(Warning: you may be offended by this one…)
In this world, there are probably more agnostics than atheists. And I’m betting that most of you won’t see that as a problem, as a sign that there’s something wrong with people. Yet…
Why am I an atheist? Because I am convinced that there is no such thing as a “god”. Much like I am convinced that there is no Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, or that there are no monsters under my bed - even though I am not looking under it now. No, I don’t have some magical time-space powers which enable me to instantly look through the entire universe, not to mention any supposed “spiritual” realms, to know that there is no “god” out there. What I do know is that there’s not the slightest indication of there being one, other than a great number of people irrationally believing in some fairy tale without proof. Unlike theists, I don’t hate or distrust my mind, and I can use it to deduce things. There’s absolutely no sign of a “god” or “gods” in the universe, so, even if somehow they existed, 1) all human religions would be wrong about them, and 2) they wouldn’t affect our lives in any way.
Why is anyone an agnostic? Two possibilities: either because they don’t give a damn about reality (intellectual cowardice and laziness), or because they want a way out in case there actually is a god.
Let’s expand the two possibilities:
1- while an atheist has thought about the existing facts and came up to the logical conclusion, an agnostic has either refused to think about them - “I don’t want to know!” - or did think, but was too cowardly to come to a conclusion, as in “2 plus 2… let’s see, one, two, three four, it happened every time I counted, but, still, I can’t be sure that it’ll happen next time, so I can’t say, for sure, that 2 + 2 = 4. After all, who am I to know?”. A man, a rational being, who refuses to think is like a bird who refuses to use its wings: suicidal. Only, in this case, it’s a suicide of the mind, instead of a physical one.
2- here, it’s a case of “I don’t want to be bothered with worship, services, rules and so on, but, just in case, let’s not deny God altogether, just in case he exists.”. It’s like trying to fool God - if he happens to exist - in a “legalese” way. Like an even more cowardly and dishonest version of Pascal’s Wager. As Douglas Adams said,
People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)
EDIT: I’ve written a followup to this post, The problem of Agnosticism, part 2. Some bits are better explained there, and it’s also likely to be less offensive than this one. 
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
Hi,
I’m not replying based on anger or being offended. But you seem to genuinely care about this stuff you write, so I thought it would be worth the time to write my opposing opinion.
I am agnostic, more or less, but for neither of the reasons you stated. I am agnostic for the simple reason that I believe we don’t “know” anything for sure. Ideas and “knowledge” about our world change every day, always have, and as it would seem, always will. Our ideas and technology and philosophies will forever expand and evolve, but I feel we will hardly ever reach a point of “knowing everything”.
Assuming we do not know everything, I cannot make any argument asserting that there definitely is not any sort of “higher sentient power” at work in some form (although, the concept of god that often materializes in religous arguments is highly unlikely, contains numerous contradicitons, and is hardly worth any real energy or passion).
Perhaps there is some crazy cosmic stuff going on, at levels or dimensions that I couldn’t possibly comprehend right now. I don’t really care, because (1) how am I supposed to explore that if I’m fundamentally built not to, and (2) I have plenty of more tangible things to think about in my life right now.
In summary, I’m not being lazy or playing it safe, I’m just being practical,
Brent
I see your point. However, depending on how you define them, it is possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic. Atheism deals with belief - if you do not believe God exists, you are an atheist. Agnosticism deals with knowledge - if you don’t know whether God exists or not, you are agnostic.
Now, I think it’s possible to believe in something without knowing it. I don’t believe there’s a monster under my bed, but hey, I can’t say I know it with 100% confidence. Maybe some undiscovered creature snuck in from the forest beside my house and is now hiding under my bed. It’s possible, but extremely unlikely.
I call myself an atheist, because I am nearly certain that God does not exist. But the “nearly” in there also makes me agnostic. I think the “nearly” NEEDS to be in there, or else we have become as dogmatic as fundamentalist religious folk, who are so convinced in their beliefs that no contrary evidence, no matter how strong, cannot change them. In order to have our beliefs move ever-closer to reality, they must be malleable, and that makes us thinking folks agnostic to some degree.
You can also get into finer definitions, like weak vs strong atheism/agnosticism. Whatever. Just had to share my thoughts on why perhaps you characterised agnosticism in an overly limited way.
While I am not offended by your point regarding Agnostics being lazy, I do have to disagree with you. Having grown up Christian, I felt myself having a very difficult time believing the fundamental concepts expressed in the Bible. While I agree with certainty that it, at the current moment, is impossible to factually prove that life was endowed by some Creator, I do have to say you should consider the following: If you believe in the theory of evolution and the Big Bang, how can order come from disorder? Especially in the very first moments of the Big Bang. What prompted the Universe to obtain the laws that we know to exist today? By chance? Take a typical biological process such as fertilization. How can something so complex organize itself so well, with such efficiency? I have thought about topics such as this a lot and there is a definite incongruity in my mind. How can it be that the Universe became so complex and structured, when it started out unstructured? I almost feel the ‘glue’ that holds the Universe together had to be guided by some master plan, an architect of sorts.
Yes, this introduces the idea of faith as you cannot factually prove that the above was created by a higher power, however, I feel that when you look intricately at the details of our Universe that it is all the more compelling to think that our Universe was not some cosmic accident.
As for lazy, I disagree. Confused? Yes, because no one can know for certain given our limited set of senses we humans have. But this not an excuse to say that for certain a God does not exist.
I’m agnostic, because I’m not nearly conceited enough to make a statement like “I am convinced that there is no such thing as a ‘god’.” I have no proof that there is or is not a god. If there is a god who wishes to be hidden from us, surely he (I’ll stick with the male pronoun for convenience’s sake) is crafty enough to prevent us from discovering him. Do you have some sort of mathematical theorem or insider information that justifies being “convinced” that there is no god?
While I reject the idea of coming to any definitive conclusions whatsoever about this topic, the worldview that seems most likely to me is that we are part of some sort of simulation - and that the simulation has flaws (no, I’m not a Matrix theorist). For example, it seems nearly impossible to me that George Bush would be re-elected without some sort of interference. The man had proven himself incompetent and borderline corrupt time and time again, yet more people voted for him than for a decorated Vietnam veteran and distinguished Senator? Surely this is an indication of tampering - either with the voting machines (which seems plausible but they covered their tracks well if it happened), or with the simulation we’re a part of. If this was a video game and I was holding the controller, I’d find it vastly more entertaining to stick Dubya in there for four more years, just to see what kinds of crazy shit might happen.
But I have no evidence that it’s a simulation, just like Christians have no evidence that Jesus tap-danced on the ocean or whatever the hell they say he did. I also have no evidence to prove that we’re on our own, and everything exists just by mere chance. So I’m agnostic, and I think you are too; you just haven’t thought it through hard enough.
This is in response to Phronk’s comment:
I think we may be getting into a little bit of a semantics game, so could end up going in circles, but I justed wanted to add that we should be careful about what “belief” means.
I would say I don’t “believe” anything, but rather, I make “assumptions” about the way life is, so that I can go about and make decisions in my daily life. I like to think that this is what being “agnostic” means, i.e., never accepting true knowledge (or belief) of anything. Maybe this is sort of a hard-line definition of agnosticism - but I don’t see the practicality of creating shades of grey between atheists and agnostics.
Think about how you would apply the definitions in an everyday situation, say, when someone asks you if you believe in god:
(1) Your presented way: “no, I’m almost certain there is no god, but I don’t want to be dogmatic, so almost certain.”
(2) My way: “No, there is no god” (atheist)… or “I don’t know, and I choose (not) to base my decisions and actions on any concept of this or that god.” (agnostic)
See how the second way creates more solid ground for further action and argument? I realize that shades of grey may pervade “reality”, but I also think it’s good to be as precise as possible in the construction of an ideology, while at the same time maintaining flexibility and openness.
I also think your argument implicitly brings in the matter of how “reality” is defined.
Anyway, I don’t mean to be offensive, I’m just trying to make a serious argument, so I hope you don’t take the above discussion negatively.
Interesting post.
Personally, I prefer the term agnostic to atheism. It more accurately reflects my wider views (like others here I regard all knowledge as ultimately uncertain).
Also, I’ve found that an agnostic stance makes discussion/debate with religious believers more productive. While it’s quite easy to take apart the claims of mainstream religions, it’s practically impossible to disprove the existence of any divine being whatsoever - as absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence - and I find it annoying to get stuck in the rut of “you can’t prove it”/”you can’t disprove it”.
By starting off in the simple “ultimately I don’t know - but it seems that…” position, you put the onus on them to justify their beliefs, without the luxury of being able to attack your own so easily.
I believe that logic and reasoning aren’t sufficient tools in determing whether or not god exists. So, we truly have no way of determining if there is a god. That’s why I’m agnostic.
Perhaps there are things beyond science and our reasoning capacitites are limited. I think that Atheism and Theism are both too extreme.
I have read both this post and the post about the 16 common myths about atheists (which i found very interesting) and while not offended, I find it very difficult to believe that you would be so close-minded on this subject (and i am in no way implying that you are close-minded in general). I am a firm believer that there is virtually no term to describe myself when it comes to religion, although if forced to select one, agnostic would be the closest one i select. This is not due to laziness, or needing to find a way out, but as Brent stated in an earlier post, simply the fact that we dont know. If people find comfort in the term agnostic, who are you to judge them for that, which you so steadily complain that christians do to those who claim to be atheists (which I am not denying happens). You are right… there is no proof that god exists. There is also no proof that he doesnt. While I dont believe in the bible or most things that christians do, I feel that there is some form of higher being out there… whether it be a god or not, I dont know. I mean… aliens could exist on mars. Im just not chauvenistic enough to believe that human beings are the highest form of life out there. As Davidus states in the post before me… atheism is such an extreme term… leaving room for no belief in anything, and I just cant buy that.
I also consider myself Agnostic. I don’t believe in a god, but I cannot say for certain that there is no god. You are asking me to accept something that is just as unprovable as Islam or Christianity or Buddhism. Belief without evidence is one of my main beefs with people who follow religions.
Like you I do not believe a god exists. I could believe that an alien race existed so powerful and more advanced that us that they would seem godlike. This however is still not god.
> Unlike theists, I don’t hate or distrust my mind, and I can use it to deduce things.
You invalidated your claim to rational deduction right there.
I happen to be an agnostic, but not out of intellectual or spiritual cowardice.
I believe there is a Creator of some sort, I just don’t think he follows some sort of dogma.
I find it intriguing that a failure to come to the same conclusion implies a lack of thought.
Hey.
I liked your article about rumors about Atheism, and I thought it was totally true.
But this article has to be the biggest peice of retardation I have ever read. I, in fact, hold myself to be Agnostic.
You said, “Why is anyone an agnostic? Two possibilities: either because they don’t give a damn about reality (intellectual cowardice and laziness), or because they want a way out in case there actually is a god.”
Yeah, okay. I don’t give a damn about reality, eh? How can you say that? Do you know any Agnostics personally? Do you know how much I consider if there is a god or not?
I want a way out? No. That’s about as brilliant as saying black people are stupid. Come on. Look, there’s no way of saying you have direct proof of there being no god. That’s like a Christian saying they have direct proof of Jesus walking on water or whatever the hell he did.
You’re as bad as those redneck Christians.
I agree with you. Do you agnostics believe there could be a santa claus. I guess its nice for people to say im agnostic to not offend the majority of religious types around them.
But thats about all it can be. The fear of offending all the crazy scared religious people around you. I dont think its the fear that maybe you will miss out on the great heaven reward.
Or saying you just cant know for sure. Agnostics i believe, think because they are human they are better organisms. I dont think im any different than my dog he likes to play, stay warm or cool, eat, have sex, belong to a family, associate with friends. Yes we have larger more complicated brains. So we tend to complicate things, using words like maybe and i cant know everything. Youre senses are what keeps you alive sight, hearing, taste, touch, memory etc. We have survive and dominated because of our group behavior.
And the agnostic brain just maybe telling itself dont mess to much with the group.
A religious person to me, is a person who “knows the truth”. Being christian, muslim or atheist… Call me an agnostic, I really couldn’t care less. People that meddle with absolutes bore me.
There’s a reason why people compare discussions between groups that both are absolutely certain that they are right and the other is wrong with no supporting evidence to religous wars. We don’t know for certain that there is no god, but we can know for certain that this supposed god, if it exists, has not interfered with our lives in any way, and as such is irrelevant to our lives. There’s nothing in the world suggesting there is a god, but at the same time we don’t know everything about the world we live in. There is, however, enough evidence to prove that the supposed god hasn’t affected the world in any way we can observe, and so even if there is a god all the religions are equally clueless. That’s the reason I’m probably more of an agnostic than an atheist.
“Agnostics i believe, think because they are human they are better organisms. I dont think im any different than my dog he likes to play, stay warm or cool, eat, have sex, belong to a family, associate with friends. Yes we have larger more complicated brains. So we tend to complicate things, using words like maybe and i cant know everything. Youre senses are what keeps you alive sight, hearing, taste, touch, memory etc. We have survive and dominated because of our group behavior.
And the agnostic brain just maybe telling itself dont mess to much with the group.”
I don’t believe I’m any better than my dog. We’re just different. This group behaviour you praise is exactly why people tend to be hostile to people who are different. There’s no reason to think about Us versus Them, not in 2006.
People, please read The problem of Agnosticism, part 2. It’s a followup to this one.
This person who wrote this tirade against agnosticism is the true coward. It is easy to say that one believes in god or not. That belief gives one a sense of certainty and an identity, i.e. I am an atheist or I am a christian, muslim, ect. It is a way a aserting oneself over reality. Saying that with incomplete evidence a diety exists or does not exist and then engaging in a flame war with the other side acomplishes nothing. Agnosticism is rarely a point of view held by someone who would be an atheist if not for fear of an afterlife. Nor is it simple cowardice of coming to a conclusion, the author gives the example of not being sure that 2+2=4. A better description of agnosticism is someone who looks at a problem such as x+y= ?
Since the person does not know anything about x or y, they can only say x+y = x+y. A thing is itself, that is all that can be known about it. The author, an obvious fan of Atlas Shrugged, has failed to complete his reading and decided to take the cowardly path of jumping to conclusions. Any person who feels the need to say This IS the way things ARE has some problems facing the harshness of life without certainty.
Stop being jews, and get on with life.
i believe in the possibility of something that would be on the same level as ‘god’… but it would be something completely different than your common concept of what a god is.
i’d classify myself as both athiest and agnostic. i believe theres nothing like the major religions teach in reality, but there might be some kind of greater understanding. like… what makes a person who they are? a general understanding of consiousness between their cells. i believe that there might be some kind of consiousness that connects all people, all living things, or even all forms of energy (everything). maybe there is a greater understanding above us that we are a part of and dont know that we are a part of. like our cells i’m sure don’t realize they are a part of us on their own level.
… i know it sounds a bit crazy. i dont believe that is the truth, but i wouldn’t be suprised if it was somehow discovered to be that way.
to sum up: the creator of this has overlooked the vast possibilities of mixtures between people, their intelligence levels, their perspectives on the world, how their attitudes are set, etc etc..
or maybe ‘agnostic’ and ‘athiest’ are too precise. maybe there should be more to it than just 2 columns?
i can see your point. but being an agnostic is still much better than being releagous.by the way agnostics are not being lazy or playing it safe and none of them(almost)think there is such a thing as hell or life after death they just think that maybe some sort of power has caused the world to be(not making it like a human making statues)
I’m agnostic. I don’t believe in a personal god ala the Abrahamic religions, but I don’t discount that there might be some force out there that qualifies as god based on your definition of the specific word (and the word does mean different things to different people.) Shrug. Our ability to prove the existence of something is limited to our ability to perceive both the macro and micro in the universe. Compare our scientific beliefs 500 years ago to our beliefs today. If you purposed some of the things we take for granted today to someone around 500 years ago they’d have locked you up as a nutter, but as our ability to perceive improves so does our knowledge. There will come a time when we know beginning to end how the universe works, but we’re not at that point yet. There are too many holes and new fields like quantum physics(mechanics) are changing our understanding of existing theories. To claim we fully understand when we’re clearly only looking at the tip of the iceberg is insane. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to hold out for a “just in case” as I don’t believe in a personal god, I just feel you’re painting an overly broad stereotype. I don’t know *any* agnostics who are holding out “just in case”, they tend to fall into one of two camps in my experience: A) Those who aren’t sure which religion/belief is right (agnostic theist) and B) Those who are sure there isn’t a personal god, but can’t discount that some definitions of god might exist (apathetic agnostic, because there are so many and some are scientifically sound.)