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:
a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God4
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.). [↩]
What Evolution Left Behind On Humans - “I?ve always been fascinated with human evolution. To me, the most fascinating part of human evolution is learning about what was ?left behind? on our bodies from our ancestors and from our prenatal development.”
Wife Beating - It?s therapeutic - I’m glad someone’s cleared this up. Wife beating is not a rule, it’s just therapeutic. Oh, but there are limits!
I found a link today which reminded me of a Rowan Atkinson sketch. I know there are different ideas about when the “Sabbath” actually is. Christians seems to set Sunday as the “holy” day, whereas Jews mark the time between sunset on Friday and Sunset on Saturday instead. Of course, it all comes down to biblical interpretation.
While not particularly relevant to the rest of us (although, I discovered recently on my travels to Adelaide - one of Australia’s smaller major cities1 - shops still aren’t allowed to open on Sundays, and I’m sure we can blame the Christians for that) I thought “Remember the Sabbath” was quite interesting.
Oh, and then - of course - the Rowan Atkinson sketch I was reminded of… (This was linked recently from one of the Atheist blogs I read - I forget where, but if you think it might have been you, let me know and I’ll link to you)
Here’s a concept I hadn’t come across before - an irreligious Christian. The post at DeConversion centres around the quote from an apparently irreligious Christian:
“Christianity is not about a religion… Christianity is about a relationship…” I even recall myself saying, on probably more than one occasion, “I’m not religious, I’m a Christian.”
While “Thinking Ape” claims this person is being dishonest about their religion, I think it is (at least in principle) possible to distinguish between the two. Religion, according to one definition is “an institution to express belief in a divine power”1. By this definition, perhaps “the church” and “religion” would be synonymous. My major gripe with religion has always been the institution associated along with it - sure, the beliefs are almost certainly delusional as well, but the beliefs alone (in my view) don’t cause any harm. It’s for this same reason that I disagree with organised atheist evangelism.
For me, the first step away from religion (although I was never raised in a particularly religious family) was when I rejected organised religion. I was inclined to think that, while the beliefs may2 have been true, the institutionalisation and control from the Church was problematic. An irreligious Christian would, I imagine, reject the various denominations of Christian churches, like I did. They would also not necessarily accept the interpretations of any one denomination, and would (hopefully) be more open to semi-rational thought.
I say, good on them. Sure, it’s not ideal, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.
I thought Jesus and Mo was a perfect combination to highlight the illogical nature of religion, but I was wrong - who could pick apart Christianity better than Socrates?
It’s a long read, but it seems to sum up Christianity quite well. A small snippet to tempt you:
Socrates: If God created man’s eyes, legs and mind, he also created man’s desires; all his desires, even his desire for knowledge and sex. Why did man sin?
Jesus: He sinned because of his weaknesses and his evil nature.
Socrates: Who created man’s nature?
Jesus: God.
Socrates: It seems to me that you Lord God has merely created man to watch him suffer. This business of Satan, the Garden of Eden and free will is merely a facade. God merely wanted an excuse to harass, persecute, torment and oppress mankind. If an all-powerful and all-knowing being creates everything, and allows his creations to react in a certain way, he actually intended them to act in that way and is solely responsible for the results.
It seems a common claim that morality is impossible without religion. While I might agree that in some cases religion (or, more specifically, the fear of eternal damnation) can be a pretty good motivator, I think that a morality that doesn’t rely on religion is not just possible, but it’s a lot more desirable. In the last couple of weeks, I’ve outlined how some people think that religion is the only kind of morality, even though religious teachings aren’t necessarily moral. This week, I’d like to outline some moral structures that can (and do) exist without religion.
Non-Theistic Morality (or, what you do when nobody’s watching)
In line with my theory of religious eclecticism, I think that all religions share the same basic ideas on morality.1 That said, however, morality based on religion is flawed not because of what is taught (be good to others, don’t kill, etc.) but how it’s enforced.
Athiest’s Wager suggests (as I did in my last post) that Christian morality is flawed because of the opportunity to receive forgiveness through religion. Without being able to fall back on forgiveness from God, how could an Atheist respond when given the opportunity to act immorally? Simple, they’d do the right thing.
I didn’t feel that I had a choice since I answer to myself. I am able to tell right from wrong and I would have to live with the knowledge that I had caused harm to someone else. 2
A moral Atheist might have no one to answer to but themselves (which seems to be the reason some suggest that an Atheist has no reason to be moral), but does this make them more or less moral than a Christian who answers only to God? Is a Christian who acts “morally” from fear of eternal punishment more or less moral than an Atheist who acts morally because they feel it’s the right thing to do?
We rightly do not consider a well-behaved dog to be acting “morally.”In the same way, the religious person who obeys not out of love and respect for other people, but in response to the promise of Paradise or the specter of Hell, acts not as an independent, moral person.He is merely a trained animal seeking to please an unseen master.3
A great real-world example of this is described over at Parenting Beyond Belief:
“If not for the seventh commandment,” I once heard a Veneerist proclaim in a debate, “there would be NOTHING to keep me from walking out the door to cheat on my wife!” Nothing? Not love? I wondered. Or commitment? Or simple human decency? If you say so.4
While I’d agree that not cheating on your wife is the moral way to act, I think that the reasons behind one’s actions are just as important (if not more so) than the actions themselves. While it’s certainly possible to have immoral Atheists, it’s just as possible to have immoral Theists. I think that a morality based on a true respect for those around us is far better than one based on the threat of hell and the promise of heaven.
True morality is what you do when no one (even God) is watching. Or in other words - being good, for goodness sake5
While I generally like to keep my definitions as broad as possible, let’s exclude from our definition of religion (for the moment) weird cults that think eating the hearts of live babies (or some similar variation) is a moral thing to do. [↩]
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.“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
While “Thinking Ape” claims this person is being dishonest about their religion, I think it is (at least in principle) possible to distinguish between the two. Religion, according to one definition is “an institution to express belief in a divine power”
I thought 
Posts
