Some people, though, appear to be uncomfortable with being atheists, even though they fit the definition because they lack belief in any gods. They find refuge in the belief that "agnostic" is some sort of "third way" between atheism and theism which allows them to avoid the "atheist" label while also asserting a smug superiority over atheists and theists (though more over the former than the latter, for some strange reason).
A good example of this can be found in a site by D.H. Wilson, a British playwright who doesn’t appear to know much about atheism, theology, philosophy, or science:
If you cannot make up your mind whether we are the product of accident or design, then this site is for you. Atheists will try to divert your attention from the fact that their theory is based on an irrational faith in the creative genius of mindless, lifeless matter. ...The first step towards enlightenment is the admission of ignorance, and so the agnostic will remain open to all possibilities.
Source: Agnostic Web
Notice that the very first sentence is a false dilemma about a red herring. First, the only options about human evolution aren't "accident or design." That's a false dilemma promoted exclusively by creationists and a few non-creationists too ignorant of basic science to know any better. Second, the issue of human evolution simply isn't relevant to whether it's reasonable to believe in any gods. Once again, that's a falsehood propagated by creationists who hope that if they can convince the ignorant that there are legitimate objections to evolutionary science, then the way is paved for belief in their god.
The second sentence is no better because it's a complete misrepresentation of atheism. It's false that atheism is a "theory" that is based on any sort of faith at all, much less an "irrational faith." Atheism certainly doesn't depend on any sort of belief in "the creative genius of mindless, lifeless matter." That's a falsehood used extensively by creationists who try to convince people that order and complexity cannot arise out of natural, non-directed processes.
What's particularly ironic is that I received a link to the above from a "Clare Rooney" who signed off as part of a team behind the site and who concluded her email with the statement that "It is our hope that an informed and reasoned discussion may lead to greater tolerance and understanding on both sides." If that were the case, then such gross falsehoods about atheism and evolution — all of which stem from creationist propaganda, not an informed understanding of science — would not be used.
Beginning with definitions that are nothing more than dishonest personal attacks is a clear sign that one has no interest whatsoever in tolerance, understanding, or reasoned discussion. To be fair, Wilson has indicated some understanding about the atrocious attitude behind his words and has promised to make changes, but the factual and logical errors are even more serious and I don't see how they can be corrected without pulling the entire site and rewriting it from scratch — and in a way that would communicate almost the opposite of what he has now. Perhaps he will make corrections in the facts and logic along with the attitude, but I don't know for sure how it will proceed.
The pretense that only "the agnostic" is in a position to correctly discern the nature of the universe is standard for such pieces. It's a falsehood because, as I noted above, being an agnostic does not preclude one from being an atheist or a theist as well; on the contrary, everyone has present in their minds a belief in the existence of at least one god or not — if they do, they are a theist and if they don't, they are an atheist. It's also self-refuting because the statement presume to know something — specifically, that the first step towards enlightenment is the admission of ignorance. If that's known, then one isn't admitting ignorance; if it's not known, then the speaker is lying.
Should we be surprised that D.H. Wilson's screed consistently relies on the assumption that the author knows things which other's can't see, won't see, or just refuse to admit? Far from an "admission to ignorance," the "book" is lengthy attack on the findings of science which Wilson either doesn't understand or just refuses to accept because they contradict his ideological preconceptions. There is indeed much ignorance there, but very little in the way of an admission of ignorance.
The author of this introduction is anonymous, which might be best given how atrocious it is, but I wonder if it is written by the same D.H. Wilson who wrote An Agnostic's Brief Guide to the Universe which appears on the rest of the pages. I say that because both are not only just as bad, but in fact make many of the same basic mistakes.
With such an inauspicious beginning, it hardly seems worthwhile to press on, but I tried and wish to offer a couple more passages for further reflection:
...in his book The God Delusion, Professor Dawkins launches the fiercest attack on religion since Nero unleashed his lions on the Christians. With a mixture of scientific fact, breadth of learning, in-depth analysis, misrepresentation, demolition of soft targets, lop-sided reasoning and sheer enthusiasm for his self-imposed task of destroying other people's beliefs, he proves to his own satisfaction that God "almost certainly" does not exist. His new God is science and, especially, Darwinism.
Inevitably with such a fundamentalist creed, Dawkins is forced to take a great leap of faith, although he seems strangely unaware that his own quite frequent expressions of hope and belief are indeed a matter of faith and not of science. Agnosticism, in contrast to atheist assumption and religious dogma, only believes what is known, and admits to ignorance of the rest. By doing so, and thereby acknowledging the possibility of a conscious designer, it opens up the fascinating areas of speculation which Professor Dawkins is so anxious to close down. These include the motives and nature of the designer, and the existence of a world and of beings beyond the scope of our perception.
The ignorance of this mess is only exceeded, perhaps, by the hyperbole with which the falsehoods are proclaimed. Dawkins wrote the "fiercest attack on religion since Nero"? I doubt that D.H. Wilson has read any atheist writers outside of Dawkins — and certainly not any of the prominent freethinkers of America or Europe during the 18th through 20th centuries. If he had, he would have found many attacks on religion generally or Christianity in particular which are at least as harsh as Dawkins' — and in some cases, much worse.
Even more egregious is the fact that Nero never attacked "religion" in the first place. Nero scapegoated Christians, but he wasn't irreligious and didn't attack religion generally. Then again, maybe this isn't any more egregious than the continual misrepresentations of atheism and science that we find throughout Wilson's material.
D.H. Wilson strikes me as another self-professed "agnostic" who has no idea what agnosticism is, who praises ignorance as if it were a virtue even as they act like they really think they know everything, and who is looking for some basis for saying that they have successfully risen above everyone else. I've seen a lot of smug, self-righteous "agnostics" like this over the years who hide behind the label because they don't want to risk taking a position on particular theological doctrines or ancient superstitions, but do want to throw stones at people who do.
Perhaps there will be improvements in the material over time, but there shouldn't be so many atrocious mistakes and misunderstandings to begin with.
The individual sovernist is like that to. I tried to “enlighten” him, but it turns out that actually understanding the meaning of the word agnostic is required (learnt it from a video a couple days ago, agnostic is about Knowledge, not Belief). On a slightly unrelated not it seems interesting that there is always the newest arguement that pops up and gets attention and then is taken apart on sites like this. I guess it is the circle of life.
Hilarious stuff. D.H. Wilson obviously has no grasp on what science is, either. How could an agnostic have an advantage in scientific thought over an atheist, a christian, or any random person? Science is an attempt to observe and explain that which EXISTS in the real world. If God decided to be part of science, and sat his big butt down in the middle of a genetics or physics experiment, you wouldn’t have to be an agnostic to notice!
I think he’s confusing science and knowledge with philosophy and speculation. Scientists don’t generally go looking for the “motives” of a possible hypothetical designer in their research and experiments. At least, not if they are hoping to get any science done.
“sovernist is like that to. I tried to “enlighten” him, but it turns out that actually understanding the meaning of the word agnostic is required (learnt it from a video a couple days ago, agnostic is about Knowledge, not Belief). On a slightly unrelated not it seems interesting that there is always the newest arguement that pops up and gets attention and then is taken apart on sites like this. I guess it is the circle of life.”
Was this individual sovereignist named “John Scott” who posted on this site several months ago? If this is the very same individual then I saw his website which I found lacking in any solid arguments. All it was recycle arguments taken from the religious right although “John Scott” claimed to be no fan of religion.
Someone should send them some Ingersoll and Russell.
I’ve never understood the people that try to claim that agnosticism is a desirable middle ground. On a purely semantic level, we are all agnostics in the sense that no one can truly know, however that doesn’t make belief and non-belief equally reasonable. If an agnostic hasn’t made up her mind, that makes her an atheist by definition since she is without theistic belief.
You’d be surprised how many people get angry at that simple fact.
It’s like i always say, “there’s nothing an agnostic can’t do if he doesn’t know if he believes in anything or not”.
“On a purely semantic level, we are all agnostics in the sense that no one can truly know”
All but the dead are agnostic.
- Apeiron/Todd 2008, on Fark.com
lolol. mr wilson, et al, apparently like to think about all sorts of alternate realities, and as long as they can say “who is to know?” — well then anything goes! wheee! what fun!
i used to do that kind of stuff when i was a kid. and i sometimes keep on doing it when writing fantastic fiction.
when i think about what reality might actually be, tho, i have no rational place to start except with what i can observe, rather than with the infinite number or possibilities that have never presented any part of themselves to observation (always keeping in mind that “something” more may exist, but i’m not spending a lot of time positing what it might be with no hints — unless of course, i’m making it up for those books i mentioned.)
I post at Agnostics Forum where I don’t find that drivel so far. I point out that I am not only an agnostic and atheist but also an ignostic.
Austin, how about discussing ignosticism. I push it at several forums .
What is the difference betwen Huxleyan agnosticism and rationalism?
Thanks.
D. H. Wilson is just another frat boy lying about his experiences in the great whore house of Christian life.
Agnosticism is an intellectual position. Atheism is an emotionally committed position. Universities produce agnostics because of academic standards. Life produces atheists because they are tired of being dominated by crooks.
I was reading on a games forum about when one of the topics turned to religion. One of the posters stated he was an agnostic because atheism had the problem of falling into the trap of being “anti-religion”. It didn’t make any sense to me at all since atheism says nothing about the individual other than a lack of belief in a god. This agnostic person either a poor understanding of atheism, buying into the religious right rhetoric, or thought agnosticism was some “third way”.
As a university student focusing on dual majors of History and Religion (the institution itself) I’m certainly intrigued by some of your more interesting points in this blog unfortunately you don’t seem to follow through on the more bold claims that have piqued my interest. I’d love to hear some of these ideas or at least some cited links to their evidence. Here is a short list of the items I’d love to hear you elaborate on:
1: the only options about human evolution aren’t “accident or design.”
What possible option do you see coming forward to stand with intentional or unintentional creation? Is our “greatest deceit our announcement of our own existence?” (Steven Erikson, Reaper’s Gale page 418)
2: Atheism certainly doesn’t depend on any sort of belief in “the creative genius of mindless, lifeless matter.”
Perhaps I lack the Atheist background to clarify my confusion on this one but, while I agree that Atheism makes no more a claim than that God(s) does not exist (just about any dictionary or encyclopedia holds this definition though I prefer the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as made available online), what IS it that Atheism has presented as a theory towards the origin of life.
If not God (Atheism’s very definition) and as you say, not a little chance and luck in the universe? What are these “natural, non-directed processes” from which order and complexity have arisen?
3: qt. 1: “everyone has present in their minds a belief in the existence of at least one god or not — if they do, they are a theist and if they don’t, they are an atheist”
qt. 2: “It’s false that atheism is a “theory” that is based on any sort of FAITH at all, much less an “irrational faith.” Atheism certainly doesn’t depend on any sort of belief in “the creative genius of mindless, lifeless matter.”
definition of Faith: belief that is not based on proof (dictionary.com second definition under Faith)
The presentation of belief stemming from an unknown or at least unstated place in the mind as a basis for Atheism becomes pretty problematic here. As science has no proof yet of the means behind the origin of life and thus the “natural, non-directed processes” that brought it about are still conjecture, it seems there is a necessary faith even in the absence of God(s). Or perhaps this “relies on the assumption that the author knows things which other’s can’t see, won’t see, or just refuse to admit?”
4: The end piece here, refuting the two block quotes from Wilson is a strong example of where he has erred both in judgment and in grammatical or lexical presentation but it does little to validate your own point of Atheism’s accuracy, perhaps because of the vague ambiguity of what Atheism is beyond the refuting of God(s) or its possibility. It doesn’t really refute Wilson either so much as terrorize some admittedly poor packaging.
5: “D.H. Wilson strikes me as another self-professed “agnostic” who has no idea what agnosticism is, who praises ignorance as if it were a virtue even as they act like they really think they know everything”
this is a 3 parter here so bear with me as I focus on each one individually here.
A) as to whether or not Wilson knows what agnosticism is I suppose it depends on your definition of “agnostic” but he does offer definitions from two different sources, Dawkin’s own, “two categories (p. 47): 1) Temporary Agnosticism in Practice, or TAP, which denotes that there “is a truth out there and one day we hope to know it, though for the moment we don’t.”
2) Permanent Agnosticism in Principle, or PAP, for questions that can never be answered.” This is most likely the definition you subscribe to as an atheist though I would not presume to claim knowledge of your own research into the matter, you may as easily agree with the Catholic Encyclopedia’s definition of ‘agnostic’ (A philosophical theory of the limitations of knowledge, professing doubt of or disbelief in some or all of the powers of knowing possessed by the human mind ).
A cont.) Secondly he presents the original definition coined by T.H. Huxley in 1869, the “impossibility of knowing whether God exists or not” he then goes on to clarify it with his own personal understanding, “the fact that one cannot answer a question most certainly does not mean that one cannot say anything either way about the subject of that question” (An Agnostic’s Brief Guide to the Universe page 6).
If you disagree with these definitions that may be a problem of interpretation and research between you and Wilson but the cited sources do certainly show at least some effort to understand agnosticism.
B) Secondly, that he “praises ignorance as if it were a virtue”, praising ignorance is certainly a reprehensible, as the mathematician W.K. Clifford stated in his “The Ethics of Belief”, there is certainly a “Reprehensibility of believing without or against the evidence” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Atheism and Agnosticism page 6). Of course such a lofty and damaging claim needs its own evidence or is no more than slander.
Unfortunately Wilson at least purports to “consider ALL arguments about whether God exists or not” (An Agnostic’s Brief Guide to the Universe page 6) and later even goes on to claim, “it is precisely the lack of commitment that promotes open-mindedness and tolerance” (An Agnostic’s Brief Guide to the Universe page 45).
B cont.) The only suggestion of intentional omission (ignorance being lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc. as defined ) I was able to find in Wilson’s article is found on page 47 when, in arguing WHAT should be taught in schools, Wilson presents, “The answer has to be all or nothing: theist, atheist, and agnostic” in response to what a science teacher should present as the origin of life (An Agnostic’s Brief Guide to the Universe). This same statement also, admittedly presents an equal claim to presenting all of them, not quite fully an endorsement of ignorance but the closest I could find. You may have better luck.
C) This is the most damaging of the three claims, an agnostic who “thinks he knows everything” is at odds with the very doctrine of agnosticism, namely “the uncertainty of ultimate knowledge” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnosticism). Of course again the subsequent proof behind the claim is absent so I have searched through the article myself and found some interesting declarations by Wilson.
1) I simply do not know what to believe, and that is why I am an
agnostic (An Agnostic’s Brief Guide to the Universe page 4). This isn’t necessarily an admission that he does not know everything but could simply mean he has yet to take any of the leaps of faith presented.
2) the human brain has not reached a point where answers can be given – and perhaps it never will reach such a point. (An Agnostic’s Brief Guide to the Universe page 4). This statement is a much more definitive personal understanding that humanity as a whole cannot, at least at present, know everything. Short of Wilson of excluding himself from humanity and its gene pool this one may be difficult to refute.
6) The final argument presented here is the most defensible one you’ve presented. Namely, that, Wilson and agnostic’s in general, “don’t want to risk taking a position on particular theological doctrines or ancient superstitions, but do want to throw stones at people who do.”
Abstaining from choosing, as all agnostic’s do, Wilson is unable to refute the first part (the fear of risk taking) with any sort of proof though I doubt he’d use those words.
The second part of this argument becomes crucial then, is Wilson attacking all who dare refute agnosticism, the answer can be found when he asks himself whether he must believe all religions (including Atheism though it is a non-religion), “should I accept that their link with the designer is just as feasible as any other? The answer has to be yes. (An Agnostic’s Brief Guide to the Universe page 40)
I hope this will develop into an engaging and enlightening sharing of information not just between you and I, Austin, but in everyone who has actively participated in this blog.
It will probably easiest to continue the bulleted format I have outline though you are obviously free and certainly encouraged to add points as you see fit. I do think I have offered a good start though. In case your version of the article and my own differ in anyway, here is the link I have used
There is simply far too much to address here in a blog comment. You would be better off posting it to the forum, especially if desire the participation of others because it is unlikely anyone is still checking back here for comments but the forum is active on a daily basis.
Just one thing: atheism is not a proper noun and, as such, should not be capitalized in the middle of a sentence. Atheism is not a label for an ideology, belief system, religion, or anything similar. Atheism is nothing more or less than the absence of belief in gods. Starting for the correct definition of atheism, some of your questions might be answered directly.
Over at Agnostics International, we toyed with the idea of promoting the label “aAtheist” to designate those of us who were unpersuaded by atheist rhetoric – to indicate our rejection of it. But by not simply then being theists, we would indicate that their rhetoric also failed to persuade.
A neat example of how a double negative sometimes does no actually cancel itself out.
However, the apalabelists (do not care about labels) won the day, and the idea petered out.
A shame that, really, all considered.