I have heard many staunch atheists call agnostics nothing more than 'weak atheists.' Essentially, an atheist may think himself to be more assertive and bold than an agnostic, and therefore intellectually superior. I wish to call this claim into question. Agnosticism deserves a second, and sincere, look.
What is the difference between atheists and agnostics? The former hold that no godly being, such as the Judeo-Christian god, exists. The latter suspend judgement. Agnostics refuse to declare with certainty that no god exists; however, they may admit the extreme improbability. They may even consider the possibility that a godlike being exists so minute that it is hardly worth considering. In effect, an agnostic is indeed a practical atheist, while remaining a theoretical agnostic.
This suspension of judgment that agnostics adhere to may be looked upon as feeble indecisiveness or a lack of courage to scoot all the way over to the atheist camp. However, before we label agnostics as cowards, it is interesting to make a quick comparison between atheists and Christians.
Atheists claim that they are completely sure that god does not exist. On the reverse, Christians are absolutely certain that god does exist. These are equally dogmatic worldviews. When looked at objectively, there is no conclusive evidence that god does or does not exist. In this sense, an atheist is exactly the same as a Christian!—willing to make irrefutable judgment about something which can not be conclusively proven (at least, at the present time). That being said, a rational man should certainly adhere to the atheistic camp until sufficient evidence provides reason to think otherwise. Practical atheism is the default position. However, a rational man should also be willing to change his views if sufficient evidence for a godlike being's existence is somehow provided. This is where agnosticism becomes rationally useful. Agnostics are practical atheists, but they bring more to the table than just this. They are happy to point out that evidence lends us to the conclusion that no god exists. But, they are also willing to say that theoretically, it is possible, though improbable, that a godlike being does exist. This is a freethinker's stance—the readiness to admit the possibility that one’s views may be wrong.
Bertrand Russell, a practical atheist and theoretical agnostic, knew the value of doubt. Inflexible and rigid belief in any philosophy is to be avoided. Atheism and Christianity are instances of such rigidity. Theoretical agnosticism is a flexible and skeptical approach to this issue, which is anything but weak.
"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine." Bertrand Russell
5.27.2005
agnosticism versus atheism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Good call, as it is important for people to see the difference between the statements "I do not believe that god exists" and "I believe that god does not exist" (agnostic and atheist, respectively). There are, however, some people who use agnosticism as an escape from taking sides, and although i feel a healthily skeptical person can never be truly atheist, there is a difference in the agnostic statements of "I do not know and therefore will not take sides against a Christian or any other religious believer" and "I see no reason to believe there is a God and will take sides against someone who insists there must be".
Eriatlov,
You said, "it is important for people to see the difference between the statements 'I do not believe that god exists' and 'I believe that god does not exist' (agnostic and atheist, respectively)."
I do agree that differentiating between these two positions is objectively important; nevertheless, your differentiation is incorrect, particularly with regard to agnosticism.
Agnosticism is defined by an active belief in the impossibility of knowing anything regarding the divine, or lack thereof. While, at first blush, your agnostic's statement may seem appropriate/accurate, a true agnostic would never say, "I do not believe that God exists", as that logically implies the existence of God, independent of belief.
An agnostic would simply say this: "I don't know, and I can't know."
The irony of this is, of course, that true Christians do not 'know' either. They believe. Thus, agnosticism is actually a relatively useless term.
Nevertheless -- you've raised good points. I'll expand my position in an essay-post, sometime soon.
Cheers,
AJPL
"Atheists claim that they are completely sure that god does not exist."
Strong atheism goes so far as to claim that no gods exist. Atheism itself is merely the absence of belief in the exitence of gods.
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/p/overview.htm
Even if atheism were such an assertion, it wouldn't be a worldview. A worldview (or philosophy, ideology, religion, etc.) is a complex of beliefs, not a single belief/assertion - however dogmatic it is held.
Thus...
"What is the difference between atheists and agnostics?"
That's comparing apples and oranges. Atheism/theism are about belief; agnosticism is about knowledge. There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists because people who don't claim to know for sure may go on and believe anyway (faith) or not bother.
Anonymous,
You said: "Atheism itself is merely the absence of belief in the exitence of gods."
This is incorrect. Atheism is an active belief in the non-existence of gods.
To restate: an atheist would never say, "I don't believe in God", because that implies that God does in fact exist, irrespective of an individual's belief.
No, an atheist would say, "There is no God", or, "There's no such thing as 'God'."
But your last paragraph is a useful one. While I would hesitate to delineate atheism/theism and agnosticism as belief vs. knowledge, given what this implies, I do think that such delineation produces a relatively tenable position.
Cheers.
I'm going to let a lot comments made in that essay slide to get to my point. You are going to DIE! There is no denying this, it is going to happen. A big part of any religion is a belief in what will happen after you die, there is evidence for christianity but for the sake of argument i'm gonna move past that.
The fact is you will die and it's like you don't have any plans or beleifs for what will happen after you die. You can spend your whole life attacking christianity, but it won't make a difference. How can you just sit back and decide to take death when it comes? Do you really beleive there is no connection between what we do here and what happencs after death? If that is true then there must really be no meaning to life.
Squirels man you are not making sense.
Of course we are going to die. That is the exact damn reason that people around this site are using their fuckin brains to make the most of out life! If there is a God, I bet you a box of corn flakes that he likes people who use their brains more than people who are to scared to question a book written thousands years ago.
The question is not why do we not believe in your god....
.....The question is why are you so afraid of dying? Jeez.
PlaysWithSquirels
"Do you really beleive there is no connection between what we do here and what happencs after death? If that is true then there must really be no meaning to life."
Many people believe in God/religion because they feel the existence of an afterlife gives life here meaning. However, a desire to believe something, hope of an afterlife does not mean that God is real or an afterlife actually exists.
You say there is evidence for Christianity. I say there is a lot more evidence against Christianity. Read books like 'Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith' and 'Leaving The Fold: Testimonies Of Former Fundamentalists' for arguments against Christianity.
I don't believe that the existence of God or an afterlife gives life meaning. Even theologians can't agree on why God put us here or the meaning of life. So, even with religion life still lacks meaning.
Personally, I enjoy my life. I find joy and meaning in my existence. Maybe that's because I'm not shackled by the fears created by religion, sin, hell, etc. I don't know if there is an afterlife or not. If there is, well I live a good life, so I don't worry about it. If there is no afterlife, then I have not wasted my life worrying about committing arbitrary sins that have nothing to do with being a good person.
Terms "atheism" and "theism" define your position in regard to your _belief_ in existence of god or gods. Agnosticism is a position that deals with _knowledge_ and not beliefs. You might not _know_ that there is god but you might still believe that there is. That makes you an agnostic theist. Agnosticism, if defined properly (not as it is mis-understood by majority of the people), is not in conflict with atheism. It is not a middle ground between theism and atheism. A-gnostic: without knowlege. A-theist: whithout theism.
Logically speaking, question "do you have a belief that X exists?" has only 2 outcomes: yes or no. "I suspend judgment" is not an valid answer, because you are not asked to pronounce your judgment, you are asked about your current state of beliefs in regards to existence of X. Answer "I don't know" does not work either because again you are no being asked whether you know something or not... You either believe X exists or you don't. What you know about X and why you believe the way you do are different questions?
"Lack of theistic beliefs" or variation of it is the preferred definition of atheism for most of the atheist thinkers that I have encountered. Most atheists do not go as far as to make a positive claim that "God does not exist" or "we know that god does not exist". They merely declare that they "do not believe in it" which is not the same thing.
It seems that some of the main reasons for people wanting to separate themselves from atheism and declare themselves to be purely agnostics are confusion of terminology and social pressure. After all, no adults are walking around talking about "suspending their judgment" in regards to existence of Santa Claus... Why is god getting this special treatment if it is not for stigma associated with being an atheist and special treatment of this mythical deity in modern societies?
After reading some of these posts, I am inclined to agree with the line of thinking that places agnosticism and atheism on different battlefields. It makes a great deal more sense to understand agnosticism as an epistemological concern and atheism as one dealing with individual belief. Indeed, it should be quite possible to think that knowledge of the existence of the divine is unattainable, yet have a belief one way or the other. It is, of course, ultimately a question of definition, but upon closer inspection, atheism and agnosticism appear by no means mutually exclusive, and this accounts for the "practical atheism" and "theoretical agnosticism" described in the original post, in which "theoretical" refers to the belief in possibility of knowledge and "practical" refers to the belief in divine existence itself. Thanks to those who have pointed this important fact out.
Playswithsquirrels. Your belief that life can have no meaning without a belief in the afterlife or religion of some sort has been the bane of free thought for centuries, and the tool of religion to exercise its mass appeal. I find that life has plenty of meaning in itself, or, depending on the way one views it, that it does not need a "meaning" to be worthwhile. Believing in something that does not exist out of desperation does not suddenly infuse one's life with "meaning", especially if it deals with an afterlife that will never come. Life does not have to have meaning dependent on what follows it, just as the value of childhood is more than preparation for adulthood. Your view is that of a man who goes through high school to prepare for college, to college to prepare for his job, to his job to prepare for retirement, and then dies before he can retire, never realizing that life can be its own goal.
Eriatlov,
Excellent comments. Well done.
Is life meaningless without the afterlife?
No. I don't think so. Anyone can lead a "good" life here in this current time, whether or not they believe in any kind of afterlife or not. An Atheist, a Christian, or anyone for that matter, is fully capable of changing the world for the better, leaving a legacy, and loving it all the while.
It's not that non-Christians have nothing to live for. Many live for the moment. Many live for themselves. Many live to make a difference. Noble intentions are definetly not unheard of, quite contrary-wise, actually.
It's simply that Christians choose to believe in a Supreme God. They live for Him, to bring glory to Him. The belief in the afterlife, of a perfect heaven, should not be used as a crutch.
I am a Christian. Let me give you a taste of what I believe and why. I believe I am going to heaven after I leave this earth. I do not let a fear of Hell keep me from living my life here, because I know Jesus has saved me.
I do my best to not use my belief in Heaven as a crutch. I try to use it as a hope; a goal. I'm sure I could go through my life as an atheist and still enjoy life. I could probably even do the world a little good.
It's merely that I choose to serve an Almighty God. I have chosen this path, just as you choose yours. The afterlife is just a part of my belief, what I trust to be true. It does make it easier to get through my day, knowing that someday I will be up there with my God.
You're all free to believe what you wish of the afterlife. That is your choice. I'll definetly be praying for all of you.
Though, I must say that I do not condemn Playswithsquirels because of his comments. It seems to me that he was making his comment out of compassion. As you all know, Christians believe that those who do not know Jesus will indeed go to Hell. We're just trying to bring you a bit closer to the truth.
Oh, and I'm sorry for getting off subject. I know this isn't what was supposed to be addressed in this post, but I thought this particular issue could use a bit of addressing.
Wow, maybe i should clarify a few of my earlier comments.
Don, I will gladly accept your bet. Have you read the book? My guess is not, and therefore how can you question what it says when you don't fully know. If you had read the book, then you would know that it is the book of God, and if i had written it i'm sure i would "like" the people who didn't question it better than those who had. But yet another part of the bible is that God loves everyone regardless. Also, i have no fear of death, although after reading my earlier comment i could see where you might get that. The whole afterlife thing is far from the only reason i beleive in God.
Anonymous, existance itself just doesn't seem enough to me. Sure, you can make a mark on this world, but to me it's like when i die it's all going to be left behind anyway so it's meaningless to me after i die. Also the vast majority of those "arbitrary sins" you mentioned are like an outline for what makes a good person.
Eriatlov, i find the example you gave me a very interesting one. In the literal sense i would agree with you on how that would be a tragedy. Being as you are using it figuritively though, i say this: to me highschool's whole purpose is to get to college, and college's whole purpose is to become what it is you want to be. If it weren't, then i wouldn't put any effort into it and just go for fun, or something to do to pass the time. But i have a goal of where i want to get to, so i put my best effort into it, i may get behind but i still try my best. If i succeed then my reward is a happy retirement.
Josselyn, thanks :).
I've read that book. It's so damn depressing. Actually, bucko, it is my reading of the bible that turned me into an atheist. And don't try to tell me I don't understand it, and that all the famous philosophers who read it and were atheists didnt understand it, yet you with your great mind understand it perfectly. As my grandpa says, HOG WASH.
"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand." Mark Twain
Got another opinion on that beautiful book of yours: "The Bible is one of the most genocidal books in history." Noam Chomsky
I just cant help myself, I had to include my good friend Isaac in on this conversation:
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." Asimov
"The bible must be seen in a cultural context. It didn't just happen. These stories are retreads. But, tell a Christian that
-- No, No! What makes it doubly sad is that they hardly know the book, much less its origins." Asimov
Nice blog. I, too, have a blog; a very progressive one.
http://educationalvignette.blogspot.com/
I didn't know what an agnostic was until now. I'm supposed to be Christian but recently I don't know if I should just be atheist (I know, I'm a horrible person). Now I'm sure that I'm agnostic.
I just can't decide whether there is a god, no god, or we are all simply ruled by nature.
Hey, is there a religion where Nature is god?
Wookieehobbit,
I hope you are being funny about being a horrible person. Simply because you don't believe something does not make you a bad person. It is okay to doubt and it is okay to not know. The only way to deal with your situation is to go out and start reading. Read arguments for and against believe in god. Evaluate the evidence and decide what makes the most sense to you. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. I think that if more people were thinking for themselves and weren't just following blindly what they are told we would have a much better world.
There is a religion that considers the entire Universe (Nature) to be god. It's called pantheism.
If you want to read more about freethought you can start here: What Is A Freethinker?
Good luck.
There is only meaning in life through knowing God as he presents himself in nature. As for all this talk about how we should find our own meaning to life, I agree. We each have to find our own unique path towards God, and we can do this by living amongst nature and learning to love God as he loves us. We are are merely specs in the universe that is God. It is only reasonable that we should look to him for help in an otherwise confused existance. Freethinking is wonderful, I advocate questioning everything, and I use God to help me to this. Without the universe, God, there would be nothing to question. I have even questioned that nature is the God I know it is. That is why I love questioning. It brings me closer to God.
Greggor, while it is nice that you approve of questioning, one of the main goals of freethinking is to question God, without the mention of whom you seem to be unable to form a sentence. What support do you have for claiming that there is no meaning in life beyond looking for God in nature? God is not the goal of free thought, he is merely a possible conclusion, one of many. To say existence is confused without God is the same as to say that reproduction is confused without the legend of the stork.
Very nice post! I laughed when I thought to myself the difference between this place and the BNet forums..
Secondhand:
Thank you for the mention of Pantheism. I was marginally aware of the movement, but had never delved into the subject until now. It gave me a third choice beyond Atheist or Agnostic. I can proudly state that I am a natural born Pantheist. This started when I was but a three year old child who questioned the lyrics of "Jesus Loves Me" (this I know, for the bible tells me so.)
Dinotoo
Pantheism: the way that second hand described it makes it sound like a hippie's version of atheism. No offense meant though, I just don't really understand what it is.
Looking at the first article, I see in the first paragraph how you talk about atheists believe themselves intellectually superior to both the believers and the "weak atheists". Then later on you state that "an atheist is exactly the same as a Christian! - willing to make an irrefutable judgment about something that cannot be conclusively proven."
Is this to mean that both atheists and theists are irrational, ignorant, and unopen while agnostics are really the intellectually superior because they can be swayed by sufficient evidence?
I know this is slightly off-topic but I can't help thinking that it might have been some sort of inflammatory subliminal message, intentional or not.
Someone talked about agnostic atheists and agnostic Christians. This brings into light the different levels of agnosticism a person can be before they are purely atheist or purely theist. When do you know that you've crossed the line and how? Also, are you agnostic if you are so indecisive that you are Christian one day and atheist the next, thinking on Monday that "My mother survived thirty gunshot wounds to the chest so it must be God's handiwork," and on Tuesday "Work sucks, there must be no god," or are you just stupid?
All this branding and classification make a model that falls far short of human reality and often leads to grave misunderstanding of the hearts and minds of men and women. There are many kinds of believers, non-believers, and a-believers. Where should we draw the lines? Or should we?
BELIEVERS believe in some supernatural being or greater power and often in some system of belief. However, legion are their beliefs and myriad are their systems. One Christian believes in an almighty, omniscient, mysterious trinity, while another believes in a personal god who is a loving and forgiving father, while a deist believes in a non-anthropomorphic power inside or outside himself or nature. Some mix and match. One Muslim, Jew, or Christian believes in a peace-loving, caring Allah, Yahweh, or God, while another believes in a vengeful, angry enthroned judge that takes sides.
Some believe in strict institutional authority, while others believe in personal study and prayer. Some believers are absolute in their belief, while others are more accommodating. And within each of these groups, the believers do not all agree on the institutions, the prayers, the aspects of god, sin, and evil, the contents and meanings of the Bible or the Koran.
Some Mormons believe that they too can become gods, while polytheists believe in several gods, and some Catholics believe in three persons in one trinity.
In early times, Christians did not all agree on the nature of Jesus. Some believed he was god turned into man, while others believed he was both man and god at the same time. Some believed his mother Mary was divine, while others believed she was human. All were believers.
ATHEISTS are non-believers in god. But there are very different types of atheists. Some believe there is no god, while others are unaware of god, so do not believe. Just like some children believe there is no Santa Claus, while others are unaware of him, so do not believe.
Confucians who are not Buddhists do not believe in god, but do believe in a system of proper social conduct.
AGNOSTICS don't know if there is a god. Again there are many types of agnostics. Some are just not sure and may search or struggle to find out, while others do not make much attempt. Some just don't care one way or the other, while others are unaware of a god. Just like the child who is not sure if his father loves him or not, or another who just doesn't care one way or the other, or another who is unaware that he has a father.
At what point do we consider a man or woman to be an agnostic? When he doubts or questions his belief? When he no longer feels god about or in him? When he searches or struggles to find out if there is a god? Or when he ignores his doubts and just goes along with the crowd or the way he was raised?
Those who are sincere and firm in their beliefs of a god or no god and have no doubts or can ignore them are clearly believers or atheists. But what do we call the rest?
Many of us don’t know whether there is or is not a god. And many of us don’t share this with others for fear of criticism or castration. Many of us want to believe in god, but our education and knowledge and experience of the world brings us doubts and myriad unanswered questions. Many of us search and even struggle to find or reclaim the belief, but haven’t yet got it. Some of us simply give up. Many of us once had an emotional and intellectual attachment to the beliefs and teachings of our youth, but now find that lacking. Many of us continue to go through the motions, but without much conviction.
Yet we continue to live and love, work and play, eat and sleep! We continue to talk and listen, laugh and cry, hurt and suffer! And we continue to search and struggle as we rapidly approach our end!
Are we agnostics? Are we atheists? Are we believers? We are all of the human family, of that I am sure!
The diffulty of this distinction is why it is necessary that every individual explain their viewpoint. There is a large group that believes the evidence shows that there is no God, but it open to being wrong. A simple "agnostic" or "atheist" label doesn't suffice for either.
Playswithsquirrels, I have read the bible and the old testament reads like it was the book of an ancient, barbaric, superstitious civilization (exactly what it is). There's also problems with the new testament, like when Jesus asks God why he has forsaken him. Since I'm sure no one feels like reading a 5 page long comment I'll leave it at that.
Just would like to add a quick line:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense."
That is my theory as I myself an agnostic.
brian: As in all things of consequence, one should exercise discretion regarding what and to whom one shares or else face the consequence.
An outspoken agnostic worker gathers little favor with a Church of Christ boss. Neither does an announced atheist suitor win many points with a daughter's devout Catholic parents. And a Muslim sitting in an Irish pub full of NYPD best be silent about his religion, as a Christian evangelist visiting Mecca during Ramadan.
Ofttimes quieter is wiser.
capeless: Actually absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, just not absolute proof.
A blank answer to a test question is evidence that a student does not know the answer, although she may have inadvertently skipped it or simply ran out of time. True determination begs deeper inquiry.
And when you enter your father's house and call out his name but do not see him or hear a response, that is evidence that he is not home. However, he just may be down in the basement or asleep in the bedroom.
You must look farther. And as you search the basement and bedroom and find him nowhere, the certainty of his absence grows. But perhaps he just took the dog out for a long walk... or you're in the wrong house.
I would like to quickly comment on what follows, from capeless superman:
Just would like to add a quick line:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense."
That is my theory as I myself an agnostic.
Okay, sure... this is fine with me I suppose. To restate the situation in your short quotation of yourself that you've provided, though it is rather vague and fraught with ambiguity: There being no evidence for some particular thing does not necessarily mean that that particular thing does not exist. Sure but, that is such a general statement that it is rather obvious upon expanding it into an actual notion. How is that a theory? I really do not understand. Seems pretty straight forward to me. It can quite obviously be shown deductively to be true.
If there is no evidence for the idea, then it must be false.
There is no evidence for the idea.
*****
Hence, the idea must be false.
This is a deductively valid argument. This means that, if the two premises given were true, then the conclusion would also have to be true. Are the premises true? The first premiss is certainly not true. Just because there being no evidence available does not guarantee that there will never be evidence available. So, eliminating this possibility, it is easy to see that your statement is true, though I am not claiming that it is useful.
Another thing... I do believe that agnosticism does refute itself. First I will give the definition of agnosticism as given by dictionary.com:
"ag·nos·ti·cism
n.
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist. "
well... okay... hmmm... this is a useful thing to define, considering that all of the people here seem to have been posting about agnosticism without regard for the definition of agnosticism. Anyhow, now that we have a hard definition of what it is we are talking about, we can now talk about it.
I think that agnosticism is self contradictory. Well... okay, i will focus only on the second definition given, that one is clearly contradicting itself. I am sure that the first one is much more difficult to show to be self contradicting, if it can be shown to be self contradicting.
Here it is again: "The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist."
How can someone believe this? Is this not merely an assertion? How can someone be so hard in their belief that there can be no absolute proof for or against God's existence? hmmm, seems to contradict itself as a religious position. If you are not able to attain knowledge about the existence or nonexistence of God, how is it that you can have this knowledge about the existence of this absence of our ability to attain that knowledge. How can someone hold that 'there is no way of knowing' in absolute certainty?
Such a belief should be immediately shadowed in doubt. Belief that there is no way of proving that God does or doesn't exist in no way justifies disbelief in God, nor does it justify disbelief that there is no God. Belief in our inability to have knowledge does refute itself. How can we 'believe' something as absolute as this? Can we justify believing that we cannot have knowledge?
Oh! You say that we cannot 'know' anything? Do you know that? Of course this is a completely absurd assert.
Agnostics are kinda screwed on this... unless maybe the idea is really that "I don't know" instead of "I can't know". Saying "I can't know" is making an absolute assessment about the nature of knowledge... without knowledge we are not able to make such an assessment.
I would point us at, instead of agnosticism, which has the appealing quality of getting to have beliefs, at skepticism. Skepticism is just uncertainty. I am a skeptical person. I don't know whether this thing or that thing is true, can be proven, can't... for all I know, maybe it can. Being skeptical, I will not make any claims about whether knowledge can or cannot be attained, whether we can or cannot prove that God exists... nothing at all.
I will also be hella-skeptical of other people when they have beliefs or make ridiculous claims like those of agnosticism.
Sure, believe it. Just don't bother believing that it is true.
end.
I respect the agnostics, I have allot of agnostic friends. Most atheists quotes famous agnostics like B. Russell. Agnostics are very open-minded people, that's why I like agnostics. To me, the difference between an agnostic and an atheist is that agnostics has the absense of knowledge, while an atheist has the absense of belief
I would like to have your permission. I would like to link this blog to my blog. It's a very nice blog. very open-minded.
.
basically, it seems to me, being a christian is to deal with what is most probable... in a logical sequence...
Post a Comment