David Horton, at the Huffington Post, had a piece a few days ago in which he proclaimed that there is no middle ground between a belief in God and atheism: he has no room for agnostics. Unfortunately, the HuffPost has no room for comments, at least from those who don't sign up with an account with them, and I hate having to have accounts here there and everywhere. So I have to respond in public, here.
To an extent, I agree with him. I have no truck with agnostics. At least, in the Huxleyian sense of the word: in its original meaning agnosticism was the belief that it was and would forever remain impossible to know whether there was a God. And that is a position I don't hold: it is clear to me that if God doesn't exist then it is highly likely we will never be able to disprove her existence (so on one side, I side with the atheists): on the other, however, I maintain that if there was a God, she certainly could prove to us her existence. Or at least demonstrate it to an extent that we'd have more reason to believe it than to believe, say, that the sun would rise tomorrow. So, I don't hold that it is impossible to know.
Of course, Horton more likely had in mind the wishy-washy group of whom I'm a proud member: a group who choose not to say "I believe in God": I've seen no personal evidence for one, and have not got a solid reason (other than cultural and heritage) to choose one particular incarnation of a description of a supreme being over another: indeed, the multitude of different belief structures around is one of the reasons I see not to be persuaded by any of them. Each proclaims that they are the way, the tao, etc. Most of them are not the way (a fact which most theists are happy to proclaim: they are just reluctant to include their own beliefs in that unfortunately large group!)
On the flip side, however, I am not an atheist. To me, atheism is a positive belief --- in the non-existence of a supreme being: and again, to me, to believe in such a thing, I need evidence. And as the old saw goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So I choose not to be an atheist. Merely disinterested in the whole thing.
Except, of course, when it impinges on my life: when others attempt to impose their beliefs on me, to change the way I live. Please don't be offended, but I have no wish to say "so help me God" at any point in a legal proceeding: nor have I any wish to include "under God" in the saying of the pledge of allegiance of which this country is so proud.
The world is a mysterious, amazing place, full of magic and wonder: but I don't need to invoke the supernatural to explain our lack of understanding. I'll proclaim that loud and proud. But I don't need to say "I'm an atheist" to do so.
Yours, toasting irrelevance,
N.
To an extent, I agree with him. I have no truck with agnostics. At least, in the Huxleyian sense of the word: in its original meaning agnosticism was the belief that it was and would forever remain impossible to know whether there was a God. And that is a position I don't hold: it is clear to me that if God doesn't exist then it is highly likely we will never be able to disprove her existence (so on one side, I side with the atheists): on the other, however, I maintain that if there was a God, she certainly could prove to us her existence. Or at least demonstrate it to an extent that we'd have more reason to believe it than to believe, say, that the sun would rise tomorrow. So, I don't hold that it is impossible to know.
Of course, Horton more likely had in mind the wishy-washy group of whom I'm a proud member: a group who choose not to say "I believe in God": I've seen no personal evidence for one, and have not got a solid reason (other than cultural and heritage) to choose one particular incarnation of a description of a supreme being over another: indeed, the multitude of different belief structures around is one of the reasons I see not to be persuaded by any of them. Each proclaims that they are the way, the tao, etc. Most of them are not the way (a fact which most theists are happy to proclaim: they are just reluctant to include their own beliefs in that unfortunately large group!)
On the flip side, however, I am not an atheist. To me, atheism is a positive belief --- in the non-existence of a supreme being: and again, to me, to believe in such a thing, I need evidence. And as the old saw goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So I choose not to be an atheist. Merely disinterested in the whole thing.
Except, of course, when it impinges on my life: when others attempt to impose their beliefs on me, to change the way I live. Please don't be offended, but I have no wish to say "so help me God" at any point in a legal proceeding: nor have I any wish to include "under God" in the saying of the pledge of allegiance of which this country is so proud.
The world is a mysterious, amazing place, full of magic and wonder: but I don't need to invoke the supernatural to explain our lack of understanding. I'll proclaim that loud and proud. But I don't need to say "I'm an atheist" to do so.
Yours, toasting irrelevance,
N.
4 comments:
Samuel Skinner
Once again I am going to have to say this- agnosticism is a knowledge position- atheism and theism are belief positions. If you don't believe in god, but you aren't certain, than you are an atheist agnostic. People who claim they are "pure" agnostics don't know what they are talking about.
And for the record I am a strong (non-agnostic) atheist.
I do not claim to be pure, nor do I choose the label agnostic. As I said above, Huxley defined agnostic in a way that certainly doesn't describe my position.
I understand the proper use of the word atheist as follows: an atheist is a believer in the non-existence of a god. The fact that I do not believe in the existence of god should not be read to imply that I believe in the non-existence of god.
I have ample lack of evidence for the former position. I lack evidence completely for the latter.
More to the point, I simply do not care enough to choose to (misuse the labels and) call myself an atheist. I have no beef with theists, most of them, nor with atheists, most of them, not with the large number of people who have a similar position to mine.
I think that I understand your point. I think perhaps that you may have misunderstood mine. Either way, I am not sure that I think that it matters too much.
N.
there is no god .. therefore ... what's the problem in saying that? People of all faiths are more than ready to declare the existence of some god or the other. I reckon it's time to say 'NO'. God is clearly a construct of the human mind. It's time to recognise it as such.
Samuel Skinner
An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in god. I know it doesn't mean you are a stong atheist (you don't believe there are no gods), but it makes you a weak atheist (you don't believe in any gods).
Basically, this is a vocab fight. We are arguing about definition.
So lets try to clear it up.
You- don't believe in gods.
Don't not believe in gods.
Therefore you are an atheist agnostic (someone who doesn't believe in gods, but doesn't claim they don't exist).
Yes I know you don't agree with Huxley's definition. Unfortunately it appears to be the current definition for agnostic. You are going to have to choose a label. Either you are a believer (theist) or a nonbeliever (atheist). Don't you love binary choices?
Post a Comment