I had a chat with a co-worker the other day about his upcoming wedding and he had confessed to me that he would be glad enough to simply do a Justice of the Peace ceremony without any religious officiant for the wedding. However, his wedding was to occur in DC and he was frustrated because they make it hard to use a non-religious officiant.
It occurred to me that he had never mentioned anything about religion as long as I had known him. I was curious. We continued to talk and I heard him describe himself as agnostic, so I shared with him my ideas on agnosticism, which one could sum up as this:
- I have no reason to believe a god exists. I don't have any evidence of it, nor does it square logically with the way that I think the universe works nor what life is about. And no, I don't take it on faith.
Well, agnosticism goes just a tad further. It also has this bit as well:
- I can't prove that a god doesn't exist and thus I am unwilling to call myself an atheist.
- Do you believe that the Easter Bunny, this rabbit which delivers easter eggs (candy and toys) on a certain Sunday each year, exists? Do you have any evidence of it? No?
- Can you prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist? No?
- Would you say that you are agnostic about it? You're not sure whether the Easter Bunny exists or not? (as it turns out, most people are not agnostic about the E.B.)
If you think something probably is invalid based on your reason, that is called NOT believing it. It is not agnosticism whether you are talking about a god, or jack-a-lopes, or man-bear-pig. Even if you can conceive of its existence (and yes, the human mind is capable of pondering the preposterous - otherwise the entire field of comedy would be nonexistent and Eddie Izzard would just be a not-funny tranny). That you can conceive of something doesn't mean it exists or that you believe it.
Agnosticism, as it turns out, is a non-position of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. You don't believe something but you are not willing to own your position on the matter. What makes agnosticism a non position is that you can never prove a non-existence without being omniscient. But if you're omniscient, why bother with reason?
There you have it. By taking some time to ponder the Easter Bunny this weekend, you might find that you're just a bit more rational.
(See also, Peikoff's thoughts.)
I call myself agnostic mostly because I just don't care - and I don't want to be associated with the more outspoken atheists such as Dawkins.
ReplyDeleteThere's also the "knowing" perspective. As you said above, my disbelief in a higher power should automatically make me an atheist. But what if I question my certainty in my disbelief? Things happen in life that appear co-incidental that I can't use logic to trace back to causal events. I'm also willing to concede that that's just because I don't know enough to link things together. Because I don't have a certainty in my disbelief, I call myself agnostic.
Finally, I think that some people (and I'm one of them) think that calling themselves atheist "closes the door" so to speak on whether there is a higher power. I'm still willing to reconsider my opinion on the existence of a higher power if I'm shown convincing proof. As you said, it's kind of a have your cake and eat it too situation, but I also think it makes a statement.
You can be certain in your position because you have validated it by means of reason AND remain open to new evidence (which also would need to be integrated by reason). Reason doesn't close doors - it opens them.
ReplyDeleteRe: Dawkins. Yeah - they are strange. I think the solution there is to be interested in facts and ideas and not in personalities. Ultimately, the ideas you hold matter more to you and your own life than what others think of you so I would never place the opinion of others above my assessment of fact and truth.
Good post, Francis. It really does come down to the fact that one need not disprove arbitrary assertions.
ReplyDeleteA thing that I generally wonder about is what a person of faith (or an agnostic) even means by "God." What attributes does this God have? What would constitute evidence of its existence?
If one holds God as some sort of technical philosophical requirement, like an "unmoved mover" that gave an atom a push at the beginning of the universe but has billions of years ago departed from the scene, then I would disagree with that view but would not regard it as exhibiting serious irrationality or evasion.
But if one believes in the existence (or even the mere possibility) of a God of miracles, an entity outside of the universe and not subject to its laws, a Creator that exacts obedience, an omnipresent party in day-to-day life, then that is a very different matter. Such a one may be beyond the realm of argument, but insofar as it is possible to reach him, I would advise him to double-check (or perhaps examine for the first time) his premises and logic.
I'd say agnosticism is seen by many as socially acceptable. It's not perceived as a direct threat against mystical beliefs.
ReplyDelete@Harold:
ReplyDeleteThe crucial difference is how they regard agnosticism with the social element removed or with close friends whom they trust. In these situations, there should be less of a concern for any kind of social backlash.
What is most important is that you do not put the opinions of others above your assessment of truth. If your knowledge tells you that there is no case for the existence of a god then no amount of social backlash should change it.
I would also say that a person who would consider another person's atheism to be harmful to themselves is either deeply irrational or misunderstands atheism and would feel differently if they understood correctly. The latter case can be addressed through reasoned explanation (if the person means enough to you). The former cannot be remedied and should really affect your evaluation of their character.
Yes, I agree with that.
ReplyDelete“I call myself agnostic mostly because I just don't care”
ReplyDeleteThat’s not the definition of agnostic.
“But what if I question my certainty in my disbelief?”
That’s still not the definition of agnostic.
I'm still willing to reconsider my opinion on the existence of a higher power if I'm shown convincing proof.
That’s still not the definition of agnostic. I'm still willing to reconsider my opinion on the existence of an Easter Bunny if I'm shown convincing proof.
“such as Dawkins”
Dawkins said there is ALMOST certainly no God.
That is essentially the definition of an agnostic.