A brief conversation

[demiurgent]

A brief conversation with a coworker, fortunately where no students could hear:

Him: Well, agnostics are just atheists without the courage of their convictions.

Me: Wow. That was both a lie and offensive. That's a neat trick.

He looked confused. I went on to tell him what I'm going to tell you, right now.

Atheism is not the lack of religion, despite the roots of the word. Atheism is a religion. It is the specific belief, without evidence, that the universe lacked intelligent or motive force behind its creation.

Many atheists refute this, mind. They say that they stand for science, and skepticism, and that any divine presence would need to be proven, and without that proof one must assume there is no divine presence. That, they often say, is simple science and stark reason.

And that's utter bullshit.

Science is agnostic.

Science says "I do not know, until I see. When I see, I can gather evidence and hypothesize. After I hypothesize I gather more evidence. I experiment. I test my hypothesis. I revise my hypothesis. If I and many other scientists perform these experiments and verify and reproduce my results, we might -- might -- upgrade my hypothesis to a theory, but that takes a lot of doing."

Atheism doesn't do any of that. Atheism takes it on faith that there is no god in any form, comprehensible or not. And the evidence for that is just as prevalent as the evidence for Yaweh, Allah, Aphrodite or Manannán mac Lir: absolutely none.

Guys? We don't know. We don't know who or what if anything started the cosmic ball rolling. We don't know if there's something beyond the edge of human perception. We just don't fucking know, okay?

Now, you can be convinced the Christians have it wrong. Or that the Greeks were full of shit. Or that the Wiccans are fooling themselves. You can be personally convinced that the universe is a cold place where everything is essentially chaotic and all things happened because of chance. That's fine.

But don't pretend you have an inside understanding that the religious nuts don't. You have a belief. Nothing more, nothing less. And that's fine. If it makes you happy, power to you.

And if you believe in a god, gods, goddesses, or whatever? Fine by me. Whatever helps you get to sleep, man.

Me? I'm agnostic. I don't have the hubris to think I've got the final answer. I'm still watching and waiting, and I'm keeping an open mind -- to all sides of the question.

And for the record? Don't you fucking dare say I don't have the courage of my convictions. It takes a hell of a lot more courage to admit what you don't know than assert what you believe to be true.

Sadly, it means I don't get to be nearly as smug as certain theists or atheists. But don't worry about me. I usually find something else to be smug about.

Comments

[dvandom.livejournal.com]

Sadly, most people define agnostic as "waiting for me to present my wonderful argument in favor of my faith, which they will eagerly embrace once they see its perfection".

They also tend to think non-believers (whether atheist or agnostic or whatever) consider the matter to be trivial and will cheerfully make false statements of faith since there's no consequences, right? Caused me some trouble at my sister's wedding, when she didn't take me seriously six months in advance when I said I'd do a reading so long as it wasn't overtly religious...and then assigned me a passage that praised God six or seven times in ten lines. Like, just because I don't think there's a God to punish me for lying doesn't mean I think it's proper to misrepresent myself to all these people who I almost never see, and who therefore wouldn't have any reason to think I was just going through the motions.

[masonk.livejournal.com]

I usually find something else to be smug about.

How is Weds, anyway?

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Astounding.

[flemco.livejournal.com]

It's like you tailor made this just to get me arguing.

I feel so bad! I didn't get you anything.

Now, here's where you're completely, incontrovertibly fuckin' wrong:

"Atheism is not the lack of religion, despite the roots of the word. Atheism is a religion. It is the specific belief, without evidence, that the universe lacked intelligent or motive force behind its creation."

This is completely incorrect.

Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.

Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of those deities.

Science is not agnostic on this subject. Science states that we search for things that are provable in order to better our understandings of the universe.

Any idea can be considered, but until we have proof positive, it's only an idea at best. If you decide to test your idea as a theory and cannot prove it positive, it's not accepted as true. That's it, that's the whole shebang, fini, the end.

Many people have had ideas about deities since we first lived in caves. None of these ideas have been proven positive, ever. At best, people fall back on a "theory" that requires Negative Proof ("Oh, yeah? Prove there ISN'T a god!") - this is not science any more than me demanding that you disprove that tiny invisible gnomes venture into my ear canals every night and shit earwax into them is science.

Atheism isn't as convoluted as so many people make it out to be. Until I see proof positive that a deity exists, I don't believe in a deity. That's not a religion. That's stating "I'll believe it when you can prove it." You can argue that Atheism is a Belief System, but it's no more a religion than celibacy is a kind of sex.

[dvandom.livejournal.com]

The problem is also that no matter what the dictionary may say, Eric's definition of atheism is what most people use (those who don't use "baby-eating Satanist," anyway). Sure, there's a logical difference between "No belief in X" and "Belief in no X", but it's a distinction utterly lost on 99% or more of the population.

I just list myself as a heretic most of the time these days.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

I would argue in return that if your version of Atheism is "I don't believe in any of those deities -- if I see one I'll believe in it" doesn't include an active disbelief in any deity or intelligent and motive force behind the universe, you're not an atheist. You're an agnostic. Albeit one of firm opinion on some subjects.

Atheism, on the other hand, is an active belief -- and yes, you can render 'a belief against' as 'a disbelief in' just as easily. Atheism is stating, clearly and unequivocally, that there is no God of any kind. That's what it is.

The cardinal difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic is the difference between "God doesn't exist" and "Hey, I never met him, and I'm not taking your word for it." One is a statement of belief, the other is a statement of lack of belief.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Oh, and!

Science is not agnostic on this subject. Science states that we search for things that are provable in order to better our understandings of the universe.

Science is agnostic on all subjects. The existence of a motive or creative force is just one of them. There has been no evidence to support such a motive force behind creation or the intercession of a divine force in everyday life. All that means is what it says -- it has found no evidence to support that existence. That doesn't mean it therefore posits these things don't exist. Science posits nothing without evidence. It leaves such things to philosophy, which is their natural home.

This is what pisses me off about the folks who use science as the antonym to theology. They confuse the issue and drag the wrong toolset into the debate, and it does nothing but piss people off and make it hard for legitimate science teachers to find employment in Kansas.

[adders.livejournal.com]

Man, the Dawkins Attack Dogs will be here...

Any...

Second...

Now...

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

They beat you by a post.

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

I <3 Dawkins when he isn't being batshit insane. So pretty much when he isn't talking about gods or Stephen Gould.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

The Dawkins side or the Amazing Randi side -- same chorus, different refrain.

Part of the problem, really, is that there is such a prevalence of religion in our society that some of those who take the antithesis position feel they have to fight on all fronts. (Which I don't think Flemco's doing, I would add -- if there's one thing I know about him, it's that he has his own opinions on things. And I'm enjoying the argument).

The existence of Agnosticism -- in effect, the existence of the Undecided in the great referendum of Theism v. Atheism is, to a certain type of Atheist, a dilution of forces. "Don't you see?" they practically scream, "if you don't take a stand with us then you're part of the problem!"

This is also where the scientific conflation thing comes in. By allying themselves with SCIENCE! they're making it Belief V. Reason. Only that's at best muddling the waters, because the debate is now and forever will be philosophical, not scientific. At least, until someone comes up with an honest to God (no pun intended) experimental test that can show evidence for or against.

Of course, on the other side you get the whole "THERE WERE DINOSAURS ON THE ARK! THE EARTH IS THREE THOUSAND YEARS OLD!" crowd. It's not like science doesn't have a place in religious discussion. It's that science's place is to say "you're wrong about this, and you're being childish. Grow up."

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

*hug* Mr. Burns, that is wonderful. I quit being an Atheist some time around my 17h year of life in a blinding flash of realization that indeed, I was claiming the same degree of a priori knowledge about the universe as my theistic compatriots.

[scarfman]

Isaac Asimov once wrote on this topic that the scientific method is his religion, because it's the view of the universe he accepts on faith as being true. It's in the introduction he wrote to a collection of horror/fantasy stories he and Martin Greenberg edited.

[chaobell]

THANK YOU.

Unless you, yourself, have been physically, completely, totally dead and come back to life (and I don't mean "whoops heart stopped for a sec lol" I mean "Elvis has left the morgue and is en route to the funeral home") you do not know that there is or isn't some omnipotent invisble thing waiting for you after you croak. You believe that there is or isn't some omnipotent invisible thing.

Unless you have personally seen every inch of this universe, you do not know that there is or isn't some omnipotent invisible thing living out there somewhere. You believe that there is or isn't etc.

Atheists and theists alike: you do not "know" anything. You believe it. You can yell and scream about how you "know" you're right all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that neither one of you has any more hard proof than the other as to what the fuck is or isn't really out there.

You believe you're right. You don't know shit. This is not my opinion. This is a fact.

My opinion is that stomping your feet and foaming at the mouth and going "I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG AND STUPID AND CRAZY" because you believe there is no omnipotent invisible thing makes you just as much of a socially retarded asshole as the ones that stamp their feet and foam at the mouth going "I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG AND STUPID AND GOING TO HELL."

[shortpacked.livejournal.com]

Does this mean that you merely believe that people can't know things?

Because right now it sounds like you're saying "I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG AND STUPID AND CRAZY" against everyone else saying "I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG AND STUPID AND CRAZY."

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

As Jay's already pointed out, you're badly misusing the word.

But let's leave that aside.

Since you've radically redefined "non-theist" to itself be a theistic position, the question you're begging jumps right out, to me:

What do you call someone who lacks belief in gods?

Not someone who believes that all unknown things are totally impossible (I call that person an "idiot", not an "atheist" as you do), but someone who thinks Jesus and Thor and L Ron Hubbard all have equal credibility, which is to say "none"? Someone who says "there's not one single bit of credible positive evidence for any assertion of the existence of any culturally postulated supernatural being, therefor I believe in no culturally postulated supernatural beings"

Someone who considers that entities whose existence cannot be perceived nor subsidiary effects of their existence noticed are, obviously, totally irrelevant entities, and considering whether or not completely irrelevant things exist is a waste of time and effort?

You've said you're an agnostic because you think there really might be something that can't be seen and can't be interacted with in any way out there, and that thing might be God. Good for you. What does that make someone who shares your complete lack of belief in any and all gods, and who simply goes one step further to saying "if it doesn't affect existence, it obviously doesn't matter".

What are they?

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

Applied research buffs.

[jinwicked.livejournal.com]

Me? I'm agnostic. I don't have the hubris to think I've got the final answer. I'm still watching and waiting, and I'm keeping an open mind -- to all sides of the question.

Atheism is a lack of belief based on lack of evidence. I do not know a single atheist who wouldn't change his or her mind in a heartbeat given credible, reproducible evidence for the existence of god(s). This does not make them agnostic; it makes them realistic. I for one have actively sought such evidence because I am extremely eager to change my mind. I have prayed to any god(s) who might listen to ease my existential crisis — with no answer. We all routinely exercise a lack of belief in a variety of things for which there is a lack of evidence: dowsing, ESP, ghosts, telekinesis, UFOs, the list goes on. Only lack of belief in god(s) is ever made into an issue because the notion is so offensive and unpalatable to a large portion of the population. The existence of atheists is threatening to many religious people whereas psychics and ghost hunters are used to dealing with skeptics and disbelievers.

Sadly, it means I don't get to be nearly as smug as certain theists or atheists. But don't worry about me. I usually find something else to be smug about.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. You're doing a pretty good job here.

[dvandom.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, in a religiously drenched society full of humans with our tendency towards binary thinking, it doesn't matter how carefully people craft new words to try to shade the grays...as soon as common usage gets its hands on the words, they all get translated into either "evil person" or "person waiting for me to convert them". :/

[longwing.livejournal.com]

Here, sodding, here.

That statement about cowardice by the atheists has always made me mildly uneasy. You've articulated the reason perfectly.

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

Most people I run across, if they hear the word agnostic, think it means the person believes in the likelihood of some sentient God or creative force or whatever, but doesn't limit it to a specific belief system, much less a denomination. Maybe it's Karma, or Cosmic Balance instead of a sentient being, but all agnostics are generally thought of as having some kind of belief in an orderly universe in which 'good' and 'evil' exist, or are balanced in some way. They believe there's some kind of reason for life and that after death some kind of justice/reward is meted out.

That's not to say that definition is accurate, just that it's a common interpretation of the term.

Atheists, on the other hand, are generally regarded as foaming at the mouth unbelievers who are certain there's no deity of any kind. While your definition of the term is common, it's still a kinder definition than the one most people apply to agnostic, and closer to what I believe. When I'm asked, and I don't want to spend half an hour explaining my position, I usually just say I'm an atheist.

So my question is, what neat little pigeonhole could I actually be placed in, so I can easily identify my particular views on the existence of deities when asked?

I believe that there may or may not be a sentient being which created the universe, and there may or may not be an afterlife in which I could spend eternity in the presence of this hypothetical being.
However, if there is a sentient being, it is either completely impotent, non-responsive, or just plain whimsically callous and cruel. In any case, it is not worth my time to pay attention to it, much less shower it with devotion and worship because it either doesn't care, or it doesn't matter (or worse, you really don't want to draw its attention.) I certainly wouldn't want to spend eternity basking in the glow of such a being.
The more likely scenario is that there's nothing there at all and that after death, we cease to exist. That scenario is so likely as to exclude the other scenarios from serious consideration, but even if the alternate is true, it wouldn't change my behavior in any fashion.

These conclusions are based on examination and observation of various religions, the world and events talking place in it, the concept of free will and determinism, and logical deductions based on those observations.

If god exists (extremely small, even microscopic possibility) he is at best irrelevant and impotent, and a waste of my time.

So what am I?

[clodia-risa.livejournal.com]

Very well said. I consider there to be two kinds of agnostics - the kind that is waiting for proof, and the kind that thinks that there are better things to worry about. These two easily overlap.

In the same way, I think that there is a fine line of atheism - either simply not believing in gods or believing that there are not gods. I find the line is often the amount of asshattery that the person exhibits. But I'm being silly.

[goblinpaladin.livejournal.com]

Hum. You're wrong. But rather than clutter up your journal with other refutation, I've posted on mine. This comment is to let you know, for that is the polite thing to do.

[mckenzee.livejournal.com]

I'm still calling myself diagnostic.

[discarn8.livejournal.com]

Gezuntheit!

[partiallyclips.livejournal.com]

Your definition of atheism is both a lie and offensive. Neat trick.

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

You really don't think Eric believes his definition of Atheist? Or were you just being clever? His definition fits the atheism that is referenced in the Biercesque definition of Agnostic. Eric is talking about those who hold Atheism as a faith, which group is easy to misidentify as all atheists. There have been very few self identified atheists in this thread who have made convincing arguments that their atheism isn't a matter of faith, and to those, he might owe an apology. Or at least an acknowledgment that his definition didn't include them (which he has actually done in at least one case, if in different words.)

[westrider.livejournal.com]

I've now lost count of how many times you have been able to perfectly articulate positions that I held, but was unable to explain. Thank you for all of those occasions, and the many more that are sure to come!

a late arrival

[aquamarcia.livejournal.com]

I'll just note that I'm not here to argue over anything so much as to just note that I've had some thoughts recently which seem to run closely enough to the current topic as to be worth sharing. But first...

About having the courage of your convictions: I get pretty ticked off when people on one side or another of an argument see those on the fence as wishy-washy and unwilling to stand up for anything. I rather like to think that the people with the most courage are those who are committed to reasoned views and are willing to stand in the crossfire between the two extremes and argue that reason.

After some recent reading (including Dawkins' The God Delusion) it occurred to me that some portion of the problem, at least from a semantic perspective, might be word construction using the Greek model for indicating when something is not. What I'm about to propose doesn't really work etymologically speaking, but it seems sensible...

If we use moral/immoral/amoral as a model, and we acknowledge that amoral means, 'a lack of morals,' (I've read 'morally indifferent' in one definition) then it strikes me that the same model applied to theism would suggest atheism is, 'a lack of belief,' which I don't think is an active position. The model would map as theistic/antitheistic/atheistic. With this model we can then grant that some claiming to be atheists might be better described as antitheists (a more active position).

The only thing about your post that specifically bothers me is the claim that science is agnostic. While I'm sure I was at one time agnostic, I've since abandoned that approach because it seems no less limiting than religion itself. Both religion and agnosticism claim, so far as I can tell, that there is something in the universe we can't know anything about. Religions, oddly enough, claim to know about the thing that can't be known (through revelation and such), while agnosticism seems to throw up its hands. I don't think science says there are things we can't know. Science might say there are things we can't know right now given a variety of limitations (physical, technological, cognitive, etc.), but I don't think science is often given to throwing up its hands. (Some scientists are. Even Einstein blew it when it tried to undercut his own theories in an attempt to maintain an orderly universe.)

Here's a quote from your post:

Me? I'm agnostic. I don't have the hubris to think I've got the final answer. I'm still watching and waiting, and I'm keeping an open mind -- to all sides of the question.

And then here's the relevant entry from dictionary.com's definition of agnostic:

a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

That definition doesn't fit with your claim, nor what I typed in my previous paragraph about the proposed agnosticism of science. It seems to me your desire to maintain that open mind, to seek to understand that which others claim cannot be understood, is far more ambitious than mere agnosticism. It's the ambition of science.

I'd leave that last statement as my tagline, but I should also make clear that my definitions aren't those of others, and there's far too much flexibility in the use of these words for comfort (or at least comfortable arguing). Defining agnosticism is like trying to catch an eel with your bare hands. :)

Re: a late arrival

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

Using the Merriam-Webster definition, you'll find something that meshes well with Eric's stated position.

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Notice the second part, the broader definition. Using that definition (which I think a reading of Eric's post supports) you can, I think, see where he gets his three broad brush positions. Problem seems to be that from his grouping of Atheist, you get two different species. The philosophical atheist and the faith based atheist. The philosophical atheist overlaps position-wise with the agnostic and the faith based atheist, and I'm not sure it really deserves its own category. Problem is, there is no compelling reason to lump it with one side or the other. (So yeah, I'm wrong, we need 4 legs. Actually we need a fifth leg for the folks who aren't theists but who believe in the supernatural (and not just the unexplained natural) and probably a sixth grouping for folks who believe in some sort of theistic entities who work within the rules, naturalistic deities (I'd say arguably the later Norse, Greek, and Roman gods probably would fit there, and there are at least some Oden and Thor followers knocking about.)

[mazlynn.livejournal.com]

You know, watching this debate there are two things that I've found amusing. One is that the point which is generating the most argument here (whether atheism is a "belief" or not) is the one that your friend was taking as a default position. At least to me, saying that atheist have "courage of their conviction" implies a certain degree of belief beyond simple factual information.

The second is how many people have gotten up in arms over the idea that certain flavors of atheism may be operating on an unsupported base asumption (aka a belief). I think part of that is because many people who view themselves as atheists view themselves as being extremely logical, and reaching that position through strict logic, so the statement that they are operating on a belief is disturbing to them.

I don't necessarially agree that all those who call themselves atheist are operating on a belief. I think there are different flavors, and some who may call themselves atheists may be more "agnostic with atheist leanings" or "it doesn't matter anyway." But I definitely know some who do seem to be operating just as much on belief as some of the theists I know.

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

That is what he's calling active and passive atheism.