My blog

[robvalue]

I just wrote this rant over at TTA and I was quite pleased with it so I thought I'd share it here. Maybe I can adjust it for my website.

---------

I agree that many, perhaps most, atheists are probably going to be "hardcore sceptics" and reject supernatural/spiritual notions. This is no coincidence since scepticism leads to atheism. But it doesn't mean every atheist is a sceptic, far from it. I've heard all kind of things from lots of different atheists.

If people assume something more about an atheist than just his response to a single claim, they are mistaken. That is the message I am trying to send to everyone.

I think I'll put another example forward, because this is a huge sticking point for people in my experience. It's a very subtle point, it took me a while to get when I first got into atheism in a big way.

The default position is to have no opinion about something. If I know nothing about what you're asking me, I have no beliefs about it. I don't believe it exists, and I don't believe it doesn't exist.

You bring me a small generic box, and ask me what I think is in it. I have no opinion on what is in it. Someone says "probably some onions."

I can assess this claim, to see if I agree with the sentiment. Do I have any reason to think this claim is valid, and probably true? Maybe the box says "onions" on it, or smells of onions. If so, it would be reasonable to accept the claim, especially as it's not an extraordinary one.

But let's say there are no such clues. I feel that person is guessing. I reject their claim. This means I am sticking with my default position. I don't have a belief that onions are in there, nor do I have a belief onions are not in there.

So when someone makes a claim, the choices are to accept the claim and move to this new, positive position, or remain where you are. You are not required to shift your position to the opposite of the claim. In the above example, I reject the claim there are onions in the box. But I am not changing my position so that I believe onions are not in the box. That would be absurd. I have no reason to think there are actually not onions in the box.

So basically, I think people misunderstand the nature of the God question. They seem to think the question is, "Do you believe a God exists, or do you believe a god does not exist?" This is incorrect. It's a false dichotomy. It misses out the third position, where you believe neither of those statements. Just like above, I lack belief in the box containing onions, or not containing onions. The question is, "do you accept the claim that there is one or more gods?" Yes, or no. Theist or atheist. There are no other answers. If you say "don't know" you are saying you don't know what you believe. This suggests some sort of mental disconnect. What I think you're saying is you don't believe the claim but don't want to commit to it being wrong. Well, you don't have to. If you're not sure, then clearly you're not convinced. You're an atheist.

Now, of course, any particular person rejecting the claim "God exists" may choose to accept the claim "God does not exist". But they are not obliged to. They can stay in the default position of not having a belief in the existence or non existence of God, just like above with whether or not onions are in the box.

If I had to choose between your claim and the opposite claim every time you made one, I would potentially be required to shift my position either way just because you made a claim. I hope everyone can that this is a ridiculous expectation.

To sum up: rejecting a claim is not the same as making your own statement that the claim is actually false.

"This coin will come up heads when I flip it."
"Why do you say that?"
"I have a feeling."
"I reject your claim, I don't share your belief that the coin will come up heads."
"Ah, so you're saying it won't come up heads! You're saying it will come up tails!"
"No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying I don't believe it will be heads, nor do I believe it won't be heads. I have no opinion either way because there's not enough evidence to make a decision."

Rejecting the God claim makes you an atheist, by commonly used definitions. You are also an agnostic, unless you also make your own claim that you know God does not exist.

Of course, if you want to label this position as "just agnostic", that is totally fine with me. But please don't think that this is actually different, in real terms, to an agnostic atheist. It's the same thing by a different name.

If you actually think it is a different position, then what you have done is to simply not answer the question of belief in the God claim. Everyone either has an active belief that God(s) exist, or they don't have an active belief God exists. The former is a theist, the second is an atheist. There are no more categories. It's nothing to do with knowledge at all. And lacking an active belief in God does not mean having an active belief in "no God". If this doesn't make sense, please read about the onions again. Of course, you may not feel comfortable actually telling me whether you are an atheist or a theist, but instead you're just an agnostic. That is totally fine, you're not obliged to answer any question if you don't want to. But to then criticize me for having answered the question, saying it's more rational to not answer the question, is bogus.

With the god claim, suppose instead of onions, my friend says, "probably metaphysical onions in the box, you can't see them or touch them, but they are there." I also reject this claim. Again, I don't need to make my own claim that there are in fact not metaphysical onions in the box. I'm an a-onionsist just by rejecting the claim. But I may find it reasonable to claim that in fact there are no such onions in there, due to that being an outrageous claim backed by no evidence, and consisting of something I've never even seen can be possible.

I'll just go eat onions now until I lose conciousness from it so you won't have to listen to any more of my drivel.