I'm a militant agnostic, I don't know and neither do you. I don't know why this position bothers atheist so much, but it seems to. They like to argue against my position like I'm a true believer and I usually say "you're right none of that shit makes any sense at all, that's why I don't believe it." Then construct grand arguments about why the idea of believing in a god is absurd and I tell em, "cool bro, I don't believe in a god either." They try again, belittling more shit I absolutely don't believe in and I try to push the conversation toward some other subject. They think I'm on the brink of taking up the torch and if they only pushed a little harder I would join the ranks of people who vehemently oppose the religious narrative against the possibility of a higher power. I'm already a soldier against dogmatic bullshit and what they are arguing makes no difference to my outlook or willingness to oppose said bullshit. I am just not willing to say that there is no chance that the world wasn't created by a higher power, or that I am just a consciousness trapped in a box by an evil demon, or a brain that is part of a science experiment. All those options seem to still be open to me, but I suspect that none of them are true, and that I really have no idea how or if there is a why that I am here. The general scientific narrative of evolution, the big bang and most other mainstream scientific explanations for the hows and whys seem extremely plausible, and I actually have FAITH that they will only increase in their ability to explain how the world works. Scary to have to just have faith in that kind of thing, but scientific method is a pretty sound framework for exploring the world and I don't have the time, money or in some cases the mental acuity to confirm all this stuff for my self. Often atheist seem pretty dogmatic, I find their self assurance that they have all the answers annoying and arrogant. Most the time they are willing to give a bit of ground, which more than I can say for your average religious fundamentalist.
Hi cgod, I agree with most of what you have to say. I do not consider myself a militant anything and if I were to label myself I would say I am an atheist but I do agree with you that the common narrative of arguments between atheists and believers is tiring and redundant. This piece was simply attempting to analyze why it is that more scientifically minded people tend to be atheist or non-believers. There are several important reasons and I think it brings peoples attention to the evolutionary functions that religion serves.
What is that function? I am agnostic that anyone really knows.
I liked the piece and was only reflecting on my personal point of view, rational agnosticism seems to be left out of the equation a lot, left as an sore thumb poked by either side as an almost true believer position. Not suggesting that one can't be a rational atheist or believer by the way, I know many people from both camps that have seemingly healthy and rational reason to believe what they believe.
Well said cgod. The atheists that I know seem to want to have the same conversations over and over. It reminds me of the Christians I know. Both are well versed in having a specific conversation, they are well studied on the topic and feel passionately about it. Therefore, they tend to try and proselytize through the same conversation over and over. A recycled monologue of theism or anti theism, while both essentially being a theist. The only logical claim from where I sit is agnosticism. But I don't care if someone is religious or atheist, just keep it to yourself unless asked otherwise. I enjoyed this piece though and I'm encouraged that the numbers are shifting. Religion and nationalism are the two most destructive forces in the world. Wish this change would occur more quickly.
I come from a similar direction. I wouldn't describe myself as a militant agnostic, but I am agnostic, at least insofar as most people understand the term. I've more recently begun to refer to myself as non-religious. The problem I see with atheism (as most interpret the term), is that it is a belief that not only discards literal theologies such as Christianity, but also subtle ones that somehow associate our existence with something greater than the material, such as the possibility that we are living in a reality constructed by another form of life. I don't think this is a likely possibility. However, I have decided that there are probably a large number of possibilities that I haven't considered, or cannot comprehend, which would not jive with an atheistic stand. When we look at history, we see people that could not begin to anticipate or understand things that we now experience. Our technological history is very young. On a cosmological timescale, it has not even yet begun. I believe a likely reason why our universe is apparently quiet in the EM spectrum with regard to other intelligent life, is because the reality that we currently experience is just an early stepping stone on a path that we cannot yet comprehend. The reason why I consider myself to be an agnostic (or non-religious, as I prefer), rather an atheist, is because I seriously doubt our ability to fully perceive and understand the matter at hand. I do believe that science demonstrates truth and that every religion that I have encountered has it wrong; but I think we are too much a product of our present time and our present experience to make definitive statements on the nature of things. IMHO I think the best scientific approach takes a cautious view, and when it comes to the nature of existence, IMO the most reasonable ground is to say that the atheistic view is probably correct, and we can most reasonably act as if it were; however, we lack the information that we need to definitively close the book on the question. It is similar to my beliefs on anthropomorphic global warming: we are almost certainly warming the Earth, and we should act accordingly. However, there is a very small chance that we are wrong about this. So, I suppose the problem I have with atheism is just the certitude that most ascribe to the definition of it. If the term was understood in a softer way, I'd probably be fine using it.
I see your point, but look at it this way - are you also agnostic regarding unicorns? What about homeopathy? Same story? If not, why not?
With the possible exception that I could be the dream of a demon or a brain in a box undergoing a science experiment, which would nullify any belief I hold in anything, we have an observable world. I don't believe in unicorns (if we are discussing a 'magik' creature, a pony with a horn might be in the fossil record for all I know). Why? Because based on everything we can observe I see no evidence of ghosts, dragons, Harry Potter or voodoo. I don't believe in homeopathy because people using the sound methods of scientific method have determined that it's utter bullshit. Could there be a higher power that created the universe? I suppose there could be and I suppose that there could be many other reasonable explanations for how the world came to be. I don't know how the world came to be, and neither do you. I will say that the only thing that has ever made me suspect that the world has been ordered by some higher power is the study of chemistry, the system is a little too perfect, actually it is a system of such order and perfection that it leaves me in awe. Didn't convince me that there was a god but it's pretty amazing. If mankind can develop a hypothesis for how the universe came to be, that is anything more than speculation, I will feel pretty good about crossing the possibility of a higher power off my list. I don't believe in a guy in the sky who looks down and judges each and everyone of us and puts us in our proper place when we die. I see no evidence or even need to try and justify such a beings existence (many people do see such a need and it is the foundation of their faith). It does seem to me that we are in need of an explanation for how the world came to be (or if there even is coming to be, thanks Xenophanes). I don't know what my scepticism has to do with unicorns or homeopathy, why don't you tell me.
Well, it's just that you are willing to give this god concept some wiggle room with no evidence, so I don't see why you are not agnostic regarding, say, voodoo. You said this : "Because based on everything we can observe I see no evidence of ghosts, dragons, Harry Potter or voodoo." Surely, the evidence for ghosts and for god are pretty near identical - so why the difference? It seems you're using the possibility of god as a way of explaining "what we don't know - yet". That god-of-the-gaps gets smaller all the time. Perhaps the only real difference in our positions is that I don't feel a need to assign a creator to the beginnings of things, just because I don't know. To do that is (in my eyes) avoiding the question by saying "a wizard did it". Not a satisfying answer, even if it were true.
Whoah! I don't think that I ever said that we need a creator at the the beginning of things, and yes there is no satisfying answer to what happened at the beginning. I don't believe in a creator, pretty much a definitional part of agnosticism. I just don't pretend I know things that I do not know, which seems to be something you are comfortable doing.Perhaps the only real difference in our positions is that I don't feel a need to assign a creator to the beginnings of things
Fair enough, I misspoke. I should have said "a need to assign the possibility of a creator to the beginning of things". As an agnostic, you don't necessarily believe in a creator, but you do want to preserve the possibility of a creator, in spite of there being no evidence for it (by saying "I don't know"). That's the difference between agnosticism and atheism in a nutshell, in my opinion. My entire point here is that you want that possibility for a creator, but you don't seem to require it for other, similar phenomena. For example, many people report seeing and talking to people who have died, in their dreams. This is (slim) evidence for ghosts, or at least life after death; and of a kind with all evidence for god. So why agnostic about only god? What is different about that idea? And you have provided some of your feelings in this regard already - "the system is a little too perfect".
Well I think in earlier comments I said that I wasn't only agnostic about god. I think I clearly allowed that my perception of the world as I know it could also be an illusion (the brain in the box or dream of a demon). Why don't you now list every pseudoscience, myth, and superstition and get it out of your system, please. Tell me what you know that I don't about the world beyond the big bang? Tell me about your certain knowledge of where the universe comes from? You have none, but choose to apply a belief based on the truth that the universe is observable, measurable and understandable that those things that aren't yet or possibly every observable, measurable or understandable. I will say that the perfection of the system of matter is pretty much the most mind blowing thing I know of. That three elementary bits can from a system of such flexibility and complexity makes me feel a bit queasy. I will say it even supports my feelings of agnosticism, there is really no evidence of a god, but fuck all that shit is crazy enough that who the fuck knows (none of us actually know).
There's no need for the attitude. You most certainly have not said anything about being agnostic about anything else; at least not to me. I'm done here.
Maybe this is why I have "attitude" as you pull out ghosts, unicorns and homeopathy the exact behaviour I described as the atheist line of argument against me not knowing something I can't know.
And now back to the question you dodged when my "attitude" became to much for you. Tell me about your certain knowledge of where the universe comes from? I'll take your being done here as you have no certain knowledge and you are operating on your own sense of faith.With the possible exception that I could be the dream of a demon or a brain in a box undergoing a science experiment, which would nullify any belief I hold in anything
I would say doubting the very existence of reality and admitting that it's something I can't know is pretty agnostic. But that's cool I know from experience that all that really matters to your average work a day atheist is to try and get me to admit that I now know there is no god. And so yes I most certainly have.I don't know why this position bothers atheist so much, but it seems to. They like to argue against my position like I'm a true believer and I usually say "you're right none of that shit makes any sense at all, that's why I don't believe it." Then construct grand arguments about why the idea of believing in a god is absurd and I tell em, "cool bro, I don't believe in a god either." They try again, belittling more shit I absolutely don't believe in and I try to push the conversation toward some other subject. They think I'm on the brink of taking up the torch and if they only pushed a little harder I would join the ranks of people who vehemently oppose the religious narrative against the possibility of a higher power. I'm already a soldier against dogmatic bullshit and what they are arguing makes no difference to my outlook or willingness to oppose said bullshit. I am just not willing to say that there is no chance that the world wasn't created by a higher power.
You attacked with the god of the gaps, a bit different from the position I stated above but still in the persuade you from points you already agree with position.
Ok, I said I'm done, but I will answer your direct question - with my own question. Where did I claim any certain knowlege? You have accused me at least twice of claiming things I don't know - show me where I did that.
I have no reason to believe any higher power exists; I have exactly as much faith in Yahweh as I do in Thor, or Santa. I'd be very surprised to learn that any of those are real. I'd be a bit less surprised to learn that some kind of god-like thing had created the universe - but I still have no reason to think that is so. I hope you don't think I'm trying to avoid the question; just trying to be clear. I suspect you have assumed I am a gnostic atheist (i.e. one who knows that god does not exist). I am an agnostic atheist, as are the majority of atheists, I would guess. I claim no direct knowledge of the existance (or not) of any gods at all.