Although the terms atheism and agnosticism have well defined meanings, I think that it would be of interest to separate each term into general and specific forms, because some common logical contradictions may become clear(er) by doing so…
- General atheism- “there is no god.” This includes me, and anyone who describes him or herself as “atheist”.
- Specific atheism- “this particular god doesn’t exist.” Most theists are, actually, specific atheists about every god but theirs.
- General agnosticism- “it’s impossible to know whether a god exists.” Self-described “agnostics” should, in theory, be here. However…
- Specific agnosticism- “it’s impossible to know whether this particular god exists.”
You probably know examples of each.
As I said, “true” atheists are general atheists. To them, it makes no sense to discriminate between one god and the other; they’re all fictional.
It would seem that the same would apply to agnostics, right? An agnostic should be one who can’t say whether there’s a god - any god at all - or not.
But, in fact, most self-described “agnostics” are really specific agnostics about one or more gods (usually, the most popular one where they live, which is, in most cases, the Christian god), and specific atheists about the rest. Which is a strange, hard to understand double standard, if you ask me.
In other words, most “agnostics” are agnostic about some form of monotheistic, all-powerful god, but they reject gods from extinct mythologies, such as the Greek, Roman, or Norse gods. They also, usually, reject gods from polytheistic religions, such as Hinduism or Native American Animism. They may not explicitly say so, but they don’t think that the chance of Yahweh existing (which is a question they’ve washed their hands of) is the same as the chance of Thor existing.
Why is that? I’d say it’s some form of cultural pressure, added to the fact that agnostics often are agnostic because they don’t care to think much about the subject (as someone said, “an atheist is an agnostic who’s thought about it.”).
I’m not saying that true, general agnostics don’t exist; however, most of the ones I talked to ended up showing themselves to be as I described above: agnostic about one god (or “type” of god), atheistic about the rest of them. A true agnostic, to me, would believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be as likely to exist as Yahweh or Allah. “But,” you say, “the FSM was invented just last year…” However, is the age of a myth a deciding factor? If so, there are much older mythologies than Christianity or even Judaism… Wouldn’t that make them even more likely to be true?
Another reply is “this god makes some sense, and could therefore exist, while those other gods are clearly absurd and man-made”. But… if you say that, you are judging. How dare you? 
Seriously, what makes you qualified to judge some gods as “absurd” and others as “plausible”? Could it be the same power of reason that you, yourself, admit is too weak and fallible to judge whether there is a god or not (otherwise, you wouldn’t be an agnostic, right?)?
In conclusion: looking at the list above, atheists are 1. Theists are 2 about every god but theirs. Agnostics should, theoretically, be 3, but in reality most of them are a mix of 4 about one or two gods, and 2 about every other deity.
Any thoughts?
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
I disagree, in the sense of, when I decided I was agnostic, I define myself as a general agnostic. The main reason I define myself as agnostic is that I think it’s not possible to know whether any god(s) exist.
But you’re probably right.
I don’t think your conclusions are necessarily right. It is possible that someone is culturally biased or judgemental, but these do not exhaust all cases.
Gods such as Thor, Zeus, etc. have no strong logical arguments for them. They stand ultimatly as faith born and belief based. Any logical argument for their cases can usually be easily knocked down.
Gods such as Yahweh and Allah, however, have a certain logical strength. Their arguments are stronger and more sophisticated, and they are harder to argue against.
As such it is understandable to become agnostic towards Yahweh, Allah etc; but atheistic towards Thor, Zeus, etc..
“A true agnostic, to me, would believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be as likely to exist as Yahweh or Allah.”
While Yahweh and Allah are implausible, the FSM is even more implausible. Which is why we don’t hear about newly invented parody religions about a mostly benevolent god named Fred just to prove a point.
So I disagree with your assertion that most agnostics are specific agnostics about some gods and specific atheists about others. Rather, some gods so implausible that considering that they may actually exist is enough of a waste of time that it in practice isn’t done. But they are never formally ruled out.
It comes down to a question of one’s opinion toward knowledge and reality: is ultimate reality knowable? Add “Model Agnosticism” to your list. This is the opinon that questions of ultimate reality are not verifiable, and the best we
can do is build models (in the scientific sense) that accomodate the accumulating evidence…and the model is never final. Blind, binary “belief” is not the best way to deal with metaphysical claims, which by their nature are not testable.
That said, Odins, Jehovahs, and tooth fairies have very poor explanatory power, and should probably be omitted from any useful model of reality. This practical result is much the same as atheism, but please note: this is a principled epistemological position that attempts to require adequate grounding for any claims, not the mealy-brained unwillingness to take a position on Christian pop theology you impute to agnostics in general.
If I spent all day actively not believing in everything that doesn’t have a reasonable basis in reality, I’d never get anything done.
[quote comment="6259"]I don’t think your conclusions are necessarily right. It is possible that someone is culturally biased or judgemental, but these do not exhaust all cases.[/quote]
Note that I didn’t say that there were no general agnostics, only that most agnostics were of the “agnostic about one god, atheistic about the rest” kind. True, general agnostics do exist, but I have found them to be in the minority.
[quote comment="6259"]Gods such as Thor, Zeus, etc. have no strong logical arguments for them. They stand ultimatly as faith born and belief based. Any logical argument for their cases can usually be easily knocked down.
Gods such as Yahweh and Allah, however, have a certain logical strength. Their arguments are stronger and more sophisticated, and they are harder to argue against.[/quote]
Excuse me?!? Could you give any specifics? I have found no more reason to believe in Yahweh than Thor - I have exactly zero evidence for the existence of either. On what do you base your above claim?
What makes monotheism more “logical” than polytheism?
And, technically, the fact that a religion has no believers anymore doesn’t make it “false”, in my opinion…
[quote comment="6260"]“A true agnostic, to me, would believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be as likely to exist as Yahweh or Allah.”
While Yahweh and Allah are implausible, the FSM is even more implausible. Which is why we don’t hear about newly invented parody religions about a mostly benevolent god named Fred just to prove a point.
So I disagree with your assertion that most agnostics are specific agnostics about some gods and specific atheists about others. Rather, some gods so implausible that considering that they may actually exist is enough of a waste of time that it in practice isn’t done. But they are never formally ruled out.[/quote]
But why is the FSM more implausible than Yahweh? Yes, we *know* it’s a parody religion, created last year, to show that “you can’t prove God doesn’t exist” isn’t a valid argument for the existence of God, since it applies exactly as well to the FSM. There are no “serious” FSM believers, while billions believe in Yahweh. But… do age or popularity make an unfounded, unproved, evidence-less claim any more likely to be true?
Sure, we can use the fact that the FSM was admittedly created as a parody as evidence that it doesn’t exist. But what about the Greek gods? People sincerely believed in them, once. They used them to explain what wasn’t understood, much like God was used through history to explain a lot of things we now know to be natural. So… why be agnostic about one god and atheistic about the other? Or, even if you remain agnostic about Zeus and the rest, why believe these are less likely to exist than Yahweh or Allah? Are you sure that it’s not the fact that some religions are popular today and others aren’t?
[quote post="192"]Excuse me?!? Could you give any specifics? I have found no more reason to believe in Yahweh than Thor - I have exactly zero evidence for the existence of either. On what do you base your above claim?[/quote]
I should’ve been more clear. The evidence that Yahweh/Allah does exist would be such as the ontological argument and other such arguments that necessitate a god’s existance based on the principles of such a god. These arguments press the idea that such a god would exist.
God’s such as Thor/Zeus do not recieve, nor can recieve, arguments of the strength of the ontological argument. As such they are in a weaker possible standing then even Yahweh/Allah.
As such, arguments that trounce gods would be able to catch some of them (ie Thor,Zeus) and eliminate them. God’s that have rational arguments backing them however create an uncertainty that merits agnosticism.
[quote post="192"]What makes monotheism more “logical” than polytheism?[/quote]I was not trying to make monotheism more “logical” I just used examples that I understand; for example I don’t understand the hindi gods enough to defend them, or denounce them with any skill.
Well, the Norse gods were also used to explain the world - its origin, and how it worked. So we could use the same argument used for Yahweh: “how did the universe come to be? Some god (or gods) must be responsible…” Whether you call it Yahweh or say that it’s not just one, but a bunch of them, ruled by an one-eyed “allfather”, they’re still a magical explanation for the origin of the world.
Not that I believe that that argument has any merit, since it’s the god of the gaps all over again: I don’t understand it, so God must have done it. Once, they said the same thing about rain, and it turned out to be a natural process after all…
You’re right that Theism of the Christian variety is atheistic about every other God. This a specifically stated premise of the religion. Why does this make sense?
Because in Christian theology, God is ALL that is. The statement that “God is one” is saying “reality is unitary”. Polytheism is stating “reality is divided”.
-micah
http://emergentchristian.blogspot.com/
I don’t think that, in Christian theology, God is all that is. According to the Bible, he’s the creator of the universe; not the universe.
[quote comment="6269"]
But why is the FSM more implausible than Yahweh?
Yes, we *know* it’s a parody religion, created last year, to show that “you can’t prove God doesn’t exist” isn’t a valid argument for the existence of God, since it applies exactly as well to the FSM. There are no “serious” FSM believers, while billions believe in Yahweh. But… do age or popularity make an unfounded, unproved, evidence-less claim any more likely to be true?
Sure, we can use the fact that the FSM was admittedly created as a parody as evidence that it doesn’t exist. But what about the Greek gods? People sincerely believed in them, once. They used them to explain what wasn’t understood, much like God was used through history to explain a lot of things we now know to be natural. So… why be agnostic about one god and atheistic about the other? Or, even if you remain agnostic about Zeus and the rest, why believe these are less likely to exist than Yahweh or Allah? Are you sure that it’s not the fact that some religions are popular today and others aren’t?[/quote]
The reason why I take Yahweh more seriously than the FSM is because people actually believe in Yahweh. That is no proof, of course. So, yes, I take popular religions more seriously than parody ones.
Seriously enough that every few months I think to myself “ok, could this be true?” I then do my best to apply the evidence that I know about, at which point popularity doesn’t come into play. My answer thus far has been “no” every time. Some day it may be different, although I doubt it.
I consider a religion’s popularity a recommendation, basically.
(I periodically question my beliefs about things unrelated to religion, as well: systems of government, for example.)
I have never once asked myself and spent time reflecting on whether the FSM may be real. If I did, I’m pretty sure I’d come up with a “no”, but why waste the time? There are more interesting things to do and think about.
With respect to the Olympian gods: I take them approximately as seriously as I take Yahweh: I consider them to be extremely improbable. A little less probable, I suppose, than Yahweh, more probable than the FSM.
[quote comment="6254"]I disagree, in the sense of, when I decided I was agnostic, I define myself as a general agnostic. The main reason I define myself as agnostic is that I think it’s not possible to know whether any god(s) exist.
But you’re probably right.[/quote]
what are agnostic?
I consider myself to be a true agnostic and I would say that Yahweh has about as much chance of existing as Thor, but doing so is a tedious exercise. I claim there is no way of knowing if a god could exist and therefore Yahweh, Thor, FSM, and anything else you could imagine could very well be the case and only proves how little we can know about this alleged god. Moreover, since we can’t know anything about the nature of this god, we can’t assume this god doesn’t exist as that is as much of an assumption as saying he/she/it/dinner does exist. I don’t consider this a washing my hands of deciding what I think about certain gods, I consider this like answering a multiple choice question E.Not enough information.
[quote comment="6259"]
As such it is understandable to become agnostic towards Yahweh, Allah etc; but atheistic towards Thor, Zeus, etc..[/quote]
One does not become Agnostic toward a particular deity… Agnostics by definition acknowledging that they are incapable of knowing what god is or is not, let alone exists.
The notion that members of a particular faith are semi-atheist because of their denial of other deities is a logical fallacy. Many faiths are at odds with one another in regards to creation myths and hierarchies of the afterlife. Calling such conflicts atheist shows a lack of understanding regarding the nature of both religion and atheism. Atheism denies all divinity. To accuse the religious of being partial atheists ultimately undermines the overall value of any other arguments you advance against religious adversaries, and to compromises your logical qualification with all comers.
Generally, subdividing and classifying groups usually becomes the foundation of logical fallacies. Case in point.
I apologize for being harsh, but as an atheist, I bristle when atheism is poorly represented. I consider perpetuating logical fallacies to make points an example of poor representation. If this article was put forth as an attempt at absurdist commentary, then it needs more absurd, because clearly, it has been taken seriously.
any “specific [insert religion here]” is a waste of breath. no one believes in everything.
I am first a strong agnostic, because I recognize that no matter how convincing an argument, or how sincerely a belief is held, deception, or misinterpretation is eminently possible. It is only with the very(very!) flimsy proof of ergo cogito sum, that I can prove my own existence, and I see no logical way to be more sure about something than I am about my own existence. I am also atheist, because I see no evidence to suggest the existence of any deity(or deities), much less which religion, if any is right about them, if indeed it/they exist. Instead of through religion, I seek purpose in my life through introspection. While it is true that our bodies are programed for self preservation and reproduction, that is not true of the mind. Our minds are not specialized until we want them to be. The purpose of our life is something we must find or make for ourselves.
I am an agnostic. That means I don’t believe that there is even the slightest posibility that any of the following deities exist(ed)**: Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Zoroaster, Odin, Thor, Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Venus, Mars, Krishna, Ganesha, Shiva, Baal, Isis, Osiris etc… I know them to be the stuff of myths, I know them to be bullshit. However I do not exclude the possibility that maybe some personal god, or a human soul or an afterlife exist. I simply do not know enough to say. An analogy would be; I know there are no teapots in Martian orbit. I don’t know if there are none orbiting a gas giant somewhere on the edge of Andromeda.
I was raised culturally Muslim by a more or less agnostic set of parents. Muslim clerics like to say: “Atheist are easy to convert. They have already uttered the first part of the Kelime-i Shadet [the sentence that admits you to Islam, kind of like a Christening], ‘There is no god,’ they need only finish the sentence, ‘but Allah and Mohamed is it’s prophet.’”
I on the other hand say, “I don’t know if there is a god, but it sure as hell ain’t Allah and Mohamed was a pedophile”. That’s agnostic.
** I use existed in a very specific sense here. Jesus might very well have existed but not in the way Christians and Muslims believe him to have existed. Given that the Egyptian Kings were worshiped as gods, Isis and Osiris might have well been prehistoric Kings and Queens. Zeus, Odin and the whole lot, even Yahweh (Allah is Yahweh according to Muslims) might have been flesh and blood at some point in ancient times. All these gods also had/have effects on the real world through their followers. So even if they aren’t what people believe them to be, or weren’t at some time flesh and blood, they still exist in some loose definition of the word exist. That is not the definition I have in mind. When I say Zeus never existed I mean he wasn’t a god and never threw bolts of thunder at the earth.
the question of god’s existence is altogether confounded with the question of its *nature*. it isnt out of the question to me that there is some sort of identifiable “prime mover” in existence, though i am specifically (and enthusiastically!) athiest about all the all-powerful all-loving suspiciously portly-late-middle-age-white-guy looking constructions, who created humanity with apparently the specific mindset that “all powerful and perfect or not, kissing My own ass just lacks a certain something”.
the PHYSICAL universe certainly makes few enough concessions to my vanity. it is difficult to suppose that said universe derives from a METAPHYSICAL one which is oh so agreeable to my own sense of self-importance.
I actually rather disagree. I am a devout agnostic, leaning heavily toward atheism but believing one cannot be sure, but I have always felt that the Greek and Norse Gods work much better with my perceptions of the world than does an Christian God.