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

[adders.livejournal.com]

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

Any...

Second...

Now...

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

They beat you by a post.

[adders.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the sensitive, considerate icon in use was the give-away there wasn't it?

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

Admittedly one doesn't have to be a Dawkins fan to be a Dawkins style Atheist.

[flemco.livejournal.com]

Neh, I've only read a bit of what he writes. Mostly because it's boring to me - not because he puts his ideas out there in a bland way, but because after two or three paragraphs, I find myself nodding tersely and thinking Yes, yes, I already get it, you're just saying the things I already believe. Then I go fuck off and read a Sue Grafton book.

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

He did some original work, stuff that has changed how biologists approach several sub-fields, but most of his books are popularizing science, at least the ones that are more concerned with biology than gods.

Selfish Gene is particularly useful, and if it sounds old hat, it is akin to the director (producer?) of Starship Troopers statement that he didn't use power armor because it was used everywhere in SF. (Elsewhere he has some extended work and clarification for the first half of that book. I've not read the newer edition to see if he has updated it to include the new stuff or not.)

[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."

[adders.livejournal.com]

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.

It's worth baring in mind that the statement above only holds for a value of the USA. In the UK, it's exactly the opposite way around, and hence us poor, tiny minority who are practicing Christians (I'm, in fact, a lapsed atheist, having spend more of my life actively disbelieving in God than believing in him) have to endure all the abuse that the majority atheists throw from a position of power.

It's not very nice, on the whole.

As Tony Blair said recently, if you admit to believing in God in the UK, people think you're a loony.

[flemco.livejournal.com]

I've been espousing this concept here in the states for years.

You goddamned loony.

[adders.livejournal.com]

goddamned loony

Further proof that Americans have no sense of irony... :-)

[flemco.livejournal.com]

*eyeroll*

Does your response prove that you failed to find the irony in my final statement?

[adders.livejournal.com]

No, but you're rapidly proving to me that you are slightly lacking in humour as well as irony.

Sorry, humor.

:-P

[flemco.livejournal.com]

Well, as a cartoonist, a sense of humor isn't necessary.

[adders.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've read Garfield.

In future do stop stealing our territory. Remember, us believers are meant to be the humorless ones.

I mean, really.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

As a complete side note? You two are perhaps the two people on my friends list I'd most like to be drinking in the presence of at the same time. Just because I think the discussion -- while... spirited at times -- would be awesome.

[flemco.livejournal.com]

As long as you're buying.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Jesus. I better start the loan paperwork now.

[adders.livejournal.com]

Oh, don't worry. I won't drink more that two, maybe three, bottles of whisky.