|
Support Science Not Superstition
|
|
|
|
Agnostics
Readers' Comments:
Add a Comment
Commenting on this article is via email, so there will be a delay between making a comment and seeing it appear. 'Unsigned' posts will be marked 'Anonymous'. Your email address will not be disclosed, nor will your surname if provided. If you wish your full name published, or a link to your website, simply request this in your email. Unlike many other internet forums, we do not require you to register or join our club before you are allowed to comment. We realise that this restriction simply insulates forums from negative views, since many refuse to bother joining a group they disagree with just to disagree with it. |
|
Comments:
Hi. Having read a few of your articles and been generally impressed, I was pretty disappointed with this one, enough to offer some suggestions/criticism.
Firstly (although it really shouldn't be relevant) I am an atheist. I used to be agnostic but was convinced by someone that the stance was being an intellectual wimp (I really didn't believe in God, but was trying to give undeserved respect to those that did). Like I said, it shouldn't be relevant, because the point is whether the arguments offered are any good or not, but just in case you dismiss my comments as someone defending their position, I thought I'd offer that.
One of the central problems is your definition of atheism as being without a belief in god. As you note, this isn't the way people understand the term. You seem to think they are simply wrong, and use the fact that the prefix 'a' means without coupled with your definition of theist to justify this. I don't think this works. If you want to take the tack of focussing on word meanings you have a problem - where is the component about belief? People do in fact use the absence of a belief component to argue that theism means with god and atheism means without. I think that this leads to some problems of its own, but regardless your argument doesn't work because you have focussed on meanings of the components, but have no component that justifies your insertion of belief. Without this you haven't justified your rejection of the normal usage of the word.
Is this important? I don't think so. You seem to be concerned about the mere existence of agnostics. I can't see any particular value in removing them. In fact it seems to do a disservice to science, which you often profess to respect, because agnosticism is often used to denote the absence of firm beliefs about the truth or falsity of a position. Simply redefining religious (and other) debate to remove this position doesn't seem to have any value and confuses the debate. I pesmistically suspect it may be that you want to bolster the number of atheists, but this doesn't have any real value. You've taken a realist position on truth elsewhere, so according to your own position the truth (in this case that god doesn't exist) is true independent of the number of people who believe it.
These are just some haphazard points, that could be put together better. I also had a few other points, but I don't really want to bombard you with an essay, when I haven't really given it the thought to justify that. My central point is that you seem to have tried to define the term 'atheist' in a way that doesn't correspond with the normal usage of the term, isn't justified by your arguments, and furthermore, doesn't seem to have any real value.
Hi Ben, thanks for your comments. It's always good to get suggestions/criticisms as this makes one rethink their stance, and change or improve it if necessary.
You say you have a problem with our definition of atheism - without a belief in God - and yet you don't give us your definition, what you think it should be. Do you define atheism as "the belief that God or gods do not exist", what we said was more correctly called strong atheism? Yet it is this confident and some would say unwarranted stance that often pushes people to agnosticism, yet you correctly see agnosticism as being an 'intellectual wimp'. You seemingly think agnosticism is false but see no value in debating it, removing it or convincing agnostics to become atheists. You said you realised that you shouldn't be giving "undeserved respect to those that [believed in God]", yet now you seem to be giving undeserved respect to those that believe in agnosticism, even though you personally have rejected it on intellectual grounds.
You say that:
The religious like to insist that atheists claim God doesn't exist, which means we know he doesn't exist which leads to meaning we can PROVE god doesn't exist. This is a straw man argument, since they then go on to correctly show that this view is flawed, and therefore atheist thinking must be flawed as well. They like people to have a narrow view of what atheism really means so they can more easily attack that position.
A Christian will never say that an atheist is someone who says the gods Shiva or Zeus don't exist, because of course Christians say they don't exist either. If denying Shiva and Zeus made you an atheist then Christians are atheists. Thus Christians like to define atheists very narrowly as simply those who say that the Christian God doesn't exist. They don't want your average man on the street connecting atheism with a lack of belief in all gods, since this would make Christians 99.99% atheist and only 0.01% theist. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
You say that we
You say
Reagrding agnostics you ask
You say our argument
You state that
You say that we've
You say
Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist — there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more “reasonable” position while atheism is more “dogmatic,” ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. Is this a valid position to take? Unfortunately, no — agnostics may sincerely believe it and theists may sincerely reinforce it, but it relies upon more than one misunderstanding about both atheism and agnosticism. These misunderstandings are only exacerbated by continual social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists.
So, what is the definition of agnosticism? Some imagine that agnosticism is an alternative to atheism, but those people have typically bought into the mistaken notion of the single, narrow definition of atheism. Strictly speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge, and knowledge is a related but separate issue from belief, the domain of theism and atheism.
Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge, not a lack of commitment — agnostics still either have a belief in the existence of at least one god or they lack any positive belief in the existence of any gods.
Belief vs. Disbelief - Believing, Not Believing, and Denying Gods
Forgive me if I've misinterpreted anything in your comments, and feel free to write back to clarify anything. Even though I believe the correct definition of atheism is 'without a belief in gods', I do admit that I go further than this and say that I believe there are no gods, with the same conviction that I say there are no leprechauns. That is, strong or explicit atheism, a subdivision of general atheism. That said, we don't want to coerce people into our position through false or misleading arguments. If you can convince us that scholars who have researched these topics disagree with our stance, we will happily change our article. We won't be swayed by what the likes of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton or your granny think atheism means, unless they can support their argument.
Thanks again for your comments.
Hi John, a very long response, much more than I expected. I'll try to answer the parts I can, and provide some clarification of my initial points.
A few initial clarifications: I was critiquing your view, not presenting my own. So I didn't do the types of things required to present my own view (e.g. giving my own definitions). I also wasn't defending agnosticism as the right position to take - I think that atheism makes the most sense. Instead, I was disagreeing with your position that there simply is no such thing as agnosticism.
I know these comments only cover a small portion of your comments, but hopefully they provide some clarification and amplification of my view - essentially that redefining the terms atheist and agnostic away from their common usage wasn't justified by your arguement; that redefining the terms doesn't address the real issue (what should people believe with regard to the existence of god, specifically the judeo-christian god); and that if belief in god isn't justified, the best way of engaging with agnostics (and theists) is to challenge their beliefs, not to redefine the label they use to describe themselves.
Thanks for your reply Ben. I was going to respond to your different points but it started to stretch out and since you thought my last reply was a very long response, I won't bore you with another.
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree, but I will try and use the comments you've made to edit our article, hopefully improving our argument by clarifying claims that you belief are errors, such as your belief that we have redefined the terms atheism and agnosticism, that we claim there is no such thing as agnosticism and that our argument is flawed because we 'commit the fallacy of appealing to authority'.
Our point of difference seems to be on the definition of atheism and agnosticism, you preferring that of 'common usage' while we argue for definitions provided by scholars. Explaining how the definitions used by 'authorities' differ from that used on the street and in the pub (ie 'common usage') can not be called 'redefining', which suggests subterfuge, evasion, dishonesty.
We don't say there is no such thing as agnosticism. We say that people have misinterpreted it when it comes to talking about belief in god. We state that it is a valid term, give its correct dictionary definition and support this definition, not its 'common usage' one.
As for the charge that we 'commit the fallacy of appealing to authority', we must disagree. Most of our knowledge comes from authorities, especially scientists, and our world wouldn't function if this weren't the case. No one can be an authority in all subjects. Everyone appeals to authority. One only commits a fallacious appeal to authority when one appeals to an inappropriate authority. The 'scholars' we 'appeal' to are considered real authorities, experts in their field. I've read their books and articles and considered the evidence and arguments they provided. Likewise I have consulted various dictionaries. Whether you or I agree with them is irrelevant, they are considered authorities and it is proper to appeal to their expertise. The views of people on the street (ie 'common usage') may be interesting but they are not authoritative. They are not authorities in the field of religion and therefore blindly accepting their proclamations would truly be a fallacious appeal to authority, that is, accepting 'common usage' definitions from inappropriate authorities over that of genuine authorities.
People may prefer the 'common usage' definitions over that of authorities but that does not mean their view is correct or their argument is valid. Science would collapse over night if scientists adopted 'common usage' definitions of scientific principles. This was the point of our article. That the man on the street often has only a superficial understanding, and sometimes false view, compared to what authorities believe, and that often he won't even realise this. Of course people will continue to define themselves as agnostics, they'll continue to refuse to support their position and they'll continue to use it as a shield and a place of refuge.
Remember what NZ's most famous agnostic, Helen Clark, said when asked about god: "I have no opinion to offer. I'm an agnostic." End of discussion. How convenient for agnostics that they can do this. Or at least by accepting 'common usage' definitions they think they are justified in doing this.
But anyway, thanks again for your thoughts. While we may disagree on a minor point, at least we both agree that atheism is the most reasonable stance, but it's always good to try and justify one's beliefs, if not to others, at least in one's own mind.
Thanks John. I'll make one point in reply and leave it there. You prefer the definitions of terms provided by authorities rather than lay people. In most cases I agree with you. But there are some important caveats. There is an important difference between definitions of, for instance, an atom, and defintions of, for instance, agnosticism (I'd also note that we still seem to have a difference of opinion about whether agnosticism is believing that a question can never be answered - and therefore not having a judgement about the truth or falsity of it, and believing that the evidence is insufficient to reasonably draw a conclusion - and therefore not having a judgement about the truth or falsity of it) about god. The difference is usually either that scientists are interested in using categories that are natural kinds, or at least that form some intelligent category from the perspective of their subject, lay people are sometimes interested in natural kinds, but not always. Scientists are perfectly justified in redefining a term where lay people have tried to capture a natural kind and failed, or when a term is simply convenient to adopt for their purposes. Importantly, in those second cases they can no longer have a sensible dialogue with lay people using that term without some kind of previous dialogue about meanings. In cases where lay people have tried to capture a natural kind and failed we should prefere scientists defintion; when scientists have co-opted a term which usage should be preferred should depend upon the situation; in other cases I can't see why we want to completely ignore the way the term is used. You should also note that dictionary writers are not scientists, and whenever a dictionary fails to capture the meaning of a term used by lay people it has failed (it may capture a variety of meanings, some of which may be contradictory; in that case we simply come back to the previous debate about what definitions to prefer).
A final point: putting aside all of the previous discussion, I still think there is a very good reason to respect the lay usage - it is largely lay people you want to convince. To use a real example: the argument 1) God is real love between two people ('real' to capture that there is some cases of love he wants to exclude), 2) Real love between two people exists, therefore 3) God exists. This is a bad example because, despite the fact that it is both a valid and sound argument, it fails to respect the lay definition of God, while at the same time trying to engage with lay people about their belief (or absence of belief) in God. In the same way, if you want to engage with people on whether it is reasonable for them to be an agnostic about gods existence, it doesn't seem reasonable to then redefine agnosticism in such a way that it no longer matches their beliefs, and then tell them their beliefs are wrong. Given that, as we both agree, their agnostic beliefs are not reasonable, it also seems uneccessary to engage in an argument of that kind, when a perfectly good argument exists (your applying a different standard of evidence than you normally do; there is evidence but you aren't aware of it, let me tell you about it; etc etc) that show agnosticism is misguided.
Without being able to come to an agreement about this I suspect my comments won't be very helpful in terms of making changes to your article, but I'm glad they have stimulated some thoughtful discussion.
Firstly I must say well written and informative but I disagree.
I am agnostic, as you say that I logically cannot be, but I am. I always find myself pondering why atheists and theists alike take to calling us "fence sitters" and "intellectual wimps" to demean us. Implying we're too afraid to make a conclusion. Both theists and atheists constantly stress that we are in fact atheistic or theistic and we just don't know it, we're just using scapegoats. As if we are afraid that if we choose one side or the other some evil army of decision will come battering down our doors. I have no such fear of choosing a side other than choosing a side that I can't fully support.
I will try to not go above myself here using terms or phrases I don't understand or try to argue semantics. However, I will say that I feel you are generalizing agnostics and changing the point of agnosticism. Or perhaps you've met just a very different breed of agnostic than what I know.
I think you miss perhaps the most fundamental essence of being an agnostic. A theist asserts there IS and MUST BE a god, gods, or other force. An Atheists asserts there IS NOT and CANNOT BE a god, gods, or other divine force. (perhaps here my definition needs correcting?)
I on the other hand say they are both possibilities equally since they both take leaps of faith to believe in. To say there IS a god requires you to make leaps over gaps in evidence sometimes logically, sometimes very much not so. The same can be said of atheism. I simply take no leaps of faith and assert that there could be something and there could not be as I have come to see it there is not enough proof either way.
This skewed philosophy that Agnostics "believe that it can never be proven" I believe is quite a different monster, and more than likely a modification of Huxley expressing that he fears it could never be proven. I think that it will not ever be proven in my lifetime and I won't really know the answer until I am dead, but I don't think the answer is beyond the scope of humans forever.
Your example using Thor and God also bothered me. Just because I say I don't know the answer to a problem doesn't stop me from eliminating choices that make less sense. I don't know what the answer to existence is, whether there is one God, many gods, some arcing energy force that drives us, or if there is absolutely zero essence of the supernatural. I don't know the answer to any of that. However, if there is some divinity I don't think it is anything we've described yet, and if there isn't I don't think all the solutions we've come to with how the universe came to be are all correct either.
In your conclusion you say agnostics are only in question about one God and to that I can only say meet more agnostics. It's not a doubt of one religion it's a doubt of all religions, including the religion of atheism. Atheism does not have all the answers yet either and I think it would behoove many atheists to accept that, and realize they too agree to make statements of absolutes based only on assumption. I credit many atheists with wanting to question the universe, but I feel that where agnostics still say, "We just don't have enough answers still" many atheists have stopped short and concluded that there can be no god based on the limited knowledge we have.
Hi Ryan, thanks for your comments. It's always good to hear other views. We don't mind that you disagree with us, and hope that you in turn won't mind if we disagree with you, and that you won't take offence over our reply. When one expresses an opposing view it can sometimes seem harsh, but often there is no easy way of pointing out what one sees as flaws in an argument.
As I see it this is your position: "I'm an agnostic. I don't believe in gods per se, but I admit they might exist. I don't think we can prove it either way. I'm not an atheist because atheists assert that gods DON'T exist and that they can prove it. I don't claim that."
I have no problem with the agnostic bit. The problem is that you have adopted a very narrow definition of atheist that allows you to exclude yourself from being defined as atheist. It's like someone saying, "I've been told that humans like horror movies. I don't like horror movies, therefore I can't be human." But only if they assume this statement means 'ALL humans' are they excluded from being human. They have reached a false conclusion because they accepted a false definition, one that was too narrow. They should have been told that 'SOME humans like horror movies'.
It's the same with the definition of atheist. You've either been told that 'atheists assert gods DON'T exist' and assumed this meant 'ALL atheists', or you've actually been told 'ALL atheists assert…'. The fact is that only SOME atheists take the strong stance of asserting gods don't exist. Many other atheists say they don't believe in gods but they wouldn't go so far as saying they definitely don't or couldn't exist. Sound familiar?
Continuing with our movie analogy, we could say a better definition would be 'Most humans like movies'. If pressed we could add 'Some humans like horror movies, others like adventure, still other like horror AND comedies, but regardless of what movies they prefer, they are ALL human.' And for atheist the correct definition is simply 'someone that has no belief in gods'. Some people will simply say they don't believe in gods, others will say that they don't believe in gods either, and what's more, they assert they can show gods don't exist. Others will say they don't believe in gods either but they don't believe you can prove this. Some people will state their lack of belief more strongly than others, but the one thing that is common among ALL of them is that they ALL lack a belief in gods. They are ALL atheists. Different "degrees" of atheist, but all atheist.
From your comments Ryan I take it that you lack a belief in gods. It's immaterial why you lack this belief, the fact is you do. Therefore by the true definition of atheist, you are an atheist. Just like me. The difference between you and me is our level of commitment to atheism. Not only do I have no belief in gods, I believe gods DON'T actually exist. I have adopted a form of atheism known as strong or explicit atheism. You also have no belief in gods but insist that my stance is going too far, that absolute proof is not possible. You have adopted a form of atheism known as agnostic atheism. We may disagree as to which stance is correct, but the fact remains we are both atheists at heart. Calling yourself solely an 'agnostic' is no different from me calling myself an 'explicit'. In our cases they are both types of atheist but the public has been conned, mainly by religions, into believing that atheists are dogmatic and evil while agnostics are open minded and tolerant. Hence people prefer to be called agnostics. But the truth is we are both atheists and we both have a lack of belief in their gods. Religions like agnostics more because they are not as outspoken or critical and they are all potential converts, often just one sermon away from jumping off the fence and onto a pew.
The very first thing I take from someone at a dinner party when they say they are agnostic is that they don't believe in god. Just like me. Calling yourself agnostic and shunning the term atheist is like the janitor renaming his position as 'sanitation engineer'. At the end of the day he still cleans toilets, and at the end of the day an agnostic still doesn't believe in god. An atheist by any other name.
But is this agnostic view still valid in the 21st century? Is it still reasonable to say that "there is not enough proof either way"? As we've already explained, some atheists do believe they can prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that gods don't exist, but many atheists do not. Like you Ryan they simply see no good evidence that gods do exist so they simply don't believe in them. They ignore gods like everyone ignores leprechauns and fairies. Few people worry about whether we can actually prove leprechauns and fairies don't exist, and like gods, they simply think it's obvious that they don't. Agnostics take it a step further though. Most say they don't actually believe in gods (or leprechauns and fairies), but they insist that since we can't "prove" they don't exist therefore we should not go around asserting they don't. While not specifically believing in them, we should leave ourselves open to their possible existence. But since this logic works for both gods and leprechauns, why do we never hear people arguing that they are agnostic regarding leprechauns and fairies? They're all supernatural beings with powers and abilities that evidently science can't comprehend or test for. Agnostics can't logically claim that science and reason can be used to rule out the great majority of supernatural beings — such as leprechauns and fairies and the thousands of now defunct gods from history such as Zeus and Thor — and at the same time insist that science is impotent when it comes to the one or two supernatural beings or gods that agnostics are partial too. It's all or nothing when it comes to the supernatural. If we can dismiss a god called Zeus, then we have the potential of also dismissing a god called Jehovah. This is the bit I don't understand with agnostics. They are only agnostic about the current god or gods. They are completely dismissive of the ancient Greek gods, yet in ancient Greece an agnostic would have been sitting on the fence regarding Zeus but completely dismissive of the gods in African villages. Agnostics can see the flaws in thousands of gods belonging to other cultures but are undecided about the ones in their culture. You never hear an agnostic in a Christian or Muslim country arguing that elephant headed gods could be real. Likewise in Hindu countries the gods that agnostics concede "might" exist are elephant headed gods. In a secular country like New Zealand agnostics often dismiss the barbaric god of the Bible as too ridiculous for words and argue instead for a deistic god, one that created the universe and life and then left. All these people identify themselves as agnostics and yet the gods they leave open are all different depending on their culture or their education. They all manage to easily dismiss numerous gods that other agnostics struggle with and all insist that their chosen god or gods are a special case, impervious to science and reason. Agnostics insist that religions and science need to provide more evidence to support their case, but agnostics need to first demonstrate that their stance is even valid. Agnostics all go under the same name but seem to reading from different rulebooks. If the agnostic argument of neutrality and indecision crumbles when confronted with fairies and Greek gods, then its success when dealing with other gods must be treated with suspicion.
I accept that you may honestly believe that the evidence is inconclusive and you are taking a principled stand. However most of the agnostics I've met label themselves agnostic because of the perceived stigma attached to the term atheist or openly admit that they don't know enough to make a decision, and don't really care. Some do believe they have thought about their stance but when questioned about the nature of science and religion their knowledge is superficial at best.
And I'm sorry, but I'm a little concerned as to where you're getting the opinion that scientific theories and evidence are all quite limited, that science explanations carry no more weigh than religious stories. Of all the science books I've read on cosmology, evolution, quantum mechanics, superstring theory, genetics, archaeology, relativity etc, not one has had the proviso that these scientific theories are only guess work, that there is no strong evidence behind them and that another explanation might be some supernatural influence. Every book spent page after page detailing what amazing evidence they had that the universe operates on naturalistic principles. Not one ever mentioned that religions also provide explanations that might be worthy of consideration. And if you've read these books — and you must have to consider science limited — I would love to know what books you've read by other scientists that convinced you that science was still in its infancy and no more believable than religious explanations.
The only books and articles I've encountered that did criticise scientific theories and equate them as no better and often less reliable than religious stories were those written by religious believers and Creationists and sold in Christian bookshops and handed out by evangelists. I'm wondering whether someone with a religious agenda might have misled you when you use phrases like the "religion of atheism". You should know that atheism is NOT a religion. No theologian, philosopher, historian or scientist with integrity would use this phrase. I agree that many religious people claim that atheism is a religion but they are wrong. They often only do this so that they can retort 'If you claim religion is flawed then so is atheism, since atheism is a religion too.' Perhaps you might want to read our short comment on this topic in our 'Christian Fundamentalist' article: 'Atheism is a religion'. If atheism were truly a religion then you wouldn't be an agnostic since you could confidently claim 'Religion, not science, is the true answer'. Whether theism or atheism is the correct answer, you couldn't be wrong if they're both religions!
Another statement with religious undertones is "Atheism does not have all the answers yet either". Again only religious apologists make this claim. No scientist would confuse atheism with science. Only religious types challenge atheism to provide answers rather than science. It's science that makes claims about a natural universe, and knowledgeable atheists merely claim that based on the best available scientific knowledge (and historical and philosophical knowledge) it makes good sense to state that gods don't exist. That there is simply no evidence or need for gods, that natural processes can explain the universe and life perfectly adequately. Introducing gods is like insisting that while lightning can be explained perfectly well by science, we need to leave it open that gods might still be working in the background who just make it "appear" that lightning is natural. No rational person that I know is "agnostic" about the cause of lightning, or thousands of other events that it used to be said were caused by gods. Each time a scientific discovery is made an agnostic's description of what exactly agnostics are agnostic about retreats. In times gone past they used be agnostic about what caused disasters and different animals and eclipses and crop failures. Now they are only agnostic about whether some sort of god actually exists. They are backed into a corner with the one claim that they know can never be disproved to everyone's satisfaction. Even if science proves categorically that our universe began with the Big Bang, many agnostics will just retreat one step and ask "Ah yes, but maybe a god caused the Big Bang or caused the thing that caused the Big Bang or caused… " Science doesn't disprove gods, it merely makes them superfluous.
Another fallacy straight from a religious pamphlet is your belief that theism and atheism "are both possibilities equally since they both take leaps of faith to believe in". Again, the modern debate over gods is between religion and science, not theism and atheism. Certainly theists and atheists debate each other but the tools they use are religion and science. And no scientist would ever claim that it takes leaps of faith to accept science. It's usually only religious fundamentalists that insist both science and religion require faith, and this requires a gross misunderstanding of how science works. You might want to read our short explanation: 'Science is based on Faith'.
It is religion or science that we must believe in, and once we make our choice we usually become a theist or an atheist. And while 2000 years ago both religion and "science" might have been largely faith based that's not the case today. Religion is still entirely faith-based but modern science is reason-based. Our planes don't fly on faith, our MRI scanners don't work on faith and our spacecraft don't find their way to Jupiter on faith. People pray to an invisible god on faith and believe that invisible souls exist on faith but science insists on evidence not faith. It is disingenuous to suggest that because theism and atheism are opposite views then the evidence supporting both views is equal. Science has an ever-growing mountain of evidence supporting its theories whereas the evidence supporting religion and the supernatural is minuscule, highly controversial and diminishing with every new scientific discovery. And whereas the overwhelming majority of scientists support scientific theories, the majority of theists are in complete disagreement with not just science, but with each other. Even if science were forgotten tomorrow, there would be no consensus on which gods might exist and which don't.
We've already touched on this but you also said that "Your example using Thor and God also bothered me. Just because I say I don't know the answer to a problem doesn't stop me from eliminating choices that make less sense." I take from this that you believe Thor DOESN'T exist but that you are still agnostic about God, that you have analysed the evidence supporting a belief in Thor and "eliminated" him completely. And you have obviously done this with thousands of other supernatural beings as well. You must believe that scientific theories or modern religions or perhaps bits of both have provided conclusive evidence that allows you to 'eliminate' these gods from the equation. The gods that make "less sense". You have thus demonstrated that you believe that evidence CAN allow you to confidently say that a god DOESN'T exist. As regards ALL these 'minor' gods you are a strong atheist as you are insisting they DON'T exist. You are NOT agnostic about their existence. You have decided it is perfectly reasonable to be atheistic regarding thousands of gods. You see no conflict in this. Yet you previously said that to insist gods definitely DO exist or DON'T exist requires taking 'leaps of faith' which you see as an unjustified position. Why is your elimination of Thor after examining the evidence seen as a perfectly logical process but my elimination of Jehovah or Allah after examining the evidence is seen as a flawed and illogical process? If a method can legitimately eliminate 100,000 gods then it can legitimately eliminate one more. The argument from some agnostics that we can't categorically dismiss gods is flawed since they've already done it thousands of times.
The only argument "agnostics" can use is that existing evidence doesn't allow us to convincingly dismiss one or two particular gods of their choosing. But they can't argue that we can never dismiss their chosen gods because in already dismissing thousands of other gods they have shown it IS possible. Once you say that sufficient evidence has been amassed to dismiss the god Thor, it's quite plausible that sufficient evidence will arrive next year to dismiss the remaining gods. In the same way that most theists and agnostics say that 99% of known gods DON'T exist, it's possible by using the same methods that in the future we can reach 100%.
You go on to say that "if there is some divinity I don't think it is anything we've described yet, and if there isn't I don't think all the solutions we've come to with how the universe came to be are all correct either."
I think you might have tripped up a little with this suggestion. You no doubt agree that we have many scientific theories and an enormous amount of scientific data. Yet you say all of this is insufficient to convince you that scientists are converging on the truth of how the universe came about. Likewise you will agree that we have more religions and gods and views of the supernatural than you can shake a stick at, yet again you say you accept none of it. We have a multitude of theories as to the origin of the universe and life etc yet none provide sufficient evidence and reason for you to accept any one of them. You ignore them all because you insist they still need far better evidence than even this. Instead you say you believe that the correct answer is either a supernatural theory that no one alive, including yourself, has even thought of yet or a natural theory that again no one has even contemplated. You claim you are an agnostic because you won't choose "a side that I can't fully support" and yet here you support a view that you have invented which has not one iota of evidence and not one reason, good or bad, to support it? Why aren't you agnostic about your own views? :-)
You conclude with "I feel that where agnostics still say, "We just don't have enough answers still" many atheists have stopped short and concluded that there can be no god based on the limited knowledge we have."
I don't believe we do only have "limited knowledge". The ancient Greeks, Babylonians and Mayan had limited knowledge, as did the Jews, Christians, Muslims and Hindus when they wrote their holy books. All our religious and supernatural beliefs are certainly based on limited knowledge. Only in the last few centuries did we begin to move beyond limited knowledge. While there is obviously still a lot that we don't know about the universe and life, our present scientific understanding of the world is impressive by any standards. We have a wide and deep understanding of natural processes and our mastery of much of the planet bears this out. I think you would be hard pressed to argue that the modern, advanced world today functions on anything but advanced scientific knowledge. It was science that landed rovers on Mars, mapped the human genome and invented antibiotics. All of our technology works on scientific theories and absolutely none works on religious theories. It's all science. All of our theories that produce amazing results and accurately predict future outcomes are scientific ones. Men wearing flocks and silly hats in churches, synagogues, mosques or temples have done nothing to increase our knowledge.
I believe we do in fact have reliable knowledge that the universe appears to be completely naturalistic and not god driven, and that the odds that this conclusion is wrong is so infinitesimal that it can be safely ignored. We can't prove that some god hasn't set up the universe to just make it appear that it's completely natural, but even if this were the case, he has then designed the universe so that we would be ignorant of his existence. He has designed us to be atheists. But I think people would be clutching at straws to insist that the more we found the universe to be natural, the more a god set it up to look that way.
Every time science makes a new discovery we have one less need for a god. Nature can do it, so we don't need to keep a god in reserve to explain it. Science hasn't worked out all the details yet but it seems that natural processes can explain everything, from the origin of the universe to the formation of stars, planets and eventually life itself. And we know life can evolve and produce us without any need for a god to be involved.
We can't prove that gods don't exist, but as I said that doesn't matter. For the same reason that we dismiss leprechauns because we see no evidence for them, we can dismiss gods. We simply see no evidence of gods or need for gods. Nature can do it all. We no longer need gods to explain the world in the same way that we no longer need gremlins to explain lost car keys. We are no longer a species with "limited knowledge".
We do have enough knowledge to finally make the call. No leprechauns. No Tooth Fairy. No gods. In fact no supernatural beings at all.
Hello down there. I call my self an agnostic as a simple way of explaining to people that I hold another position on the matter. Some people may attempt to classify my thoughts as theist, atheist, polytheist, irreligious, Theological Noncognitivism, or Ignosticism. I guess the last two are closest to my views about Gods. My favourite religions are Jainism and Ancestor Worship.
Thanks for your comments Paul. On a positive note it's great that you can see no good reason to believe in gods, but I can't say I'm a fan of ignosticism or theological noncognitivism. As I understand it, both views say they can't voice an opinion on the existence or non-existence of "god" because they find the very concept of "god" meaningless. Since they don't know what people mean exactly when they talk about "god", they must therefore remain neutral. Like agnostics they sit on the fence.
Children tell a lot of stories about invisible friends and monsters under their bed that are meaningless when analysed, yet we don't remain undecided about these beings. We tell children that they don't exist, so why do ignostics lose this clarity of thought and conviction when it comes to the invisible friends and monsters that adults believe in?
You say you have "neither rejected nor accepted any deity". I can understand why you won't accept things that you find meaningless, but why won't you reject things that you find meaningless?
You say the Christian "God is no more valid than any other deity. I put all deities in the same thought space. I am happy to deny the validity of evidence for or against deities." I disagree that all deities must be treated the same. While some are very complex or very vague, others are so simple and concise in their definition that a child could see why they are mythical. I can understand why some might say they can't gather enough information to dismiss one or two specific gods, but I can't understand why people lack the ability to dismiss some gods at least.
You ask whether we believe that the dictionary definitions we provide for god are correct. Yes they are. That is what the great majority of people believe "god" means. The dictionary is not saying whether gods exist, it's merely saying that when people talk about believing in gods, this is what they're talking about. A dictionary isn't telling us what god is exactly, it's telling us what the majority of people believe god is, in the same way that it tells us what leprechauns are.
I agree that unless you know how someone defines their version of "god" (or anything really) it is difficult to discuss it coherently, since there are many different views of god, from an all powerful Christian god to less powerful tribal gods to people that view the universe as god. However once a definition is provided you can often consider whether that particular "god" could exist. In our article we did provide a definition of "god", so you should now know what we at least mean by "god". If it made sense to you, and it certainly makes sense to the great majority of people, then you should be able to say whether this particular god might exist. You shouldn't remain an ignostic regarding our version of "god". However if this commonly accepted definition of god is meaningless or confusing to you, then you need to explain why. If you say certain claimed attributes regarding some gods don't make sense, such as you can't be an all-good god and also permit evil, then I agree. This attribute of god doesn't make logical sense and therefore logically a god of this type couldn't exist. A claim of this sort leads me to reject this "god" as real, whereas ignostics believe a nonsensical claim like this means that "gods" might just exist, they can't really say either way.
In our view, "the popular concept of agnosticism" means people don't have to take a stand on whether gods exist. They can be excused from having to think about the subject. Our article argued that anyone that doesn't actively believe in a god of some description, whether they call themselves agnostic or ignostic or just apathetic, is an atheist at heart. An ignostic will say he doesn't believe in god because he doesn't even understand what god is, but his reason for disbelief is not important. His disbelief makes him an atheist.
Why does anyone need to believe in a God when it's 100% certain that no one is ever going to confirm what is a purely 100% Man-made construct. The waffle generated ever since it's conception seems endless. As everyone is infected with an imaginative, sentimentally induced 'spiritual' tendency that is merely the natural wonderment of our existence & surroundings, we must apply elemental reasoning to give all 'fantasial' thoughts a true perspective.
Reflections of a person approaching Nonagenarian status
Religiosity? Throughout life, I've never regarded this subject as deserving of any serious thought. However, with quietus in the offing, the excessive religious coverage in the media inevitably agitates the neurons. Of late, these irritants have provoked a thorough reappraisal, and has utterly confirmed natural intuition!
Logical conclusions after a lifetime of listening (inadvertently) to the delusive portents of various 'Faiths'
A simple story. No need for the meandrine moonshine of 'erudite intelligentsia'. Just take yourself back in time & examine unvarnished facts. Please acknowledge that the primitive mind was bound to generate quite naturally, mythological imagery of an Elysian nature. One must accept that the relative ignorance of early Humanity, coupled with understandable fears of the unknown, provided those individuals seeking power over their fellows (a natural human trait) with the conditions to set up as Medicine-Men - Witch-Doctors - Sorcerers - Soothsayers - et al, all claiming to have insights & contact with a 'power', of sorts. So began the blight of Shamanism, leading on to airy-fairy religions. As time unveils the past, these facts have not, as yet, been fully appreciated, hence the ensuing rash of religiosity has not been branded for what it really is — an early conceive of ignorance & apprehension — perpetuated thro millennia by IMPOSTORS preying on credulous naivety. The natural process of evolution, via many devious pious paths, has now landed us with the present crop of Archbishops - Ayatollahs - Rabbis - Popes - Imams - JWs - & a host of other hypocritical sect leaders, incessantly brainwashing the largely unthinking masses with their ridiculous & childish 'Holy Beliefs'. The Billy Grahams of the world, gifted with gab & showmanship, use their 'bewitching powers' to prey on the gullibility of the artless. Yes indeed, in modern form, the Witch-Doctors are still at it! — Mountebanks All!
With its initiation as above, religiosity can't be recognised by any sane person to have the gravitas necessary for any authentic 'Belief'. Seeking reality is anathema to the pious ones. Unable to use the past as reference only, they critically comment on facts of life that are painstakingly unearthed by the practical hard-working talents of seekers of truth. Knowledge of physics & biology would never have advanced if left to the 'Holiest of Holy Men' men. Sun would still be orbiting Earth. The dim past is theirs, with mystical rites that are still prevalent, albeit with modern trappings. They are an absurdity! Their endeavours to exalt religiosity by the erection of ever more imposing 'Places of Worship' merely highlights — monumentally — the benighted phases of Man's past. Hell's Bells! What a shambles!
Weighing up the World-wide situation, a substantial proportion of Humanity are unable to let go of their forebears' primitive 'belief' in a Creator that demands a daily dose of supplication. A person's specific 'belief' is dictated by that part of the globe from where they originated; a simple inheritance of the parents' unreal ancestral teachings, largely unquestioned! No need to be a 'Religious Scholar' (what a fatuous preoccupation) to comprehend why all of this utter humbug survives. Persistent indoctrination over millennia leave the susceptible with feelings of unease when they attempt to ditch the ingrained silly 'beliefs' inherited from similarly programmed forebears. Most take an apathetic route & run with the various childish theosophical myths passed down through the generations via pious, shallow-thinking naivety. Preferring illusion to reality, fantasy to truth. It has always been decreed that our only way forward is in the utilizisation of everyday experience & research, ie pure evidential communal common sense. The need to consult Biblical, Qur'anic, or any other ancient crap-laden fairy tales in order to pursue a decent & considerate existence beggars belief. As with everything, ethics evolve naturally. Man-made 'Gods' & 'Prophets' are clearly surplus to requirements!
The facts listed above are beyond dispute. Theism? Divinity? Absolute Man-made hokhokum! Any thinking person realises that the Universe is truly an awesome Quantum / Astronomical creation. As part of that creation, our attempts at its full understanding seem futile. Whether probing the Atom or 'Heavenly' Space, we're contemplating Infinities. Fouling up our minds with a rag-bag of archaic religiose twaddle does nothing to help enlighten our ignorance! Anyone taking this farcical subject seriously has to be absolutely pickled in traditional folklore and/or in a sad mental state. Using its bogus validity for an easy living and/or monetary gain, it's impostrous practitioners must have no real conscience at all. Far too much reverence is devoted to the abstract of religiosity. Vast volumes of impotent bombastic rhetoric has been generated by self-righteous con-men who use their dominant & deceitful acumen to sublimely charm others to wander in an unreal 'Spiritual Wonderland' that is totally unworthy of any honest contemplation!
However if you don't mind me saying, when I had agnostic tendencies I never excluded Thor, Zeus, Ra, Odin, Bob the leprechaun or any other mythical creature, on the basis that were one supernatural creature possible then any supernatural creature would also be possible. In fact, i often challenge religious people on their belief of ghosts, because I believe if they don't believe in ghosts how can they believe in God, what defines the difference between flavour of spirits. Anyway I also disagree with the definition God is all-powerful. If he exists he is only powerful and lied about that creation stuff and did a real good job of kicking his brothers Odin, Thor and Loki right out of the pantheon of power.
Also might I add for fun regarding one of yor first arguments
1) I am not a female
2) If I am not a female I am a male, or am i
3) What if i'm a hermaphodite
4) Agnostics must be the hermaphrodite of the religious debate......
Oh well, it's weak
Hi Matt. I suspect you aren't being entirely serious with your comments, but just in case some readers think there might be something behind your arguments, I'd like to make the following comments.
You're quite right that to truly be agnostic you MUST give equal weight to the possibility that Thor, Zeus and Bob the leprechaun might exist; that any supernatural being might exist. However this means that an agnostic must be willing to spend time and energy to seriously argue that not only might the Christian God exist, so might the Tooth Fairy, we just can't say one way or the other. I believe that any adult that is prepared to sincerely argue that the Tooth Fairy might exist is either extremely ignorant of science, reason and reality, or has the mental state of a child. The only other option is that they don't personally believe the Tooth Fairy exists, but they are prepared to lie to others so that their agnostic stance doesn't make them appear hypocritical. If on the other hand an agnostic is prepared to admit that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, then his entire argument is destroyed, since he admits that we can have knowledge about the existence of supernatural beings, or at least some of them. He's saying that clear evidence indicates that Supernatural Being A (ie the Tooth Fairy) doesn't exist. However once he acknowledges this, he can't then criticise an atheist for claiming that clear evidence also indicates that Supernatural Being B (ie the Christian God) doesn't exist. Either we can have knowledge about all supernatural beings or none at all. You can't dismiss 99% of gods and yet claim your favourite one is mysterious and unknowable. I repeat, agnostics are normally only 'agnostic' about their favourite god. No agnostic that was raised a Christian or Muslim will spend time arguing that Zeus might be the one true god or that scientists should be spending their research dollars looking for Bob the leprechaun. Any agnostic that does argue these things is just being argumentative or is seriously deluded. Either way you are wasting your time arguing with this agnostic as he is either being deceptive or lacks the skills to debate rationally.
Our argument is that this unwillingness of true agnostics to rule out the possibility of even the most obviously false supernatural being makes their stance so weak as to be unworthy of consideration. However most rational agnostics, if pushed, will admit that they don't actually believe in the Tooth Fairy or Bob the leprechaun. They realise that to claim otherwise would make listeners doubtful of whether a rational conversation is even possible. But they should also know that to be agnostic they must believe in the possibility of the Tooth Fairy or Bob the leprechaun. This 'paradox' should make them realise that there is a serious flaw with the agnostic argument. If an agnostic is willing to argue that the Tooth Fairy might exist, then he needs to understand that the world is far more complex than they realise and that an argument from ignorance is no real argument at all.
I willingly admit that I can't prove there are no gods, or leprechauns. I can't even prove that I exist (It's the old philosophical 'brain in a vat' discussion). However, sane, intelligent, rational adults build up their view of reality based on what is the most reasonable stance to take based on the available evidence. It is not whether gods or leprechauns might exist theoretically, it is whether there is any good evidence that they do exist. If you accept that the supernatural might exist, you must also accept that the reality we see around us might not be real. So an agnostic can't really have confidence in anything; his ignorance extends far beyond the existence of gods. He can't even be sure whether he exists, let alone Bob the leprechaun.
I also don't think you can challenge religious people on their belief in ghosts in the same way that you could challenge agnostics. Agnostics are arguing from ignorance, whereas religious people are arguing from what they believe their God or holy book has told them. If their god says he is the only type of spirit then this is arguing from knowledge, albeit false knowledge. They would no doubt agree that ghosts could exist if god chose to create them, but to their knowledge he hasn't done so. Only agnostics would argue that we can't know if ghosts exist or not.
I agree with you that none of the gods pushed by religion could be all-powerful. The logical concept of an all-powerful god is nonsense. However believers disagree. All an atheist can do is relate how believers define their god, and all religions effectively claim that their main god is all-powerful. Not one single religion mentions that while their god is extremely powerful, a god from an alternative religion is actually more powerful. An atheist would never state that he believes a particular god is not all-powerful, since atheists don't believe gods exist, and attributing powers to a non-existent being is meaningless. Furthermore, an agnostic could never claim that god is not all-powerful either, since knowing this is having knowledge about god, the very thing they insist is impossible. Only a theist can claim god is all-powerful or not, because only they believe he exists and can claim to have knowledge of him.
As for your hermaphrodite argument, in humans there are only two sexes, male and female, unlike some animals that are true hermaphrodites, that have both male and female reproductive organs. Human hermaphrodites are not a true third option, but failed biology. Their bodies contain contradictory elements from both sexes that prevent them from being fully functional. Remember that a hermaphrodite is not someone who has neither male nor female sex organs, both has both. If we think of an agnostic as being an 'hermaphrodite', then it means that they must contain belief elements from both an atheist and a theist. At the same time, they must both believe there is a god and also believe that don't there isn't a god. Obviously we would describe anyone that simultaneously held these plainly contradictory beliefs as suffering from a mental illness. Agnostics claim that they neither support atheists or theists, so they can't be likened to hermaphrodites, since their beliefs contain elements of neither.
Good day,
Why is it so important that everyone be included in one 'camp' or another?
Dave, can you honestly say, 'I don't know if Santa Claus exists or not. I'm equally not sure about leprechauns and a hammer wielding Norse god called Thor or a jackal-headed Egyptian god called Anubis'?
Let's be in no doubt that anyone who calls themselves an agnostic must openly make these admissions to friends and colleagues. They must be sincere in their claimed inability to decide whether thousands of ancient gods and other supernatural beings actually exist. They must not just pay lip service to all these gods in order to keep alive the possibility of just one favourite god. They can't imply that, 'Well of course I don't believe all those other gods might exist, but I need to pretend that I don't know in order for my argument for my favourite god to make sense. You see, it's all or nothing. In order to remain indecisive and unknowing about God X, I must regrettably claim to be indecisive and unknowing about all gods.'
Unfortunately in the land of reason and evidence, anyone who can't decide whether Thor or Anubis actually exists, is not someone whose view can be taken seriously. Perhaps this worked in the Middle Ages, but not in the 21st century.
So Dave, are you agnostic about Anubis and leprechauns? Are you still agnostic about Santa Claus just on the oft-chance that he does exist and you might get that bike for Xmas? Would you use that argument to defend Santa Claus? No, of course you wouldn't, and like it or not, for the same obvious reasons, it doesn't work for gods either. If it was a valid argument we would be forced to admit complete ignorance about thousands of ancient gods and supernatural beings, from Zeus to Osiris and from leprechauns to unicorns.
My dictionary defines 'fence-sitter' as 'one who takes a position of neutrality or indecision, as in a controversial matter'. You claim that regarding the existence of gods, 'simply admitting that you don't know one way or the other' is the intellectually honest stance. You have adopted this stance of neutrality or indecision regarding gods and by definition this indecision makes you a fence-sitter. Gods either exist or they don't, and the refusal to commit to either of the only two possible answers is to admit to neutrality or indecision. There is no third answer or third camp. The neutrality argument might work when unable to choose between your favourite colour, if you don't want to favour either side of a conflict, or if you are afraid of picking the wrong side. The indecision argument works if you find arguments from both sides equally compelling or equally worthless, or if through ignorance or apathy you simply don't know enough about the debate to make an honest, informed decision.
So why are you agnostic? You admit that you are indecisive regarding the existence of gods, and thus, like it or not, you are a fence-sitter. By comparing your interest in gods with my interest in a growth on your little toe you reveal that your indecision results largely from apathy. For someone who claims to be indifferent to the existence of gods, it's strange that you would even bother reading an article on the existence of gods, and then write to us explaining how uninterested you truly are. You also tell us that you are happy to admit that you simply don't know whether gods might exist.
However you also contradict yourself by claiming that you do know something about gods, something that neither theists nor atheists know, that their existence is 'unknown and unknowable'. How do you know that? How do you know that gods have the power to hide from us? What experiment revealed this paradox to you? You claim that gods are so powerful or so complex or so different from us that we will never detect them, and yet you must have gained knowledge of them to know that they are so powerful or complex or different. Or are you just guessing? Are you just assuming that because you personally know nothing about gods, then they must be unknowable?
You are correct that the existence of gods is unknown, in that no one from any of the thousands of religions has been able to produce any evidence of their existence, but they are not unknowable. Gods — and Santa and the Tooth Fairy — could turn up tomorrow if they so wished and demonstrate their existence. In fact millions believe they have already done this, and are only too happy to tell others what they know about these beings. If gods existed there is no good reason why they couldn't make themselves known to us, thus gods are most definitely knowable.
You ask why we think it is 'so important that everyone be included in one 'camp' or another?' (You mention 'deism and atheism' although I assume you mean theism rather than deism). We don't think it's 'important' per se, we're just highlighting that there is only two choices, theism or atheism, like 'dead or alive'. For example, someone may say that they don't know whether President Ronald Reagan is dead or alive, but this view is based on ignorance. President Reagan is either dead or alive, he is not in some limbo state between the two because of this person's ignorance. They can honestly say they don't know, but even a little thought and research on their part would soon lift this ignorance and they would settle in either the dead or alive camps. Likewise an agnostic can say they don't know whether gods exist or not, but it is only apathy and ignorance that keeps them in that camp.
Thus we would ask why is it so important that people be offered a camp based on neutrality and indecision, ignorance and apathy? Why should we encourage people to hide out in this camp where the proud motto is, 'I don't know!' You claim that theists and atheists are intellectually dishonest because they don't subscribe to the stance of ignorance suggested by agnostics, whereas we see agnostics as a voice trying to close down the debate and stop the research simply because they believe that the answers are 'unknown and unknowable'. They claim to have some vital knowledge that theists and atheists lack, and yet they refuse to divulge it. They seem to hate seeing people making a decision over something they consider quite unimportant. If the belief in gods is so unimportant that we can just leave it as 'I don't know', why are agnostics so adamant that they be registered as undecided? We think that there are mainly two types of agnostics. Those that are truly apathetic and ignorant about gods, and who honestly don't care or know which side to take, and those that can see no good evidence for gods but are still secretly fearful that they might exist and might turn up on judgment day. There is something about one certain god among thousands that stops intelligent people from making rational decisions. We all know when you and others mention 'god(s)' that you're not really talking about some minor god that oversees the volcanoes in Iceland. We all know you mean a particular god that your parents and your society introduced virus-like into your mind as a child, and while it has been suppressed, it has not been entirely eliminated. This nagging thought tells you that it would be wise to not burn all your bridges, just in case. Let god, if he exists, know that you haven't written him off completely, remain an agnostic.
Hi, I have a problem with your claim that babies are atheists (similarly cats, etc). You say that atheists are non-believers in God. To be a non-believer you need to know who or what you don't believe in. Babies don't. It's as simple as that. I have heard fellow atheists try to wriggle around this and claim that atheism is the absence of a belief in God. I find it petty and boring to play with words in this way. An atheist is indeed a person who is a non-believer in God. But an atheist is a non-believer, in other words a person who does not believe in God. That's the key thing. An absence of a belief is not a belief that God does not exist. Your article is excellent but please don't foul it up with ridiculous statements. I have several children, grandchildren and a sprinkling of greatgrandchildren. But I don't recall any of them being atheists when they were born. Beliefs and non-beliefs develop afterwards, You may think it is I who am playing with words. I have had that one thrown at me too.
What we try to say Vance is that babies and cats are 'without' a belief in gods. We don't claim that they have understood what gods are and have decided not to believe in them. Technically if you don't believe in gods then you are an atheist, whether you understand what they are or not. Just like, if you're not dead then you must be alive. You don't have to know about atheists to be one, just as a baby doesn't have to understand life before it can be alive. It simply is alive. Babies are also non-voters, non-car owners and virgins, even though they have no knowledge of politics, cars or sex. They don't need to know about these things for us to describe them as such.
You say that 'An absence of a belief is not a belief that God does not exist' and that 'Beliefs and non-beliefs develop' well after babies are born. We think you confuse the positive claim that 'God does not exist' with basic atheism. Certainly we agree that to say 'God does not exist' requires you to know what gods are, something a baby could never do. But as we tried to explain atheism ranges from 'implicit' or 'weak' atheism to 'explicit' or 'strong' atheism.
Babies and anyone that has no concept of gods are 'weak' atheists. They have no belief in god simply because they have no concept of god. They don't claim God doesn't exist because they have no idea what God is. You said that you don't recall any of your kids being atheists when they were born, but we guarantee you don't recall them being theists either. If they didn't believe in god as babies (and how could they?), if they were without a belief in god, then they were atheists.
The atheists that you're thinking of are 'strong' atheists, like us, that do understand the notion of gods and proclaim that these gods don't exist. This is what the public has, rightly or wrongly, now adopted as the definition of atheism.
But at the end of the day Vance this point is a minor and insignificant one. With our article what we would like to see is people taking a stance on whether gods exist or not. The devout believe the issue to be of vital importance and many lukewarm believers think it could well be, and yet many falsely call themselves agnostics, unwilling to think too deeply about the issue and happy to sit on the fence and leave the matter unresolved. Yet none take the same stance with Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or the Egyptian god Ra. Agnostics dismiss the Hindu gods without a second thought but argue with atheists over a god called Jehovah.
Many agnostics look disapprovingly at atheists (strong atheists) since we are prepared to say gods don't exist, yet they don't condemn believers for believing gods do exist. They challenge us: 'You can't prove god doesn't exist', yet you never see them shouting at priests 'You can't prove god exists'. The fact that they won't, or can't, let go of a belief in the god that was given to them as a child suggests that they are believers, not agnostics, whether they realise it or not.
We want people to make an honest and well thought out commitment on whether gods exist, and not just say that it's such an important issue it should be left undecided.
Hi, Whether babies are born atheists is not a matter for philosphical discussion. Nor is it a matter of strong or weak atheists (who decides who are the strong and who are the weak? There is some self-delusion going on here). It is a matter of fact. Babies do not have the neural circuitry to be anything in the area of beliefs. Grow up, you're big boys now, learn to live with the fact and get on with your lives. This is my last word on the matter.
Sorry Vance, but the advantage of being freethinkers and living on the other side of the planet from the Vatican means that we can make anything we want a philosophical discussion. If you have a problem with babies not believing in god then that's something you're going to have to deal with. And that's the crux of what you're obsessing over: do babies believe in god? The answer is no, they don't. And what's the name for people that don't believe in god: atheists.
And what do mean 'who decides who are the strong [atheists] and who are the weak?' It's not a matter of deciding, like whether someone is attractive, you fit into one or other category based on the claims you make, or don't make. If you claim gods don't exist then you're a strong or explicit atheist, if you don't make this claim then you're a weak or implicit atheist. Babies don't make this claim so they're weak or implicit atheists by default.
To repeat ourselves, we believe Vance's logic is flawed. Vance appears to be saying that babies are not atheists unless they understand exactly what gods are and then go on to believe that they don't exist. If they don't understand the concept of god then they can't be atheists. But this is like saying babies are not virgins unless they know exactly what sexual intercourse entails and they believe they haven't experienced it. If they don't understand the concept of sex then they can't be virgins. The point is that these labels are not something babies place on themselves, they are labels that adults that do understand gods and sex use to describe a state that babies are in. Babies are atheists and virgins whether they realise it or not. A teenager does not suddenly become a virgin when he views his first porno movie and learns what sex involves.
By Vance's logic a baby may not be an atheist, but a young child must be an atheist before he either becomes a believer or sticks with being an atheist. At some stage a child will learn the concept of gods, usually from his misguided parents. Once he understands the concept, there will be a period, maybe only fleeting, where he must consider this new knowledge and decide whether to believe it or not. While he is deciding he is an atheist, even by Vance's logic, since he now understands what gods are but hasn't yet decided to believe in them. So before anyone can become a believer, they must first be an atheist. This is why I wear a 'Born Again Atheist' badge, since I have reverted to my initial state of mind regarding gods. I understand the concept but haven't opted for belief in them.
The discussion we want people to have is whether any rational adult should believe in gods, so to get tied up on what to call babies who have no belief in god seems rather silly. We both agree that babies don't believe in god (like us), but it seems we will have to disagree on what this state should be called. We're arguing to rid the world of the term agnostic, so we're not going to support introducing another bogus term to describe babies, toddlers and young children who haven't yet been told about their parent's god and consequently are without belief.
I'd just like to make a few points about the belief spectrum
You have argued that there are two primary boolean states: {atheism, theism} and that these states are further subdivided into substates {strong, weak} I would argue that these are umbrella terms to describe large swathes of human thought on the existence of a deity or otherwise. Since this describes large swathes of human belief, it seems to me to be entirely reasonable to subdivide again — so, for instance, someone might be atheism-strong-weak denoting that they are closer to the weak side of strong atheism than to the strong side of strong atheism. I suppose (assume!) that this is your view too since you have the pretty bars rising in magnitude as we head towards one extreme or the other.
In principle, then, is it possible to have an infinite amount of subdivisions representing an infinite amount of states? If so, we could index those states to, say, -1 .. +1 with the infinite rational number series in between. If one accepts that this is a reasonable model of the problem then the argument that agnostics do not really exist, which is a conclusion from the boolean premise 'must be atheist or theist', falls down since 1-1=0, and zero cannot, by it's definition, appear in either boolean state, yet it must exist in an infinite series between -1..+1.
Semantically, then, one might say: (fully convinced a deity exists) + (-)(fully convinced a deity doesn't exist) = (no belief).
Perhaps it just doesn't work that way? Whilst I would consider myself very close to the middle-point (zero, or otherwise) I would certainly edge into the weak atheism 'camp' — on the premise that I think there is more chance that there isn't a god than if god exists.
Whilst I realise that my argument about may seem spurious, it is, really, a genuine attempt to resolve some of my, perhaps, faulty reasoning that's plagued me for quite some years.
Thanks for your query regarding our belief spectrum. It was just something we drew to visually indicate what we see as two states: theism and atheism. Unfortunately we don't know enough about Boolean logic to debate your argument, but we suspect that it is flawed.
We do indeed see a continuum between 'weak' at one end and 'strong' at the other, noting that 'of course you have a big range in between'. However, as for the two states, theism and atheism, we view them as two binary states, on or off. Or in human terms: dead or alive. As you'll know, in binary there is no third state. If we apply your Boolean argument to these states we get a state that is neither on or off and a human that is neither dead or alive. This makes no sense, and while Boolean logic may recognise these intermediate states (and quantum mechanics), ordinary logic doesn't.
It's a bit like Zeno's Paradox where he argued that to reach your destination you first have to cover half the distance between A and B. Half way there you now have to cover half the distance between this point and point B. Then half the distance between that point and point B. There is an infinite number of steps where you halve the distance remaining on each step, and being infinite means you can never reach your destination. But obviously people do get to their destinations, and in good time. Likewise we believe that while your Boolean argument may suggest that there is a state between atheism and theism, and between on and off and dead and alive, we believe it is wrong nonetheless.
Many people who are technically atheists refuse to label themselves as such due to what they see as its negative connotations. For too long the religious have described atheists as evil, foolish, amoral and closed minded, and it is these attributes that many people are really rejecting, not a simple lack of belief in gods. People describe themselves as agnostic as they believe it shows them as sensible, open minded and moral. The religious congratulate agnostics for refusing to deny gods outright and for being willing to possibly become believers. Believers vilify atheists since they see them as dogmatic in their assertion that gods don't exist, even though they take an identical stance, dogmatic that gods do exist. The difference as we see it is that atheists have reason and evidence behind their stance and the religious don't.
We would suggest that you forget about labels and concentrate on the journey. Decide what you believe and what you are justified in believing, then worry about labels if you want. We can't understand why people are adamant that fantastical beings that are or were believed in by many, such as the Tooth Fairy and Zeus, don't exist, and yet when it comes to another fantastical being that their parents told them about as a child, they say that it's being closed minded or ignorant to claim that we can say this being doesn't exist. First and foremost agnostics must justify why it is right and proper to be agnostic about Jehovah but not about Zeus. If they can't do this then they aren't being rational in their stance, but demonstrating that their position is more about fear and hope and desire.
We believe that truth is where it is, not where you want it to be. We know of no arguments that would cause us to adopt a belief in gods, or even ones that neutralise scientific and philosophic arguments and that would lead us to adopt an undecided stance, believing it could go either way. You suggest that this is roughly where you are. We'd be happy to consider what reasons you have to believe that creationism and the big bang, evolution and intelligent design, miracles and natural disasters, all have equal support and it makes sense to take a bet each way.
Our favourite argument for atheism is that we simply see no evidence of gods or need for gods. We see no need for gods because science explains how the world can function perfectly well without them. And in fact the universe becomes far more complicated once you try and include gods.
Thanks for your reply — please see below (thinking out loud, sort of reply, not an ad-homimem)
I can't see that the analogy between theism and atheism, and dead and alive is valid.
As you rightly say, dead or alive are boolean states — you have to be one or the other. However, the theism/atheism argument says, and you agree (you call it a continuum), that these states can be subdivided into infinite variation.
I cannot see that the state of being dead can be decomposed into anything else. I can't think of alternate states of deadness that one might be able to be. As far as I can tell you can't be sort-of dead, kind of dead, nearly dead, fully dead — you must always be just dead. There is no qualitative nor quantitative distinctive case that can be made to subdivide the state of deadness.
The case for alive is arguable. Since one might frame that side qualitatively, for example, and subdivide according to a quality of life pretext. One only has to look around at the modern world to compare quality of life from one human to another on an arbitrary basis to achieve this; one might choose money, healthcare, expected longevity and a whole host of other delineators. I find this line of reasoning uncomfortable.
I must necessarily reject your dead or alive analogy on the basis that both boolean states cannot be subdivided as your atheism/theism continuum suggests must have to be the case.
However, I realise that this is not quite what you are saying. On a quick reread of your article, it seems to me that you seem to think that there are an infinite of variations of non-theists as apart from only one kind of theist. In this sense, the dead or alive analogy makes perfect sense. But this also means that your continuum is either an apology to the theists (in a keep 'em happy kind of thing) or it is in error.
If it is in error, my argument falls down since it requires what you call the continuum. I am not sure that it is in error since it seems self-evident that the classification of theist can be subdivided.
Incidentally, the notion of belief in Zeus seems to have problems with it, also — although my thinking on it, at the moment, is distinctively wooly. There is a substantive difference between belief in Zeus (or garden gnomes), and, say, a belief in a Christian God; those who susbcribe to the Christian religion claim that their God does exist, and as far as I can tell, no-one claims that Zeus exists.
Until the assertion that Santa Clause is real (or Zeus, or garden gnomes) is proposed I might as well ask you to make a distinct choice whether or not I drove to work this morning. Is it intellectually lazy to defer that question on the basis of lack of evidence?
The belief in one of the monotheistic Gods, however, is a different, and, perhaps, a special case. That belief has a direct bearing on the majority of our lives — since 9/11 it takes no effort to see how the world has changed because someone killed 3k people on the basis of a monotheistic belief.
Of course, you might argue you talk of theism. If that's the case you must be able to subdivide theism (at least) into monotheism, and polytheism (God, and Zeus (and company)) in which case your continuum must exist, and the argument that there is infinite variation between strong atheism and strong theism is necessarily the case, and if it's the case there is a boundary between atheism and theism, and that boundary state is agnosticism.
(Incidentally, I thoroughly reject creationsism, intelligent design, and miracles on the basis of the weight of evidence — but the defence of weight of evidence further implies a continuum where an intermediatary state must exist since the more evidence against the existence of a God must imply a move towards strong atheism and vice versa)
I do take on board your reference to flip-flop states in QM, by the way)
Thanks for your reply. Always interesting to debate these things. For the record, we have not specifically 'argued that there are two primary boolean states: {atheism, theism}'. As we've said, we don't know enough about Boolean logic to make that claim. Perhaps that's what our argument is, but we simply see atheism and theism as two binary states, if not one then the other, with no logical possibility of a third intermediary state.
So perhaps we weren't clear in our explanation. We see a continuum within each state, not between the states. We also don't claim that there is 'an infinite of variations of non-theists as apart from only one kind of theist'. We clearly show that belief varies as much for theists as it does for atheists, look at our belief spectrum diagram. We see variety between the strength of the belief that different theists hold, eg between the strength of conviction between the pope and a child. Likewise we see variety between the strength of the belief that different atheists hold, from a weak atheist who, while he has no belief in gods, wouldn't claim that gods couldn't or don't exist, right up to a strong atheist who claims that gods don't exist. The continuum is between weak and strong atheist (and between weak and strong theist), not between atheist and theist. Atheist and theist are discrete states.
We don't see how the existence of a continuum in one or both states creates a third state between these two states. You view our spectrum diagram as suggesting an 'infinite amount of subdivisions representing an infinite amount of states' between strong theism and strong atheism. This not what we intended, the continuum does not extend from one side to the other, but merely from either side to the middle, where there exists not a gradual change from theism to atheism, but a wall. If a continuum did exist between them then theism and atheism are not discrete states at all. Think of changing states as a quantum leap, you can be on either side of the wall but you can't be on the wall. Like electron orbits and energy states you are one or the other, but you do not traverse slowly between states. There is no continuum between the states. Your argument only works if you create a continuum between theist and atheist, where there would be a point where theist beliefs equalled atheist beliefs and they would effectively cancel each other out, creating this mythical agnostic.
As we said in our article, 'Any theist that gives up belief in God immediately becomes an atheist and vice versa. There is no holding pattern, no mythical land called Agnosticism that one must cross between theism and atheism'.
Perhaps you should define exactly what you believe atheist to mean. We will repeat the accepted definition: a theist is anyone who has a belief in God or gods — a believer. An atheist is anyone and everyone who is NOT a theist, not a believer. Atheist simply means without belief. Two discrete states: with belief and without belief. Either one or the other. We don't see how someone can claim that they neither believe nor don't believe. To us this is like saying someone is neither dead nor alive, and a light is neither on nor off. Once you cease being one you immediately become the other.
As regards Zeus, the fact that Christians say it is childish to suggest he might be real is just the arrogant assumption that only our god is real and every other god ever proposed is obvious nonsense. We won't waste our time on them. The fact is that entire civilisations and millions of people believed that Zeus and Jupiter and Ra existed. The true believers in ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt believed that their gods existed, just as Christians did at around the same time. And yet the Christian religion was just as ridiculous as the Greek, Roman and Egyptian religions. Its god was just as silly as theirs and not one religion had any evidence that their god or gods existed.
The fact that no one now believes in Zeus would not alter whether he existed or not. Real gods would not vanish simply because their last follower dies (Unless you live on Discworld! See the humorous 'Small Gods' by Terry Pratchett). Likewise gods do not suddenly become real just because someone invents them and convinces others to believe in them. Just because no one now believes in Zeus etc, millions once did and saw their influence in the world, just as Christians and Muslims now see Jehovah and Allah at work. There is no difference between Zeus, Ra, Jehovah and Allah. They are all gods whose believers proclaimed to be real. Atheism isn't about Jehovah or Allah, it's about the existence of gods. Any and all gods.
Zeus was claimed to be a god. No one believes in him now because people in the time of Zeus eventually said categorically: This god does not exist. We now all believe, even Christians, that they were right to make this claim. We now all believe, even Christians, that you can make the claim that a god doesn't exist, that you don't have to remain agnostic, believing that Zeus might still exist in a rest home for gods. The fact that untold gods have been declared non-existent, shows that it can be done and that no god or religion can declare themselves out of bounds. This lesson from history is what agnostics must explain. Why can gods that were believed every bit as real to them as Jehovah is to Christians, be declared fanciful, but Jehovah or Allah can never be declared as just another Zeus?
And yet this is what agnostics try and do, claim that the god they're thinking about is somehow different from all those that have come before. Even you say 'The belief in one of the monotheistic Gods, however, is a different, and, perhaps, a special case. That belief has a direct bearing on the majority of our lives…' Yet every civilisation and every believer throughout history thought that their god was a special case, and he was, he was their god, and their religion had a far greater impact on their lives than it does ours. And yet we dismissed most all their gods and felt we were correct in doing so. We didn't remain agnostic about them, we dismissed them outright. Our time in history and the god that Christians believe in is not a special case. In the distant future Christianity will be viewed as just another false religion, and Jehovah will be spoken of alongside Zeus.
We view agnostics as people that say: Dismiss the foreigners' gods if you wish, in fact please do, we can all see how silly they are, but don't dismiss those of our parents, they might be real. While we have the intellect to dismiss foreign gods, we're just not up to deciding about ours. And no, we're not just talking about monotheistic gods or historic gods such as Zeus, since millions of Hindus still claim their gods exist, thus agnostics who don't want to be hypocrites must equally believe that elephant headed gods might also exist. For the same reasons that they can't dismiss Jehovah, they can't dismiss Shiva either. And yet how many agnostics in Christian countries mean Shiva when they say that god might exist? Do you?
You also say that you 'thoroughly reject creationsism, intelligent design, and miracles'. We believe you do, but we don't see how you can. You say you are split between the existence or not of god, if anything slightly on the nonexistence side. But this means that you believe there is almost an equal chance that god might exist, as not exist. You're split between religion and science being the correct answer. If you accept that there is an almost fifty-fifty chance that god does exist, then that would mean creationism, intelligent design and miracles might also exist. That's what god does. If god might exist then creationism, intelligent design and miracles are equally likely. You can not wholeheartedly dismiss creationism, intelligent design and miracles while being ambivalent about the being that performs these things. To be agnostic about god you must be equally agnostic about the methods he uses to get things done. If you dismiss these things then what would god do? Do you not see that by dismissing them you have effectively dismissed god as well? You can't say that god might exist but I don't believe all that nonsense about him creating the world and life and being able to affect nature and such. Again, that's what gods do. You have reduced your possible gods to ineffectual beings, which is a contradiction. By thoroughly rejecting creationism, intelligent design and miracles, how have you not also rejected gods?
You seem to have rejected the very 'evidence' that everyone else provides to support a belief in their god. If you believe there is no evidence that gods created the universe and life or have interfered in its running, you seem to be suggesting that all the stories in holy books are therefore false. But if these holy books are fiction then these well-known gods vanish. Can you describe the gods that might still exist that didn't create and interfere with humans and explain how they can still be gods?
In the big scheme of things we are more interested in what the evidence is, rather than where this unmentioned evidence might be placed on a continuum, more interested in reasons for belief than in labels describing that belief.
Thanks for your reply.
As I stated before, if there is no continuum between strong atheist all the way to strong theist the argument that agnosticism must necessarily exist as a boundary case collapses. Indeed, I said, and you will note ‘my argument falls down since it requires what you continuum’
That you say you do not hold a view of contiguous continuum means that my argument, that agnosticism necessarily must exist, is over.
For the record: the state that I hold (which I used to call agnosticism) is that I simply don’t care – I was, in my error, trying to pin myself to your scale which, retrospectively, seems to be a silly idea. That I find that the evidence points to no god(s) existing supposes that I am an atheist.
I reject the label of atheism and theism. I do not call myself a ‘a-teapot’, because all the evidence I can find points to the fact that a teapot doesn’t orbit the moon (there is the small case that an astronaut might have left one up there, I suppose) I find it equally repressive/regressive that someone will tell me that I am going to burn in hell unless I repent or that I am an idiot or lazy or worse because I refuse to care which side of a (a)theistic debate I must fall.
I sincerely hope that given more time that the theistic debate will die away and future generations will wonder why we argued about whether planets the shape of obese elephants exist (or not) and forced people to frame themselves in such terms under the punishment of being ostracised as the village idiot.
That said, that I used to call myself agnostic is my mistake. When theism eventually dies (unlikely to be in my lifetime) then atheism will follow, since no one will be claiming a belief in a god in the same way ateapotism doesn’t exists because people don’t claim that a teapot orbits the earth. Then we can simply call ourselves one thing ‘human’
We concur 100% with your hope that theism will die (and atheism with it), sooner rather than later, but you're right, it won't be in our lifetime. We'll also try and reword our explanation to remove the confusion that there is a continuum when we mean a quantum leap is involved to move between theism and atheism.
Hi, If it is true that "If you're not a theist, that only leaves one option — you're an atheist. A rejection of theism leaves no other conclusion. It's like the phrase "dead or alive", "on or off" or the word "pregnant". You are either one or the other. Either dead or alive, on or off, pregnant or not pregnant, there is no middle option", then please explain to me how a baby rejects theism.
Believe it or not Vance, our article was not written for babies. We said that a theist is a believer, someone who has a 'a belief in God or gods'. If on reading that definition you reject that label, then you have rejected theism. Obviously babies can't decide this for themselves, being unable to read, but since they also lack the mental capacity to understand what gods are and whether they might exist, they are likewise unable to assert that they believe in them. If babies can't say that they believe in gods then they aren't theists, ergo they are atheists by default. We think you are being a little pedantic if you suggest that we mean that babies consciously consider the debate about gods and reject them. As we said, if you have no knowledge of the concept of gods then you are an atheist, even though you don't know what atheist means and may never have heard of the word.
But why have you returned to this utterly insignificant point in the debate about belief in gods? Did you not say in your last comment: 'Whether babies are born atheists is not a matter for philosphical discussion… Grow up, you're big boys now, learn to live with the fact and get on with your lives. This is my last word on the matter.' We don't understand why you appear to argue that babies have some sort of concept of gods. If you say they don't, then they are what rational adults label as atheists. You can be, and are, born an atheist, but you can't be born a theist, with an innate belief in god. But even if babies were born believing in gods, the far more important question is whether this belief is true or a delusion, similar to the obvious 'fact' that the world is flat.
Hi, The explanation for my silence is that I have been away some of the time or tied up on other matters the rest of the time and have not been able to pursue this matter. Also something happened. I think you did away with a subthread and
incorporated it in a main thread about agnostics. I don't know what happened but you will. Anyway for a while I thought it had just disappeared. But today I found it.
I got so frustrated with the long tortuous replies you gave previously, replies that didn't answer anything, that I was ready to throw in the towel. But I am trying to understand your argument, not just about babies being atheists but
about if you're not a theist you're an atheist.
Anyway, you have not improved. All I asked was that you explain to me how a baby rejects atheism. My lead-up to the question was quoting your own words and the question followed directly from them. But instead of giving me a brief,
to-the-point answer you go into two paragraphs that don't actually explain what I asked. Are you now saying that babies don't become atheists because they reject theism, that they can't reject theism because they "lack the mental
capacity", again to use your own words? If so, how do they become atheists? All I can gather from what you say is that they are atheists "by default". So does this mean that atheism is not a belief but a default position? If this is so, it doesn't say much for atheism, does it?
Just to make it clear, I would like you to answer simply:
1) Do you confirm that babies become atheists not because they reject theism but because atheism is a default position (you can alter this description if you wish but keep it brief and to-the-point)?
I want to get on with the matter of atheism being a default position if this the correct description. But I just want to get the above three matters clarified first and I reiterate that I do not want a long confusing reply.
Thanks
Firstly, there has only ever been the Agnostics article and its associated Comments page, no subthread. Your comments haven't moved or been edited.
To answer your questions:
1) Yes, babies are atheists not because they knowingly reject theism but because atheism is a default position. As we said, aliens and primitive natives could also theoretically be atheists, not because they reject theism, but simply because they have no concept of gods. No concept means no belief, no belief means atheism.
As for your comment 'So does this mean that atheism is not a belief but a default position? If this is so, it doesn't say much for atheism, does it?', again we think you confuse 'implicit / weak' atheism with 'explicit / strong' atheism. There is a huge difference between the 'default' atheism of a baby and our reasoned atheism.
Return to Article
|
|
|
|
Support Science Not Superstition
|
|
www.sillybeliefs.com
Last Updated Apr 2011 |