In the Theist/atheist debate there are really only two sides. Agnostics would prefer there to be three. But all the preferences in the world will not make it so. I went through an “agnostic” journey myself when I lost Faith, so I understand why one would chose this path. The usual reason is a result of the popular incorrect definitions of both “atheism” and “agnosticism.” I was fond of saying, “I do not believe in God. This is not to say that I believe that God does not exist. It is to say that I lack belief. I am indifferent in the matter.” And I used the usual escape route of the lack of proof on either side. If you are an agnostic who defines your position as “a lack of belief,” you likely think that atheism is the belief that “there is no god,” and therefore you see no problem with the position I took above. And if you are an atheist, you likely see the problem immediately. The problem is that I was an atheist and didn’t even realize it. Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief. When someone claims, “I am an atheist,” the only thing you know from that statement is that they lack theistic belief. It is possible that they then form a belief in opposition, as “strong atheists” do, but it is not necessary in order to “be” an atheist. The whole notion of atheism is rather ridiculous of course, as Sam Harris pointed out in “Atheist Manifesto.” We don’t have words for people who don’t believe in the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus. Of course, the only words we have for people who actually do believe in them is “children,” and I certainly don’t want to be an achild, but I suppose I am when I claim to an adult.
So how is it that so many people incorrectly define atheism as “belief there is no god” and agnosticism as a “lack of belief”? Well, because many dictionaries define the words incorrectly. And the vast majority of theists do as well. My more cynical side believes that the theists do this intentionally to vilify the atheists, but I don’t have any evidence readily handy, so I will admit that it is only a belief. But why is it that the dictionaries keep publishing these false definitions? Anyone who takes the time to look at the way they define similar words will quickly discover that atheism is the only one in which “a” is not equivalent to “no”. Here are some examples on Merriam-Webster.com: asymmetrical, anonymous, apolitical, asexual… and then of course there is atheist. You should note that these were the first words that popped into my head. But feel free to try it yourself.
Some agnostics are as bad as theists when it comes to their claims toward atheism. By quickly scanning the internet you will discover that many, many theists will claim that atheists are as “dogmatic” and “fundamental” as theists. And some agnostics will claim this as well, then adding that that is why they take the “third way.” But the fact is that there is no third way. When it comes to theism, the switch is either on or it is off. Either you hold a belief or you don’t. Agnosticism actually mean “without knowledge.” It should be noted that “gnosis” means “knowledge of spiritual truth”. Agnosis would then be the lack of that knowledge. It is from this that the word agnostic was created. This is what T.H. Huxley had in mind when he invented the word.
It may be comforting for one to “hedge their bets” by not positively believing either way, but that just means that you are an atheist, an agnostic atheist (”weak atheist“) perhaps, but an atheist none-the-less. And if by some wild absurdity it turned out that the theists are right, don’t think for a second that their God is going to spare you for a lack of belief. If you don’t believe me, ask a theist!
For further reading:
Sam Harris’ “Atheist Manifesto”
Austin Cline’s “Atheism 101”
5 users commented in " The False Position of Agnosticism "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackHm… I fail to see what *practical* distinction there is between “lack of belief in theism” and “belief there is no god” or “do not believe in any god”. Let’s see if I got your post correctly, and if what I have to say makes any sense.
It might be relevant if people were born someplace where there was no theism to begin with, never heard of. Such people could be said to “lack belief in theism”. Now, whoever has been exposed to such beliefs (everybody) but rejects such beliefs and is an atheist automatically does not believe in god(s), because you are rejecting a belief that is the “default” in society. So it IS a type of belief, even if it is not a belief *system* or phylosophy or anything like that: if you choose not to choose, you’ve still made a choice, paraphrasing Rush (NOT Limbaugh, please…).
Now, I call myself an “agnostic atheist” but I think it is not in the sense of “weak atheism” you mention. I do it because to me it says two different things:
- Belief. I’m an atheist because I believe there is no god (or lack theistic belief, same thing), given there is no evidence for it, etc. etc.
- Knowledge. I’m an agnostic (in the original, correct T.H. Huxley sense, not the wishy-washy thing people think it means, which you described earlier) because, as a scientist, I must recognize that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Sure, the gods of the religions we have are very easily dismissed as ridiculous, specially when the religious people think that 100% of their religion must be true, or nothing at all is. In that case, show that the Earth is older than 6,000 years and down the drain go(es) the Christian god(s) and relatives. But it is easy to see that there might exist some supernatural (and therefore unknowable to us by scientific means) entity which we do not even suspect. Something like what is said to have been the god of some US Founding Fathers. Deism. Can anyone disprove that? No. I don’t believe in such entity, sure, but I can’t say I know it does not exist. I must declare “no knowledge” (agnosticism) of it, because of methodological problems. Of course this is the type of deity the religious don’t really like very much. You know, it does not care for your bedroom antics and does not intervene in the world just because you asked, or tell you to convert everyone or kill them.
So I believe there is no god, but I can’t say I know there is no god.
J,
The terms “weak” and “strong” atheist are not mine. They are terms others set out decades ago. I just use them here. I prefer the “agnostic atheist” position myself, except in the case of an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent and omni-present god. In that case, it is illogical and absurd and does not exist. And the “proof” of this kind of god not existing is extrapolated in numerous books, but to sum it all up in a few sentences: an omni-potent god would need to be able to do anything. It would not be bound by the laws of science and nature, or even by the laws of definition. So this god should be able to make a “circle-square,” something that is both a circle and a square at the same time. But since that is an impossibility, god is now bound and not omni-potent. If we say that he is omni-potent within the laws of nature, he is again NOT omni-potent. And there of course there is the problem of evil. And numerous other arguments.
So of course god must first be defined. By the standard of a “prime mover” I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe there is a god. But I can’t “prove” it.
But the distinction of “not-believe” and “believe the opposite” is extraordinarily important. One posits a belief where there is none. The other is a lack of belief. Is there a *practical* difference? Yes. As soon as one states that one believe there is no god, they are making an assertion. And I believe that the burden of proof is on the one making a claim (just like the American justice system: i.e. “innocent until proven guilty”). And I don’t agree with the assertion that there is a “default” setting when it comes to belief in god– well, actually yes there is. The default setting is ATHEISM! It is a lack of belief. Children must be indoctrinated to believe, not the other way around. So it is very important to understand the distinction, because it matters where the burden of proof falls. If a lack of belief is synonymous with “opposite belief” then there is only BELIEF! And since everyone is expected to prove what they believe, all one has to do is posit a belief and everyone else has to prove them wrong. So here is an example:
CHARLIE: I believe that an invisible, intangible, unknowable, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent camel, who speaks to me in my head, wants me to go into the mall and kill everyone.
PETER: That’s crazy, man.
CHARLIE: No it’s not, and he will send me to hell if I don’t do this.
PETER: I don’t believe your camel exists.
CHARLIE: Can you PROVE my camel doesn’t exist?
PETER: No, but I don’t need to.
CHARLIE: You do not believe in my camel?
PETER: That’s right.
CHARLIE: Then you believe he does not exist and you must prove that he does not exist.
PETER: I can’t PROVE that he doesn’t exist.
CHARLIE: Then you are a BELIEVER just as much as me. And now I must go kill everyone.
…………….
Obviously I am making an exaggerated example. But it illustrates my point. If atheism is synonymous with UNtheism, then they are both must be proven. Since the untheist cannot prove that the camel does not exist, the untheist then must “believe” on “faith” that it does not exist. And the argument ends there with the absurd notion that anything is true if someone believes it to be true. Imagine for a second that that is the real standard in life:
people would be guilty as soon as they are accused
if an archbishop in Africa said “condoms give you aids” it would true, until proven false (which already happens, unfortunately: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7014335.stm
if someone said, “if you don’t give me a million dollars, a million babies will suffer a slow death because of your greed,” the person with the million dollars would have to disprove the assertion, which, of course, is impossible.
Allowing “atheism” and “untheism” to be one in the same is a recipe for absurdity. Such a standard is unacceptable in all other walks of life, and should be unacceptable with Faith as well. Notice that scientific claims are not considered to be TRUE until the have been tested, and repeated failure of any one test makes them no longer true. A similar standard is needed for theism. Logic. Rationality. These are the only tools of knowledge that exist. Faith and emotion only reveal Belief.
[...] recent comment by “J” has made it apparent to me that atheists need to do a better job of explaining why definitions are [...]
>Is there a *practical* difference? Yes. As soon as one states that one believe there is no god, they are making an assertion. And I believe that the burden of proof is on the one making a claim
That’s a good point.
> And I don’t agree with the assertion that there is a “default” setting when it comes to belief in god– well, actually yes there is. The default setting is ATHEISM! It is a lack of belief.
I know what you mean and I agree… but that’s not what I meant. I didn’t mean a “natural default” (well, we’re part of nature, but anyway), as in “we’re born with that”. I though that was clear by what I wrote later. SOCIETIES have belief as a default position. Nobody grows up never hearing of god(s) and the like. Everybody hears about it, at the best, or is indoctrinated, as is closer to the norm. Then most (?) believe, and some don’t. Sure, I agree with you that philosophically speaking the differences are very meaningful. But to the eyes of most believers out there, it makes no difference in practice; not having a belief in god is the same as believing there’s no god. No matter how much you explain to them that they have to prove god(s) exist, instead of other people disproving it.
“But to the eyes of most believers out there, it makes no difference in practice; not having a belief in god is the same as believing there’s no god. No matter how much you explain to them that they have to prove god(s) exist, instead of other people disproving it.”
Good point. But that is why I have philosophical differences with most theists. Their starting point is invalid because it is illogical and irrational. You and I, however, hold rationality at a much higher level, even though we may not come to the say opinions and conclusions.
Leave A Reply