-1 Corinthians 14:34
Starting with this post, all posts will be preceded be a Bible, Torah, Book of Mormon, or Quran quote. I will have mostly Bible quotes (including those from books which are also included in the Torah) because I have not yet read through the Quran fully.
Most people think of atheists as people who say "There is no god. I accept the theory of evolution, and I am pro-choice." This is a misguided view of atheism. Most people think of agnosticism as a religion, when it is really more of a school of thought. In this post I hope to clear up some misconceptions and misunderstandings on what atheism and agnosticism are, and what they entail.
First, what is atheism? Atheism is a rejection of claims for the existence of one or more gods. That's it. We, as atheists, do not necessarily claim that there are definitively no gods (I will get more into this later), rather we make the assertion that there is not adequate evidence present for us to believe that there is a god as defined by modern religions. Note that just because someone is atheist, that does not require that they accept evolution, nor does it mandate that they take any particular stance on the issues of abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. Atheism is not a religion, and therefore does not carry the obligatory opinions that religions do, rather it is a nonacceptance of the god claims that various religions make. Atheism is, and only is, the lack of a belief in a god.
What is agnosticism? Contrary to the understanding of many, it is not a stance between theism and atheism, in any way. When asked, "Do you believe in a god?" the answer is either 'yes' (which is theism) or 'no' (which is atheism). That is all theism and atheism are; answers to that question. It is a yes or no question, and there are no in betweens. Either you do or don't believe in a god. Everyone is either a theist or an atheist. When asked the question, "Are you entirely certain of your previous answer?" then you may respond yes or no. Responding 'yes' makes you gnostic. This could mean gnostic theist, someone who claims to know there is a god, as religions such as Christianity and Islam demand. This could also mean gnostic atheist, someone who claims to know there is no god. In either case, a claim to knowledge should and must be justified, via either logic, reasoning, evidence, etc. If you responded 'no' then you are agnostic. This could mean an agnostic theist, someone who believes there is a god but is not sure, however they are more inclined to believe there is a god. It could also mean agnostic atheist, which is someone who does not believe a god exists, but they do not claim to know for certain. Everyone, including you, is one of the following:
-gnostic theist
-agnostic theist
-gnostic atheist
-agnostic atheist
Another way to view this is the following. If I ask you the question, "Are you genetically a man?" the answer is either yes or no. If I ask you, "Are you at least six feet tall?" the answer is either yes or no. Everyone is one of the following; there are no other options (we will call people above six feet 'tall'):
-tall man
-short man
-tall woman
-short woman
When in a court trial, you do not at first know whether or not they are innocent or guilty, but you believe one way or the other. Either you believe they are innocent or you believe they are guilty; you are agnostic at this point in the trial with respect to the innocence of the defendant. If evidence for the contrary is presented, it is your obligation to admit you were in the wrong and accept the evidence. Once you have full evidence to know the verdict for sure, then you are gnostic with respect to that verdict.
I am an agnostic atheist, and so is the majority of the atheist community. This point of view entails that I do not believe in a god because there has not yet been sufficient evidence presented to give me a reason to do so. If proper, valid evidence of logic was provided which showed that such a god does exist, then I would obviously accept it. As an agnostic, i do not claim that the existence of a god is impossible. There is an important distinction to be made between the following two statements, my stance being that of the former:
"I do not believe there is a god."
and
"I believe there are no gods."
I am not making a claim. Rather, I am stating that there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a god does exist, and therefore I do not believe it. Theism makes a claim, a claim that a god exists. Atheism says this claim is not adequately supported. This brings me to the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies upon whatever party is making a positive claim. This party must provide proof that their claim is true, or else it is most sensible to assume it false. A person can claim that he has a pet dragon that does not interact with the world in any way, only he can see the dragon, and it makes cat noises in his ear. He cannot prove that this dragon exists. Now, I do not have to disprove the existence of that dragon in order to reasonably state that that dragon does not exist. I don't have to prove that the dragon doesn't exist because he is the one making the claim. The burden of proof lies on him.
Hopefully this post will clear up some confusion and misconceptions about atheism, agnosticism, and the burden of proof. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Atheism in and of itself does not have any other viewpoints in any other subject matters. Agnosticism versus gnosticism is merely whether or not one is claiming to have knowledge of the truth of their claim. The burden of proof lies on the person making a claim. If someone claims that a god exists, it is their job to prove it. Likewise, if someone makes the claim that no gods exist, they are also making a positive claim, and therefore they would have to provide proof as well.
Most people think of atheists as people who say "There is no god. I accept the theory of evolution, and I am pro-choice." This is a misguided view of atheism. Most people think of agnosticism as a religion, when it is really more of a school of thought. In this post I hope to clear up some misconceptions and misunderstandings on what atheism and agnosticism are, and what they entail.
First, what is atheism? Atheism is a rejection of claims for the existence of one or more gods. That's it. We, as atheists, do not necessarily claim that there are definitively no gods (I will get more into this later), rather we make the assertion that there is not adequate evidence present for us to believe that there is a god as defined by modern religions. Note that just because someone is atheist, that does not require that they accept evolution, nor does it mandate that they take any particular stance on the issues of abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. Atheism is not a religion, and therefore does not carry the obligatory opinions that religions do, rather it is a nonacceptance of the god claims that various religions make. Atheism is, and only is, the lack of a belief in a god.
What is agnosticism? Contrary to the understanding of many, it is not a stance between theism and atheism, in any way. When asked, "Do you believe in a god?" the answer is either 'yes' (which is theism) or 'no' (which is atheism). That is all theism and atheism are; answers to that question. It is a yes or no question, and there are no in betweens. Either you do or don't believe in a god. Everyone is either a theist or an atheist. When asked the question, "Are you entirely certain of your previous answer?" then you may respond yes or no. Responding 'yes' makes you gnostic. This could mean gnostic theist, someone who claims to know there is a god, as religions such as Christianity and Islam demand. This could also mean gnostic atheist, someone who claims to know there is no god. In either case, a claim to knowledge should and must be justified, via either logic, reasoning, evidence, etc. If you responded 'no' then you are agnostic. This could mean an agnostic theist, someone who believes there is a god but is not sure, however they are more inclined to believe there is a god. It could also mean agnostic atheist, which is someone who does not believe a god exists, but they do not claim to know for certain. Everyone, including you, is one of the following:
-gnostic theist
-agnostic theist
-gnostic atheist
-agnostic atheist
Another way to view this is the following. If I ask you the question, "Are you genetically a man?" the answer is either yes or no. If I ask you, "Are you at least six feet tall?" the answer is either yes or no. Everyone is one of the following; there are no other options (we will call people above six feet 'tall'):
-tall man
-short man
-tall woman
-short woman
When in a court trial, you do not at first know whether or not they are innocent or guilty, but you believe one way or the other. Either you believe they are innocent or you believe they are guilty; you are agnostic at this point in the trial with respect to the innocence of the defendant. If evidence for the contrary is presented, it is your obligation to admit you were in the wrong and accept the evidence. Once you have full evidence to know the verdict for sure, then you are gnostic with respect to that verdict.
I am an agnostic atheist, and so is the majority of the atheist community. This point of view entails that I do not believe in a god because there has not yet been sufficient evidence presented to give me a reason to do so. If proper, valid evidence of logic was provided which showed that such a god does exist, then I would obviously accept it. As an agnostic, i do not claim that the existence of a god is impossible. There is an important distinction to be made between the following two statements, my stance being that of the former:
"I do not believe there is a god."
and
"I believe there are no gods."
I am not making a claim. Rather, I am stating that there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a god does exist, and therefore I do not believe it. Theism makes a claim, a claim that a god exists. Atheism says this claim is not adequately supported. This brings me to the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies upon whatever party is making a positive claim. This party must provide proof that their claim is true, or else it is most sensible to assume it false. A person can claim that he has a pet dragon that does not interact with the world in any way, only he can see the dragon, and it makes cat noises in his ear. He cannot prove that this dragon exists. Now, I do not have to disprove the existence of that dragon in order to reasonably state that that dragon does not exist. I don't have to prove that the dragon doesn't exist because he is the one making the claim. The burden of proof lies on him.
Hopefully this post will clear up some confusion and misconceptions about atheism, agnosticism, and the burden of proof. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Atheism in and of itself does not have any other viewpoints in any other subject matters. Agnosticism versus gnosticism is merely whether or not one is claiming to have knowledge of the truth of their claim. The burden of proof lies on the person making a claim. If someone claims that a god exists, it is their job to prove it. Likewise, if someone makes the claim that no gods exist, they are also making a positive claim, and therefore they would have to provide proof as well.
 |
| irreligion.org |
Ah, but the reason that so many believe in the top diagram above (the linear one) is the fuzziness of the line between agnostic theism and agnostic atheism. In a court case, if the judge is uncertain whether the defendant is innocent or guilty, does it matter which way they are leaning? You could describe the judge as being in four states:
ReplyDeleteInnocent
Probably Innocent
Probably Guilty
Guilty
but more likely, you would describe him in three:
Innocent
Guilty
Undecided
Though the judge knows which way he is leaning, he is unlikely to say as much. Similarly, when describing one's beliefs, it is mostly irrelevant whether you are leaning towards belief in god or disbelief, and therefore, the first graph is not completely inaccurate.
No, and its also not completely innacurate to draw a giraffe and say it displays the solar system. You can find ways in which it is correct, but fundamentally it is erroneous. There may not be a clear distinction but that does not mean there isn't one. I am an agnostic atheist, but I am nowhere near saying "I believe there is a god, but I'm not sure." They are fundamentally different.
ReplyDeleteYou can't force people to calculate the weight of an apple using Einstein's equations. Though it may technically be more correct than Newton's, in most situations, that will not matter. I'm not saying that it is correct to use the top model - its not - and if it really mattered, you should always use the bottom. But there's no reason to make that distinction in everyday religious debate.
ReplyDeleteAnother point - to what extend does someone have to believe to be 100% gnostic? Very few people so certain that God exists that they won't buy life insurance and very few are so certain that He doesn't that they desecrate religion for fun. Your boundaries are too hard, Ryan, fuzzy them up a little bit. There's not as much difference between most of those categories as you would like to believe. Just sayin'.
Perhaps in many cases it may be even beneficial to use the upper model. My point is that it is flawed. The purpose of this blog is to better educate people about what atheism etc really are. True, you can calculate the weight of something using Newton's equations, but if you're going to be launching a rocket, you need Einstein's. Likewise, I am presenting what these terms actually mean, to prevent ad hoc excuses from coming up. Regardless of what someone calls himself, he does fall into one of these categories. If he is a true follower of most modern-day religions, then he does fall under the category of gnostic, and therefore must provide evidence of his claim. If the person cannot provide this evidence, then at the very least they are agnostic, in which case they are admitting that they have an unjustified belief, which is nothing more than a belief. Buying life insurance has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a god exists. And there is a difference, even if people do not use the terms correctly in many cases. They are binary positions. Either you believe or you don't. Either you claim to be 100% certain, or you accept that you could be wrong, ie. you have doubts, even if they are minuscule.
ReplyDeleteOk as long as we have it straight that we aren't using this aggressively, e.g. "your point is wrong because it doesn't fit my four-quadrant definition of agnosticism" or something.
ReplyDeleteMy example regarding life insurance was meant as a statement of "I know that I am close enough to God and he will protect me that I am not worried about my death".
And very few things in life are ever 100% certain.
I agree, and this is why I'm not a gnostic atheist. However a massive number of theists claim to be certain of their beliefs. Also, you can be 100% certain that a spherical cube does not exist. Likewise, an invisible pink unicorn does not exist. I am 100% certain. The definition contradicts itself. The same can be said of an omnipotent omni-benevolent omniscient perfect being who created humans with free will. It it self contradictory, and therefore no entities can exist which satisfy this definition.
ReplyDeleteBasically, it depends upon how you define your god, and what actions you attribute to him.
ReplyDeletemake that a new post, we're getting off topic here
ReplyDeleteI'll get to it eventually xD I've only had this blog for three days.
ReplyDelete