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

[partiallyclips.livejournal.com]

I believe Eric means this when he says it:

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.

I believe that assertion to be patently false--ludicrous, in fact. I also find it deeply and personally offensive. As Eric seems to be dressing down one religious bigot who is defining another person's belief system in a false way which buoys up their own, so is he doing the same to me.

I'll assume (if only for argument's sake) that Eric specifically believes that there are no such things as leprechauns, and that there never have been. I'll assume that he believes it would be a waste of time to look for evidence of tiny magical Irishmen with the power to grant wishes, and pots of gold they keep at the end of rainbows (that last bit being provably untrue). Because, you know, there aren't any leprechauns.

I will then classify his belief as a religion. I will tell him he specifically believes in the non-existence of leprechauns in the absence of (!) evidence for the non-existence of leprechauns.

I will then, hopefully, watch him remember that the burden of proof is not on the person who asserts that there never have been leprechauns. Or demons. Or angels. Or body thetans. Or a monster in your closet. Or CIA agents instructing the homeless guy through an implanted chip in his head. Or a creator god.

I will, hopefully, hear him admit that it is not irrational to positively disbelieve a sufficiently outlandish and unsupported claim--that it does not require an act of faith, and certainly does not constitute a religion to do so.

He and I may (and clearly do) disagree on the plausibility of the claim. But hopefully he will realize that the fact that he rates the plausibility of "creator god" something closer to "an unproven scientific hypothesis like string theory," and I rate it something closer to "the story of the shoe-making elves" does not make the disbelief in gods (or elves) into my religion.

Faith is antithetical to atheism. Calling atheism a religion is the equivalent of saying to an evangelical Christian that "Jesus is really Satan, you know. It's obvious." Hopefully, Eric will understand the insult in those terms, and why I am completely appalled at his level of gall, especially in the context of someone having just insulted his beliefs.

I say "hopefully" because I'd sure like to have a friendly conversation with him again someday.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

You will note, in the other comments, that I have already acknowledged that the word 'religion' was a mistake.

As for your offense? I can only offer my apologies, which I certainly do.

As, it is worth noting, my coworker did to me, and I was happy enough to accept them. What you choose to do is of course up to you.

I do need to respond, however, to one statement:

I will, hopefully, hear him admit that it is not irrational to positively disbelieve a sufficiently outlandish and unsupported claim--that it does not require an act of faith

As we stated elsewhere, there is a qualitative difference between disbelieving a single claim -- be it any of your examples -- and asserting that there is and was no intelligence involved in the creation of the universe. The former does not require an act of faith, no. Nor does it require an act of faith to passively disbelieve in gods of any stripe.

However, the active declaration that there was no motive force behind the creation of the universe, of some form we do not understand -- that does require an act of faith. Because the simple truth is we don't know what created the universe. Some here have posited it was never actually created. Some (not here, admittedly) have posited intelligent design. Some have posited random events and factors. But at this stage, we're nowhere near anything close to a hypothesis on any of these things.

That is the statement of faith we're discussing. It does not apply to everyone here. And as the debate has unfurled, an increasingly sophisticated understanding of what others -- most particularly Atheists -- mean by atheism has been coming out. I hope some of those definitions are ones you could agree with. If not, I hope you contribute your own.

It does, however, apply to the school of thought that says that agnosticism is just atheism without a spine -- that is a school of thought defined largely by dogma.

And that's faith.

You're absolutely right that it's not a religion, and the word should not have been used. But it is an expression of belief -- and it is accepted on faith, by those who espouse it.

I'm more than happy to acknowledge you are not one who espouses that on faith, and I apologize if my initial rant, admittedly written in anger, caused you discomfort.

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

Eric, I think there is a profitable distinction to be made between religion and religious. A belief held without justification can be, I suspect, justly called religious without it forming a religion.

[partiallyclips.livejournal.com]

Apology accepted, as far as it went.

Continuing to assert that atheism requires faith continues to irritate me. But I understand better the rhetorical splinter that you seem to be caught on. You are equating something "disbelieved" with something "disproved." If you want a definition of my own atheism which helps remove that splinter, at least where my beliefs are concerned, then I will try to file it down.

I believe we are thinking beings with a finite amount of time to seek truth and meaning, should we choose to do so. We must balance the claims that we hear, the possibilities that we imagine, and the evidence that we experience, and reach the best approximation of the truth that we can before we die. The purpose of this quest may be personal, or it may be as big as humanity, or bigger than that. Most of what we seek will remain unknowable to us, but we strive to understand as much as we can.

Because we will die without fully understanding all, we must try to utilize fruitful methods. We can't spend our entire lives compiling evidence against the existence of, say, "trolls who live under bridges." It is reasonable to assume that no trolls exist, until we are presented some evidence to the contrary.

Now you would say, "Aha! Faith! Or at least 'troll agnosticism!' At least you admit the possibility of trolls!" No, not really. I firmly believe no trolls live under bridges. I consider it a rational belief, and a positive one.

Have I disproved trolls? No. But I believe there are none, and believe further that thinking there are none is the only sane and useful thing to think, in the absence of anything like valid evidence that they exist.

It is worth considering the possibility of trolls under bridges exactly this far:

1. Human beings have imaginations and make up stories. (previously proved)
2. Is there any evidence which suggests or proves that "trolls live under bridges" could not be one of those stories? (no)
3. Is there any evidence for the existence of trolls, or anything like trolls, besides human stories? (no)
4. Further consideration of the troll story is a gigantic honking waste of time, and for all practical purposes, we believe trolls do not live under bridges.

It is practicality, not faith, which leads the atheist to disbelieve the existence a creator god, a leprechaun, or any other unsupportable claim.

Saying that we disbelieve in the existence of a creator god is not the same as saying we would discount valid evidence for one, if it were observable. That would be faith, man. That is the part you are missing when you throw that word at me.

See, having beliefs in the absence of evidence is how you're defining faith. But faith as I know it involves ignoring contravening evidence. True faith is blindness. "Faith" is the opposite of "truth-seeking," in my view. I don't take kindly to being accused of it.

And if you think being open to future evidence of a creator god makes us closet agnostics or something, you're wrong. We disbelieve what is practical to disbelieve, and you do it too.

If a four year old told you his teddy bear flew to the Moon yesterday, it's in that class of disbelief. You'd maybe subsequently believe it if the news said NORAD tracked a teddy bear on re-entry. But until something far beyond the scope of all you have observed or learned so far in your life was shown to you, you're going to (rationally, normally, logically and rightly) believe that the kid imagined it. And you don't need faith to hold that belief.

In our short lives, our beliefs will be shaped the best way we can, with the evidence and the time that we have to examine and consider them. Most unsupportable claims are worth classifying in the very big pile of "things I do not believe are true" where they will stay for the rest of my life, unless rescued by some utterly extraordinary evidence.

That's not hubris, it's practical rational analysis.

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

Faith does not require belief in the face of evidence, only in the absence of evidence. Now some people maintain their faith in things in the face of evidence against those things, but it is not required. One can lose faith in something in the presence of evidence to the contrary.

[discarn8.livejournal.com]

Rob, I've appreciated your work for many a moon. You've got a good eye and a wicked insight into human nature. That being said, I still have to disagree with you here.

IMO, there's fact, and there's belief. The two are not the same, still IMO, except perhaps the fact that someone believes something at such-and-such a time.

If you choose to state that your beliefs are rational, fair enough. No worries, that's your choice. I agree wholeheartedly that "we will die without fully understanding all" even were we to become functionally immortal tomorrow. However, this does not (STILL in my opinion) mean that belief meets the category of truth - except if you're lucky. *wry grin*

Sorry if that's offensive, not my intent. Simply a statement of personal belief that is not the same as yours.

-John

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

As long as you are willing to attribute the outright impossible features of leprechauns to the growth of a story in the telling, I'd be willing to consider their current or past existence. I'd still think it was a distinct waste of time to go looking for them, and if I were to look for them, I wouldn't expect to find something identical to the mythical creature or the popular icon, but any statement of mine about the non-existence of leprechauns absent a disclaimer would be a statement of faith and thus religious in nature. A religious belief can be completely absent gods or the supernatural. It is merely any belief taken upon faith. We each hold many religious beliefs in our lives, many through laziness, many others because we are wired to come to conclusions in absence of evidence, it is a demonstrable survival trait. Eric's wording was poor, and in the end, he may well not agree with my analysis, but that is how intention (both in the initial post and in his follow up postings.)

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

Oh also, just for the record, I am not a strong Cartesian skeptic. My personal criteria for Justified True Belief are not insurmountably high, and while I do not believe that there are leprechauns, I also do not specifically believe that there are not leprechauns, or entities that might as well be called such, even if they would end up lacking in some of the mythic features of that particular beastie.