July 15, 2007
Soft Atheist, Hard Agnostic
Welcome Stumblers! This post seems to keep getting “stumbled” upon, so I just thought I’d leave this note to say, “Hi”, and please feel free to check out some of my other posts - the most popular ones are listed down the side of this page. Also feel free to subscribe via RSS if you like what you read. Also, I welcome comments/criticisms, so don’t be shy!
While I was watching a documentary on the history of religion recently, my sister said to me “but aren’t you an Atheist?”1 At the time I replied, “no, I’m Agnostic”. It has made me think, however, about the nature of Atheism and Agnosticism.
While I generally describe myself as “agnostic”, and avoid describing myself as “atheist”, I could be viewed as both, depending on your definitions. As there seem to be many different views on what Atheism and Agnosticism entails, let me be very clear about what I take the meaning of these words to be.
Belief
Definitions for both Atheism and Agnosticism rely on the notion of “belief”, which itself can be contentious at times. For my purposes, when I say “belief”, I refer “to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true”2 Belief, here, does not imply any lack of certainty - even though it might sometimes in common usage.
Atheism
Atheism, it seems, can mean many things - but broadly it seems to fit one of two definitions:
The first definition is the one which I had always taken (I’ll call this “hard” Atheism), and it is why I have never described myself as an “Atheist”. To me, to hold a belief that these is no god is just as illogical as a belief that there is a God - possibly even more so. While it may (hypothetically) be possible one day to prove that there is a God (perhaps he shows himself in some incontestable way, or we find a scientific method for exploring “heaven”) proving the universal non-existence of something is impossible (we can prove something doesn’t exist in one place - say, a box that’s empty - but proving universal non-existence is very different).
The second (”soft”) definition of Atheism, however, is one I’d not been aware of until the last year or so. It seems this definition is common among Atheists, but in my experience it is certainly not the generally understood definition of Atheism. In this definition, Atheism is not the opposite to theism or religion, but an absence of it. It is in this sense that I am an Atheist, although without qualification, I still feel the word “atheist” misrepresents my views.
Agnosticism
This is where we get to Agnosticism. Agnostic means, literally, “without knowledge” and as such an Agnostic holds they they have no knowledge about the existence of God. This is not necessarily a “fence sitting” position, however, as Agnosticism (like Atheism) can be viewed in two subtly different ways:
Certainly using this first definition (”soft” agnosticism), one could argue that the holder of this world-view is “fence sitting” - possibly still exploring or reasoning to discover the truth, or perhaps unable or unwilling to. But again, the second definition offers an entirely different position. A “hard” agnostic does not simply doubt the existence of God (and may, in fact, have faith that there is a God) but makes the claim that it is impossible to ever know if God does or does not exist.
When I describe myself as “Agnostic”, I make the claim that it is impossible to know if any of the Gods described by traditional religions exist. I am also, however, open to the idea that perhaps “God” (if he exists) is nothing like that described by traditional religion, and therefore may one day be provable. For me, the problem with the traditional notions of God are that proponents of these Gods leave no way to ever truly prove his existence - as the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy joke goes:
“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says Man, “The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
The Christian God, therefore, will always be out of the reach of science because as soon as it becomes answerable by science (no matter what the outcome), God will be relegated (by some, at least) to an even further “far away place ” so as to ensure the existence of God can never be proven.
So in this sense, I am a “hard” agnostic when it comes to Gods like that of Christianity (only because no one is willing to say exactly where this God might exist) but a “soft” agnostic when it comes to other possible higher powers. Either way, the existence of any such higher power seems unlikely (but certainly not impossible).
- I’ll ignore the obvious issue with the suggestion that Atheists aren’t allowed to have an interest in religion… for now. [↩]
- Schwitzgebel, Eric, “Belief“, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2006 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). [↩]
- WordNet Definition: Atheism [↩]
- WordNet Definition: Agnosticism [↩]
Posts
JR said,
July 15, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Nicely put. It is sad, however, that most theists wouldn’t bother to read it, and thus will continue to knee-jerk against anything that threatens their fairy world.
Richard said,
July 16, 2007 at 12:44 am
Don’t say that! You’ll kill the fairies!
Mike said,
July 19, 2007 at 12:35 am
After reading this post, I kind of view myself as fitting to both definitions of atheism, and the second of agnosticism. Actually, I am having trouble differentiating between the atheist definitions and that second agnostic definition. I just think that a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God and the doctrine or belief that there is no God, or a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods all mean the same thing: you don’t believe in god, whether that is christ , ala, zeus, or hoobojulu the spirit of the trees…any god whatsoever. JR’s comment is also true, my own parents are pretty strict christians, and anything not in the bible or told to them by their pastor is just plain nonsense, and they are really really close-minded to other ideas or alternatives.
Richard said,
July 19, 2007 at 1:03 am
The second agnostic definition claims, not that god does or does not exist, but that it is IMPOSSIBLE to really know. I think it’s a difficult distinction to make sometimes, but it’s certainly quite different to any atheistic stance (which is more about belief).
I think a lot of the “anti-atheism” (which, thankfully, I’ve experienced very little) out there comes down to a misunderstanding of what we mean when we use the words, so I think it’s important to make these distinctions.
Thanks for your comments!
20 gram Soul : Conversations with God said,
July 22, 2007 at 8:33 pm
[...] with traditional religions (which is probably a good thing!). I mentioned in my previous post “Soft Atheist, Hard Agnostic”, that I am a “soft” agnostic when it comes to “spiritual” gods or other [...]
JohnnieCanuck said,
July 23, 2007 at 7:48 am
I consider myself an atheist - strong, hard; close enough. I can’t prove there are no gods, but the chance that there are is not worth considering. That doesn’t mean that such a belief should be held without the possibility of revision. I acknowledge that should an entity make an appearance in such a way as to prove its godhood, I must then believe. In the meantime, I live my life as if gods do not exist and none is ever going to be detected.
Surely most people who choose to label themselves agnostic rather than atheist actually live their lives as if gods do not exist. They neither worship, pray nor look to gods for moral authority. Functionally they are atheists. I suspect most are simply avoiding the negative baggage loaded onto the term by religionists.
I am intrigued by the idea that theist or atheist is a binary condition, period. Whether you are sure or not, you are either pregnant or apregnant. There is no third halfway kind of option.
In this context gnostic and agnostic are also binary. One claims it is possible to know or not-know something, and this exhausts the possibilities.
This leaves us with four states to consider - 00, 01, 10 and 11. Since I contend that few, if any atheists claim to know (with proof) that there are no gods, the majority of atheists are agnostics. In spite of an historical use of the label Gnostic which was declared a heresy, I would say that modern religionists who claim their holy texts as proof, are gnostic theists.
However, humans being what we are, most of us will be seeking nuances to distinguish ourselves from others.
Richard said,
July 23, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Johnnie,
Certainly a clear and interesting way of looking at things, but I think what I was trying to highlight is that - yes, for any one definition of atheism or agnosticism, it’s certainly a binary condition - the problem is, that there are different accepted definitions!
Another example, perhaps - you’re either a Christian, or you’re not (binary condition), but that doesn’t make all Christians equal. Christian can mean Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Church of Christ, 7th Day Adventist, etc., etc. - None of these churches (I’d assume?) would agree on the definition of “Christian”.
kumarei said,
July 24, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I used to believe something similar to what you believe, until I discovered that your definition of “Hard” atheism is actually something almost nonexistent, at least in the circles of atheists that look at the issue with any thought. The people thought of as “militant” atheists certainly don’t hold this belief, in fact Dawkins hardly gives the position mention in his book “The God Delusion”. As far as I can tell, the “Hard” atheism position that you define here seems to exist mostly in people who don’t really think about religion, or in strawman arguments constructed by the religious right to pretend that Atheism is a religious viewpoint, despite the fact that it is the clear lack of belief (or rather, faith).
What separates atheism from agnosticism is the understanding that although it is possible that there is a god, the probability is not equal to the probability that there is not. Like the teapot in space or the invisible pink unicorn, any claims regarding its existence should be met with extreme skepticism, as there is no evidence to support it, and ample evidence that it is in fact unnecessary in our reckoning of the world.
It would be somewhat arrogant and unscientific to claim absolutely that there is no god. In science, everything is a theory, including the things that have so much support that it is nearly unthinkable that they will be proven wrong (e.g. gravity, evolution). It is with this mindset that atheists define themselves by their lack of faith in the unknowable. There is no evidence for it, so, like any other theory which seems to have no credentials, we feel perfectly reasonable in handling it as a slight probability (so slight as to be dismissible) until someone has succeeded in showing otherwise.
kumarei said,
July 24, 2007 at 4:05 pm
In addendum, few atheists tend to have a problem with people who conceive of the universe as “god” (e.g. Einstein), or who hold that it is possible that there is some as yet undefined force in the universe that may exist that is beyond our current knowledge. I think that we would deny, though, that either would be supernatural. By definition, anything supernatural could have no effect on us, or else it would move into the realm of natural. Because of this, we can discount the supernatural with a nice swing of occam’s razor: any supernatural being would by necessity have no measurable effect on the natural world, so there is no reason to posit one, beyond philosophical ponderings.
In fact, many atheists really don’t have a problem with any beliefs, although we reserve the right to think they’re a bit silly. The problem comes when others attempt to apply these beliefs in a way that effects others (e.g. restricting gay rights, using texts as an excuse to abuse women, blowing people up) that most of us have a problem with.
Richard said,
July 24, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Kumarei,
I agree with you completely. My reasons for not generally identifying myself as atheist are simply because of the common misunderstanding that Athiem IS necessarily this “hard” type - I realise that it’s an uncommon view, and I certainly agree that this position would be a completely unscientific one. As I said in the post to hold a belief that these is no god is just as illogical as a belief that there is a God - possibly even more so. I suppose I really have no reason to NOT identify myself as atheist, simply for convenience - if someone wants to have an in-depth discussion about my views, I’ll happily define atheism, and pledge my allegiance to it (so to speak).
I also like the way you’ve worded your second comment - atheists not having problems with a naturalistic “god”. It’s something I’ve tried to articulate in posts like How Rudy Rucker Showed Me God - if you haven’t already, have a read, and let me know what you think.
Thanks for your thoughts!
kumarei said,
July 24, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Again, while it’s obviously possible that there is some naturalistic higher power (and by definition, any power that interacts with reality must have some naturalistic component), there isn’t much more reason to accept that than a totally supernatural god. Until there is evidence, it’s all dinner-table philosophy, which is very fun and interesting, but tends to have little hold in the measurable world.
What Einstein did was use “god” as a metaphor for the patterns and complexities of the universe. “God” for him was natural process, something which he believed was very deterministic (one of the reasons for the infamous quote, “God does not play dice with the universe”). And while it’s perfectly natural to posit that there is (or was) other life out there, whose boundaries are currently undefined due to our lack of knowledge, it’s also true that this knowledge is not really very useful. At present it’s easiest to make a couple of statements on the subject, and then leave it hang:
1) We do not know everything about the universe
2) That does not mean that we should give up trying and make up whatever we feel like. As long as there are more things to measure, we will come up with more ways to measure things
Please don’t take this as a disregard for fiction or wonder. I hope to write the former in the future, and I certainly hold great reserves of the latter, but I think that fiction is an exploration of the self far more than it is an exploration of the other, and that wonder only grows as you see and understand more of how the universe works.
eye-of-horus said,
July 25, 2007 at 6:02 am
There’s no need to agree with theists or deists or agnostics that gods’ non-existence can not be established. When they refer to god(s) to what (if anything) are they referring?
That is, the statement ‘the god X exists’ can be shown to be false. It’s up to claimants to specify just what concept of god they’re playing with. (Dealing with an irrationalist or a mystic requires different approaches not discussed here.)
Some concepts are simply inconsistent. For example is the concept of god X just like the concept of the round-square? “The” round-square does not exist because its (supposed) concept is incoherent.
In the Middle Ages an attempt was made to explicate “the” concept of God’s omnipresence by recourse to an analogy drawn from plane geometry. God is like . . . a circle whose circumference is nowhere and whose center is everywhere. Clever stuff.
But there can be no such circle. Among closed plane figures, the circle shares the property of always being finite. The analogy backfires — well if God’s omnipresence is like that; then, there can be no such God.
A different approach to showing conceptual limits of any concept of God also comes from the Middle Ages. “Can an omnipotent God create a stone too big for Him to lift?” To say either yes or no immediately implies that God is not omnipotent. And, consequently, not the god of the so-called big 3 monotheisms.
Language here is being misused. Adjectives are always relative to some context. A context free absolute adjective describes nothing. Stretching language past it limits is a commonplace in discourse about gods. A related gambit is to claim that the word ‘good’ when applied to some alleged divinity does not mean the same thing as ‘good’ when applied to human acts.
Obviously, most theists or deists won’t immediately offer up lucid concepts of god. Though the panto-divinity: all powerful, all knowing, all merciful, will often make His (Her, Its) appearance. This conjunction of attributes is easy to undermine. Epicurus did so 300 years BCE — that is, two thousand three hundred years ago. Too bad Jesus didn’t get a proper education in philosophy.
Xianity has spent so much time trying to shore up a failed pantocrator that there’s even a name for this branch of theological special pleading, theodicy.
Can the negation of an existential claim be proved. Sure. Yaweh, God, and Allah simply do not exist because they can not exist.
eye-of-horus
copyright asserted 2007
Richard said,
July 26, 2007 at 12:36 am
Eye of Horus,
Thanks for your detailed comment. While I said theists tend to not give a clear picture on where their supposed God is (and thus, we can never prove it’s universal non existence), I suppose I also meant to say that they don’t ever fully describe the nature of their God, which clearly leads to the problems you mentioned.
Sure, if some theist wants to provide a “lucid” concept of God, then we’ll probably be able to refute it (if not immediately, eventually). The problem is, I don’t think even Yaweh or Allah are defined in such a way!
Kumarei,
I’m not going to disagree with anything you’ve said, I have read a bit about Einstein, and I find his views very interesting.
While I’m not disagreeing that there’s little reason to accept some naturalistic higher power, there’s certainly some interesting possibilities to consider.
kumarei said,
July 26, 2007 at 2:43 am
God yes there are.
Richard said,
July 26, 2007 at 7:42 pm
That does my head in…
kumarei said,
July 27, 2007 at 1:25 am
Speaking of which…
The Last Question
kevin said,
July 27, 2007 at 8:33 am
chrisitanity has an unusually strong defense mechanism……. anything that disputes it or questions it is ………….. OF THE DEVIL. the devil put doubt in your mind…… and if you doubt gods eternal UNCONDITIONAL LOVE… he will burn you FOREVER… so……
rivalarrival said,
July 28, 2007 at 7:45 am
Spot on!
The etymological definition of Atheism means “lacking theism”.
Something that lacks “belief in god” is atheistic.
The antonym of Atheism is Theism. The two are mutually exclusive and together, these terms can be used as attributes for everything.
The etymological definition of Agnosticism means “Lacking Gnosticism”
Gnosticism means “possessing spiritual or intellectual knowledge”
This leads to 4 classifications:
Atheist-Agnostic: the “Soft” atheism you described, generally referred to as “weak” atheism
Atheist-Gnostic: Strong (Hard) Atheism. They claim to KNOW that god does not exist.
Theist-Agnostic: “I don’t know if god exists, but I’m afraid of him” Most Americans fall into this category. They believe in God but understand that God’s existence can’t be discovered thought and thus don’t try to do that.
Theist-Gnostic: Christian Fundamentalists would be a good example. Their knowledge of God’s Existence is based entirely on the Biblical accounts, and those biblical accounts can be used to “prove” God’s existence.
The way you have described your point of view parallels my own, and appears to be the predominant viewpoint in the atheist community. I myself identify as Atheist.
To me, the root issue is belief. Every “proof” of the Christian God’s existence boils down to a fundamental assumption (belief) that God exists. Christianity is simply an intricate, detailed fairytale wrapped around that belief, and it falls apart completely when that core assumption cannot be demonstrated.
Richard said,
July 28, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Most atheists I’ve met/talked to seem to have the “soft” atheist stance, but the problem is that most NON-atheists (is that a double negative?) seem to have the view that atheism is always the “hard” type. I think that’s why I’m careful (?reluctant?) to identify myself as atheist, simply because it’s easily misunderstood.
I also think that most Christians don’t even think about “proof”. Sure, they can “prove” the existence of god through circular reasoning, but I think most don’t even bother to do that. If you read through the comments on my post misquoting jesus you’ll see some comments by Scavella, who I would view as one of the small number of Christians who even bother to think about their views. While I obviously disagree with those views, I usually have less problem with people who can justify their beliefs with at least SOME semi-rational argument.
rivalarrival said,
July 29, 2007 at 7:02 am
Richard:
By definition, non-atheists would be theists.
I’ve repeated the argument I made in my last comment probably 50 times over the past couple years.
Thanks to Dawkins et al, the “Default Stance” variety of Atheism (Weak atheism, referred to as “soft” atheism by the author of this post) is beginning to be understood as the mainstream variant.
I disagree with your statement about Christians needing “proof” - when you use the term “proof” in its non-scientific sense. the clergy are always speaking about demonstrations of God’s nature, and offering solutions as to why it is inconsistent (Mysterious Ways) They claim that Faith is enough, but they sure go out of their way to imagine God’s Hand in everything.
I do agree, that most Christians don’t even bother to consider their viewpoints. They are - LITERALLY - fed Christianity from Cradle to Grave. And, when they do consider their beliefs and have a “crisis of faith” they are surrounded by family and clergy who are only supportive of regaining that faith.
Richard said,
July 29, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I think you’re right that Dawkins is helping the public awareness of atheism being weak/soft (I really should have looked up his book to figure out what he called it before I wrote that post), but I think the general public (particularly theists) still have the view that atheism is necessarily the other definition.
And re: Christians needing proof. I think we’re both right - Christians might claim anything they see as being “proof” of God, but at the same time they’ll quite happily admit that they don’t need it.
CursedPerfection said,
July 30, 2007 at 3:57 am
Good Posts. I consider myself an Agnostic, as I believe neither way and that the knowledge of god is (possibly) something the human race should not be allowed to handle.
rivalarrival said,
July 30, 2007 at 9:24 am
CursedPerfection,
By definition, the phrase “I believe neither way” is indicative of atheism, at least how Weak Atheists use the term.
Atheism covers a spectrum ranging from “I have no beliefs regarding gods” to “There is no god”
A rock has no beliefs either way; it would be Atheistic because it does not (cannot) explicitly believe in God. Same thing with a baby or the mentally impaired.
Agnosticism and Atheism are (or at least should be) completely separate issues, one concerning itself with Belief and the other concerning itself with Knowledge.
Richard said,
July 30, 2007 at 11:59 am
RivalArrival - Thanks for the reply. Saves me having to do it!
That said, CursedPerfection also says that “the knowledge of god is something the human race should not be allowed to handle” - this could be interpreted as agnosticism. So, perhaps Cursed Perfection is a weak/soft atheist and a hard/strong agnostic!
I also just saw recently a distinction between “implicit” and “explicit” atheism. Implicit atheism would be what the rock has, or what a baby has, and explicit atheism would be of the two forms discussed above.
rivalarrival said,
July 30, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Richard,
“So, perhaps Cursed Perfection is a weak/soft atheist and a hard/strong agnostic!”
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I meant, although I should have at least paid lip-service to agnosticism in my reply.
I elaborated on my theories in myInaugural post at thejesusmyth.com.
I’m subscribing to your RSS feeds.
Richard said,
July 30, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Just going over to have a read of your post now.
Good to have you subscribing, and even better to know - I’ve tried to keep an eye on the number of rss subscribers, but it’s always nice to know who they actually are!
Arkaro said,
July 30, 2007 at 3:38 pm
The problem here is that you, and most religious people, are stuck thinking of atheism as a religion when it is most assuredly not. It is simply a label for people who do not believe in a god. There is no doctrine to adhere or dogma to trust. It is not like a religious stance at all so thinking of it in relgious terms is fallacious. Do you ponder the will of a diety while you make decisions throughout your life? No? Then no matter what else you call yourself, you are an atheist.
Furthermore, it is rather useless to force distinctions of soft to hard since the rigid definitions represent reality about as much as any other false dichotomy. Reality instead reveals the position as an almost infinite variation in shades of gray.
Are you also agnostic? Sure.. none of us know anything to be 100% true, no matter how much we want to believe that we can. We’re all technically agnostics.. which is why I think the term is rather meaningless other than to express some trite stance of humility.
Another argument against agnosticism is the term’s complete dismissal of the existence of gnosticism.. since it is defined not from the stance of the root but from either ignorance or misunderstanding of the term’s religious useage. Were agnosticism not in the same field of philosophy & beliefs, it would be slightly more acceptable to take such liberties.
Of course, neither the terms atheism or agnosticism tell you anything very meaningful about the individual.. which is why I prefer to consider myself a Secular Humanist (also a bit of a redundancy except for the intentional emphasis on the political position of Secularism).
Richard said,
July 30, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Arkaro,
Assuming that comment is directed at me, the author of the post, I think you might have my stance confused - I’m certainly not religious at all!
That said, I think I might have touched on some of what you’re discussing here in one of my most recent posts - “Atheist” as a label.
rivalarrival said,
July 31, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Arkaro,
There is a difference between “Dichotomy” and “False Dichotomy”
The Hard/Soft examples that Richard presents is a valid dichotomy. The two terms are subsets of Atheism as a whole.
As far as A/Gnosticism: One either possesses knowledge of God’s existence, or one does not. This is another valid dichotomy. Agnosticism is NOT in any category of Belief.
As far as whether they tell you anything “meaningful” about the individual, that depends on what you consider to be meaningful. You apparently don’t consider a person’s beliefs and knowledge about God very meaningful, that’s your prerogative. Personally, I prefer the company of people who can rationally discuss reality. I generally dislike people who live their lives as if they were part of a fantasy. A self description of Atheist and/or Agnostic speaks volumes about a person’s character, in my opinion.
Secular Humanism is a vague term, especially compared to Atheist or Agnostic. Depending on what definition you choose to use, Secular can mean several things, from non-denominational to non-religious, to Atheistic. The “human” condition can be interpreted in several ways as well. From a Christian standpoint, humans are flawed creatures. Other viewpoints could consider Humanism to be worship of humans as the most perfect entity. Vague terms.
I covered some of your points in depth Here (same link as in my last post)
Arkaro said,
August 2, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I didn’t say that you were religious.. however, I stand by my comment that it is very common for atheists (let’s take you as an example of that category) to be mired in the misconstrued perspectives of religious people. Note that I never assumed you to be in the latter camp.
Atheism is certainly a label.. and I, too, wear it proudly! I also wear the terms: agnostic, freethinker, secular humanist, pantheist (in the most vague sense), cultural christian (as being raised steeped in such a society), etc. I’m even both a hard and soft atheist in that I’m as close to being sure there is no god as I’m sure of anything else I know but I also admit that I could be wrong about it.. just as I admit the possibility of being wrong about anything.
So, given your expertise of definitions.. and even if I ignore your non-rebuttal on my false dichotomy claim (please review the logical fallacy: False Dichotomy or bifurcation).. which label would you expect me to carry? Given your argument, I should ignore all the other aspects of my knowledge and study by labeling myself with the open 0.0…01% chance of being wrong: ie: agnosticism. To boot, no one knows anything with 100% certainty.. even if they think they do, it is a false belief. Science doesn’t even “prove” anything with such determination. Even the laws of thermodynamics are (barely) open to crticism despite centuries of experiments and tests that depend on it being true.
Secular Humanism may be vague.. but no less vague than the others. If we’re going to start throwing out labels just because the possibility exists that they might lead to misunderstandings, then we might as well not call anyone anything. Naturalist - what, environmental? Rationalist - who thinks of themselves as irrational? Materialist - so you only care about personal wealth? Empericist - are we talking monarchies here? Skeptic - so you doubt your own existence? Atheist - why are you anti god/so that means you worship satan? Agnostic - you really don’t know anything, eh?
You’ve alwasy got to work at educating people when you have a different perspective. Why bother educating people by what you don’t believe.. or refuse to pretend to know or don’t know something that others believe?
Just to clear up your twisted version of the terms.. I couldn’t care less if religious people can claim the term “Secular”.. that’s the whole point of the term. I don’t consider it to be the antithesis to “Sacred”.. it just means the opposite: Not sacred, or (as I like to think of it) Irreligious. Our constitution dictates that our government takes an irreligious stance. Neither to promote nor deny personal choice of religion.. secular.
Humanism is most typically defined as atheistic or based on reason and the scientific method. Religious people will often also say that “they used to be atheists”.. and while that may be technically true, I usually take them to mean “the state before devoting to a theistic belief” which is not quite the same as my stance of atheism. So, for religious people to accidentally use the term “humanism” in religious terms simply reveals a lack of education on the term. Striving to be “humane”… and Rejecting supernaturalism, dogma, and doctrine in favor of reason, science, and human compassion are completely different takes on the same root.
And about character.. when someone says they’re Agnostic, I immediately assume open-minded,spinelessness mental carelessness. Do you pray to a god? Do you worry about making a god happy or angry with your decisions? Do you live in fear of the fate of your being after death?… If you answer no to all of these, then you are atheistic whether or not you like the label. If you answer yes to any of these, then you are in some part theistic whether or not you like the label. Hiding behind the “openminded” quality of agnosticism is pointless.. just say you’re openminded!
BTW, agnostics and gnostics *know* the exact same things about life. Their level of “knowledge* is exactly the same. However, gnostics actually think that the unknown contains god. And agnostics.. despite the root usage, has absolutely nothing to do with gnosticism. Huxley should have been kicked in the head for coining the term because it is meaningless outside of the blatent disregard for stating a position.
You’re right.. Agnosticism isn’t within a category of belief.. it’s completely outside of every possible category of anything, ie: Worthless.
Richard said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Arkaro, I’m a little confused as to who you’re points are directed at - you seem to be answering two comment posters in the one comment! (me, and rivalarrival).
That said, I think some of your points really highlight the need to be careful with definitions, and this is possibly one of the reasons I’m sometimes hesitant to describe myself as atheist or agnostic - because the words can have significantly different meanings.
rivalarrival said,
August 2, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Arkaro,
Why the hard, confrontational approach? I mean, you’ve called Agnostics spineless, careless, and worthless. (yet you did attach that label to yourself in the second paragraph) Your abusive tone doesn’t come across well.
Moving on:
“(I am) mired in the misconstrued perspectives of religious people. ”
You have not demonstrated this opinion or why you hold it. You’ve stated it a couple times, but you have not demonstrated it.
I think your second and third paragraphs revolved around the idea that we were shoehorning you into the category of Agnostic. You either meet (One of) the (many) definition(s) or your don’t.
Furthermore, even if you do meet the definition of Agnostic, that does not preclude other labels. Agnosticism refers to lack of knowledge of God’s existence. It says nothing about your beliefs. It says nothing about your intelligence. It says nothing about your favorite color. (you’re a reddist, aren’t you?) In my opinion, ALL people are Agnostic, and those that claim otherwise are deluded.
You still have not provided a definition of Secular Humanism, you’ve only said that the definitions I’ve provided are wrong. I’ve got a certain concept in my mind, but I have no desire to impose that concept on you.
In your 9th paragraph: Who are you to make a claim about other people’s knowledge?
Agnosticism and Gnosticism are terms used to state a person’s knowledge regarding God’s existence. That is a category. That you don’t consider that category important, necessary, or worthwhile is your business. I wonder why you continue to discuss it.
Arkaro said,
August 2, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Richard,
Please be a little more specific. Which comment? Some were directed to you, others to rivalarrival, and yet others about general misconceptions. If you mean being labeled an atheist, yes, I do mean you, Richard. It doesn’t matter whether you like the term or not, you are an atheist. There’s no hard or soft about it. You say so yourself in the “technical” sense.. You’ve never once professed belief in a divinity.. and you even just said “I’m certainly not religious at all!” If you need me to draw pictures, I’ll be happy to connect the dots for you.
If you don’t like how people misunderstand your labels, please stop retreating to more obscure labels, creating your own labels, or refusing to use labels at all… defend your position! Again, the only full dichotomy here is between theism and atheism. Either you fall under one or the other!
Do you worry about praying or pleasing any gods? It’s a very simple question. Even if you’re not sure.. it’s certainly a yes or no as to whether you appeal to the concept of a diety in your actions. The false dichotomy is whether you’re more of a nonbeliever (atheist) or open to being wrong (agnostic). The real dichotomy here is whether you’re atheistic agnostic or theistic agnostic. For the sake of clarity, forget gnosticism as that is actually a subset of theistic agnosticism. For more on this, please read Robert Price’s essay “Agnostic a gnostic” the premises of which every Gnostic friend I have has agreed:
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/websermons/agnosticgnostic.htm
That’s the trouble I have with the term agnosticism.. it also applies to gnosticism just as it applies to everyone! That’s why I can be agnostic yet chastise people who use the term to describe themselves. It is meaningless other than to set yourself apart as being somehow *more* open-minded as another.. but even that doesn’t really make much sense. I prefer to ignore such meaningless terms entirely.
Richard said,
August 2, 2007 at 6:09 pm
I am an atheist, I certainly agree - and I specified that in my post. I’m also agnostic, as I mentioned in my post - but I would disagree with you as to “agnostic” having no meaning, and it’s not about being “open minded”, it’s about knowledge, and whether a) you claim to have that knowledge, or b) whether you think such knowledge is possible. I think there are some people who are “gnostic” (in the sence of th opposite of my definitions of agnosticism, which I believe is the accepted modern defintion), and believe they actually “know” that god exists/doesn’t exist. yes, such people are rare, but their very existance gives the words (a)gnostic usefull meaning.
also, regarding defending my position - I do when the opportunity presents itself. however, due to common misunderstandings about the meaning of “atheist”, if I don’t have the opportunity to quality what I mean, then I tend not to use it.
Arkaro said,
August 2, 2007 at 6:21 pm
rivalarrival,
You confuse my words and take them too personally. I did not call agnostics those things.. I said I consider a person who actually resorts to solely calling themself an agnostic because of all the points I mention in my posts including the fact that it is typically used to back away from answering the question: do you believe in god? Either you do at the moment or you don’t..
What you’re really saying when you call yourself an agnostic is: “I refuse to state my current position in the case that I might change my position in the future depending on my collection of evidence at the time… in which case I may refuse to state my position at that time.” I consider this answer cop-out to be spineless and meaningless. However, please don’t take that too far! I completely grant that you may be a bold individual in other aspects of your life - just not in the topic of god belief.
About misconstrued religiocity among atheists:
There are lots of topics I could delve into here.. and I’ve already discussed a few great examples. Precisely, my first paragraph of my first post (you know… where I first mention the concept) . To be redundant, don’t fall into the trap that “atheism” is a religion. Yes, it’s an answer to the question “What is your religion?”, but the answer of “none” or “atheist” does not attach preconceived dogmas or doctrines that you must follow in order to maintain that label. It is just a label.. such as father, dad, man, husband, son, cousin, Bob, or what have you.
Perhaps one may prefer one label over another. However, this does not mean that denying the term “dad” makes your children disappear nor does one feel compelled to keep having children when their first ones grow up because the term no longer applies in some dictionaries.
The same situation is the case with agnosticism.. however the example is much more like bearing the label of “human” since it technically applies to everyone. Your comment about “shoehorning” me as an agnostic obviously confuses my point.. I am an agnostic. Again, don’t take my dislike for the label personally.. I certainly don’t. I just don’t find it to be very useful unless you’re trying to avoid answering certain questions.
Obviously, your third paragraph is an extension of your confusion of my position. The only thing I would add is that your points completely back up my position of it being a useless term to all except perhaps the deluded few who claim to know anything with 100% certainty - a very few and possibly even clinically insane demographic.
Please refer to my second post, paragraphs 6 & 7 for quite clear breakdown of the term as I consider it. Also see a shortened version at Richard’s post on “Atheist as a Label”:
http://20gramsoul.com/2007/07/30/atheist-as-a-label/
If you have further clarifications, please spell them out because I’m not quite sure what more you want me to state. Again, this isn’t a religion here so if you’re waiting for me to spill out a doctrine or dogma, please don’t hold your breath.
I don’t remember making claims for other’s knowledge.. however I may make incorrect assumptions based on what you’ve said that you know or believe. If I’ve done so, please feel free to correct me.
As far as agnosicism and gnosticism is concerned.. no, they really do not deal with differences in what people know. It’s more accurately a reflection of perspective. Gnostics believe that the unknown contains god and gathering all there is to know takes you closer to god. Agnosticism simply awknoledges that the unknown exists and that everything we know could possibly prove to be wrong. As you can see, these are not opposites.. which is another really huge complaint I have for Huxley’s term.. even if it weren’t meaningless as a label to distinguish people. As examples, all gnostics are also agnostic due to the open-mindedness of their religious perspective. Likewise there is no “knowledge” that gnostics claim to have over agnostics.. gnostics take a different perspective (generally religious) on what they learn.
The reason why I mention gnosticism is to point out these misconceptions of what the “knowledge” religious movement is about. Which makes the term “agnostic” even more meaningless. No one is “without knowledge” in the most literal sense.. nor does it make sense to say that you’re “without traditional gnosticism” outside of a theistic religious context. Agnosticism is a meaningless term used to avoid religious questions and hide your position.
Arkaro said,
August 2, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Richard,
The problem with using gnosticism as a label is that no one who holds an absolutist position uses the term. Like I said, gnostics are proud of the “agnosticistic” quality of their religion. Here we have modern usage of a religious term used as a label that no one really self identifies with as defined in “modern” terms. In fact, I argue that this definition is wrong and is actually a misinterpretation since the coining of “agnosticism.” Of course, all this ignores the fact that these deluded people do not really know what they claim to know.. so they’re not really “knowledgable” after all. The “modern” use of “gnostic” doesn’t even truly apply to these people - even if they did use it to label themselves, which they do not.
Even the phrase “gnostic gospels” is also a modern misunderstanding. They’re not labeled as such because they claim to “know” anything more than other gospels.. Instead, these were traditionally used to label the scriptures ignored by the canon and maintained by the overall gnostic movement. The tem “synoptic gospels” describes those found within the traditional canon (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.)
Well, you’re free to call yourself however you prefer. You have yet to make a case for defending your definition of choice other than by stating the fact that others are also confused by the terms. Agnosticism was a poorly coined word that means nothing associated to anyone who calls themselves a gnostic (of which people do use in the modern world, by the way.. but they strangely don’t adhere to your “modern” definition.)
Continue to use it to “define” you at your own risk because some of us overlook your meaningless usage for what it actually implies: that you abstain from stating your current position in the topic at hand. Granted, there’s nothing wrong with using the term if this is actually what you’re trying to communicate.
Richard said,
August 4, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Agnosticism defines me, and I would imagine most other people. That certainly doesn’t mean it’s the only label which does so. I’m not sure why you’re focusing solely on that term, and not on the fact that I also specifically state in this post that I’m also an atheist.
Perhaps you’re think I somehow use agnosticism solely to describe my views because of the tagline on this site? (”Friendly outgoing eclectic agnostic seeks one gram of soul”). In which case, I’d suggest that I only use the term agnostic in that sentence because:
1. Yes, it DOES describe my views, but not exclusively.
but more importantly…
2. It seems more like a good word to describe someone searching, rather than someone who’s found what they’re looking for…
It’s certainly not to say that I ever describe myself purely as agnostic (without clarification) - particularly not since I’ve actually looked into the definitions of atheism.
20 gram Soul : Organised Atheism said,
March 16, 2008 at 2:11 pm
[...] do atheists share? Nothing. Many of us can’t even agree on a definition of Atheism! I don’t mean to say that there’s nothing that we share, but what we do share is, quite [...]
jeremy brooks said,
March 26, 2008 at 6:27 am
Well, i guess there needs to be at least one theist comment.
I actually think discussions like this are important. Actually as a Christian, I believe that God welcomes these sort of discussions as long as we all keep an open mind. Therefore I must keep an open mind to. I enjoyed reading these comments, and although I haven’t ‘converted’ to atheism, or agnosticism, there is certainly much to think about in the above. So thanks everybody.
Questions welcomed!
jeremy