My recent post on the proposition that agnostics were about as much use to the world as a bicycle to a fish created the usual dichotomy of response (one responder suggesting it was people like me who gave atheism a bad name). I thought it was worth following up with a somewhat more expansive explanation.
There are many things in life about which we can be absolutely certain - gravity comes to mind, and the evolution of the Galapagos finches, and the circulation of blood, and the importance of gun control. Nobody could fail to believe in these things, and someone who was "agnostic" about them might well find themselves flying from a tall building or being shot in a dark alley.
On the other hand there are many things that no one could believe in - George Bush as a great President, a 6000 year old Earth, the Earth balanced on the back of a tortoise, Fox News as a fair and balanced place for political debate. So, no room for agnosticism about any of those, or you might start thinking there were WMD in Iraq, or find yourself up to your eyebrows in turtle poo.
But there are many things one could be agnostic about. Here is an example. Would Barack Obama be a progressive or a conservative (with a small c) President? There are people who passionately believe that Barack is the re-incarnated JFK and would govern in the same enlightened and liberal way as that great man. There are others who equally passionately believe that Obama differs from Hilary Clinton only in being black and male, and would be just as much a creature of the corporations and the DLC as she would. Both beliefs are passionately held, both can draw on much evidence for both conclusions, both have been vigorously argued by some of my fellow HuffPo bloggers. But neither proposition can be proved, and the third belief one could hold (which I hold), is an agnostic one that we don't have enough evidence either way to be sure, and that we won't really know until he is well into his first term as President.
Another poster gives an example of agnosticism in relation to whether there is life elsewhere in the universe. And this is interesting but as a kind of reverse of the situation with religion. Let us look at it. There is no direct evidence that life exists elsewhere in the universe. You could then simply deny that there is any other life, or you could believe there is and that the evidence will be found sooner or later. Or you could say: We know life arose once on this remarkably unremarkable planet. We now know that other stars do indeed have planets. And we even know that there are stars with planets that are potentially Earth-like in size and position relative to their own star. Since we can observe very few planets, we can deduce that there would be many billions more of such Earth-potential planets. An agnostic might say "well, chances are, that means there is highly likely to be life on other planets". "On the other hand" our astronomical agnostic might say "it could be that the chances of life evolving on Earth were very small, and therefore by chance it may never have arisen elsewhere". So you could certainly be genuinely agnostic about the chances of life elsewhere in the universe (just as, in a closely related topic, you could be agnostic about whether UFOs have visited Earth).
But there is simply no comparable position in relation to a "god". No equally balanced sets of data, no probabilities to be evaluated. There is, simply, no evidence of any kind, for a "god". Indeed the total lack of evidence is seen by religions as a plus, because the less evidence there is, and the sillier the beliefs, the more faith is required. And faith, they think, trumps rational thought. Only in sheep, say I.
That is, to be an agnostic about anything requires evidence both for and against a proposition, with the agnostic balanced equally between the two. This doesn't mean a balance between "there might be, prove there isn't" and "there isn't, you prove there is", those are mutually exclusive ways of looking at the world. This whole debate about agnosticism is interesting not because of agnostics themselves, but because of the insights it can give into how we know about things, why we believe in things.
The scientist starts with the strongest belief of those things for which there is the most data, gained from experiment or observation, and as he or she moves down through subjects with less and less data, so the scientist accepts them less and less. The religious follower on the other hand has the strongest belief for things for which there is no evidence, and as he approaches subjects with strong scientific backing, utterly rejects them. Those who say they are agnostic about religion, need to think about which of those scales they belong on.
So keep your agnosticism for politics, where it is healthy (I don't think a passionate faith in any politician is good for democracy). But in relation to religion? Either come into the church or stay out, but don't stand in the doorway or block up the halls.
Want to graduate from agnosticism to atheism? Try the Watermelon Blog.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Wow...thou doth protest....And also, will everyone, Hitchens, Dawkins alike, stop confusing belief in God with Religion. They CAN be two separate things.
I repost this here for whomever doesn't like narrow posts!
Thank you Stevesrant and HS. We already have intelligence-in-nature in the form of homo sapiens and his antics. Just about everybody who's read a book today agrees upon the likelihood of the universe holding other intelligent beings somewhere. A certain small percentage of science research is devoted to finding any ol' slim evidence of intelligence elsewhere, which naturally raises the essential question of "what do we look FOR?" What defines intelligence in such a way that we would know its artifacts when they hit out satelites. So that is one analogy.
Then ask yourself, what you would look FOR in wondering if an intelligent being (God or whatever) exists. First you have to ask what you would look for.
Next question. This is a micro/mega kind of thing, of Chinese nested boxes. We're assuming we're intelligent (no irony, really, honest, I mean it). If it turns out that our mitochondria were also kind of smart, would they be able to know that "we" exist and realize that they, with their organelle smarts, were living inside an even smarter (by Golly) system?
Stevesrant
To be honest with you I'm not up on the latest dark matter stuff. I was sort of under the impression that it was a fudge factor or place holder because they can't figure out what's going on. Muse has been bugging me to read History Of Time; it may be time. I want to read Stuart Kaufman's book too.
My view of energy is that it's too simple to contain any intelligence. It's a fundamental property or constituent of matter(depending on how relative your view is). To be honest with you I'm not very up on relativity either. I have a good intuitive feel for the concept, but I can't discuss it intelligently yet. I have Einstein's book on my desk... sometime soon.
We don't even have a complete model of consciouness in our own brains, and we have a good idea of how complex our wiring is. I don't have any idea how a universe could store ideas, thoughts, designs and contemplate it's own existence in any kind of time frame. It's all just god-of-the-gaps to me. If it's possible then a personal god is possible. I don't even know how to begin thinking about it in any kind of descriptive way -just like god to so many.
Anyway enough babbling. The sense of the unknown, the deep mysteries of the universe form, as I'm sure you know, the god of Spinoza and Einstein if I'm not mistaken. I guess if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us. But whadoo I know, I'm barely conscious myself most of the time, and intellectually dishonest as well, I've been told.
P&L, Agape
The paradox of Christianity is that is is available to the lowly. The poor, the weak, children, the uneducated, perhaps have an easier time understanding God than do their opposites. [Muses, mea culpa.] Paul had to have faith knocked into him on the road to Damacus, where he was heading hot for the purpose of attacking Christians. "For God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty." [1 Cor 1:27] And it's an intriguing stance, this Christian idea of the primacy of the weak, particularly in regard to knowledge. Compare it with the famous image of Wisdom in Proverbs: "she" stands in the street corner where anybody might meet her. She "cries out," she's shouting. This image of wisdom certainly suggests it's readily available like a KMart of well-being to anyone who will listen: "She crieth at the gates: at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors." (She's hard to miss.) "How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity?" "Ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart." (Note, she's not big on flattery.)
She's a little like your elementary school teacher, Sister Mary Catherine with the ruler, ready to give your fingers a snap! Not hard to find her because she's the one yelling. Erasmus of Rotterdam wrote a wonderful parody based on the figure of Wisdom, called the Praise of Folly.
What is wisdom? "I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth ...." "When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth ...." [It's a little like the notion of "intelligent design" by a power of Nth magnitude.]
Yet to find wisdom, "if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God."
Various quotes from the book of Proverbs. Wonderful book.
I can hear Wondering reacting to the "fear of the Lord," oi vay.
It's a complex thing. Not a science book, my friends, definitely not science. It is more of a mirror. Or a window into the heart.
It wasn't Sister Mary Catherine, it was Sister Mary Bulldozer.
"The paradox of Christianity is that is is available to the lowly. The poor, the weak, children, the uneducated,"
That's not a paradox, that's evolution. That's why it spread like a virus.
Don't be so quick to judge. There's time to think.
Hullo everyone who is still following this thread. An excellent, and mostly civilized, discussion. Thank you to everyone. Decided as a result to do a kind of part three, picking up on some of the themes that have emerged. So anyone still commenting here might like to shift to the new post and continue the battle on a new battlefield then. After the final in the agnostics series I will shift to Darwin and evolution on Saturday. If you are concerned about missing my posts, register for an email alert, or as a friend.
Thank you again, it is wonderful to have such a stimulating discussion.
Regards
David
And my main point remains the same: atheism is a branch of skepticism--therefore, the skeptic's job is to challenge questionable beliefs. While in that challenge mode (please note qualifying phrase), the skeptic does not have the option of simply tossing out an assertion, no matter how ridiculous or ill-defined or poorly supported that assertion may be. Dealing with bogus or unlikely claims is the JOB of the skeptic--it's not an option. Skeptics who refuse to deal with nonsensical notions aren't living up to their duties.
And, assuming I'm correct and that atheism is a branch of skepticism, any atheist who shirks his duty to confront nonsense has given up his claim to the atheist label.
Look at it in practical terms--to wit, how effective are we being if we simply yell "B.S.!" instead of systematically confronting a claim? Does it work at all to inform a believer, "Hey, your contention is idiotic. Drop it, or I'll insult you in post after post simply for my own pleasure"? Sure, THAT'LL convert the believer but fast. Belittle him. Compare him to pond scum.
Works every time.
Yes, it's foolish to literally believe in nonsense--for instance, to believe in God as anything but a human construct, since the evidence overwhelmingly suggests the latter. But skeptics are supposed to be in the business of DEALING with foolishness. How are you dealing with foolishness by repeating the same, single point every post, while consistently coming up with new insults for people of faith? Better yet, what do you presume to be accomplishing? Just curious.
Yes, it would be dangerous if people were agnostic (in your definition, unsure, undecided) about gravity, poison, where to aim a rifle, the need to avoid elephant stampedes, etc. However, people tend to be agnostic about questions that AREN'T cut and dry in terms of cause and effect. Therefore, what you point out is virtually redundant. It's like pointing out that a using a hoe is preferable to planting dynamite when starting a garden.
Speaking of "usual," your Hillary digs are the standard complaints.
Zanti,
I'm sorry but I just don't understand your argument (and not because I'm not using critical thinking - one of your favorite digs).
Do atheists really just scream, "BS!" when they comment here? We always use reasoned arguments to poke holes in the True Believer's assertions. You just don't want to see it. Or, you're so beholden to the idea that religion is beyond reproach, that any disagreement is tantamount to heresy.
After all, how does one attack the irrational with critical argument? The non-atheists (theists, agnostics, whatever) seem incapable of crafting logical arguments to support their side. It's an unequal struggle. All they have going for them is emotion and tradition. They have no credible evidence to present - the best they can do is whine, "stop calling us names", and sign off with, "you can't prove god doesn't exist, so there!"
For one who so prizes critical thinking, you should do a little yourself - you are an atheist who defends religion. Ever heard of cognitive dissonance?
Wondering, Zanti makes a legitimate point in his last sentence: "in other words, because I'm not a Bible literalist, I'm an atheist. I've confronted this fallacy a couple hundred times by now."
He's right he's NOT an atheist; he's a Stealth Atheist.
HS, I was just curious what the atheists were up to -- have to note that you fellows are inordinately fond of religion -- in your own interesting, back-handed sort of way.
I saw your comment about reading a book about Jesus as a Pauline myth, etc. In your study program about religion, do you ever just read the Bible to see what it says? Seems to me that you're ready for the primary text rather than continual references to interpretative sources. The NT letters are (so far as I'm aware) the only evidence that Paul exists. So anything that Paul says about Jesus, etc, comes from there.
I'm assuming you've read the New Testament, but in light of your current fascination with debunking it, why not reread it?
Just a thought.
"Do atheists really just scream, 'BS!' when they comment here?"
Mostly. They make ludicrously general statements about believers, as if stating again and again that your opponent is an idiot will eventually make the assertion true. Wouldn't we love to have Mr. Horton defend this blanket insult, for instance?
"The religious follower on the other hand has the strongest belief for things for which there is no evidence, and as he approaches subjects with strong scientific backing, utterly rejects them."
"The religious person." Of course, Mr. Horton would have a baby if anyone stereotyped atheists in such a blanket fashion, let alone insulted them like that. I respond to statements like his with "Show me the proof." I've yet to receive any.
"After all, how does one attack the irrational with critical argument?"
Attack? I said we need to confront them. How? Ask James Randi. Get an issue of "The Skeptical Inquirer." Check out the website of CSICOP.
"The non-atheists (theists, agnostics, whatever) seem incapable of crafting logical arguments to support their side. It's an unequal struggle."
Shades of Horton. Right, all non-atheists are the same. We look, act, talk, and think alike. What an odd world you live in--no diversity, no shades of meaning.
"We always use reasoned arguments to poke holes in the True Believer's assertions."
Right. Like Horton's argument that we're either on the side of humanists are we're supporting the "Death to fags!" people.
I'll repeat my main point, which relates to the last two blogs. Horton asserts that irrational claims need not be entertained but, rather, shunned. However, if we want to claim the status of skeptic, we are OBLIGED to deal with such claims.
It strikes me that the atheists on this board see themselves as functioning skeptics along the lines of James Randi or the late Philip Klass. Without doing the work.
"You are an atheist who defends religion."
In other words, because I'm not a Bible literalist, I'm an atheist. I've confronted this fallacy a couple hundred times by now.
I love this: "It strikes me that the atheists on this board see themselves as functioning skeptics along the lines of James Randi or the late Philip Klass. Without doing the work."
Hey I'm a big fan of James Randi, too. So I did a quick google of some his lectures and interviews. The very first one I listened to - the very first one - had him saying things like:
- belief in gods is "juvenile"
- theists are "uninformed"
- the claim that morality requires religion is personally "insulting"
- religions are "close-minded"
- churches are "big businesses which survive at your expense"
He praises Dawkins over and over. And he defines critical thinking as investigating claims and doing your own research as opposed to accepting dogma.
You often like to accuse atheists who comment on Huffpo of not using critical thinking. Just how do you think we came to be atheists in the first place? Most of us were raised in religious homes - we had to do a lot of thinking and investigation to arrive at our current mode of thought. Personally, I am well-read in Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism - I've wrestled with these issues for over 25 years of my life. I've faced great personal loss which forced me to examine my positions afresh. I am informed by James Randi's work and the thoughts and research of numerous others. My atheism isn't some fleeting snit - I'm not just thumbing my nose at god like a peevish child.
I find your attitude dismissive and insulting. You, who cannot even face up to your own so-called "Christianity", are the one in need of the process of critical thought. See Lon's excellent rebuttal to one of your comments below: if you believe god is a cultural concept, then you are an atheist - plain and simple. You continuously claim that many other "Christians" feel this way. I freely say, "BS!" Prove it.
Here's a challenge for you (though you may not want to accept it because you'll feel you're doing our work for us):
Craft, in skeletal form, what you feel would constitute an acceptable atheist argument. What would please you? Apparently atheists must be such mewling milquetoasts - constantly terrified of hurting anyone's feelings - as to be essentially impotent. Where is your indignation when True Believers treat us the same? Why must we be the perfect skeptics - emotionless machines, never allowed to state opinion?
Dap's right - you're a sophist.
"Sure, THAT'LL convert the believer but fast. Belittle him."
Zanti, the Evangelical skeptic Atheist. Convert those believers!
Seems Dr. Wilson may be on to something with that stealth-Atheist as a religion.
Got Pulpit?
The point David raises, by the way, is NOT
about atheists & agnostics. Rather it is...
'Would Barack Obama be a progressive or a conservative (with a small c) President? ... neither proposition can be proved, and the third belief one ... is an agnostic one that we don't have enough evidence either way to be sure, and that we won't really know until he is well into his first term as President.'
----
And, ought we to believe in him?
There is more than sufficient evidence to show that Obama is a conservative. Some members of the Children's Crusade are not aware of it while others ignore it. That does not mean that there is no or insufficient evidence.
cognito ergo populiste
As a centrist, I usually think everyone else is also centrist, until proven otherwise. If you're a progressive, you think everybody who is NOT, must be a conservative, and perhaps a Repo also. It just isn't that simple. Obama is a centrist, of course (and unquestionably a Democrat).
I don't think the evidence shows that he's conservative as much as it shows his willingness to cater to neocon notions, a la Lieberman.
Which, I suppose, works out to the same thing. Either way, Obama is likely to help the neocon cause moreso than the liberal one. I do NOT trust the guy.
ROTFLMAO!
Got Paranoia?
Although I find evidence of conservatism in his history and positions, the fact that Lieberman is his close friend and Senate mentor and that he campaigned for Lieberman in 2006 does give weight to your perspective also.
cognito ergo populistae
Agnostics for Obama:
Change and change? Great speech and great speech? Dr. King and Dr. King? Kennedy and Kennedy? Go Obama and go Obama? Sound likes people are singing Jingle Bell. That kind of effect must have a Bushish propaganda machine to pay for and to pull it through. We had been burden by the last election while Bush said the same thing he wanted to do everything un-Clinton's then how we end up what a mess today. We do not believe Obama can be such effective to carry out what he promises in his campaign. Running a country is more than a speech or "Yes, I can. Go Obama". All such empty slogans are just making you feeling good.
After chanting nothing will be left over. Bush's crowd did the same thing 7 years ago. Change? what to be changed? How to change? are so complicated. Give and take are the real name of politics. To do Give & Take for American future can not be achieved without experiences. Please look at Bush's record one will find what we need to be aware of. This is not the time we sing "Go Obma"/Jingle Bell together. We must rally behind Hillary to take back the White House first. Then, put every capable democratic and republican on the line to change and save America for the sake of our children and grand children and to restore American glory image in the world again.
And Hillary is the savior because....???
To borrow a phrase from David Sloan Wilson; if your "practical reality" does not include belief in a god, deity, creator, uber-mind, then in any practical sense, you're an atheist. No proof of negative necessary. So the factual reality is that many agnostics are Stealth Atheists.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson
I am constantly befuddled by people who claim to know what god says or what god wants or means. They claim to know the mind of god.
God, by definition, is infinite. Human beings are obviously finite. Our brains are exceedingly small. How could anyone who holds a belief in god presume that the finite could comprehend the infinite?
I had a plantar wart. The wart was caused by a virus on the bottom of my foot. It sat embedded in my flesh, in the dark, inside my sock and shoe. Could this virus have had any comprehension of me; of how large I am; of what I am thinking? And yet, the disparities between the size and intellect of the virus and me are infinitesimal as compared to the disparities between human size and intellect and that of the infinite.
If one cannot know the mind of god, how does one make any statement as to the nature or wishes of god? An admission of this seemingly obvious lack would certainly reduce the pain and suffering caused by a claimed certainty of knowledge of what god wants of us.
cognito ergo populistae
You make an unsupportable assumption with your reply. You have absolutely no proof that there is a god. So when you make comparisons between 'exceeding small-brained humans' and the infinite 'god', you ask us to join you in your assumption that 'god' exists. If you wish to make a convincing argument, your first job is to prove the existence of 'god' without resorting to inference. Show us the data resulting from your measurement of the infinite 'god'.
You misread. I was showing the impossibility of knowing anything about god. Therefore, we could not prove his existence even if he did exist.
cognito ergo populistae
God is a 'he'? C'mon, quit straddling the fence. You're less willing to state unequivocally that there is no god than you think you are. In any event, I'm not going to argue with you on the "You misread," statement. I think you're right on that.
As the poster below, I have a problem with your statement, "That is, to be an agnostic about anything requires evidence both for and against a proposition, with the agnostic balanced equally between the two."
Agnosticism is simply an admission that one does not know. It is the only intellectually honest position as regards religion. One may believe that there is a god but, to be honest, must admit that he does not know. An atheist may believe there is no god but, to be honest, must admit that he does not know.
One can be simply an agnostic. One can be an atheist and an agnostic. One can be a Christian (or any other religion) and be an agnostic. Those are the only honest positions. To be an atheist or to believe in a god without being an agnostic is to be dishonest. Everyone should admit to being an agnostic, regardless of belief or disbelief.
cognito ergo populistae
This comment makes the same mistake from the perspective of agnosticism that Horton's post makes from the perspective of atheism. Both are attempts to defend a position by trying to illegitimize the alternative position. And both do it by largely misunderstanding what the other side actually believes.
Agnosticism is not the lack of knowledge about whether God exists, but rather the lack of belief. Anyone who withheld belief whenever they lacked knowledge (particularly in the very strong sense that seems to be presupposed here) is would be unable to function in the world. We seldom get full knowledge for the beliefs that we need to act on everyday.
I think it is rationale, particularly on an issue like this which is not necessary for living ones day to day life (unless the Christians are right and by not committing oneself one dooms oneself to eternal torment) to withhold belief. It can also be rational to consider the evidence and come away with the conviction that God does not exist. Similarly it can be rational to consider the evidence and come away with the conviction that this is an issue in which belief is unjustified.
Where rationality falls short is in the many attempts to insist that any rational person needs to come down on the issue the same way that I do. Doing so usually involves misunderstanding the process by which people come by their beliefs.
Your definition of agnosticism as a lack of belief is not exactly the same as the one I learned. Gnosos means knowledge. The prefix of 'a' means not or without. Therefore agnostic simply means to admit to not having knowledge. An agnostic admits that they don't know. Since no one knows if there is a god or if there is not, it is necessary, to be intellectually honest, to be either an agnostic or a religionist and an agnostic or an atheist and an agnostic.
cognito ergo populistae
The problem with this definition, as with most arguments by definition, is not so much that it is wrong as that it is useless. One can define agnostic so broadly that everyone is an agnostic, whether they realize it or not, but then one has effectively used up the word.
If agnosticism is defined so broadly that everyone counts, then there is no reason to classify anyone as an atheist because doing so doesn't tell one anything that one didn't already know. And there is no one to rule out. So the next step after using such a definition is to throw the word a retirement party.
On the otherhand, there actually are people who believe that there exists a god who played a role in the creation of the world. And our word for them is "the
Posted February 9, 2008 | 04:39 PM (EST)