Agnostics are Nowhere Men

If you understand that there is no evidence, absolutely no evidence, no evidence of any kind, not even a scintilla of a suggestion that there might be some evidence if we only knew where to look, for the existence of anything you might call god (or indeed anything of any supernatural kind) then you are an atheist, not an agnostic. And if you think there is such evidence, then you are a theist, not an agnostic. Let's see, that means the place for agnostics is ... nowhere.

Being agnostic is a bit like voting for the Iraq war and then saying later that you only did so because of the dodgy intelligence. Knowing all along, that you could have known at the time, that there wasn't dodgy intelligence, there was in fact no intelligence, the war was going to happen because of the beliefs of the PNAC crowd. Or like pretending that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Or like being a little bit pregnant.

Either you believe that something supernatural called god exists, or you don't. There isn't any half way house in this element of human culture. There is no spectrum of proof for the existence of a supernatural being ranging from no proof, through sort of more or less suggestive proofs, through to strong hard evidence. If there was such a spectrum, then an atheist would be one who believed that none of the proofs were any good, a theist thought all the proofs were really believable, and an agnostic didn't think there was hard evidence, but thought that some of the suggested proofs had some merit. But there isn't. Accepting any of the so-called proofs for the existence of god makes someone religious, not agnostic, and accepting none of them makes someone atheist, not agnostic.

So no room for agnostics, and it's time they declared themselves -- are you with us or against us (now who said that before)? If you are not on the side of the atheist angels then you are on the side of the evangelical devils. And there is a battle coming for the soul of the Enlightenment, for rationalism, and humanism, and a return to secular societies. If you are not on the side of the humanists, then you are on the side of the people who strapped remote-controlled explosives to two women with Down's syndrome and exploded them in a crowded market place. Or on the side of the woman protesting at the SAG awards, holding up placards saying Heath in Hell, and Death to Faggots.

So come on, you "agnostics", which way are you going to jump from the fence, and which side of the barricades are you going to land on? There are only two sides, not three, to the question of religion, and if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem. Come on down.

Or as Thomas Otway in 1683, and the Watermelon Blog in 2008, say - "These are rogues that pretend to be of religion now! Well, all I say is, honest atheism for my money."

Comments

[XaurreauX]

"Accepting any of the so-called proofs for the existence of god makes someone religious, not agnostic, and accepting none of them makes someone atheist, not agnostic."

An agnostic is someone who concludes that the existence of "God" is unknowable. One can be an atheist because of one's agnosticism as well as due to disbelief in proffered "evidence." One can also be an agnostic theist, i.e., choosing to believe in "God" while acknowledging that such existence is ultimately unknowable.

The portrayal of agnostics as "Nowhere Men" stems from the junior high school notion held by many believers that it is necessary to take a stand and declare which "team" one is on. They are of the impression that they are owed some kind of reinforcing spiritual reciprocation from others.* When this fails to happen it is assumed that the agnostic is simply copping out to avoid the presumed religious responsibilities and truths into which the believer has been indoctrinated. Not to worry. The inevitable cognitive dissonance agnostics (and atheists) create for believers can be conveniently labeled "Nowhere Men" and dismissed with a facile handwave.

XaurreauX

*In our "enlightened" society simply believing "in something" may be sufficient to tamp down theistic existential terror, hence, the concomitant loathing for atheists.

[HeevenSteven]

Why do so many reserve so much scorn for an atheist who speaks his mind about what he in convinced is true, but barely seem to notice if the religious do it.

They have the faith and courage of their convictions, if they're convictions happen to be religious or believe in the Uber-mind or whatever your god preference happens to be; but they're a smug jerk if they happen to believe with whatever certainty they muster that god is a product of the human mind.

There is far more evidence to believe that latter assertion, and zero evidence for the other; but then I just never could get over myself.

[Zanti]

HeevenSteven,

I can't imagine why anyone would take offense at this, for instance:

"If you are not on the side of the humanists, then you are on the side of the people who strapped remote-controlled explosives to two women with Down's syndrome and exploded them in a crowded market place. Or on the side of the woman protesting at the SAG awards, holding up placards saying Heath in Hell, and Death to Faggots."

Which, apparently, you have no problem with. Never mind that the same sentiments, if voiced in the exact same way by a religious fundie, would have you in an uproar.

Deal with your own double standards. THEN worry about other people's.

[HeevenSteven]

I wasn't just referring to David's post here, but a pattern I see across many here at HuffPo over the last 2.5 years.

It's often the agnostics that behave this way. It's like yeah, yeah, me too, but geez, don't say it out loud fer chrissakes.

David's examples are directed at the fact that he believes religious zealotry brings out the worst in us, and in he provides some compelling examples. Although I understand what he's saying, I personally feel that zealots will be zealots; but I don't think anything drives a zealot like religion. I am humble enough though to admit that I don't really have the education yet in this area to make a definitive judgement about that.

No double standards here; I'm not a closet atheist.

[lastyellowdogintx]

Oh my goodnes gracious. Good golly miss
molly. Should I go with my known unknowns,
or my known knowns, or my unknown unknowns?
Or should I stick with my stock answer "I
don't know and you don't fin know either".
Mmmmmm golly gee. Sumpin sumpin blah blah.

[Quaoar]

"Accepting any of the so-called proofs for the existence of god makes someone religious, not agnostic, and accepting none of them makes someone atheist, not agnostic."

Well, personally I think that all of the current so-called proofs for the existence of god are utter bullshit and that there is probably more scientific proof for the existence of Bigfoot than there is for god. On the other hand, some claims about god cannot currently be proven or disproven, although this may change in the future. I would seem to fall into both atheist and agnostic camps, although I firmly support enlightenment and rationalism and reason over the shackles of religion. Perhaps the term nonbeliever should be used in order to avoid artificial division between atheists and agnostics. After all, to the fundies there's not much of a difference.

[Lon]

I am an atheist, but I have to say this is the kind of post that makes atheism look bad.

The idea that there is either no reason for something, or one should believe that the thing is true, is about as poor an understanding of reason as one could imagine.

There are often some indications that something might be the case, without there being enough evidence that one should believe that thing. Unless one is torturing words beyond recognition.

The question of whether there is life on planets outside of this solar system seems to be a good one to be agnostic about. Given the vastness of space and the lack of design that we atheists think went into this planet, it is quite plausible that there is life on other planets. But given the lack of direct evidence it would be premature to be confident that there is. By Horton's analysis, it is simply lazy to not believe one way or the other. But this is just nonsense.

[Zanti]

Very well put.

The literal question of the existence of a God or gods--the question that Mr. Horton and others insist on reducing religion to--is abstract, obscure, and ill-defined by its very nature. It can't be confirmed or written off by way of observation, since we don't know what we'd be looking for. For instance, if we found God, who or what would God be? How would we know we found God?

Because the question is so abstract and fuzzy, and because there appears to be a total lack of empirical evidence to support the existence of a God or gods, Mr. Horton and others feel confident in tossing out the issue as absurd, idiotic, and invalid.

Unfortunately, the rules of critical thinking demand otherwise. The less probable a notion, the MORE critically we have to consider it. A claim for a God or gods is not on par with claiming I had eggs for breakfast this morning. The latter claim isn't a big or especially fuzzy claim, and it's of no importance in the scheme of existence. Unlike the question of a God or god. Therefore, the burden of evidence for the former is vast.

It's an inverse relationship--the less probable a claim, the MORE critically we have to regard it.

Mr. Horton would have us believe the reverse--that we can simply toss out the less likely claims. In fact, these are precisely the claims we are NOT allowed to casually discard. That is, unless we're not really skeptics. And I wonder if anyone so aggressively certain about the unknown is, in any sense, a skeptic.

[wondering]

Hello, Zanti. How ya doin?

Let's follow you're reasoning :

Consider the question of creation. The secular explanation is the Big Bang. The (most common) religious explanation is "god did it". I propose to take a third tack: we are all just part of a giant SIMS game - you, me, the chair you're sitting on, exist only as a series of 1's and 0's in a computer somewhere. Now which of these seems least plausible? If you think it's my explanation, then that is the one you must consider most critically. (Uh-oh, here comes someone else with a fourth possibility: we are all just figments of a dream - hope that cosmic sleeper never wakes up.)

Oh, and unlike your "breakfast" example, which you try to belittle because it is "mundane", there are few more important questions than where this all came from.

When you open up the door to ONE supernatural explanation, then all the rest rush in. By your "reasoning", the least plausible of these (the one that seems most insane) must receive the greatest amount of critical examination.
Are you not familiar with the story of the Tower of Babel?

[Lon]

My objection was to Horton trying to rule out agnosticism somehow by definition. Horton puts forward the ridiculous notion that the only attitudes one could have towards the arguments for the existence of God are either complete acceptance of complete rejection. But he gives no reason why this should be the case.

The design argument is the clearest example of an argument which depends on the aptness of a particular analogy towards understanding the world. Clearly one can find the analogy apt in some ways and not in others. It can give a reasonable person some support without being convincing, or enough support to produce belief without producing certainty.

Similarly one can have an attitude towards some of the others that their logical structure seems fine, but because of the nature of the premises, they are not enough to produce conviction. Which is just to say that agnosticism is a perfectly coherent view.

But the abstractness and fuzziness of the question actually should give people reasons for suspecting that the notion of God is incoherent. We don't tend to need to get as fuzzy in describing what is real. And the lack of evidence for something can be significant if its existence should produce evidence.

Part of what makes the life on other planets question work is that we know precisely what evidence would look like, and why we don't have it.

Finally the idea that the less probable a claim the more critically we have to regard it is an idea from probability theory, which at least in probability theory means the opposite of what you suggest. The principle is that something that is unlikely needs a higher level of evidence before it should be accepted because its unlikeliness is itself evidence against it. There does not seem to be any principle of reason that would support the idea that we should be slower to reject unlikely things, just to accept them.

The fact that agnosticism is rational does not guarantee that it is right.

[wondering]

Lon, I have enjoyed your comments in the past, but I must respectfully disagree here.

I have recently been exploring the notion that if the supernatural exists, it would be unknowable. As soon as the supernatural attempted to reveal itself, it would become part of the natural world. Even if a Monty-Pythonesque face appeared out of the clouds commanding us to bow down before its almighty-ness, what would that prove? Only that a large ego-maniacal creature existed in the universe.

The question of life on other planets is a question about the natural world. Even if it is unanswerable, it is plausible because we already have evidence of life and evidence of other planets. The question of the existence of god is not the same. The only possible source for the concept of god is in the human mind. There is no empirical evidence that even hints at that existence - nor can there be. As such, insisting that we respect the opinion that god exists, is like asking us to respect the concept of dragons, or fairies, or Santa, or Bigfoot.

Lack of evidence does not necessarily render the True Believer's views plausible.

[HeevenSteven]

W, good points. Successful religious beliefs are those that are unfalsifiable and unverifiable. If they're verified, they're by definition not religious beliefs anymore but natural, or scientific if you prefer.

If they're falsified???... My guess is we'd still have religious beliefs.

[Dap]

Dear Lon, For the most part I hold your reasoning in high regard, but, you are way off base on this one, you are quite misguided.

Proof is, Zanti agrees with ya on this, and that can't be good for your side. Those that become brainwashed by antiquated theological and philosophical constructs are not working with a sound foundation.

Of course, *Nonsense* is in the beholders eye, yet, one must seriously take weight into account for any argument, and anyone who argues from a point that has *No* foundational weight, leaves them-selves quite open to ridicule.

Speaking to ridicule, your statement:

"But given the lack of direct evidence it would be premature to be confident that there is."

Is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Truth be told, with all the evidence avalible now, it would be ignorant to believe with quite *HIGH* cofidence that intelligent life, let-alone, life in general did not exist in the vastness of our Universe. Good luck with arguing that fallacy statement.

Change the paradigm, the old ones suck! Agape.

[Dap]

Agnosticism is a stealth religion.

[HeevenSteven]

lol; Could be steal atheism too

[stevesrant]

How did you get so full of smart? A polymath I read? Putting aside the theist/atheist argument, have you seen the 90% of the universe called dark matter around lately? Putting that aside, since when are all athiests humanists? Or billions of theists psychotic murderers? Some of the most brilliant minds who have ever lived claimed to have seen beyond the closed little system we call our rational mind. An open mind is the hallmark of a true scientist, but your intolerance marks you as anything but a humanist. So what are you?
As to the theist/athiest argument, I sometimes think that fundamentalist Christians and arrogant athiests are two sides of the same narcissistic coin: they both fancy themselves to be the only intelligence existing in this infinite universe. That would leave agnostics as the only ones brave enough to live on the edge.

[TIME]

Simply searching for the answer of whether or not there is a God, makes one agnostic. The only reason I ask the question is because so many tell me there is a God; otherwise there would be no reason to search for an answer to such a question. It's not a curiosity that occurs naturally, like what is this object made of and where did it come from? To ponder where did we come from, how did we get hear, what is our purpose, is not the same as stating that there is a God. It's more easily a question of natural law than spiritually. But make a claim that our origins are anything than natural, then the search for an answer, is an agnostic endeavor.

[mbaty]

I just assumed agnostics were lazy and didn't want to have to think about it, so they went with an "I don't know" answer. But to ask people to be either Atheists or Deists is, as someone pointed out, a straw man argument. Some of us don't believe in (god) in a "traditional" sense of the word, but neither are we naive enough to assume that the physical world is all there is...so much matter and when you die your consciousness ends. It's like Creationism vs Darwinism: neither is correct, but both have some valid points. In my opinion, Atheism is a reaction against religious zealotry and against the false personalities that some imagine to be Gods who desire to be worshipped and adored.

[Ankhst]

One characteristic attributed to atheists, which I do not understand (and a reason I feel that so many people insist they are agnostic), is the idea that "not only do I not believe in any type of God, I think such a thing is impossible."

Atheism is very simple. One does not believe there's a God or gods or nebulous spiritual force.
This is *not* contradicted by the idea that there could be a God or spiritual force. If that evidence shows up, many atheists might change their minds. It's happened before, and it's happened in the other direction (theists becoming atheists).

Put another way, "I don't believe there's a God" is not the same as "There is no God". I agree that the latter can be considered arrogant, but again, such a tenet is not prequisite to atheism.

[Zanti]

"If you are not on the side of the humanists, then you are on the side of the people who strapped remote-controlled explosives to two women with Down's syndrome and exploded them in a crowded market place. Or on the side of the woman protesting at the SAG awards, holding up placards saying Heath in Hell, and Death to Faggots."

I see. We're with you or we're against you. Your way or no way. Wear your label or be condemned. That's the mantra of the tyrant, the fanatic, the zealot.

And it sounds no different flowing from your pen.

[jimmyjones22]

I agree with you on several points, but I feel you are oversimplifying agnosticism, theism, and atheism to come to a there-is-no-middle-ground position.

Personally, I'm an atheist. but I wasn't always in this position. You discount how hard it is to reason from one position to another. I spent years in the agnostic catagory, studying philosophy, science, and history. In the end, I just decided that the existance of a god was just extreamly unlikely.

And, in all honsty, ALL athiests are just extream agnostics. This is because you can never 100% discount the possibility of the existance of a god (though 99.99% works for me). It's unlikely, but it can never be completely ruled out.

Because It can never completely be ruled out in either direction, I understand the agnostic position to be a valid one.

although, I, too, find the agnostic position difficult to swallow, they probably think the same about the religious and the atheists.

Here is a better breakdown that you assumed:

Athietsts say that "god's existance is very unlikely."

Theists say "god's existance is very likely"

and agnostics say "we can never truly know."

One plus about agnostics, you usually don't find rampant arrogance among them as you have shown exists in your camps.

Sad, but true.

[trevor01]

The instinct to define oneself for the enlightenment of others is always a mistake. No sooner do you proclaim your philosophy than you become a target for proselytizers and zealots. Anyway, the creativity we employ to rationalize our choices and prejudices (which always conform to our self-interest) is perhaps the ultimate definition of a human being.

[camb94]

David,
I expect more of you and your arguments. This is a straw man argument and you know it. An agnostic is simply aware that there may not be any proof of God or a god, but that doesn't mean that there can't be one in the future. Other commenters have noted that not all of the mysteries of the universe have been explained -- even by such notable scientists as yourself or Richard Dawkins -- such how did the big bang happen? What was before the Big Bang? How have Black holes formed? That doesn't mean that there can't be answers for them in the future. There is a strong predisposition for people to believe in a higher power. It may be based on some genetic malfunction, or past histories, but it is also possible that there could be a proof of a god in the future. That is the place of the agnostic. Put simply, an agnostic is simply someone who isn't an arrogant know it all

[peckerberto]

"Being agnostic is a bit like voting for the Iraq war and then saying later that you only did so because of the dodgy intelligence"

Why did you have to bash Hillary Clinton in an otherwise good post. Lately it seems that nearly everyone on Huffpo is worshiping at the Obama altar and I'm tired of it.