Agnostic: a pointless term?

[robvalue]

I think you are winding me up

That's the sort of thing I would write

[FreeTony]

David Mitchell did that? I'm surprised.

Sadly yes, to quote his Observer column:

“What I don’t understand is why so many people, the religious and the irreligious alike, have swallowed the idea that atheism is the most rational conclusion to draw about humanity’s position and state of grace. Even those who oppose atheism do so in terms of its being too rational: lacking imagination or faith. ‘Just because there’s no actual reason to believe in something doesn’t mean it can’t be there,’ they say.

But atheism isn’t the most rational approach - agnosticism is. You can’t know, so it’s irrational to say that you do. An atheist or religious observant might counter that agnosticism - saying you don’t know if there’s a god or gods - isn’t a conclusion at all. They’d have a point - but in that case, I say it’s irrational to draw a conclusion. We don’t know and we can’t know.

Atheism is also a leap of faith, albeit a nihilistic one. It might as well be a religion - many of its adherents evangelise about their philosophy and beliefs as much as the religious do. They claim their opinions to be certainties. They viciously criticise those who believe otherwise. They are, in some cases, emotionally attached to the idea that there’s no God and dislike being gainsaid as much as the Pope or an Ayatollah does. They then wrap up this annoyance as anger at the terrible suffering religion has brought to the world - as if they truly think it’s the religious beliefs themselves, rather than humanity’s in-built urges to kill, persecute and suppress, that led to the Crusades or the Troubles or the failure to address the AIDS Pandemic."

His piece would make more sense if Atheism was defined as the knowledge that there is no God. He's also fortunate to have been brought up amongst the very moderate CofE beliefs, and not in the bible belt in America.

[robvalue]

Wow! That is an amazingly ignorant interview, I thought he would be better educated than that. He sounds like the drips who call in to AXP.

Shocking. I'm off to destroy all my DVDs that feature him in any way.

[bennyboy]

My problem with the people describing themselves as Agnostics, is that they think there are three options:

Atheist - Believes no God exists
Theist - Believes a God exists
Agnostic - Doesn't know

Which is incorrect, yet I'd say this is sadly how the majority of people view it.

This would probably be fine if self described Agnostics didn't turn around and start accusing Atheists of being irrational and/or arrogant in claiming that they definitively know a God doesn't exist. (e.g. David Mitchell)

I don't think you are being irrational and/or arrogant in claiming that you definitely know a God doesn't exist. I think you are being irrational and/or arrogant in your childlike definition of the linguistic problem involved, and the actual reasons people prefer to be called agnostic and not atheistic.

My own choice of the agnostic position involves a consideration of many things: the limitations of language, the choice of who gets to define what words mean, the way human beings collect information (and what information they probably can't collect), the actual human experiences that might have been thought of as spiritual in the past, etc. It also includes the context for the question-- who's asking it, and why's it being asked? What information about me is the question actually meant to reveal?

The simplest context is just refusing to answer an ill-defined question:
You: Do you believe in God?
Me: What do you mean?
You: Whatever you want it to mean. . . ya know-- God.
Me: Then I don't know. I'm not in the mood to invent your strawman for you.

[robvalue]

Funny how you can spend your whole life devoted to something then demonstrate you haven't the faintest idea what it actually is.

I could pull a series of gods out my pocket and they wouldn't be able to pick "theirs" out.

---

David Mitchell! I'm still angry with you. I've watched all the peep shows, and this is my thanks?

[FreeTony]

I don't think you are being irrational and/or arrogant in claiming that you definitely know a God doesn't exist. I think you are being irrational and/or arrogant in your childlike definition of the linguistic problem involved, and the actual reasons people prefer to be called agnostic and not atheistic.

My own choice of the agnostic position involves a consideration of many things: the limitations of language, the choice of who gets to define what words mean, the way human beings collect information (and what information they probably can't collect), the actual human experiences that might have been thought of as spiritual in the past, etc. It also includes the context for the question-- who's asking it, and why's it being asked? What information about me is the question actually meant to reveal?

The simplest context is just refusing to answer an ill-defined question:
You: Do you believe in God?
Me: What do you mean?
You: Whatever you want it to mean. . . ya know-- God.
Me: Then I don't know. I'm not in the mood to invent your strawman for you.

As far as I'm aware you have two choices, you are either a Theist, or you are not a Theist.

Coming from a scientific background, the default position is disbelief, and then when you have enough evidence to convince you, you start believing. Just because a hypothesis is illl defined or completely untestable, doesn't mean I should change my disbelief stance. This is what I understand as Atheism.

I think in reality most self described Atheists and Agnostics have fairly similar beliefs, whereas some Theists may think that Agnostics "half believe" in a God, or at least entertain it as a plausible idea, when in reality this perhaps isn't the case.

---

David Mitchell! I'm still angry with you. I've watched all the peep shows, and this is my thanks?

He did marry a Christian, so perhaps it's best to be an Agnostic to maintain marital bliss!

[robvalue]

He did what now? Oh wow. I guess he was bummed when he found out.

[Whateverist]

David Mitchell did that? I'm surprised.

Sadly yes, to quote his Observer column:

“What I don’t understand is why so many people, the religious and the irreligious alike, have swallowed the idea that atheism is the most rational conclusion to draw about humanity’s position and state of grace. Even those who oppose atheism do so in terms of its being too rational: lacking imagination or faith. ‘Just because there’s no actual reason to believe in something doesn’t mean it can’t be there,’ they say.

But atheism isn’t the most rational approach - agnosticism is. You can’t know, so it’s irrational to say that you do. An atheist or religious observant might counter that agnosticism - saying you don’t know if there’s a god or gods - isn’t a conclusion at all. They’d have a point - but in that case, I say it’s irrational to draw a conclusion. We don’t know and we can’t know.

Atheism is also a leap of faith, albeit a nihilistic one. It might as well be a religion - many of its adherents evangelise about their philosophy and beliefs as much as the religious do. They claim their opinions to be certainties. They viciously criticise those who believe otherwise. They are, in some cases, emotionally attached to the idea that there’s no God and dislike being gainsaid as much as the Pope or an Ayatollah does. They then wrap up this annoyance as anger at the terrible suffering religion has brought to the world - as if they truly think it’s the religious beliefs themselves, rather than humanity’s in-built urges to kill, persecute and suppress, that led to the Crusades or the Troubles or the failure to address the AIDS Pandemic."

The guy makes a lot of good points here. He is suggesting that the emotional charge that propels some to de-convert others is disproportionate if all they have is a lack of belief in a far fetched belief. If they have more than that, like a positive belief that no gods exist, then they share part of a mindset with the worst sort of theists. Valid criticism I think.

His piece would make more sense if Atheism was defined as the knowledge that there is no God. He's also fortunate to have been brought up amongst the very moderate CofE beliefs, and not in the bible belt in America.

Yes. Most likely when atheists go crazy formulating positive beliefs regarding the non-existence of silly stuff, it is because they have been raised up in a repressive culture. Shaking the bare belief in god doesn't automatically free you of every vestige of the culture which supported that belief. Plus people raised in bible belt like conditions can reasonably acquire a good deal of resentment toward the people who tried to indoctrinate them.

[robvalue]

Yeah, I mean, I would say that I believe there are no gods, as generally described. But I wouldn't make it as a claim, because I can't provide evidence as such. I wouldn't go around saying it to anyone in debate. It's just what I believe is most likely true, but there's no point in even addressing it further than that.

I wouldn't say I know there are no gods. But it all comes back to... what is a god? Since it can be almost anything, it's like, do you believe there is something or other somewhere? To which I'd have to say, yeah, probably.

I know a lot about people and human behaviour though, and how much crap people are prepared to believe with little or no evidence. It's really sad, because those people are dead easy to take advantage of.

[bennyboy]

Coming from a scientific background, the default position is disbelief, and then when you have enough evidence to convince you, you start believing. Just because a hypothesis is illl defined or completely untestable, doesn't mean I should change my disbelief stance. This is what I understand as Atheism.

To me, the default position is ignorance. Then, someone formulates a problem and puts it to you, and you take a position based on what information you've collected. If I ask you "Do you believe in bubuons?" are you more likely to declare that you lack that belief, or simply to ask for the question to be resolved: "Bubuons? What are those?"

I think there are many forces, and possibly even entities, in the universe so grand relative to humans that we'd be willing to call them gods. There are experiences so powerful that the choice of whether to call them "religious" is more semantics than anything else-- certainly, some of us here have had experiences that others would call religious. I've also heard morons talk about Sky Daddy, or think that because they won a raffle, they "knew" God was looking over them. So if you ask "Do you believe in God," the answer is yes/no/maybe. But, to me, that inability to resolve a question into a single answer is a good reason to take the position that I simply do not know the answer.