Why I do not call myself an agnostic

[mmcirvin]

Thinking about ronebofh's post on militant agnosticism:

There are a few reasons why I call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic, though by the popular definition of the term (someone who admits not knowing whether there is a God or not) I suppose I am an agnostic.

1. First, the nitpicking reason: There's a little-known technical definition of an agnostic as a person who believes that knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God is logically impossible. While I do not personally know whether there is a God and I know of no good way to find out, I believe that reliable knowledge of this is logically possible under some conceivable situations. For example, we could live in a universe like ancient mythology in which God messes with us directly all the time, makes obvious miracles on a daily basis and constantly speaks in public about his actions and desires. (Some people believe that we do live in such a world, but I do not; however, I regard it as a contingent fact, and find it logically possible that the situation could change.) In this case I would be comfortable in saying that God exists, for some pretty good working definition of the phrase.

This is, in itself, not much of a reason, because only philosophers and people who post to alt.atheism have heard of this definition.

2. Second, for some people the term seems to have a connotation of someone who finds their own religion and atheism equally plausible, that is, conversion fodder. I've called myself an agnostic at various times and it is a good way to get unwanted attention. The only concepts of God that I do find at all plausible are extremely austere and deistic ones (at least from the perspective of us humans), and I am not emotionally inclined to regard even those as fifty-fifty propositions, so this would be a wrong impression to make.

3. Third, and probably most important (though I am a bit ashamed of this since it speaks of a certain macho pride), there's an illogical but popular notion that an agnostic is just a cowardly atheist; this is why the notion of "militant agnosticism" is funny. Somehow, people consider it a manifestation of indecisiveness to refuse to admit things that one has no basis for knowing. Or, they imagine that agnostics really know there is no God but don't have the courage to say it out loud.

However, there's a contrary problem as well: say that you're an atheist and many people will ridicule you for claiming to be able to prove the nonexistence of God, which I certainly don't claim at all! So the religious skeptic of atheist inclinations and no grand claims of certainty is stuck either way.

Comments

[zmook.livejournal.com]

My attitude is that you have to place your bets to live your life: either you believe, which has consequences, or you don't, which has consequences, or you're truly uncertain and are trying to find out. It's not a subject about which you can say, "Damfino -- doesn't affect me," and go watch the game.

(Well, a lot of people do actually do that, intellectually untenable as it is. I say those people are atheists, whether they understand it or not.)

I used to call myself an agnostic, until I realized I had stopped giving (or never really had given) religions the benefit of the doubt. In order to live life, at some point you have to make a call whether you believe you have sufficient evidence or not, and mine was No. Like you say, I can imagine ways my mind could be changed: for instance, the Holy Ghost could pop up and show Itself in some way I'd have no choice but to believe. But in the meantime, I'm an atheist.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's called Pascal's Wager, and it's part of Atheism 101.

[dumplechan.livejournal.com]

Third, and probably most important (though I am a bit ashamed of this since it speaks of a certain macho pride), there's an illogical but popular notion that an agnostic is just a cowardly atheist; this is why the notion of "militant agnosticism" is funny.

A quote I've heard attributed to Frost is "Don't be an agnostic - be something."

It's somewhat silly to try to prove the non-existence of God. (As is easily proven, there is no way to prove a negative, badump-ching!) Russel's invisible pink unicorn is a decent example of this.

Proving the non-existence of any God worth worshiping, though, that's a bit easier.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

I don't like Frost's attitude at all. How is being an agnostic not something? It's like badgering a scientist to take a position on whether or not there are aliens living in the Andromeda galaxy. "Stop beating around the bush, Mr. Wishy-Washy, just give me a straight answer!"

My own atheism is a lot like being confronted with a gigantic collection of thousand-page science-fiction novels, filled with both craziness and profound wisdom, about civilizations in the Andromeda Galaxy and being asked, "Do you believe that any of these stories are true?" Based on my knowledge and beliefs, I can confidently say "No" to that. But I also recoil at the idea that it is incumbent upon me to take a stand on the broader question.

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

But I also recoil at the idea that it is incumbent upon me to take a stand on the broader question.

That's the sentence that pinged me. And I guess that is why one could use the word 'militant' (but not in the sense it has been used before), as in "I am militantly opposed to having to take a stand at all".

Or, no, maybe "I am too apathetic to care to take a stand, I'll just sit over here in my little secular humanist cave".

[arsonnick.livejournal.com]

"I am too apathetic to care to take a stand, I'll just sit over here in my little secular humanist cave"

I've heard that called apatheism.

[sunburn.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty apathetic about the whole thing, but I call myself an agnostic because I'm a dogmatic skeptic (well, I try), so in a sense I do give various theisms and atheisms equal weight as Matt suggested, but that weight is right about zero for all parties. Basically I know what I don't believe based on evidence, and vague ideas about what sort of evidence I'd require in order for me to believe something.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

How is being an agnostic not something?

<peart>If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!</peart>

[avocado123.livejournal.com]

I don't like Frost's attitude at all.

You can say that about pretty much every opinion Robert Frost ever had. He was a cranky sort who was about as open-minded as Hitler was handsome.

I haven't gotten to the point in my life where I've made a final decision, and quite frankly I'm getting a little old here andshould make up my stinkin' mind. But I tend to have sudden moments of clarity, where a decision on big matters pops into my head and stays there, apparently, forever. So far I've had these epiphanies about having kids, about writing, and about my parents. Nothing yet about God, although I suspect I will eventually be filed under "bitter athiest".

It would be nice to have an afterlife, just so scumbags would have an eternal comeuppance of epic proportions.

[paracelsvs.livejournal.com]

> He was a cranky sort who was about as open-minded as Hitler was handsome.

This is a massively confusing sentence.

I'm just going with what I know --- and not ONE LITTLE ASSUMPTION MORE

[swinehund.livejournal.com]

I swear I've had this argument with a guy in my lab at least 3 or 4 times by now. He is still all modernist or something, and seems to think that allowing that you aren't absolutely certain about your total rejection of all airy-fairy horseshit, then the terrorists have won or something like that.

From my side: I've been down with the notion that there are certain issues of metaphysics that are FUNDAMENTALLY UNPROVABLE since about 16. I don't think I've ever been swayed on that since. I called myself an agnostic at first, but I was secretely hoping that another religion would fit. None did, and then by about 20 I realized that I might as well call myself an atheist since most of my beliefs pretty much follow that. But even then, I never have worn the label with pride. I have at best called myself a 'functional atheist', to say that if you really need to predict what I'll do, I'll act like an atheist in almost every circumstance.

HOWEVER, the impossibility of objectivity is somehow more important to me than the rational underpinnings of the universe (which seems to be a necessary conjecture of real atheism?). Everyone has a fundamentally subjective experience of existence no matter how much they would like to deny it, and I don't trust the truth of the flesh absolutely.

I know Brett and a bunch of fundies probably think that it's a conversion shoehorn, but if I can be bothered I will argue against the reliability of the Bible viciously, and I don't even have to get the fundies to accept a rational view of the universe (which I've come to think is as hard as getting an objectivist to love jesus). I just have to get them thinking about how maybe anyone could have written the bible or anything they like and claim it was divinely inspired. Philosophically, I think it's what follows most naturally from existentialism, which certainly doesn't (or at least shouldn't) make any claims about the way existence really is.

ADDENDUM DAMN IT

[swinehund.livejournal.com]

Graydon says all the CAPS are because I am drunk but it is really because I am a MILITANT AGNOSTIC!

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

HOO-rah!

[urbeatle.livejournal.com]

see, I take the easy way out. I'm a pantheist. I define "god" as "universe", with no specific requirements of "god" needing consciousness, awareness, personality, or the like. so I believe in god the same way as I believe in what I see, hear, feel... but I'm agnostic about the attributes of god, beyond what I can personally experience.

to me, all religions are poetry, not meant to be taken literally, no matter what the poets themselves or their fans may say.

some of the metaphors are pretty messed up, too.

[doctroid.livejournal.com]

Uh huh... I generally tend to avoid discussing religion, with "my beliefs are a private matter" held in almost-never-used reserve; but if you are going to address the question it really ought to go like this:

Q. Are you an atheist?

A. What's an atheist?

Q. Someone who does not believe in God.

A. So you want to know if I believe in God?

Q. Yes.

A. Define God.

and then defer any answer to the original question until the important terms are defined.