This is going to be a little disjointed, but I need to get it posted and I think it'll do the job just fine as is.
There are a million definitions out there for what the words “atheist” and “agnostic” mean. Let’s start with what they do not (and cannot) mean. They do not mean degrees of openness to evidence. I only say this because I’ve encountered the claim that atheists are closed off to the possibility of god, and agnostics aren’t. But just like agnostics likely do not believe in the tangible existence of smurfs, if they ever met one they would immediately change their mind, as they should; atheists are the exact same way. If shown smurfs (or a god), or evidence of them, we will change our minds.
Others say that to be agnostic means to say that we cannot know. There is much to say about this. First, and most obviously, why can't we? Is it really too early to say that people cannot rise from the dead, and that to accept such a proposition without evidence is indicative of lazy thinking at best (and insanity, at worst)? I don't think so. Even for the ambiguous god of deism, the best I've ever heard as a defense for "we cannot know" is that people cannot imagine any other way existence could have happened (forget, for a moment, that god would have had to exist to create all of this). But that's not an argument, it's simply a lack of information (either on their part or on humanity's part) or a lack of imagination. You can honestly say that we do not currently know, and that is fine - but you lack the knowledge of the future (amongst other things) to say that we
cannot know. Additionally, to say that we cannot know about god is to treat the idea of knowledge in an absolutist fashion, which I'll argue in the following section is not the way we utilize that idea. Anyway, my arguments for how we can know about god's non-existence with reasonable certainty (which I'll tackle in the following section) can be found throughout this blog and over at
Siderial Heresy.
I've heard others say that to be agnostic means to believe there is a god, but to admit that we know none of his properties (although, I'd more associate this with deism). These people suffer from the same philosophical failings as other believers.
However you view the term agnostic, I will argue that doing so entails misconceptions about the nature of knowledge or a poor analysis of the evidence on hand that, once resolved, will reveal that you are no different from an atheist.
The nature of knowledge.
For even our most certain claims, we must allow for the possibility we are somehow wrong. Even something as simple as 1=1 might not be true (you may be dreaming this life, and in the real world this is not the case). So what we do is we attach probabilities to truth claims based on the evidence on hand. While I’m pretty sure that there are no purple, nine-legged insects with heart shaped candy eyes and a radio dial on their forehead on this planet, we may one day turn over a rock and find a colony of such insects. While this is highly unlikely, it would be wrong to deny it as a (very distant) possibility, and thus my claim that there are no such insects is not
absolutely certain.
While it’s not relevant to the discussion on atheism versus agnosticism, it should be noted that even god would be subject to these constraints. What if he was wrong about being omniscient? What if a demon is feeding god his every thought? Such a demon could even make god feel omniscient and god would never be the wiser. God would have to allow for this possibility, and so even he cannot have 100% certain knowledge. The point is that what we’re after is not
absolute certainty, we’re after
reasonable certainty. Ideas that are so likely to be true that they are as close as we can get. Atheists accept this. We are not saying we are absolutely positive that a god does not exist. What we are saying is that there is no good reason to believe that there is one and plenty of good reasons to believe there isn’t one. We say the same thing about unicorns, leprechauns, and purple nine-legged insects. Agnostics also accept this on propositions that allow for it, which gets me to my next point – often, it is how these things are presented that determine our approach to them.
The nature of propositions.
Another claim I’ve heard of agnostics before is that they say “we cannot know”. To me, this seems euphemistic for “we cannot falsify”, and they’re right. However, claiming belief in an unfalsifiable proposition which bears no supporting evidence because nobody has managed the impossible is to fall victim to the trap of a self-fulfilling prophesy. For instance, if you believe in smurfs with no corroborating evidence because we’ve yet to comb our universe to its very edges (a feat that would be tedious and impossible) to prove there is no centimeter of space-time (how's that for a conflicting idea? :P) where a smurf exists, you will never be able to escape your absurd belief. Instead, we need to realize that if a proposition of existence, such as that of smurfs, gods, and celestial teapots, has no evidence, then that IS evidence for that object's non-existence. Should we ever come across any evidence for these objects, we’ll happily change our minds.
Furthermore, as I said at the end of the previous section, whether we are agnostic (in the sense of saying we can’t disprove a proposition or we can’t know about a proposition) or atheistic (saying that it is so highly improbable as to be considered reasonably certain) about a proposition often has more to do with how those propositions are presented than anything.
Consider two gods, we’ll call them god Pork and god Beans. They are identical in that they both have power as unlimited as the universe allows and are, in each example, the author of the universe. Here is the difference.
God Pork uses his limitless power remove all evidence of his existence. In this case, the absence of any evidence for the existence of Pork IS the evidence of his existence, and every discovery ever made will conform to the idea of this god. It is impossible to be anything but an “agnostic” about Pork.
But god Beans, he uses his limitless power to provide you with irrefutable proof of his existence. We lack irrefutable proof of his existence, so it is impossible to be anything except an atheist about Beans. You cannot be open-minded to the existence of Beans because he is a contradiction of logic. It would be like saying there is a married bachelor – you cannot have both.
Richard Carrier originated this argument and
articulates it better than I ever could.
RecapSo, to you people that call yourselves agnostics, how do you really differ from atheists?
- Are you open to the idea of a god? So are we.
- Are you unsure about the existence of god? Why? Are you also unsure about the existence of smurfs? Of nine-legged purple insects with candy eyes and radio dials? Why one and not the other?
- Obviously, we can know some things: how to open a door, that scratching our crotch will not open a door, that the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow, that "National Treasure" is amongst my DVDs (I just looked up at random). Why can't we know (by any sane definition of the word) if there is a god, by use of all the available evidence?
This should help to explain why I called agnostics lazy thinkers in a recent post. I do not mean to imply that they are dumb (I do not even believe that Christians are universally dumb), but that agnosticism requires some lazy thinking to maintain.
I will be looking to modify and add to this, so please post objections.
Comments (27)
Very good so far. I even noticed that Ben changed his name, good for him.
i think one of the reasons some people call themselves agnostic is because it is deemed more 'open-minded'( sometimes i feel they are just playing safe). ive read an article before saying that if you out yourself as an agnostic you have better chances of being accepted because 'atheism' connote close-mindedness(to the possibility of god) and at its worst --dogmatic. (ironic isn't it?)
btw, nice post again :)
@melancholy_of_a_white_rose - I agree with you. I think the term "agnostic" really serves as a warmer euphemism for "atheist". It makes me sad because this means that those people are afraid of the consequences for being reasonable.
It is a little depressing that our refusal to adopt the fantasies of our neighbors isolates us at all, let alone as much as it does.
Thanks for the props on the post. :)
JT
@Zerowing21 - i called myself an agnostic before just to soften the blow to my family and friends. i must admit that coming from a very traditional family and predominantly catholic nation i got scared and feared isolation. up to now even if i am an all out open atheist my friends still email or text me to pray for them. i dont know if they just refuse to accept my declarations or they simply cannot comprehend a life without a god.
ha. they always ask me where do i find strength, purpose, guidance and ---MORALS. it is exhausting.
@melancholy_of_a_white_rose - I know the feeling, friend.
JT
I never really knew the difference myself, very informative.
Outside of the vs discussion, I think 'belief' in and of itself is lazy, and a bit insane. Why do people find the need to 'believe' or have 'faith'? Fear? Comfort? Why not seek experiences that can lead you closer to knowledge, if such experiences exist.. It makes me sad when people refuse to think for themselves.
I think Dawkins explained it well in The God Delusion by explaining both TAP and PAP -- Temporary Agnosticism in Practice, and Permanent Agnosticism in Principle. He regarded TAP with respect, but PAP with contempt, for the same reasons you cited. (ie, "Why COULDN'T we someday have evidence of God's existence or non-existence? The answer doesn't necessarily lie outside the realm of science.")
In any case, I call myself agnostic-atheist even though, by your definition, I'm simply atheist. I think it helps people understand my position better, because the definitions of these two words (agnostic and atheist) get so freaking muddled up. Most people think "atheist" means you KNOW God doesn't exist. So I toss agnostic in there to make it clear that I maintain a degree of openness, though it's a degree equal to that I reserve for unicorns, fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true."
Sword of Truth: Wizard's First Rule~Terry Goodkind Chapter 36, Page #397
I enjoy this quote very much, I thought it appropriate
I'm not sure I really have objections so much to as the simplicity of what I thought was really going on... (and this may sound ignorant >.<)
I honestly thought:
Atheism - no belief in God/Gods or religion
Agnosticism - no belief in religion, but believes in the possibility of a God/believes there is a God
Of course there is much much more there (I do not have the energy to explain more) but that was the basis in which I formed my ideas of what the heck I am.
Based on your post though, it would be more correct to say that I am Atheist. I do hate me some religion.
@haloed - I laughed out loud at your last line. :D
JT
@Zerowing21 - LOL ahhh well I'm glad, ever since I found out people killed themselves in a house fire for God (granted it was a cult), was told I was going to hell for wearing black eyeliner, and then met a couple Jehovah's, I said, "SCREW IT ALL"
Besides, I like sex before marriage.
@haloed - Amen to that. ;)
JT
I always figured that agnostics were still hopeful that there is a god, and athiests highly doubted a god's existence.
@insanitybook - In order to hope a god exists (but have it limited to a hope, rather than a belief), you must (highly) doubt god's existence, which makes even your agnostics no different than atheists (who may also wish there was such a thing as eternal life, even as they know it's not true).
Imagine two people bought lottery tickets. You can't really differentiate them on hoping they'll win, and if they're sane they should both acknowledge they probably won't. You can't really call one an atheist and one an agnostic about it. :P
JT
First and foremost, I consider myself agnostic rather than atheist, though, by your definition, I am really atheist.
One thing I find particularly interesting, this line in your post:
"Instead, we need to realize that if a proposition of existence, such as
that of smurfs, gods, and celestial teapots, has no evidence, then that
IS evidence for that object's non-existence."
The reason I find this particularly interesting, I commonly hear from skeptics the argument "absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence." I usually hear this used with respect to theorized yet undiscovered items (ie missing elements on the periodic table, gaps in the fossil record, etc). While I agree in this sense, it seems interesting to say the opposite concerning god. (albeit, in this case it seems that I am comparing the absence of a few pieces of evidence amongst throngs of existing evidence as opposed to nothing but no/coincidental/anecdotal evidence).
I suppose the reason god gets the benifit of the doubt while smurfs and purple candy eyed radio bugs don't is because god, as described by pretty much all religions I am familiar with, is supernatural. Being supernatural, it is beyond the realm of science, and as such cannot be proven or disproven.
That being said, I must confess this is the first time I have heard atheism defined as being reasonably certain in the nonexistance of a god, rather than absolutely certain. I think I can safely say that most, if not all theists I know consider atheism to he absolute certainty (just as theists are absolutely certain there is a god). I would assume that many agnostics consider themselves such because they are only reasonably certain, or at least certain on the non-existance of the gods of the major religions.
I would also like to add that I have spoken with atheists who present the nonexistence of god as an absolute certainty. I would argue that said absolute certainty requires the same faith that certainty in god does.
Thank you for your post, simply typing this response has caused me to further examine my beliefs.
(and just an aside, the nine legged creature would not be an insect, since those have six legs (not an entomologist, but I would think that a creature with multiples of six legs may count so long as each set of six is on a separate body segment.).)
In concurrence with above posters:
Agnosticism is an orientation that places you in unending doubt. That's it's technical definition (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge). You've the reached heart of it. Agnostics believe that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god because, for whatever reason she/she/it/lamppost is above the petty search for its existence. We are simply too un-knowledgable about the whole topic to prove anything!
Yes they are similar, but, in a purely poetic way, agnostics are "optimistic" about the likelihood of there being a god figure, and completely accepting that their mortal wisdom will only get them so far in proving this.
I agree that agnosticism is lazy, and I'm fine with that. At this point in my life, I don't particularly care about religion one way or another. By your definition, I guess I would be atheist.
I've always considered, due to the etymology irishgrrl690 succinctly described above, that agnostic defined an opinion about knowledge whereas atheist defined an opinion about faith in a deity (or rather, the lack thereof). I guess the reason I still hang on to the agnostic-atheist hyphenate is that I do think if there was a god, he would be beyond our comprehension and as such impossible to prove one way or the other. When I say "we cannot know", it is because by the definition of god as a "supernatural" being we can't know for certain if he does or doesn't exist with our (natural) brains. It would probably explode them. So it's less a matter of "we haven't looked everywhere" and more a matter of "even if we looked everywhere we couldn't be certain, because he is on a whole other trip than we are".
It seems likely that there would be some logic proofs out there which claim to prove his existence or non-existence, which I just haven't been presented with. If anyone could point me to some I'd like to see them.
I've started to hate the "agnostics vs. atheists" debate. A lot of time is wasted on arguing about what the "true" definitions for these words are, and less on what the actual positions are, and merits for each. I've found that whether someone calls themselves atheist or agnostic is usually less about putting an accurate label on one's actual position, and more about branding oneself as either "strong" or "open-minded." It's about the image you want to project, and not so much about the actual position you hold.
@IsaacClarke - I've attempted to make it about positions and their rationale in this post.
JT
@Zerowing21 - I appreciate that. I just wanted to vent a little. I just hate it that one cannot utter these terms without having to extensively school people away from some strongly-held but ill-informed views. Here I am, almost 13 years into my avowed atheism, and people are still trying to convince me I'm not really an atheist, because I do not claim to know there is no god.
"Are you unsure about the existence of god? Why? Are you also unsure about the existence of smurfs? " Excellent comparison. It reminds me of a speech once given by Bertrand Russell, in which he stated that although he is "technically" an agnostic, the term "atheist" gives a more accurate impression of his position to the hoi polloi, because he accepts the possibility of a God existing the same way any honest agnostic must accept the possibility that the Greek gods are real. Sure, it's technically possible that these beings exist, but so are countless other things that we need not seriously entertain as possibilities until some shred of evidence emerges.
@IsaacClarke - No prob. Just wanted to clarify. :D
JT
I call myself Agnostic for one reason: The term Atheist has two connotations to it: a) being as closed-minded as religious fanatics and b) religion haters / intolerance of religion. Some of the Atheists I know live up to these connotations and some don't. Whether it is Atheists fault that these connotations are applied or not I don't know, but I do imagine that there are plenty of Atheists out there not as intelligent as you, who love to use pseudo-science, or, at least, science they have no understanding of, to back their claims. This is just as bad as a religious person using their Bible to back up the claims of their Bible. There are plenty of Atheists who claim Atheism out of hate and intolerance of religion, probably due to personalized experiences. And any person who claims as a certainty that there is no God (you can argue that you leave open the possibility, but it has been my experience that most do not), and the fanaticism behind it, is as bad as religious certainty that a God exists.
I guess that the reason I use the term Agnostic is to portray that I really don't want any label applied to me, yet society forces them on me anyway, so I choose the most flexible term to apply to myself.
I tend to see it this way: Atheism Theism
Agnosticism is all things between, which is why, unlike with the terms Atheist and Theist, an Agnostic has to more often clarify their beliefs when conveying them because all Agnostic will be of a different degree. Also, unlike Atheists in general, I think that most Agnostics just want to be left alone (live and let live), not really seeing the purpose in being at war.
Agnosticism is not lazy thinking. I pretty much see things the way most Atheists do, sans the intolerance and general anger (again, these may not apply to you, but I do think they apply to most; Atheists are still human after all). At the most you can say it's less committed, but first you would need to explain why less commitment to an absolute belief is a bad thing.
I, in particular, am Agnostic, leaning toward both Atheism and Zen Buddhism.
My impression is that Russel’s analogy is deeply flawed from the start.
He want to prove the following philosophical principle:
if we have no evidence for something, it is hugely unlikely that it exists, or other formulated, we can know beyond reasonable doubt that it does not exist.
He give then the example of this celestial teapot rotating right now around Mars: each sensible person would agree this example is completely absurd, even if we could not disprove its existence since it is too small to get detected. There exists no argument against the teapot, but everybody would agree it is completely silly to believe it could exist, and this the case because of the lack of evidence.
However, I think most people would believe it does not exist not because of the lack of evidence ( which by itself would only justify agnosticism: I don’t know if there is a teapot or not) but because we have many overwhelming argument against its existence:
teapot are typically designed by human mind, they could not appear through natural process, whether on the earth or outside the earth. Moreover, we have also solid evidences that no men was on the moon, and the arrival of alien from an other planet who turned out to have developed exactly the same technology at the surface of Mars just to let that is highly unlikely.
So, if there was only no evidence about the CT of Russel, I would be only agnostic about its existence, I know with almost certainty it does not exist because of the existence of strong arguments against its existence.
The same thing is true by the way of the flying spaghetti monster: I am quite certain it does not exist not because of the absence of evidence (we have never seen it) but because of tremendous arguments speaking for its utter impossibility: a monster is a living thing, and we know living thing need a very good organized brain to exist, or at least a system able to handle information and to direct the body.
Of course, no such entity could be made up of spaghettis, it is physically impossible.
However, I completely ignore what kind of animals could have evolved on remote planets far away from our earth, and if I am quite certain there is no unicorn on the earth (with its description, it is impossible that such species would not have been detected although we have found fossils of a lot horses), I am agnostic about the existence of unicorns somewhere in the universe, I have no evidence for it, but I see also no reason why such an entity could not have evolved on an other planet (there are no known limits to the cleverness of mutations and natural selection) , so I simply don’t know.
So, my BASIC EPISTEMOLOGY could be summed up in the following manner:
- I believe with almost certainty the existence of things for which I have many evidences (that the earth rotate around the sun, that the human species has more intellectual capacities than the other primates, that each species share a common ancestor and so on…)
- I don’t know if something exists if there are neither positive nor negative evidences (a plastic teapot floating right now 50 km away from New York, the existence of an intelligent species somewhere in the space which look like bears, a parallel universe with fundamentally different laws of physics and so on and so forth)
- I believe with almost certainty that something does not exist if I have not only no evidences, BUT ALSO if there exists strong arguments against its existence ( a stinking invisible cheese monster hiding his odor and situated just between the keyboard and the screen of my computer, that my supervisor is in fact a disguised alien planing to invade the earth etc…).
In each case, my “a-monsterism” or “a-alienism” does not stem only from the absence of evidences, but also from the overwhelming arguments against them.
So, I think that atheism can not been assumed as a default position, before affirming “I know there is no personal God”, atheists have to provide positive evidences, the mere absence of evidences only lead to agnosticism.
Now, many insightful atheists accepts that, and have in fact provided strong arguments against the existence of a personal God, like the obvious imperfections in the nature, the facts that human minds completely depend on the brain and that parts of the personality is destroyed if parts of the brain are damaged, the religious confusion and so on and so forth.
Just a little fyi: I have replied to the contents of this post here. I've been meaning to do so for quite a long time, and have finally done it. You can respond, or not. I know you're busy, so it's up to you.