To Whom It May Concern,

I was absolutely astounded at the decision of the Student’s Union to cancel the lunchtime bookings made by the Christian Union at Royal Holloway. Before I continue, let it be known that I am not a Christian, nor do I support the views held by the Christian Union in the slightest. I am the president of the Royal Holloway Secular Students group on campus, and despite our differences we have had a positive relationship with the Christian Union during the last 3 years. This relationship has enabled us to have several engaging debates on issues such as religion and the existence of God. It was at one of these debates (“Can we know God?”) last night that I was informed by a member of the Christian Union about the SU’s aforementioned decision.

I am writing to you to express my outrage and utter disbelief over this decision, which I believe was made without proper consideration or rationalisation. Firstly, the email that was sent to cancel these events and offer the refund of the fees paid was undeniably vague, alluding to something “wholly inappropriate” that had apparently caused “controversy” at the lunch event on Tuesday 9th February. I later learned (from an unverified source, so please correct me if this is wrong) that this controversial, inappropriate idea was that God had caused the Asian tsunami as some sort of punishment^[1].

If this is indeed the cause of the controversy, I can completely understand why. Such an idea is not only irrational, but blatantly disrespectful of the people, and families of people lost in that terrible tragedy. You may wonder then, why I am so against your decision. It is because, as a rationalist and sceptic, I cannot abide censorship of any form. All ideas, especially the controversial ones, are valid for discussion. Our entire modern culture, science, and political system is built on radical inappropriate ideas being discussed openly without fear. The strength of the ideology of free speech is that anyone can have an opinion, no-matter how absurd or offensive, because at the end of the day, those on the opposition have the same freedom to refute the absurdities.

It is unbelievable that at a university, a place where the very discussion of ideas forms part of the purpose of the institution, censorship of an idea can take place under the guise of “not being suitable” as you stated in your email. By disallowing the presentation of an idea, the Student’s Union has issued a statement; that it has the control over what students can think, what we can discuss in public, what ideas are “correct” and which are not. If anything is inappropriate here, it is the use of political correctness at an institution where the search for truth, whatever that truth might be, should be held as the highest form of being. I ask you, what is the purpose of our education if we cannot question what we are taught, challenge ideas where we see fit, and discuss the alternative possibilities openly?

I plead you to see reason, and let the Christian Union continue to host talks, preach, and cause controversy. Controversy feeds the mind; it allows us to think about new ideas, to explore them, and to refute them. Causing controversy is a right protected by the freedom of speech; getting offended by such controversy and using that offence to censor ideas, is not. By all means, be offended, shout, scream with a fiery passion, but for the sake of the freedoms which we hold dear, do not stoop to the level of censoring ideas! As I have previously stated, there isn’t much agreement to be had between my society and the Christian Union, yet I respect their right to have the opinions they do, as long as they respect my right to disagree with them. We debate them annually to share our views with those who might not have heard them before, to challenge notions that may be held dear, and to make known our disagreement in an intellectual forum.

I have sent a copy of this email to my friends, to members of the Royal Holloway Secular Students, and to members of the Christian Union. I will give them instructions to forward it to you if they support the freedom of speech and the discussion of ideas as much as I do. I hope this will make you see the irrationality behind your decision. If not, and if the Christian Union are still prohibited from speaking at the end of the week, I am quite prepared to send this letter to the Founder^[2], the NUS^[3], and as many media organisations connected to students as possible. I honestly hope it does not come to that, but if it must, it must.

-Adrian

Our debate last night went extremely well, with both speakers for the atheist / agnostic side presenting clear arguments and defending criticism from the audience. It helps when one of them is a PhD student in evolutionary psychology though.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Jesus Week
• Intelligence Squared – Is Atheism the New Fundamentalism?
• Church of the Smashing Orangey Bit Responds to Atheist & Christian Billboards
• An Atheist’s Alpha Weekend
• More Atheists Under Attack!

Image via Wikipedia

A friend recently sent me a request in an email:

Adrian, hope you are well. Would you be kind and help me answer this email from a Christian who thinks Atheists are intellectually dishonest – his reasoning is a first for me.
Take care, Robert

Atheists? Intellectually dishonest? At first I think that perhaps this theist has come across an atheist who made some ridiculous statement, and has assumed all atheists think like that. The attached theist “argument” provided all the answers:

Robert, I know Christians have done evil as well! I’m a sinner Saved by grace! By the way it is impossible to be an atheist and be intellectually honest! You can be agnostic at best!  In order to be an atheist you have to know everything there is to know! Since you and I do not Know everything there is to know, it is possible for God to exist in the area you do not know: BY DEFINITION AGNOSTIC AT BEST if you are intelectually honest!? I believe you are!!!!!

As I read the paragraph, I realized that this particular theist hadn’t come across a stupid atheist, but rather hadn’t come across a dictionary in what seems like quite a while. He’s confused the meaning of the word ‘atheist’ for starters, and then confused the meaning of the word ‘agnostic’ such that both are mutually exclusive. In his world, you can either be an atheist, or an agnostic (so I’m not sure where that puts him as a theist).

My response was a quick lesson on definitions.

This fellow seems to have his definitions a little off. Firstly, an atheist is simply defined as someone “without gods”, coming from the Greek word “atheos”, meaning ‘a’ (without) and ‘theos’ (gods). Therefore to put any other meaning on the word is to commit intellectual dishonesty yourself. Given that the subject of Gods comes down to a belief (namely theism), to be “without gods” is to not believe in theism. In other words, an atheist is someone who “does not believe in gods”.

The theist in this argument has falsely asserted that all atheists are of the “God does not exist” type, which is a massive error given that most of them do not fall under this category at all. He also makes the wrong assumption that being agnostic is something mutually exclusive to being an atheist, when the complete opposite is the case.

Atheism, as I have previously defined it, is all about belief. Atheists do not “believe” in gods. Agnosticism is the position that certain things in reality (and some agnostics, myself included would say *all* things) are unprovable, in the sense that an absolute position about them cannot be known. I do not deny that absolute knowledge exists, but as an agnostic I deny that fallible and limited beings can ever “know” absolutely what those absolutes are. All knowledge is relative to us, and thus agnosticism is a position not of belief, but of knowledge.

The relationship between knowledge and belief is a simple one. You can have belief without having knowledge, and you can have non-belief without having knowledge. For example, I could be in a dark room, a mile below the surface on the Earth, and espouse the belief that it was raining on the surface, without having any knowledge (relative or absolute) that it was. Likewise, I could espouse the opposite belief, that it is not raining on the surface via the same system.

However, to have knowledge, you must also have belief. It is a fallacious statement to say “I know it is raining outside, but I don’t believe it.” Knowledge implies belief, for as Plato wrote, knowledge is “justified, true, belief”.

Thus there are 4 positions you can have concerning belief and knowledge of God:

Agnostic Atheism – “I don’t believe in God, but I don’t make any claim to have knowledge of the existence of such a being.”
Gnostic Atheism – “I don’t believe in God, and I know such a being doesn’t exist.”
Agnostic Theism – “I believe in God, but I don’t make any claim to have knowledge of the existence of such a being.”
Gnostic Theism – “I believe in God, and I know such a being exists.”

The theist is correct in his argument if you have claimed Gnostic Atheism, and likewise if someone has claimed Gnostic Theism. To know a non-temporal being existed or didn’t exist, you would have to have knowledge of the non-temporal, and as temporal beings this knowledge is beyond our capabilities.

If however, like most intelligent atheists and theists you meet, you claim agnostic atheism or theism, then you are being intellectually honest. You are admitting the possibility (however small) that God may exist (or not exist as the agnostic theist would say), because you realise that such knowledge is impossible for us to know.

This is the original argument Thomas Huxley made when he defined the word Agnostic, and the argument was visualized very well by Bertrand Russell and is known as “Russell’s teapot” (Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell’s_teapot), which deals primarily with the reasons why the burden of proof is on the claimant, but uses agnosticism to reason such a position.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Scale of Belief, Knowledge, & Certainty
• An Agnostic Project
• Even Free-Thinkers Can Be Wrong
• How To Fail At Atheism
• Laci Explains the Atheism / Agnosticism Relationship

As I have previously mentioned, I was sent a signed copy of Ray’s latest book, and over the next few weeks I will be going over it chapter by chapter; reading and debunking its content so you don’t have to. For now though, I thank Darrin for agreeing to this interview, and for his thorough answers to my questions. The interview is pretty long, so it’s below the fold of this post.

• Since reading Ray’s book, you say you have backslid to agnostic. Could you expand on your beliefs a bit further? Are you using the more modern definition of agnosticism as being “unsure”, or are you more of an “agnostic” atheist as defined by Thomas Huxley?

I have indeed “backslid” to agnostic, as Ray wrote on his WorldNetDaily article, although Ray did not indicate in the article the exact position where I ended up, nor did Ray directly link my reading of his book with the cause of this backsliding. So, in a sense, Ray is absolutely correct, but in a way that’s completely misleading. I wrote him to thank him for the copy, as he and Kirk took their time to sign it for me, but I had just received the book in the mail and had not had time to read it yet. My “deconversion” from atheism came before that time. I mentioned my newfound agnosticism and asked if we could speak on the phone again, but he said he was busy with sixty-odd interviews or something. That response was quite terse and unconcerned compared to the previous times we’d spoken, and that was the end of our contact.

There are certainly many different definitions and breeds of agnostic. Many agnostics (and a few Deists, for that matter) come across as poorly as many of the atheists that I address in the foreword for Ray’s book, and express a wish to do no more than troll Christians, ignore their responses, and fail to check any arguments, so they can simply get a rise from believers.

I am not one of this breed; if I were to specify with an exact label, I’d call myself a “searching Agnostic” – although my personal research is currently centered around the validity and consistency of the Christian faith in particular (I plan to begin studying Islam and Judaism soon, as well), my main focus is discovering for sure the basis of it all: whether or not a creator God exists. All further questions regarding whether such a being designed this hypothetical “spark” of creation and cared about us humans that followed are also routinely considered, but my main focus is currently on all arguments for God’s existence (excepting the Ontological Argument, which has been, even in Plantinga’s stronger formulation, decidedly refuted, and also excepting the Teleological Argument, which begs the question).

I turned agnostic because I recognized three points following a personal meeting in November with Dr. William Lane Craig, a prominent Christian apologist and debater:

(1) As mentioned, I have not reflected adequately upon the arguments for God, with the greatest strength weighing on Bill’s (Dr. Craig’s) “Kalam Cosmological Argument.” I had heard this as an atheist, and simply recycled such soundly refuted counters like “who made God?” and positing such things as cyclic models of the universe and inflationary models and all that. After discovering that such responses are long in their graves, I’ve moved onto Dr. Morriston and Dr. Quentin Smith’s counters to Kalam, and even after reading those, I still find myself questioning and inventing counterarguments against both sides. This fence-sitting contributed to my agnosticism.

(2) My worldview neither entails nor denies that God exists. I found this out on personal reflection, and since this would take us too far off-topic, I will withhold further comment on this matter.

(3) Most importantly, I discovered that my reason for maintaining my atheism – namely, that “no proof for God is proof against God” – is a logical fallacy. One cannot reach “no proof for X, therefore not-X”; that’s a fallacy called (formally, not pejoratively) the argument from ignorance. I’ve been offered by Dr. Richard Carrier that such a position was, in fact, valid and *not* the argument from ignorance, and I will follow up on the evidence for his saying that (we did not have time before his debate with Craig in Missouri to address it in full personally), but until then, I can neither say God does or does not exist, specifically because I am exploring whether the Universe was or was not created – or, more broadly in the since of Aquinas, at least necessary proceeding from such a being.

• I think most atheists probably know Ray Comfort for his “banana argument”, his new argument that claims “An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything.”, and his ignorance on the theory of evolution. Why should atheists listen to Ray when he misrepresents both us and science so much?

Curiously enough, I did not know Ray Comfort that well when I did the intro, and had discovered his link somewhere in the maze of the blogosphere. Noticing the large amount of comments under his top few articles, I figured he was some type of apologist. I’d seen references and Googled links to this “banana argument,” but did not find them worthy of my time, being that his association with my old childhood hero Kirk Cameron piqued my attention more. I did not properly research the man beyond some street-preaching videos on YouTube.

I wrote the introduction shortly thereafter, within a commentary thread linked to a blog post requesting atheists to write potential introductions. I was fresh off of a fight with a YouTube atheist whose name ought to go unmentioned, and still had a bitter taste in my mouth from some comparatively poor “new” atheist arguments I’d read in the popular literature and seen on the Internet (with the bottom of the barrel being the faulty Horus-connection Christ Myth theory as presented by the worst film ever made, “Zeitgeist”). Perusing the other “introductions” in the thread yielded one or two decent ones out of dozens of outright insulting polemics, and I blew my top and wrote what I did. I figured by the spirit of the book that Ray would have chosen one of the many angry polemics to back up the title he had planned, so I was shocked when I received the message that mine was chosen over the others in the thread for printing.

That intro was sparked by anger, but the words weren’t caused by it – I felt the same way while I still held to atheism even after my anger subsided, and I still feel the same way today, so it’s not simply some fire-starting David Berlinski-esque trolling. Like Tony Flew, I’m pretty mad at the state of skepticism today. Thus, in the intro, I invited atheists to read and refute Ray’s arguments, and even though I later discovered that they were not particularly strong, I doubt many skeptics read anything beyond the first chapter available on Amazon.

It may not be worthy of the work to refute even a sentence, some may say, but Ray is a popular voice, and that alone validates some kind of action from the atheist and nonbeliever (I will put in a few of my own counters here, myself). The Rational Response Squad, with whom I’ve disagreed on many occasions, offered a relatively patient response to Ray on national television, and none of them exploded in rage like many of Ray’s readers do.

Rationally tempered frustration for Ray, especially when he does not listen to matters about evolution, is valid, however; but, if Ray does not change and show a willingness to learn, one must (to paraphrase the “Good Book”) simply dust one’s feet and walk to someone more willing to stick to the arguments, as cursing obviously does no good. If Ray is not worthy to argue against, then in your view, wasting too much time on Ray and not approaching the caliber of the works from an Alvin Plantinga, say, will do nothing but further distort your view on the stronger arguments for Christianity that will at least give you a greater respect for those who hold the religion and practice it in a consistent and open manner.

As for the Banana Argument – well, people have to understand something about Ray. Many do not know this, but Ray is being groomed by Calvinists, including the popular speaker Paul Washer and the knowledgeable debater and podcast host Dr. James White. Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis, and the hyper-Calvinist Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr. are quoted on his back cover, and Ray’s book teems with typical Calvinist approaches (for instance, Ray refers to John 6, a popular Calvinist passage, in his answer to the question at the bottom of page 45 in his book).

Ray himself told me he was “on the fence” about Calvinism – which, for those who are unfamiliar, is a minority, albeit vocal, Christian worldview that holds that man doesn’t have the free will to choose God and that the “truly saved” are chosen by God – and shows nearly schizophrenic signs both for and against the position on his blog and in his book. I don’t know how much he actually knows about this subject (he calls Arminianism, or the general name for the majority of Christians who do hold to free will as commonly defined, “Armenianism” somewhere in the book), but the coaching from his Calvinist friends is clear throughout. Odd, really, given Kirk’s participation in “Left Behind” – a movie series based on books to which Calvinist eschatology (loosely meaning “end times” Biblical interpretation) stands vehemently opposed.

Presuppositional apologetics, a methodology of some subdivisions of Calvinism, is a way of delivering the Christian message without calling you to convert to God, since due to their belief in God’s sole choice in saving one cannot come to believe on evidence or old time “Pentecostal Sunday conversion.” Thus, the presuppositionalist presents Christianity in a way that demonstrates how, if taken as a presumption, “life, the Universe, and everything” is explained. In the (paraphrased) words of my Calvinist friend Ben Maas, presuppositionalism simply says “this is what your worldview says about this matter, and here is the way Christianity explains it. Now isn’t that simpler and more consistent?” Dr. Greg Bahnsen, the late apologist who clashed with Gordon Stein in the 80’s, is perhaps the best known practicer of this method, and used the foundations of logic as his centerpiece for his presuppositionalist take on Christianity.

With that background in place, let’s take a look at Ray’s infamous crown jewel. Unfortunately, the Banana Argument is not as well thought-out as Bahnsen’s position, but when I saw the video I knew exactly what Ray was doing, especially considering his presuppositional Calvinist background that his friends no doubt have given him.

Ray is explaining from the Christian position how the banana was designed to be eaten, so as to better allow for the survival of all the species that God supposedly created with a diet that included that fruit (namely, to Ray, humans who have the means to utilize the “tab”). Now, if I recall correctly, the banana in that format was actually developed by men to be that way, and I still think the example itself is VERY weak despite this fact, but I might be one of few skeptics who know what Ray was attempting to demonstrate. It wasn’t a “proof for God,” and cannot be; as above, it was supposed to be an example on Ray’s part of showing how the presupposition of God’s design better explains the existence of such a fruit rather than supposed “random, blind evolution.” It fell flat, and I’m disappointed to see him call his own argument a joke in his book after he got called out on it – that does nothing more than openly demonstrate that the man’s embarrassed.

Does the Banana Argument stink? Yes. But if you see it from the above approach, it at least demonstrates that the man is not totally insane. Ray has a talent for speaking, as his introductory speech in the RRS debate shows, but (as that speech’s content and his book in general likewise shows) his arguments need strengthening. Listening to his opponents who behave rationally would be a good start for him, but in many cases he ignores these opponents, and many opportunities I witnessed in later viewings of his site, which tackled tougher questions than those which do appear in his book, have been ignored.

• What arguments do you think Ray uses that would most likely convince a non-believer, i.e. what are his most powerful arguments in the book?

None. Ray bases the bulk of his arguments in his book on the Bible, reflecting his aforementioned presuppositionalist grooming. I am not particularly a fan of this method; even from a believer’s standpoint, it drives the nonbeliever absolutely nowhere unless it’s presented in such a way to spark his or her interest in the Bible (negatively or positively). After all, if it is God that does the work, presenting the Gospel the way Ray does is all that’s left for the apologist to do.

I suppose if I were forced at gunpoint to answer, I would say Ray’s “nothing created everything?” argument against atheism, but it is flat-out invalid the way he presents it, since he keeps insisting that, according to atheism, there must have been some big black extant “nothing” (like in the Neverending Story or Heidegger’s depressed writings or something) that pooped out a Universe. But there is no “before the Universe,” since time began with the Universe, and there is no existent state of “nothing” – even an unstable vacuum, which is not the case sans the Universe, is *something*.

• You mentioned in the foreword that most new atheist books demonstrate a “lack of both logic and knowledge” when talking about Christianity. Which atheist books do you think do this the most, and which books would you recommend as good critical reading?

I would like to preface this by stating that I deconverted in the Sagan/Randi/Penn and Teller era, before the “new” atheists were anything more than Richard Dawkins’ (wonderful) book “Blind Watchmaker.” There was still a shred of respect in that era, as Penn’s recent “Gift of a Bible” video demonstrates – a video all skeptics should watch and consider, by the way, before yelling at the next person offering them a New Testament with kind words.

I will not go deeply into this, but like my fledgling days as an atheist, these books typically demonstrate an inadequate consideration of Christian arguments before launching into diatribes. I have not yet read Dan Dennett’s book, but as for the other three “four horseman,” they are not of much comparative worth despite their popularity. Harris has much to say (including a very good establishment of morality very close to my own convictions on the subject), but I believe his attacks on modernism in religion and its enabling of extremism are unfounded, and the book ends on a very sour note with some sort of mystical consciousness-denying exercise.

I suppose Dawkins’ book is the strongest of the three I’ve read out of the “Four Horsemen,” although many books on the back shelf of philosophy and religion are much better and do not reuse many of the old canards that Dawkins states (example: “the even more complex designer” argument). Compare that last parenthetical argument of Dawkins’, for instance, with its fellow arguments in “The Improbability of God,” and you can see how weak the New Atheists’ spokespersons actually grasp the philosophical considerations needed to properly address the reasonable and well-learned believer’s arguments.

Vic Stenger is commonly regarded as another horse, and although “God: The Failed Hypothesis” soundly refutes the Argument from Design, it fails on many other counts, including a well-refuted pile of counterarguments for the nonexistence of God. If you want a New Atheist book to get, though, I guess I would say this would be the one to pick up to begin wading out of the shallow end of the pool.

I’ve saved Hitchens for last for a reason – he’s a hilarious polemicist and probably a joy to meet in person, but after watching his debate with Turek and seeing that he was unprepared for many of Frank’s arguments, I would like some kind of stage here to warn him that his debate in a week and a half with the aforementioned Bill Craig will be much more challenging (even many atheists I know concede this). Craig is no Banana Man and does not launch into the polemics of a Dinesh D’Souza (who Chris did effectively debate). The Hitch needs to do what he can in the time he has remaining to prepare – read some debates Craig had with Quentin Smith or Ray Bradley, for instance, as they are the only two people I’ve seen in many debates who actually beat Craig. I don’t like some of Hitch’s tactics, but I like the guy in general and do not wish to see him embarrassed. I am not joking at all when I say that he will belly-flop resoundingly if he comes ill-prepared.

And as for good material on the atheistic side, pick up “Improbability of God” or “The Empty Tomb” (both various authors) from Amazon. Richard Carrier’s “Sense and Goodness Without God” is a philosophical guidebook that can establish a reasonable philosophy behind the rampant so-called “scientism” today. For the theistic side (and yes, all skeptics ought to at least familiarize themselves!), get “Reasonable Faith” by Craig for the best overview of the arguments, and “Debating Calvinism” by Dave Hunt/James White for an introduction-by-proxy to the depth of the two prominent opposing Christian worldviews today. For good overviews from authors with whom you can easily interact, try “Why I Became an Atheist” by John Loftus, opposed by “The Impossible Faith” by his (equally famous) opponent J.P. Holding, both of whom I’m proud to call feisty (but helpful!) friends. Oh, and YouTube the Greg Bahnsen/Gordon Stein debate I mentioned above before you run headlong into the “Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence” – if you’re an internet atheist, and you don’t know what this means, believe me … you will eventually!

Every nonbeliever, by the way, should read the Bible and understand exegesis and Christian interpretation. Reusing old canards will get you nothing but disrespect, and coming unprepared and angry will get you nowhere. If this is your approach, take up gardening and stay far away from the subject. Nobody should engage in controversial study if he is not willing to at least learn what the “other side” thinks.

Finally, keep away from the Christ Myth and all of its various forms. They are weak, loosely linked, and very obviously designed to do nothing but provide the frothing atheist with nothing but a “Ha! Ha! Your beloved Jesus didn’t even exist!” nose-thumbing type of argument. It’s horrible, it’s invalid, Jesus existed in history (read Bart Ehrman’s chapter on this subject in “Jesus: Interrupted”), so get over it.

• You are a member of the Debunking Christianity blog team. Have you thought more critically about your rejection of Christianity since reading Ray’s book? Would you say you are more open to religion now?

I am not “open to religion” specifically – rather, to be intellectually honest, I am open to facts, and if that necessitates the existence of God, or even of the YHWH of Christianity, so be it. I’ll act accordingly; what is true comes first, and how I act proceeds.

My friend John (DC’s site owner) knows I differ from him on the “Debunking” standpoint, and yet has kindly provided me a platform to critically explore – I come from more of a “discussion” approach, and the only Christianity I wish to debunk out of existence is the Fred Phelps type and those advocating the top-down approach to theonomy and dominionism. My main beefs with Christianity aren’t even religious – they’re political (see: evolution and creationism in schools), and one thing I’ve learned in my studies of the religion is that a good Christian does not have to be a good Republican, as well; in fact, many Christians – including fundamentalists! – vehemently are *not.*

That’s about all I have in response to your thought-provoking questions. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my position on Ray and with this whole ordeal, and to let me stand on my own streetcorner for awhile and preach a little at your blog. All comments and criticisms are welcome, but as my parting message to all the New Atheists, don’t engage in polemics when talking to a Christian who is attempting to be rational and is doing the favor of leaving politics out of the discussion. Return the favor and listen to the response, or just take up a new hobby or something. To echo the misquote attributed to Joe Friday, “just the facts, ma’am.”

Possibly Related Posts:

• Jesus Week
• Questions Atheists CAN Answer
• A Fundamentalist Christian Answers The Atheist Thirteen
• The Children of the New BHA Billboards Are Not ‘Christian’
• Church of the Smashing Orangey Bit Responds to Atheist & Christian Billboards

Whilst I vehemently disagree with her deterministic worldview, and find her arguments in support of it almost laughable, Laci (gogreen18) has put together a fantastic video demonstrating the difference between atheism and agnosticism to the YouTube masses. She also delves into the “quad” structure I described in a previous post. Although I would say that her definition of agnosticism is far too narrow and doesn’t include the property of “provability” which is so important to it, the video is a step in the right direction.

Possibly Related Posts:

• A Response To Skepdude
• Agnosticism: The Argument
• An Agnostic Project
• A Conversion To Atheism
• YouTube Thursday -- Ghostbusting, the Easter Bunny, and Anti-Gay Lies

In my opinion, when considering the question of God there are three aspects that must be addressed: Belief – Whether or not you believe in God, Knowledge – Whether or not you claim absolute knowledge of the existence of God, or claim God can be proven in some way, Certainty – How certain you are of your beliefs (of disbeliefs). Although the three aspects are closely related, they are exclusive to one another. That is to say, one can believe in God, not claim absolute knowledge, and also be relatively uncertain of their belief.

The difference between knowledge and belief is subtle but explainable. Knowledge can best be seen as a subset of belief, and this can be demonstrated by the fact that someone can believe something that is provably wrong (such as someone claiming they believe 1 + 1 = 3), but they cannot know something and hold a disbelief in it. I cannot disbelieve that 1 + 1 = 2 because I know it to be true. Of course, one could argue that a person might lie, but this doesn’t change the fact that when answering truthfully they would admit belief. This argument also does not allow for people who are willingly ignorant for obvious reasons.

Once the difference between knowledge and belief is fully understood, the difference between knowledge and certainty should be quite easy to see. I have explained this to quite a few people when talking about my position on gods, and the best way I can explain it is with the following problem:

Suppose you are alone in a dark empty room. You can hear the pitter patter of raindrops on the ceiling above you. With this limited observation, (a) could you know that it is raining outside the room?, and (b) could you be certain it was raining outside the room?

Rational people would answer a definite “no” to (a), simply because there are an large number of explanations for the sound other than “it is raining outside”. Friends usually have some fun coming up with alternative explanations, such as a sound system, a mental delusion, a hallucination, etc. The answer to (b) really depends on the person, and answers vary along a large range. Most people come to the conclusion that they would be “pretty certain” it was raining outside, and that this decision is based on previous experience of listening to rain on a roof. If one were to plot a probability distribution of all the possible explanations, “it is raining” would be the highest bar. It is simply the most likely explanation for the sound. They key thing to remember about certainty and knowledge is that you can be 100% certain about something and still be wrong. I am 100% certain that I’ll be alive tomorrow, but that won’t stop a stray car or my heart suddenly having an attack.

The relationship between certainty and belief usually depends on the type of belief. For example, I’m a “believer” (not the best word) in the theory of Evolution, and I’m 100% certain that it is true. I’m also a “believer” in the Higg’s boson, but not as certain about it (although I’m certain enough to have a bet with a friend over it). Believers in God are usually quite certain, if not 100% certain about their beliefs. I’d say most atheists were also quite certain about their beliefs.

So, we have three aspects of a position on God to create a scale out of. Belief, defined through one’s atheism/theism, Knowledge, defined through one’s agnosticism/gnosticism, and Certainty, defined through “Strong”/”Weak”. I’ve used the Strong/Weak terms out of their original definition simply because they are good words to use for the aspect of certainty. To clarify, someone who is “strong atheist” in this scale would say they are 100% certain about their disbelief in gods, and a “weak atheist” would be someone who is not 100% certain.

The Scale

1. Strong Gnostic Theist - Believes in God, holds God as provable (or proven) and is 100% certain about its existence.
2. Strong Agnostic Theist – Believes in God, holds God as unprovable (or unproven) but is still 100% certain about its existence.
3. Weak Agnostic Theist – Believes in God, holds God as unprovable (or unproven) and is uncertain about its existence.
4. Apatheist – Could be described as 100% uncertain about their beliefs. Usually agnostic, and with a distinct sense of apathy on forming any opinion on the existence of God.
5. Weak Agnostic Atheist – Disbelieves in God, holds God as unprovable (and unproven), but is still uncertain about its non-existence.
6. Strong Agnostic Atheist – Disbelieves in God, holds God as unprovable (and unproven), but is 100% certain about its non-existence.
7. Strong Gnostic Atheist – Disbelieves in God, holds God’s non-existence as provable (or provable), and is 100% certain about its non-existence.

Note that there are no places for Weak Gnostic Theism or Weak Gnostic Atheism, since to “know” something immediately nulls any form of uncertainty on it.

In case any of you were wondering, I rank myself a 6 on this scale. Any comments concerning my arguments on the philosophy of knowledge are most welcome. I know (at least in the non-absolute sense) this is a well debated problem amongst philosophers.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Agnosticism: The Argument
• An Agnostic Project
• Kieran Bennett: Why Atheist And NOT Agnostic?
• What Is Agnosticism?
• A Lesson on Definitions

Onto the meme!

Can You Remember The Day That You Officially Became An Atheist?

This question has two answers. The day I “officially” became an atheist would be the day I first put down “no religion” on a government form (Data protection act in 1999). That’s the first time my non-religion was acknowledged by the state, however I think this question is more aimed at the time I first realized I was an atheist.

That was probably around the age of 9. I had been thinking about the question for a while, thats all I can remember about the how. I don’t remember exactly what I was thinking about, but it probably involved trying to combine the Bible with science (it doesn’t work). I was very scientific from a young age, and I frequently read children’s encyclopedias instead of “bedtime stories”. Learning about how we see colours differently in dark light is much more interesting than any story that begins “once upon a time”.

I also remember that the day my realization occurred was a Sunday. This is deeply ironic because the only reason I remember the actual day was that it occurred in a Church service. If it had happened on a Tuesday, I would never have remembered. Such is the power of religion at ingraining things into the mind I guess.

During the church service, the priest probably got up and said something about the Bible and how the Earth was created, or some other complete nonsense. I started thinking about this, and how there are so many flaws in the whole “God” idea. Much like comedian Ricky Gervais, 10 minutes later, I was an atheist. Of course, being such a young boy, I was slightly nervous about these new feelings I had, so I turned to my mother and said “I don’t think I believe in God”. She told me it wasn’t the kind of thing I should be saying in church, and that she would talk about it later.

She never did, and my atheism has only gotten stronger since that day.

Do you remember the day you officially became an agnostic?

Not really, probably because I’d never really heard of the term until much later in life. I guess I’d been an agnostic since the day I got interested in science. If there is anything science has taught me, it is that there are things so complex in the universe we may never fully understand them. The best way to gain knowledge is by continually testing and challenging ideas, and looking where the evidence points.

How about the last time you spoke or prayed to God with actual thought that someone was listening?

Sometime before that Sunday services all those years ago probably. Not that I haven’t had a few “crises of non-faith” since then of course, where I have prayed simply out of fear. I didn’t think anyone was there, it was more of a test to see if anyone was there. Of course, after several experiments, the scientific method held true, and I stopped my pointless praying.

Did anger towards God or religion help cause you to be an atheist or agnostic?

No, the Bible did that quite effectively.

Here is a good one: Were you agnostic towards ghosts, even after you became an atheist?

Yeah, I’ve only very recently become a proper “skeptic” towards a load of things. I’m still a recovering conspiracy theorist to be perfectly honest, and the truth is, there are only so many times you can look at 9/11 footage and say “Why is there no wreckage?” or “Those were bombs exploding in the towers” before you realize you are talking absolute crap and the people who put these bizarre theories together know nothing about proper science.

Of course, I still like to humour these things.

Do you want to be wrong?

Of course I do! I say this to Christians all the time but they never take it in. I would honestly love nothing more than to live forever in some form of paradise, but if I have to adopt a flawed belief system to do it, I refuse. I fail to see why a God who supposedly gave us the ability to reason, would want us to abandon that reason in order to pass some sick test and get into Heaven…

Now my turn to tag people:

Amiable Atheist

Db0

Chicken Girl

Moiz Khan

and Splendid Elles

Possibly Related Posts:

• Kieran Bennett: Why Atheist And NOT Agnostic?
• God As A Proxy For Goodness: How The Apparent Absence Of Alternatives Maintains Irrationality Alive
• Damn You FOX!
• God & Darwin
• An Evening with Michael Shermer: Why People Believe Weird Things

Atheists claim to not believe in gods, but this is a lie. Deep down they really know there is a God, but they don’t like what this means and so they lie about what they believe. So remember, the next time you meet an atheist, despite them claiming that they have no belief in gods, they secretly know that He exists!

…or so some people like to claim, like David if he is reading this. David is an acquaintance of mine; we do the same course; we talk about computing often. David is a nice chap. David is also a Christian who is on a mission to convert my soul to Jesus. He is a member of Royal Holloway’s unofficial Christian Union, which I attend for the fun and cakes.

Tonight I went along, wearing a t-shirt that says “Thank God I’m an Atheist”. It’s meant to be ironic, an atheist thanking “God”, but the joke is lost on some people. Some people have said I am “stupid” for wearing it because it is contradictory. Some people have no sense of humour.

Whether or not David understood the t-shirt or not isn’t the issue, it never came up. What is the issue is his insistence that whilst I say I do not believe in God, I really know he exists “deep down”. To him, this is a good argument. To me, this is an insult. It is not only implying I am a liar, but also that I am stupid. Only a stupid person would choose not to believe (and thereby end up with a one-way ticket to Hell) if they knew that God existed.

So no David, I do not “know” God exists deep down. I do not know if God exists at all, and I think the existence of God is somewhat unknowable, at least for myself. Since I do not know if God exists or not, and I have seen no reason to believe one does, I also do not believe in gods. This brings me quickly to the second point I wanted to outline:

Agnostic atheists do exist.

Trust me, they do. Just ask the vast majority of atheist readers of my blog, and I’m sure they will be happy to tell you. That said, I’m glad you actually understood the definition of agnosticism. You were quite right in saying it states that “God is unknowable”. Where you get confused is where this links in with atheism. I could go on about how knowledge and belief cover different things, but I suspect there are far better sites out there that handle it much better than I could.

So no David, despite what you might think, I am not an agnostic instead of an atheist, I am both.

I do hope you take my advice, go to Google, and search for “Agnostic Atheism”. In fact, if you are reading this (and I hope you are), here is a link. The first three results (Wikipedia, All About Philosophy, and About.com) all have material you should read on the subject, and hopefully the next time you wish to talk about atheism/religion, you’ll have the decency to respect my views as I respect yours.

See you in class tomorrow,

Adrian

Possibly Related Posts:

• Church of the Smashing Orangey Bit Responds to Atheist & Christian Billboards
• How Should Atheists Respond to a Christian Bus Advert?
• Jesus Week
• 101 Christian Quotes
• “I Tried To Be An Atheist”

Among the first to contact me was a guy named Dan who demonstrated the remarkably small world we live in by revealing that we are actually next door neighbours. Since then he has made an admirable effort to help hand out flyers, which usually ended up with us in the student bar having a drink.

One of our members from last year, Jack Lenox, put me in contact with another student who was trying to form a Humanist Alliance at Royal Holloway, unaware that the AAA was actually around. He got a lot of facebook support, and we have decided to join forces under an umbrella group. The new group, which will probably be called something like “Royal Holloway Secular Students” is going to include the sub-groups of Humanism and the AAA, since the Humanism group already has a number of theist members. Group meetings will take place at the same time, with us talking about broader secular subjects at the start, and then turning over to the “militant atheist wing” (us) at the end.

I have also penned my first column for “The Atheist Column” in the student newspaper The Founder, which should come out within the next week or so. I decided to respond to a few people who had questioned me over the usage of the term “Bright” on the flyers.

Are the “Brights” worth it?

During freshers’ week, members of the Atheist & Agnostic Alliance handed out flyers that explained the term “Bright” as a positive word for someone who lives without supernatural or spiritual notions. Founded in America in 2003, the Brights movement sought to replace the label of “godless” with something that wasn’t anti-, or non- anything, much in the same way that the term “gay” is now used to describe homosexuals.

In the harsh religious environment of America, where to be an atheist means both social and political discrimination, this idea holds some weight. In the UK though, the vast majority of people would call themselves secular, seeing religion as something that shouldn’t interfere with politics. Indeed, where in the USA an atheist would never get to high levels of public office (without lying about their beliefs), the current leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, does not believe in God. So should the term “Bright” still be used?

I think instead of using the Brights as a platform for change, we should use the organisation purely to group people of similar worldviews together. The Brights have meetings all over the UK, open to people who subscribe to different labels, whether it be atheism, agnosticism, humanism, scepticism, and many more. As for trying to enforce the meaning of the word, I think efforts should instead be focused on changing the public perceptions of the original terms. “Bright” is a great word for describing people who hold no supernatural worldview, but it doesn’t cover individual positions on belief in gods. Both atheists and secularists can be Brights, but whilst an atheist does not believe in gods, a secularist might.

What was clear though, from a number of people I spoke to during freshers’ week, is that the term “Bright” is very vague in who it encompasses. Some Brights will argue that it is a strictly non-believing organisation, whilst others will insist that as long as you do not use the supernatural to make decisions, you are welcome. In fact the only people who I think do not belong in the Brights group are those who actively participate in faith healing, psychic readings, or active prayer and other similar activities.

The Atheist & Agnostic Alliance’s relationship with the Brights is really one of “business only”. They were kind enough to make good looking flyers at low cost, and they are a great source of speakers for the “godless” events we are planning this year. Other than that, the groups should keep separate.

If all goes well, this should be an interesting year for Royal Holloway. Watch out for the infidel invasion!

Possibly Related Posts:

• 1,500 Flyers
• Why I Don’t Believe In Gods
• Your Thoughts On A Possible Blog Merge?
• Which Is The Most Secular / Non-believing State In The USA?
• Open Letter to the Student’s Union

When anything comes up about atheism, Bill Maher reacts in the same way, by claiming that atheists are people who “are certain there is no God”. This portrays atheists in a negative light, because there are very few people who actually would agree with this definition. An atheist is not someone who makes a statement about God’s non-existence, but one who makes a statement about their disbelief/lack of belief/non-belief in God.

The Atheist Jew wrote a great article on this subject, which provoked me into writing my opinions here. The Atheist Jew argues

I have a feeling he is just trying to appeal to the masses by not labeling himself as an atheist. A term that causes many a theist to flinch. By labeling himself as agnostic, he is just trying to be accepted.

It is evident in everything he says beyond avoiding the atheism label, that he is an atheist.

An atheist doesn’t have to say “there is no God, or no afterlife.” Most of us say or thin that “there is no evidence for God or an afterlife, so why even consider something that has no evidence to back it up?”

As an agnostic atheist myself, I’m not against agnosticism at all, and I think Bill Maher is doing a great job making people question the “unquestionable” beliefs of religion. However, he should realise that agnosticism and atheism are not views on the same thing. Following a view of “I don’t know” is fine, but if the question is “Do you believe in God?” and you do not, then you are an atheist.

It is a shame that in a world where information is free and open to everyone, Bill Maher hasn’t read the article on atheism from Wikipedia, or even browsed an online dictionary to find out the general views on such words. On The Atheist Jew’s blog, I made a comment in which I proposed my idea:

Send Bill Maher and open letter from a few atheist bloggers.

The way I see it, there are a load of atheist bloggers who have been publicizing the movie because of it’s stance on religion. We are giving it the thumbs up, and we are doing it for free, because we think it is the right thing to do. However I suspect that quite a few of these bloggers would feel offended for the same reasons I have gone over here, simply because Bill Maher is painting his most loyal supporters with a negative image.

In the letter, I propose we thank Bill Maher for all he has done to expose religion for the ridiculous beliefs it is comprised of, and argue our case, including the standard definitions you find in most dictionaries, perhaps suggest a few articles from Wikipedia and About.com, and ask him to stop putting atheists down.

If this were a fundamentalist preacher saying these things, we would all have a rant about how misunderstood people are on the concept of atheism, but when it is one of our own (a self-hating atheist perhaps?) the issue suddenly disappears. Perhaps people have too much respect for Bill Maher to do anything, but when it is someone who we can guarantee has an open mind (unlike the fundamentalist preacher) I think we should act on it.

What do you all think?

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Possibly Related Posts:

• I ♥ Bill Maher
• Open Letter to the Student’s Union
• All Aboard The Atheist…Billboard?!?
• The Pledge of Allegiance
• Prayer, Death, and Motivation

I am not sure if it should be she, it is not clear from the blog, so I’ll refer to the author as a he from this point on. My apologies if this turns out to be incorrect!

I am indeed a he. My name is at the bottom of every article and next to my comments: “Adrian Hayter”, but I understand the confusion. Adrienne is the female version of my name, and my long hair in the comment avatars doesn’t help matters.

As you can clearly see from his first paragraph he defined an atheist as someone who says :”I do not believe in God”. Yes he did follow that by saying that this is a generalization, and that “some” atheist say that they “know” or are “certain” there is no god.  But that’s where he stopped. I did not accuse him of defining atheism as a belief. What I did do is to challenge his definition of an atheist and the choice of words he used in that definition. He uses a very extreme definition of atheism.

Well I would hardly call the definition “do not believe in God” a “very extreme” definition of atheism. In fact, it seems to be the one that most dictionaries I have looked in go with:

1. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. (Dictionary.com)
2. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. (American Heritage)
3. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. (Websters)

Indeed, some atheists do say they “know” or are “certain” there is no god. When I wrote the standard definition (disbelief), I did not want to ignore those who take this definition further by saying they either know or are certain.

Richard Dawkins in his “God Delusion” talks about 7 levels (if my memory serves me right)  of belief/disbelief and level 6 and 7 are occupied by atheists, with level 7 being the kind who “believes” or “knows” that there is no God. Not even RD who is an ardent atheist sees himself as belonging to category #7, because that category is jsut as dogmatic as the ardent, dogmatic Sky Daddy worshipers. The way the “Atheist Blogger” defined atheism in his entry suggest that atheist are of the category 7 kind. That is what I am challenging. I am not that sort of atheist. Richard Dawkins is not. Anyone with a little bit of integrity cannot accept to be labeled as such.

My point is simple. Accepting that the probability of God existing is really really, infinitesimaly small is by leaps and bounds not the same as saying that you know, or are certain, or believe he does not exist.

I do not see how my definition of atheists as people who say they do not believe in Gods means that I meant they believe there are no gods, or even that they know there are no Gods. Not believing in something doesn’t mean you believe in the opposite. I made that mistake in the past and have since rectified it in discussions. I am not a 7 either. I do not believe in Gods, and I would never say “I believe there are no gods” or “I know there are no gods”.

As for his last point, that accepting the probability of God existing not being the same as saying you know, or are certain, I am in total agreement. That was the entire point I made about agnostic atheism. If you are a 7, you claim to “know” that God does not exist, making you a form of gnostic atheist, “gnostic” used as the opposite of “agnostic”, not the Christian spirituality group. Gnosticism in this case is the view that you can know god.

Yes, as I said, my stance on god’s non-existence is of a statistical nature. Yes, I can’t claim to know that God does not exist, which is another way of saying that I don’t have the “knowledge” that god does not exist, specifically because non-existence is not a provable hypothesis. What does the fact that statistics itself is knowledge have to do with my lack of knowledge about gods non existence? That is a non sequitur.  Just beacuse statistics is considered knowledge, and just becasue I reach a conclusion based on statistics, it does not follow that my conclusion itself can be considered knowledge.  I can have perfect statistics but wrong premises, or an incomplete set of premises and my answer would be wrong, thus not knowledge, even though my statistics were impecable. I really do not see how he has addressed my point that I can’t claim to have knowledge of god’s nonexistence based on his answer.

My point on the statistics was that you claimed your statistical analysis was not based on belief or knowledge, but statistics is in itself that analysis of knowledge. In this case, you analyzed the knowledge you had, which included the fact that there is no verifiable evidence for God, and used this to produce a statistical probability.

Knowledge is a branch of belief? That doesn’t make any sense regardless how you define belief. Just what in god’s name does that even mean? How is knowledge a branch of belief? In what sense? I think the Atheist Blogger needs to elaborate on that point as he’s close to committing atheistic heresy.

Elaborate I will. In philosophy, Moore’s paradox explains the relation between knowledge and belief. Moore stated that to say “It is raining outside but I don’t believe it to be true” is a paradox. You cannot possibly know something and not believe it. In Epistemology, to know P is to believe P is true. In other words, knowledge implies belief. Perhaps I could have related this a tad better in my original article.

I find it hard to believe that such things are being writen by someone who claims to be an atheist. This is the sort of apologetic goal post moving tactics you’d expect from religious people who are too embarrased by their religion’s earthly claims and hide behind a God who is out of reach, can never be touched by reason, logic or science. In other words the old definition of God does not stand up to logical scrutiny, so let’s make up a new god which is impervious to reason. This is exactly what Carl Sagan was talking about when he gave the example of the invisible dragon, who breathes heatless fires and leaves no imprints on the flour on the floor. This attitude is pointless, useless and it leads nowhere. We can postulate anything, claim that it is out of the reach of reason, and bam we have ourselves something to be agnostic about. I’m sorry that just makes me giggle.

I agree, the attitude is ultimately pointless, useless, and leads nowhere. The purpose of agnosticism isn’t to lead anywhere though, but to confirm the possibility of a God. It isn’t agnostics that are moving the posts though, but the theists who claim such things. They are the ones who claim God to be outside our observable universe, on another plane of existence, or whatever else they have claimed about it. The agnostics are the ones who simply say, given the nature of such a being, it is impossible to prove or disprove it. You are quite correct, we could come up with something, put it outside reason, and be agnostic about it. The reason we do not do so is because there aren’t a massive number of people claiming something else like this. Another reason why God gets special treatment is because theists are claiming that it created everything, and on some occasions has a direct effect on what happens when we die. These are all things that affect people if they are true, and people are more likely to think about certain ideas if they have supposed affects on them than say, a giant iguana who lives between universes and doesn’t do anything.

Secondly, I don’t think Dawkins would be caught dead using the word “agnostic” to describe himself, but that is my opinion based on what I’ve heard him say and his writings and I may be shown wrong on that.

Possibly because in his book he uses the definition of “agnostic” as someone who “doesn’t know” if they believe in god or not. His scale of 1-7 puts agnosticism in position 4, which agnosic atheists such as myself disagree with. If you used the original definition (and current one used by dictionaries) the Dawkins would be an agnostic atheist. This is clearly evident by his rating of 6.9 on his scale. If a 7 is someone who says you can know there is no god, anything below would be someone who says you cannot know (until you reach the other end of the scale, with 1 being someone who claims you can know there is a God). Dawkins doesn’t seek to disprove God, because he understands this is impossible, but he still strongly disbelieves the notion that one exists. The question of belief in the existence of god and the actual existence of god are different questions. People often make the mistake of using agnosticism purely in terms of belief, when it should be in terms of the truth value of the claim.

Ok, so there goes an ad populum fallacy. The term makes sense to a lot of people huh? First of all, for all those people it makes sense to, we can probably find just as many that it does not, as such that argument holds no water. Secondly, it does not matter how many people it makes sense to, I can still criticize it. How can you claim that agnosticism is a stance which says “we can’t know” and atheism is a stance which says ” I know” and still use the two words together? That my friend is the definition of contradiction, an oxymoron. You can’t know while at the same time saying that you don’t know. Just explain to me how, based on your two definitions, this makes any sense at all? On the flip side how can anyone be an agnostic theist? So this person knows there is a God because he’s a theist, but at the same time he know’s he can’t really know if there is a God? Something’s gotta give, and it seems simple logic is what is giving here.

Firstly I wasn’t trying to prove any point about the definitions other than they mean something to some people, therefore there is reason to discuss them. I never implied that because a lot of people agree with them that they are therefore true. You simply said that the terms didn’t make sense to you, which is irrelevant. Not understanding something is no grounds to dismiss it.

I never said atheism is a stance that says “I know”, I said atheism is a stance that says “I disbelieve”. The stance that some atheists take is “I know”, which is a form of gnostic atheism: Disbelieving something and knowing it to be true or reckoning it can be proven.

Someone can be an agnostic theist by the simple fact that theism is a belief in god, not a position on “knowledge” of god. There are people who claim to know that god exists, or that god can be proven, making them gnostic theists, and people who claim to believe in god yet think the proof is impossible to obtain. Indeed something had to give, and it was your misunderstanding of the definitions of theism/atheism.

And why do you say that knowledge is different to belief when at the very beginning you said that knowledge is a branch of belief? Can you please explain that contradiction to me? If knowledge is in fact, as you claim, belief with facts than if anything belief is a subset of knowledge not the other way around.

The mere fact there is a branch surely explains there is a difference? What would be the purpose of the branch otherwise? H. sapiens branched off from an ancestor on the evolutionary tree, but we would hardly call them the same would we? In philosophy, the relation of knowledge and belief is clear.

“You cannot know something if you do not first believe it to be true.” You’ve gotta be kidding me right? So this is how you think the process of acquiring knowledge works? We first start with something we believe to be true and then find the facts to add on top of our belief to turn it into knowledge? You have it completely backwards my friend. Knowledge and facts lead to belief (trust not faith) that something is infact true, not the other way around. It seems you’re not talking about knowledge of the scientific kind when you use that word. Maybe we are having a semantics battle over here.

Indeed as you have probably deduced by now, I am talking about it in a purely philosophical sense. I would have thought that clear from the start when we were talking about things such as atheism, agnosticism, etc, but I apologize if that wasn’t made clear.

I think perhaps the entire discussion is a semantics battle.

The world was created by God is not a philosophical question, it is a scientific one. God performs miracles, raises the dead, walks on water are not philosophical issues but empirical ones. God’s existence is not a philosophical issue, it is an empirical issue unless you strip him of everything that’s ever been attributed to him, which seems to me that’s what you’re doing.

I always thought of science as the study of the natural world, so a supernatural god being wouldn’t even come close to being something to do with science. Philosophy on the other hand, is the study of problems to do with things like existence, knowledge, beauty, etc. The existence of God is a philosophical question.

Are you agnostic about ghosts? Are you agnostic about talking to the dead? Are you agnostic about UFOs? It seems to me the answers to those questions should be yes, yes, and yes. We just can’t know!

Again, as the answers should technically be yes, most people do not consider them important enough to acknowledge. In fact, UFO’s exist, we just don’t know what they are. Even if you meant aliens, I would not be agnostic about them either. The universe is only finitely sized, and if the aliens live within it, we can know about them.

I’ve just noticed the three links automatically generated below your post which explain agnostic atheism rather well, so I encourage you to read them, as well as anyone else interested in them^[1][2][3].

I’m not sure what you want to in terms of this “debate”. I don’t think continually hopping between blogs is going to be good for anyone, and I think it is clear that we are simply running round each other with different dictionaries and interpretations. I tend to go with the definition Thomas Huxley came up with, you tend to go with the definition that has been hijacked and pushes agnosticism into the question of belief.

Yes, technically we could be agnostic about absolutely everything, but as you rightly pointed out this is intellectual suicide. The only reason we are agnostic about god is because of the status that has been thrust upon it, and the fact that if such a being existed it would have an impact. Agnosticism is useful in this case because it can unite theists with atheists over the issue. Instead of arguing over the existence of god, they can agree that such a being is unprovable and lay the issue to rest. Creationists and biblical literalists are the people who claim that god can be known through the Bible, or through reasoning, and they are the people who make the constant mistakes and illogical arguments.

I have received a lot of support for my original idea of having some kind of website which people could put their name down in support of original definitions, but I think given the amount of opposition who simply refused or could not understand the terms, I will have to abandon the project. I think the best way to argue agnostic atheism is to get people to simply look up the word as I did. Hopefully they will be surprised at how wrong the public interpretation was all these years.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Laci Explains the Atheism / Agnosticism Relationship
• Agnosticism: The Argument
• An Agnostic Project
• Scale of Belief, Knowledge, & Certainty
• Labels Are Annoying…