig Veda takes an agnostic view on the fundamental question of how the universe and the gods were created. Nasadiya Sukta (Creation Hymn) in the tenth chapter of the Rig Veda says:

Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Throughout the history of Hinduism there has been a strong tradition of philosophic speculation and skepticism.^[20][21]

In Greek philosophy[link]

Agnostic thought, in the form of skepticism, emerged as a formal philosophical position in ancient Greece. Its proponents included Protagoras, Pyrrho, and Carneades.^[22] Such thinkers rejected the idea that certainty was possible.

Hume, Kant, and Kierkegaard[link]

Many philosophers (following the examples of Aristotle, Anselm, Aquinas, and Descartes) presented arguments attempting to rationally prove the existence of God. The skeptical empiricism of David Hume, the antinomies of Immanuel Kant, and the existential philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard convinced many later philosophers to abandon these attempts, regarding it impossible to construct any unassailable proof for the existence or non-existence of God.^[23] In his 1844 book, Philosophical Fragments, Kierkegaard writes:

Let us call this unknown something: God. It is nothing more than a name we assign to it. The idea of demonstrating that this unknown something (God) exists, could scarcely suggest itself to Reason. For if God does not exist it would of course be impossible to prove it; and if he does exist it would be folly to attempt it. For at the very outset, in beginning my proof, I would have presupposed it, not as doubtful but as certain (a presupposition is never doubtful, for the very reason that it is a presupposition), since otherwise I would not begin, readily understanding that the whole would be impossible if he did not exist. But if when I speak of proving God's existence I mean that I propose to prove that the Unknown, which exists, is God, then I express myself unfortunately. For in that case I do not prove anything, least of all an existence, but merely develop the content of a conception.^[24]

Thomas Henry Huxley[link]

Thomas Henry Huxley

Agnostic views are as old as philosophical skepticism, but the terms agnostic and agnosticism were created by Huxley to sum up his thoughts on contemporary developments of metaphysics about the "unconditioned" (Hamilton) and the "unknowable" (Herbert Spencer). It is important, therefore, to discover Huxley's own views on the matter. Though Huxley began to use the term "agnostic" in 1869, his opinions had taken shape some time before that date. In a letter of September 23, 1860, to Charles Kingsley, Huxley discussed his views extensively:

I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter...

It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions...

That my personality is the surest thing I know may be true. But the attempt to conceive what it is leads me into mere verbal subtleties. I have champed up all that chaff about the ego and the non-ego, noumena and phenomena, and all the rest of it, too often not to know that in attempting even to think of these questions, the human intellect flounders at once out of its depth.

And again, to the same correspondent, May 6, 1863:

I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I—who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds—have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them.

Of the origin of the name agnostic to describe this attitude, Huxley gave the following account:^[25]

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. [...]. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. […] To my great satisfaction the term took.

Huxley's agnosticism is believed to be a natural consequence of the intellectual and philosophical conditions of the 1860s, when clerical intolerance was trying to suppress scientific discoveries which appeared to clash with a literal reading of the Book of Genesis and other established Jewish and Christian doctrines. Agnosticism should not, however, be confused with natural theology, deism, pantheism, or other forms of theism.

By way of clarification, Huxley states, "In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable" (Huxley, Agnosticism, 1889). Although A. W. Momerie has noted that this is nothing but a definition of honesty, Huxley's usual definition goes beyond mere honesty to insist that these metaphysical issues are fundamentally unknowable.

Robert G. Ingersoll[link]

Robert G. Ingersoll

Robert G. Ingersoll, an Illinois lawyer and politician who evolved into a well-known and sought-after orator in 19th century America, has been referred to as the "Great Agnostic."^[26]

In an 1896 lecture titled Why I Am An Agnostic, Ingersoll related why he was an agnostic:

Is there a supernatural power—an arbitrary mind—an enthroned God—a supreme will that sways the tides and currents of the world—to which all causes bow? I do not deny. I do not know—but I do not believe. I believe that the natural is supreme—that from the infinite chain no link can be lost or broken—that there is no supernatural power that can answer prayer—no power that worship can persuade or change—no power that cares for man.

I believe that with infinite arms Nature embraces the all—that there is no interference—no chance—that behind every event are the necessary and countless causes, and that beyond every event will be and must be the necessary and countless effects.

Is there a God? I do not know. Is man immortal? I do not know. One thing I do know, and that is, that neither hope, nor fear, belief, nor denial, can change the fact. It is as it is, and it will be as it must be.

In the conclusion of the speech he simply sums up the agnostic position as:

We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know.

Bertrand Russell[link]

Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell's pamphlet, Why I Am Not a Christian, based on a speech delivered in 1927 and later included in a book of the same title, is considered a classic statement of agnosticism. The essay briefly lays out Russell’s objections to some of the arguments for the existence of God before discussing his moral objections to Christian teachings. He then calls upon his readers to "stand on their own two feet and look fair and square at the world," with a "fearless attitude and a free intelligence."

In 1939, Russell gave a lecture on The existence and nature of God, in which he characterized himself as an atheist. He said:

The existence and nature of God is a subject of which I can discuss only half. If one arrives at a negative conclusion concerning the first part of the question, the second part of the question does not arise; and my position, as you may have gathered, is a negative one on this matter.^[27]

However, later in the same lecture, discussing modern non-anthropomorphic concepts of God, Russell states:

That sort of God is, I think, not one that can actually be disproved, as I think the omnipotent and benevolent creator can.^[28]

In Russell's 1947 pamphlet, Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? (subtitled A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas), he ruminates on the problem of what to call himself:

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

In his 1953 essay, What Is An Agnostic? Russell states:

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

However, later in the essay, Russell says:

I think that if I heard a voice from the sky predicting all that was going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours, including events that would have seemed highly improbable, and if all these events then produced to happen, I might perhaps be convinced at least of the existence of some superhuman intelligence.

Leslie Weatherhead[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: The Christian Agnostic

In 1965 Christian theologian Leslie Weatherhead published The Christian Agnostic, in which he argues:

...many professing agnostics are nearer belief in the true God than are many conventional church-goers who believe in a body that does not exist whom they miscall God.

Although radical and unpalatable to conventional theologians, Weatherhead's agnosticism falls far short of Huxley's, and short even of weak agnosticism:

Of course, the human soul will always have the power to reject God, for choice is essential to its nature, but I cannot believe that anyone will finally do this.

Demographics[link]

In the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center, 55% of agnostic respondents expressed "a belief in God or a universal spirit."^[29] 41%, however, stated that they thought that they felt a tension "being non-religious in a society where most people are religious."^[30]

Criticism[link]

Agnosticism is criticized from a variety of standpoints. Some religious thinkers see agnosticism as a limitation of the mind's capacity to know reality other than materialism. Some atheists criticize the use of the term agnosticism as functionally indistinguishable from atheism. This line of criticism results in frequent criticisms of those who adopt the term as a means of atheism label avoidance.^[31]

Religious[link]

Many theistic thinkers repudiate the validity of agnosticism, or certain forms of agnosticism. Religious scholars in the three Abrahamic religions affirm the possibility of knowledge, even of metaphysical realities such as God and the soul,^[32] because human intelligence, they assert, has a non-material, spiritual element. They affirm that “not being able to see or hold some specific thing does not necessarily negate its existence,” as in the case of gravity, entropy, or reason and thought.

Religious scholars, such as Brown, Tacelli, and Kreeft, argue that agnosticism does not take into account the numerous evidence of his existence that God has placed in his creation.^[33] And for this, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli cite 20 arguments for God’s existence.^[34] They assert that agnosticism's demand for scientific evidence through laboratory testing is in effect asking God, the supreme being, to become man’s servant.^[35] They argue that the question of God should be treated differently from other knowable objects in that "this question regards not that which is below us, but that which is above us."^[36] Christian Philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that, even if there were truly no evidence for God, agnostics should consider what is now known as Pascal’s Wager: the infinite expected value of acknowledging God is always greater than the finite expected value of not acknowledging his existence, and thus it is a safer “bet” to choose God.^[37]

According to Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, agnosticism, more specifically strong agnosticism, is reasoning that limits and contradicts itself in claiming the power of reason to know scientific truth, but not religious or philosophical truths.^[36][38] He blames the exclusion of reasoning from religion and ethics for the dangerous pathologies of religion and science such as human and ecological disasters.^[36][38][39] "Agnosticism", said Ratzinger, "is always the fruit of a refusal of that knowledge which is in fact offered to man [...] The knowledge of God has always existed."^[38] He asserted that agnosticism is a choice of comfort, pride, dominion, and utility over truth, and is opposed by the following attitudes: the keenest self-criticism, humble listening to the whole of existence, the persistent patience and self-correction of the scientific method, a readiness to be purified by the truth.^[36]

According to some theistic scholars, agnosticism is impossible in practice, since a person can live only either as if God did not exist (etsi Deus non daretur), or as if God did exist (etsi Deus daretur).^[40][41][42] These scholars believe that each day in a person’s life is an unavoidable step towards death, and thus not to decide for or against God, whom they view as the all-encompassing foundation, purpose, and meaning of life, is to decide in favor of atheism.^[37][40]

Atheist[link]

According to Richard Dawkins, a distinction between agnosticism and atheism is unwieldy and depends on how close to zero we are willing to rate the probability of existence for any given god-like entity. Since in practice it is not worth contrasting a zero probability with one that is nearly indistinguishable from zero, he prefers to categorize himself as a "de facto atheist". He specifies his position by means of a scale of 1 to 7. On this scale, 1 indicates "100 per cent probability of God." A person ranking at 7 on the scale would be a person who says "I know there is no God..." Dawkins places himself at 6 on the scale, which he characterizes as "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there", but leaning toward 7. About himself, Dawkins continues that "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."^[43] Dawkins also identifies two categories of agnostics; Temporary Agnostics in Practice (TAPs), and Permanent Agnostics in Principle (PAPs). Dawkins considers temporary agnosticism an entirely reasonable position, but views permanent agnosticism as "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice."^[44]

See also[link]

Notes[link]

References[link]

External links[link]

Look up agnosticism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Agnosticism

Wikisource has the text of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article Agnosticism.

• Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell (March 6, 1927).
• Why I Am An Agnostic by Robert G. Ingersoll, [1896].
• Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Agnosticism
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry
• Agnosticism from INTERS - Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science
• Agnosticism - from ReligiousTolerance.org
• What do Agnostics Believe? - A Jewish perspective
• Fides et Ratio  – the relationship between faith and reason Karol Wojtyla [1998]
• For a utilitarian analysis of religion, see The (F)Utility of Religion: Who Needs God(s)?–A Prospective Bible for Non-Believers at http://bradmusil.kramernet.org
• The Natural Religion by Dr Brendan Connolly, 2008
• Nielsen, Kai (1968, 1973). "Agnosticism". Dictionary of the History of Ideas. University of Virginia Library. http://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=DicHist/uvaBook/tei/DicHist1.xml;chunk.id=dv1-03;toc.depth=1;toc.id=dv1-03;brand=default. 

This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources, where they are used inappropriately. (December 2008)

Jeff Jarvis
Jeff Jarvis at the 2008 World Economic Forum.
Born	(1954-07-15) July 15, 1954 (age 57)
Occupation	Journalist, College Professor, Show host

Jeff Jarvis (born July 15, 1954) is an American journalist. Previously he was a television critic for TV Guide and People magazine, creator of Entertainment Weekly, Sunday editor and associate publisher of the New York Daily News, and a columnist on the San Francisco Examiner.

Career[link]

Jarvis was president and creative director of Advance Internet, the online arm of Advance Publications. He currently consults for Advance Internet. He has also consulted for the New York Times Company at About.com, where he worked on content development and strategy. In 2006 he became an associate professor at City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism, directing its new media program.^[1] He has a fortnightly column in the MediaGuardian supplement of the British newspaper The Guardian.

In 1974 Jarvis was an undergraduate at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University when he was hired by the Chicago Tribune. Jarvis first began his career in journalism writing for the Addison Herald-Register, a weekly newspaper, in 1972.

He was one of the first to report on the aftermath at the World Trade Center attacks, having just arrived on the last train from New Jersey as the first plane struck. Instead of running to safety, he chose to stay, talking with survivors and making notes, until he was caught up in the maelstrom of the South Tower falling. The experience was what spurred him on to his new "career" as a blogger.

Jarvis is the creator of the popular weblog BuzzMachine, which tracks developments in new media and chronicles some of the author's personal obsessions, such as the fortunes of radio host Howard Stern. He gained national notoriety when he wrote about his negative experiences in dealing with Dell Computer's customer support system on the website.

He is a co-host on This Week in Google along with Leo Laporte and Gina Trapani, a show on the TWiT Network which covers cloud computing and social networking.

Jeff Jarvis, 2008.

In 2009, Jarvis wrote a book called, What Would Google Do? In the book, he discusses how companies can become successful like Google, and talks about how Google, and other top websites, such as Facebook, Craigslist, Wikipedia, and Digg, have changed the business model. He gives advice on how companies can copy Google's success, and how other successful companies have already done so, such a Dell and Apple.^[2]

In 2011, Jarvis published, "Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live," in which he defends the openness of the Internet, discusses ways in which the Internet has made modern life public, and argues against regulations to protect privacy. "Public Parts" was reviewed scathingly by fellow internet scholar, Evgeny Morozov, in the November 3, 2011, issue of The New Republic.^[3]

Politics[link]

Jarvis describes himself as "a liberal: a centrist leaning left," claiming to have voted for Democrats in most elections. Nonetheless, he notes that he upsets some Democrats for not always agreeing with them and for linking to those with whom they disagree. Jarvis says that is why he likes the blogosphere so much: because it allows him to talk with people whose opinions do not align with his views.^[4] Jarvis also describes himself as "a post-9/11 hawk."

Personal life[link]

On Monday, August 10, 2009, Jarvis announced on his blog that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. The cancer was detected at an early stage and was subsequently treated by robotic surgery. He was pronounced "cured" as the cancer was contained in the prostate and had not spread to other organs. His very public revelation and reporting of his condition was (according to Jarvis) aimed at encouraging others to, in his words "I also hope to be one more guy to convince you men to get your PSA checked: a small mitzvah in return for my luck."^[5]

Publications[link]

• What Would Google Do?, New York: Collins Business 2009, 272 pages, ISBN 0-06-170971-9.
• Public Parts, New York: Simon & Schuster 2011, 272 pages, ISBN 1-4516-3600-8.
• Gutenberg the Geek, Amazon 2012, 20 pages, ASIN B007EI62I0.

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Jeff Jarvis

• BuzzMachine.com
• Jeff Jarvis on Twitter
• Jarvis' audio account of his personal experience of the attack on the World Trade Center
• The World Trade Center Tragedy: An eyewitness account, Jarvis' written account of 9/11
• BusinessWeek podcast with Jarvis, about Recovery 2.0, September 2005
• Jeff Jarvis, On the Inside, Blogging Out, Washington Post article, May 2005
• Corante.com interview with Jarvis in The Future of Digital Media series, November 2004
• Criticism of Jeff Jarvis' credentials as "Web Guru," by Ron Rosenbaum, Slate, Nov. 11, 2008
• Cover story about Jeff Jarvis as a "Web Guru," by John Koblin, The New York Observer, Nov. 25, 2008
• Conversation with Jeff Jarvis, Intruders tv, May 5, 2009 Video
• Interview in Italian, Il Sole 24 Ore
• Interview with Jeff Jarvis: Social Media Challenges International Organizations by Joerg Wolf, Atlantic Community