An Agnostic Project
I’ve been thinking about this for a few weeks now, but before I make a move on it I thought I should throw the idea to my blog readers and get their opinions.
These days, agnosticism is seen as another position on the existence of God, namely “I don’t know”. It is supposedly a neutral position, used by people who do not want to subject themselves to the usual stereotypes that atheism comes with. What agnosticism really is though, is something completely different.
Agnosticism isn’t a position on whether God exists or not, as theism and atheism are, but on whether it is possible to know if God exists or not. There is a big difference. A person who is an atheist says “I do not believe in God”. That is a generalization as I realize some atheists would say “I know there is no God”, or “I am certain there is no God”. A person who is agnostic says “I do not think you can prove or disprove the existence of God”.
The difference is that belief and disbelief have nothing to do with proof. Once something is proved there is no need for belief, only in semantic terms (e.g. knowledge implies belief). One would never say “I believe we walk on two legs” as a statement of faith, nor would one utter “I do not believe we have three arms” as a statement of disbelief. Both examples have been proved through observation and general reasoning. Everyone knows that we walk on two legs, just as everyone knows that we do not have three arms.
So it is pretty clear then that agnosticism and atheism are indeed separate, but are so because they do not cover the same things. They not mutually exclusive. By common definitions, you cannot both be a Christian and an atheist, or a Christian and a Muslim, because of incompatible beliefs (God / No God, Yahweh / Allah).
In fact, most atheists would agree with the statement “I do not think you can prove or disprove the existence of God”, and so would a large percentage of theists. I am an agnostic atheist, and some of my closest friends are agnostic theists. For someone to do a survey of different beliefs about God and cite agnostics as separate to atheists and indeed theists is pure lunacy, and shows an ignorance towards the definition of agnosticism.
It also shows that a large number of people have no idea what the definition of agnosticism is either, and have just been taught that it is a word for non-committal about the existence of God, rather than an admittance that it is impossible to know. A good example of this recently came from Friendly Atheist, who found an interesting survey / artwork that uses a grain of rice to represent one person in the City of Birmingham, UK. The rice is arranged into “religions”, the most prominent being Christianity, but with Agnostics and Atheists in close second and third place respectively. Sure, it is a great view of how religion is diverse, but I have some questions for the agnostics in that group:
1) Yes or no, do you believe in God?
A question involving belief in something has a yes or no answer, there is no middle ground. Agnosticism is an expansion of a belief, not a belief. You could answer “Yes, but I do not think God can be proven”, which makes you an agnostic theist, or you could answer “No, but I do not think God can be proven”, which makes you an agnostic atheist.
2) Given that agnosticism isn’t a religion (neither is atheism but I can understand why the survey has it), which religion do you belong to?
If you are an agnostic theist, you could pick any, seeing as knowledge is not a prerequisite for being a member of any religion I have heard of. If you are an agnostic atheist, you could simply say “non-religious”, or you could claim Secular Humanism (which some see as a religion, others not). You could even claim Buddhism, as they have no God figure technically speaking.
I don’t want to argue points about what is or isn’t a religion though; my main argument is against these kinds of surveys which perceive agnosticism as some kind of position on God’s existence, when really it is a position on the (for lack of a better word) provability or knowability of God’s existence.
So what am I getting at? Well, I personally believe that enough is enough, and in a response similar to the “Out Campaign“, I think agnostics (both atheist and theist) alike should join together in supporting the statement “I believe/disbelieve (remove non-applicable) in the existence of God, however I do not believe that God can be either proven or disproven. I am an agnostic theist/atheist (remove non-applicable”.
I suggest some kind of website to be set up, where the correct definition of agnosticism is given, along with the above statement of “unknowability”, and where people who agree can add their name to a list in support of said statements.
The website itself would have no direct affiliation with either atheist or theist sites, nor would it favour one over the other. It would be a place for both atheist and theist blogs to link to if they agreed with it.
A possible inclusion to the site would be the definition of “apatheism”, which as far as I can tell is the best equivalent to “I don’t know”, although it also encompasses “I don’t care”.
What I really need is some feedback on whether or not this is a good idea, and what people think generally. I’m not trying to be as big as the Out Campaign, nor do I want to achieve anything other than the awareness of agnosticism.
Possibly Related Posts:
Subscribe to my RSS Feed if you like what you read!
Follow me on Twitter!
Loading ...
I started to describe myself as an agnostic-atheist a while back, but tend to just use atheist most of the time (or just non-religious, depending on the situation).
I don’t believe in any gods (mainly due to the lack of evidence and the argument from divine inefficiency), but I also think that acknowledging just how little we know about the universe is important - especially in undermining religious claims.
As to the website idea… I’m not really sure it’s a big enough problem to warrant it. I can only think of one prominent agnostic (Mark Vernon - who sometimes writes for the UK Guardian) who really pushes the term as a distinct category, when really he’s just an agnostic-theist. But best of luck to you if you decide to go ahead.
Matt M
14 Sep 08 at 8:30 pm (GMT)
It is nice to see that others also recognize the agnostic atheist/theist distinction - one that I make on my own definitions page (http://www.anatheist.net/knowledge-center/what-is-atheism/). Agnosticism is not a position of non-committal in terms of belief, as the possibility of being both an agnostic and a theist aptly demonstrates.
It is also worth pointing out that one can be agnostic with respects to many things other than just god or gods, since the word itself just means ‘without knowledge’.
James
14 Sep 08 at 10:30 pm (GMT)
While technically correct, Adrian, you are dismissing a lot of folks in the “I don’t know what to believe” category, and which perhaps are the compelling majority of so-called “agnostics”. Perhaps its a semantic mistake for them to call themselves “agnostics”, but I can understand their position quite well. They don’t firmly “believe” that there is a God but are also unwilling to cut that “option” out, as a hypothesis that probably they haven’t given enough “rational” thought, or perhaps they did but reached no conclusion about it. The “agnostic” stance is therefore not only a matter of knowledge per se in the people’s minds, but also a matter of belief, that is, they still don’t have enough data or experience to decide.
So while technically correct, you’d only cause some semantic waves in the communities. If by agnosticism one should only be allowed to signify “not sure by data”, then you’d have to pick another word for that stance I’ve described just above. But go ahead, I think it’s always good when words become clearer.
Luis Dias
14 Sep 08 at 10:33 pm (GMT)
My own experience, Luis, confirms that some people do think along those lines. But it would be a serious mistake to assume that atheism entails an unwillingness to consider the “option” that a god or gods may, in fact, exist. This is not just about semantics but about clarifying concepts and distinctions that often get passed over or altogether lost when words are used incorrectly.
As for “I don’t know what to believe” - they should simply be called undecided. They may not be willing to say that they believe or not believe just yet.
James
14 Sep 08 at 10:38 pm (GMT)
I stated that this would be a form of apatheism in the article. People who honestly have no absolute belief / disbelief would be called apathetic to belief in the context that they either have not thought about it, or have not pursued it to reach a conclusion.
Apatheism would be included on the website to direct people who truly felt this way. I would be surprised if they were the majority of agnostics though, as most I have met turned out to be agnostic atheists.
That or what James said, “undecided”. They should not falsely label themselves as agnostic.
Adrian Hayter
14 Sep 08 at 10:41 pm (GMT)
I agree completely. Atheists and theists can each be agnostics. In fact anyone who claims not be (technically) agnostic either doesn’t understand the meaning of the word or is deluded.
Wikipedia has a good definition for angosticism.
Regarding the web site, I think that is a great idea. When the difference between belief and knowledge are induced and understood the discussion between theists and atheists often becomes more civil … at least in my experience.
Ben Abbott
15 Sep 08 at 12:55 am (GMT)
Semantics - don’t you just love it.
I’ve been debating similar on my blog in reference to the words “faith”and “belief”.
Anything to help clarify the matter can only be a good thing. The website might be useful, but there will always be someone who will twist the words to their own meaning. So you would have to be very explicit in what your terms were.
OzAtheist
15 Sep 08 at 4:06 am (GMT)
I believe that it may be possible to prove that god exists (even though I am still on the fence on god’s existence). I know that rules out agnosticism for me, but is there another label I can use?
Citron
15 Sep 08 at 1:48 pm (GMT)
@Citron
If you believe it may be possible to prove god exists, then you are gnostic (the opposite of agnostic). Being on the fence about the existence of God does not have a specific word, although you may consider apatheism an appropriate choice.
Adrian Hayter
15 Sep 08 at 2:11 pm (GMT)
I could, but I’m so not apathetic about the question.
Citron
15 Sep 08 at 4:22 pm (GMT)
** Who are you? The anti-supernaturalist wants you to know.
• What you’re against shows what you’re open to accepting.
Before you engage as skeptico-agnostico-atheist warrior, either openly or anonymously, five levels of discourse need to be untwined. (A dictionary alone is not good enough to distinguish or define them.) A lot of confusion goes away when you can pinpoint what you are rejecting.
1. Supernaturalism: any doctrine putting forward a realm outside of nature or of post-mortem existence: whether of Platonic ideas, Aristotelian entelechies, the Absolute, Being, ground of being, gods, demons, spirits, minds, mystical union, karma, reincarnation, nirvana, Buddha realms, yogic chakras.
2. Theism: claim that at least one divine being (god) exists. Gods as persons: polytheisms and monotheisms. Gods as impersonal entities: deism and philosophical Hinduism. God as nature: pantheism.
3. Xianity: one recent theism (in the last 3,300 years) belonging to the big-4 monotheisms, from eldest to youngest: zoroastrianism, judaism, xianity, and islam. Xianity accepts a basic equality: Jesus=Messiah=Christ=God.
4. Fundamentalist xianity: highly puritanical sects broadly identified within american protestantism as Baptist. Characteristics: adult baptism by full immersion, psychological indoctrination leading to “conversion” to sect membership, epistemological reliance on biblical inerrancy, enthusiastic and “inspired” preaching dismissive of rationality and science.
5. Dominionism: a christo-fascist political ideology masquerading as a legitimate aspect of fundamentalist xianity. It seeks to overthrow the US Constitution and secular government, and to replace them with a xian theocratic state.
Like Russian dolls these ideas fit one inside the other. If, like me, you are an anti-supernaturalist (and reject 1) then you also reject 2 through 5. You can be an atheist (2) and still be a supernaturalist. You can be a xian (3) without being a fundamentalist (4). You can be a fundie without accepting dominionism (5).
• “those not against us are with us”
The anti-supernaturalist or atheist has a lot of company in being against dominionism. If you can support the Freedom from religion foundation or the ACLU for example, than you will advance the welfare of the US as a secular state.
• “laugh and the world laughs with you”
The anti-supernaturalist or atheist will have a goodly company with him against fundies. FfR and the ACLU also oppose contaminating secular science education with garbage like Intelligent Design. But, a plurality of americans think that some god directs evolution — how could a brainy good looking person like me come about otherwise? Here poor science education and egoism comfortably reinforce each other.
Often enough, fundie “churches” are fronts for tax avoidance, sleazy money making frauds, and thoroughly irresponsible K-16 and professional education.
Also, “liberal” protestants, RCs, and jews “sin” by omission in not opposing vigorously the machinations of sub-cultures 4 and 5. Their silence gives consent. A crowd of support goes away.
• “cry and you cry alone”
The anti-supernaturalist or atheist might receive tepid assistance from minority monotheistic competitors. After all, US jews, muslims and sikhs have a stake in preserving religious pluralism within a secular state.
But, anti-supernaturalists have all of recorded history and global religiosity against them. Want to bring down even the wrath of pantheists, deists, new agers, mystics, unitarians, gnostics, and theosophists? These are generally pacific live-and-let-live folks. Leave them lost in the fog?
• But we know.
We know that mythological explanations explain nothing. Does science then explain everything. It does not. Not even within its own boundaries.
At this point, I can ask Nietzsche’s question: how much truth are you able to bear?
bipolar2 © 2008
bipolar2
15 Sep 08 at 5:44 pm (GMT)
Yeah, i don’t know man. As a web logic guy I could probably whip up the site in like a week or so (maybe even less), but it’s just not worth it. I mean, what if the Vegan website launched a sister site about converting vegetarians to complete carnivores/herbavores for the sole purpose of removing any confusion and making a hard distinction. Fuck that, not even worth a massive battle. Vegan site could much better spend time/money on launching more ‘dont eat meat’ campaigns
sikanrong
15 Sep 08 at 5:57 pm (GMT)
Ok, first of all I think you’re making an overly broad generalization when you define atheism as a stance which proclaims either to know or believe that there is no God. I consider myself an atheist, among other things, but I don’t use either “know” or “believe”. I rely on the lack of evidence to come to the conclusion that such lack of evidence makes the probability of God’s existence very, very very tiny, next to zero. Until further convincing evidence is presented the only logical position is to say that very likely there is no God. This is not a matter of belief nor is it knowledge. It’s simple statistics.
As far as agnosticism is concerned, regardless of how you define it, I find it to be a lazy position. Why can’t we know about God, given how God is described by the major religions? Why would a God who’s always meddling in this universe and performing miracles and such not be provable? Of course we can know about God, as long as he is supposed to have some sort of direct effect on our reality, he or she is than well within the realms of science. Science and religion are not two separate magisteria ( I think I just butchered that word).
Of course you can never prove that something does not exist, but does that justify taking the “we can not know” position? Are we to be agnostic about fairies, unicorns and Santa Claus? I don’t understand what you mean by an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Both sound like oxymoron to me. What those terms imply is that I believe or not, while at the same time knowing that I can’t know if I’m right or wrong. That just doesn’t make sense to me.
I don’t buy your whole “yes, but I don’t think it can be proven” line of reasoning, simply because it is not useful. It is meaningless. It can be applied to anything. Make up any fancy fantasy you can think of, and you can apply that line of reasoning. Agnosticism is a dialogue stopper. It is giving up, throwing your hands up in the air and saying, we can never know. The implication is that we should stop wasting our time. What if that sort of logic was to be applied to anything that’s just too hard for us to figure out currently?
Pick a side. Either you are convinced there is a God, or you’re not, or you’re on the fence. But you can’t have it both ways, and that’s what your agnostic atheist and agnostic theist terms are, having it both ways. That’s not a position any logical person should take.
Skepdude
15 Sep 08 at 10:07 pm (GMT)
We can’t prove that Russell’s teapot does not exist. Does that imply that we should be agnostic about it? There’s millions of things we can’t disprove. Does that lend them legitimacy, simply because we can dream of them?
Skepdude
15 Sep 08 at 10:10 pm (GMT)
[...] recently commented on my article outlining the awareness I think needs to be raised over the true meanings of agnosticism. I feel his points deserved slightly more discussion and dissection than a simple comments thread, [...]
Agnosticism: The Argument - The Atheist Blogger
15 Sep 08 at 11:25 pm (GMT)
I’m with you here. I have no knowledge of existence or non-existence of any god(s). I have no belief either way.
However, as the minimum requisite for atheism is the absence of belief, I think I qualify as an atheist … just as my dogs and the oak trees in my yard to ;-)
However, in the popular manner in which “atheist” is understood, I’m with you.
I’ll point out that if you ignore an individuals words and instead focus on their actions you’ll conclude they do not believe in God. The side they choose in evident by their actions. How is someone “on the fence” is he/she goes about their life as if there is/are no god(s)?
Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge. If you admit to a lack of knowledge then you are agnostic on the question. So it is not a matter of what we “should be” but what we are. We are agnostic on the existence of Russell’s teapot.
Ben Abbott
16 Sep 08 at 12:23 am (GMT)
Agnostic Cemetary:
http://www.bizarroartist.org/gallery/albums/bizarro/agnostic-cemetary.jpg
James
16 Sep 08 at 12:57 am (GMT)
Actually Ben, most agnostics would not define agnosticism as a “lack of knowledge”. The position that they generally take, which is the position the author of this blog takes in the entry is that we CANNOT know. Those are very different. I have an issue with the latter. If you subscribe to the former definition, what I said does not apply to you. Don’t you just love semantics?
Lack of knowledge is otherwise known as ignorance (not to be confused with stupidity). We are all ignorant in many many subjects. However, to say that I don’t know is one thing, and to say that it CANNOT be know is a completely other thing.
Skepdude
16 Sep 08 at 3:33 am (GMT)
If there was a creator-god then wouldn’t everything be proof of its existence?
citron
16 Sep 08 at 7:28 pm (GMT)
Ok then I move to say that everything is proof of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Skepdude
17 Sep 08 at 5:28 pm (GMT)
[...] Recently I commented on a post at the Atheist Blogger. The original entry was titled “An Agnostic Project“. I recommend readers to go over and read this entry and my subsequent comments in order to [...]
The Agnostic debate « Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptic blogs of the day
18 Sep 08 at 3:46 am (GMT)
[...] recent few posts of mine have sparked a mini-debate between Skepdude and I, which has moved from the [...]
A Response To Skepdude - The Atheist Blogger
18 Sep 08 at 1:16 pm (GMT)