If agnostic is defined as not knowing, aren’t we all agnostic? In the absence of either proof for or against God, we all look at evidence and close the loop with faith. I look at the evidences(not proof) of God and close the loop with faith. An atheist sees some evidence missing for God and closes his loop with faith in naturalism. Faith that naturalistic forces did things we can’t prove it did. Doesn’t an atheist have faith that science will some day explain what now seems impossible to explain?
Fundamentalist atheists deny that anything could ever be evidence of God just as fundamentalist religionists insist that everything is proof.
Posted: October 16th 2008
Eric_PK
Using your definition, I would be an agnostic, in that I allow that a god could exist (though I have some definitional issue that might make that problematic), but there are countless theists who know that god exists. That’s the whole point of faith, after all.
I don’t use faith, however, to close the loop. I simply have no reason to believe that god does exist – the same way I have no reason to believe that the easter bunny exists.
This appeal towards faith is weird to me – faith is just a way to justify belief in some thing that can’t other be believed in. By that argument, you’d have to believe in the existance of all gods.
Posted: October 18th 2008
Dave Hitt www
“Fundamentalist Atheist” is usually used as an insult by willfully ignorant antagonists. It is usually used by people who deny the very existence of atheists.
Being a strong atheist, one who believes god does not exist, does require a tiny bit of faith: exactly the same amount of faith required to believe that unicorns and Santa Claus aren’t real.
It also relies on a basic principle of logic, reason and science: The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. If they can’t supply the proof, the default position (the logical, reasonable position) is their claim is invalid. If you insist there are invisible pink unicorns in prancing in my back yard, it’s up to you to prove it. If you can’t, the logical, rational position is that you are wrong and they don’t exist.
Posted: October 18th 2008
Reed Braden www
I will admit agnosticism on the issue of gods if you admit agnosticism on the issues of fairies, unicorns, triffids, sasquatch and the historical and cosmological accuracy of the six Star Wars films and all canon Star Wars literature. There is just as much evidence (if not less) for gods than there is for all of those things, so I will make that compromise: Tell me that Han Solo may have lived a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away and I will tell you that Yahweh may exist in some other plane of reality that can affect this plane and we’re all filled with ghosties that will live forever in Heaven or Hell.
Posted: October 18th 2008
brian thomson www
A better definition of Agnosticism is the one used by Huxley, who invented the idea: it’s not simply “don’t know”, but it also states “can’t ever know”, that knowledge of the true situation can never be found.
When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain “gnosis,” – had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of “agnostic.” It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the “gnostic” of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.
(emphasis added)
My personal view is that saying “we can’t ever know” is to give up on the question, which goes against human nature. This might make for an easier life, but it’s not going to be enough if you have an enquiring mind. Hence “the poverty of agnosticism” that Dawkins talks about. (He’s right on this one.)
As for the rest of your question, it’s the old “atheists have faith” argument that we’ve all heard before. it’s the kind of thing that preachers tell their congregations to legitimise their own preaching, but – being religious themselves – what can they know about atheism except what they were told about it? They can not comprehend the concept that someone can give up one set of irrational beliefs, without replacing it with another set of irrational beliefs. So, thank you for coming here to “ask the atheists” – now, what will you learn from the answers?
Posted: October 18th 2008
bitbutter www
“All atheists should be agnostics”. The truth of this statement rest on particular interpretations of a few words that are notoriously slippery: Atheist, agnostic and god(s). The meanings of atheism have been discussed elsewhere on this site so I’ll skip that one.
Agnosticism (like atheism) has been taken to mean different things. Thomas Huxley, who coined the term, had this to say about it:
Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.
That sounds like sensible advice, and to me it reflects the spirit of science. So should we not pretend that the conclusion 'gods do not exist’ is certain? This depends on what we mean by 'gods’.
If gods are understood to be very powerful beings that exist somewhere in the universe (like Thor), then agnosticism might be an appropriate stance on the question of their existence. But if being a god means somehow existing 'outside of’ the universe, or being non-physical, things get more complicated.
We are incapable of even imagining things that exists 'outside’ time and space (whatever that might mean). And in fact, we notice that when people try to talk about them, they can only do so it terms of concepts that are 'within’ time and space. To the extent that a concept refers to something 'outside of’ time and space, it is meaningless.
A god can be claimed to be many things; loving, a father, wise etc. But these are all secondary attributes. What is the thing that possesses these attributes? In other words, what is the primary attribute of God? What is god 'made of’? no one can tell us. God’s wisdom, his power and mercy are like dents that have failed to find a car bonnet to attach themselves to.
Theological non-cognitivists consider that a coherent definition of a god has yet to be proposed. Some refuse to describe themselves as atheists on the grounds that they don’t yet know what it is they’re expected not to believe in. Do you believe in Phnarks? it seems sensible to wait for an intelligible explanation of what a Phnark is before answering.
Others take the incoherence of god talk as justification for strong atheism—certainty that gods do not (and cannot) exist. On this view gods can be ruled out in the same way that we rule out the existence of three cornered circles. Here’s an excellent article from strongatheism.net on the subject: The Argument from Non-cognitivism.
Many atheists do describe themselves as agnostic. But others make a strong case that we already have enough information to rule out the existence of the supernatural (including whichever gods might be hiding 'there’). Theological non-cognitivism is one important way that atheists have rejected agnosticism.
Posted: October 17th 2008
logicel
Aren’t we all agnostics… is a valid description of reality. Yet, many theists don’t seem to get that they are – in fact, must be agnostic – in their theism, because of their faith. Religious believers shy away from the label of agnosticism because it implies that their subjective, faith-based hot-line to the divine is wonky so it is a rare theist who will happily describe their theism as agnostic (after all, the magical, mental sleight of hand of their faith allows them to know what is unknowable). Meanwhile in the atheistic camp, even Richard Dawkins accepts that he does not know if there are no god(s).
Faith is the foundation/life blood of religion, without it, most religions would not capture the hearts and minds of followers, and in addition, the woeful gaps in understanding reality could not be glossed over with the broad-stroked brushing of faith so the faithful can continue to believe in their tenuous beliefs (as godbothering does not answer any of the tough questions, only the useless ones).
The lack of evidence causes faith to grow brighter. Hence, the hurried dash to the land of the gaps; as long as there are gaps to be filled in the understanding of our universe, religious faith will be courted.
Evidence-based thinking, like scientific thought, exults in the closing of gaps in our understanding of reality. Science, both a tool and a body of knowledge, gives us the confidence in our continued quest to understand even further the reality beyond the tip of our noses.
To sum up, you are correct that technically both atheists and theists are agnostic. However, you are conflating disparate aspects when you are equating confidence in the tools and the body of knowledge that represents science with the faith that cements religious beliefs into a brick wall against reason, evidence, and reality.
Posted: October 17th 2008