Subject: Agnostics Are Wrong
Agnostics are just as wrong as theist (ok mabye not quite). There is no proof of God, so why not take the position of not believing in him?
This particular writer is operating from a common, but mistaken, belief that "agnosticism" is some "middle way" between atheism and theism - that agnostics are somehow "on the fence," unwilling to either state that they believe in a god (theism) or state that they have no such belief (atheism).
As I said, this is mistaken because it does not accurately describe agnosticism or agnostics. Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. An agnostic is someone who is unwilling or unable to assert that they know whether any gods exist or not. An agnostic might go a bit further and insist that no one can know if any gods do or do not exist, but that isn't always the case and it isn't necessary.
At a bare minimum, all agnostics disclaim any knowledge about the existence of gods. This, as we should be able to see, does not exclude either believing in a god or disbelieving in any gods. A person can insist that they don't know that a god exists, but then go on to say that they believe despite the lack of knowledge - maybe because of hope or faith. This person would be an agnostic theists. On the other hand, a person can say that they don't know that no gods can or do exist, but then add that because they have no reason to believe and because most alleged gods are unlikely at best (and often impossible), they also disbelieve in any gods - in other words, that they are atheists. This person would be an agnostic atheist.
Agnostics are not wrong. Everyone ether has a belief in the existence of at least one god or they lack any such beliefs. Thus, agnostics are either also atheist or also theists, even if their atheism or theism is (as far a they are concerned) relatively unimportant in comparison to their agnosticism and therefore rarely worth mentioning. In other words, it's not that agnostics don't take any position on belief or disbelief, but it may be that someone who adopts the label "agnostic" doesn't regard the question of belief to be as important as the question of knowledge.
Note: This message originally appeared in the Agnosticism / Atheism forum. Read the whole thread. More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Agnosticism is fence-sitting. It may be fine for philosophical argument and religious sophistry, but in the real world, it’s a flawed position.
In a court of law, which do we say?
(a) Guilty until proven innocent.
(b) Innocent until proven guilty.
(c) Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t.
(a) is the mentality of the religious, that there is a “god” and non-believers have to disprove it.
(b) is the mentality of atheists, logicians, scientists, and others. You start out assuming every argument is false until it’s proven, including the fiction of “god”.
(c) is an agnostic mentality. It may be okay to say, “I dunno if OJ did it,” when you’re watching the low speed chase on TV, but if you’re a juror, that’s not the right way to think. Sometimes you actually do have to take a stand, especially when facts trump opinion and trump desire.
.
And sometimes you don’t. Not every alleged god is equivalent to an accused murderer on trial.
While I agree that the letter-writer has a mistaken idea of what an agnostic is, there certainly is a subset of people who describe themselves as agnostics and who claim that it’s foolish to take any sort of position on the existence of a god. I think it’s clear that these are the people that the writer was talking about, and mistaken labels aside, he’s right.
I don’t believe in any gods. To go a step further, I believe that there are no gods. I disagree with Carl Sagan on this matter: absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It’s not absolute proof of absence, but it is a reason to give greater weight to the possibility that the person making the claim is lying or mistaken, especially if it’s an extraordinary claim like the existence of an all-powerful king of the universe who grants subtle favours to Grammy Award winners.
The funny thing about this sort of agnostic is that they only seem to take this position with respect to the existence of God. It’s hard to imagine them tut-tutting those who say that leprechauns probably don’t exist. This is why I suspect that their position is more of a pseudo-philosophical justification for not rocking the boat than a genunine philosophical position.
I am not taking a position here, passing on a thought from Thomas Paine from 200 years ago. The writer of “These are the times that try men’s souls”
THE only idea man can affix to the name of God, is that of a first cause, the cause of all things. And, incomprehensibly difficult as it is for a man to conceive what a first cause is, he arrives at the belief of it, from the tenfold greater difficulty of disbelieving it. It is difficult beyond description to conceive that space can have no end; but it is more difficult to conceive an end. It is difficult beyond the power of man to conceive an eternal duration of what we call time; but it is more impossible to conceive a time when there shall be no time.
In like manner of reasoning, everything we behold carries in itself the internal evidence that it did not make itself. Every man is an evidence to himself, that he did not make himself; neither could his father make himself, nor his grandfather, nor any of his race; neither could any tree, plant, or animal make itself; and it is the conviction arising from this evidence, that carries us on, as it were, by necessity, to the belief of a first cause eternally existing, of a nature totally different to any material existence we know of, and by the power of which all things exist; and this first cause, man calls God.
@P Smith
Your “B” is wrong. It is NOT the position of atheists, logicians, and scientists that “every argument is false until it’s proven”.
The more accurate position is, every argument is UNKNOWN until proven. Asserting that we know something is false, before it is proven, would be the same as asserting that we know it’s true.
The agnostic position is not “fence sitting”. The agnostic position is “I am able to admit that I don’t have enough evidence to declare if “X” is true OR false.” It’s a whole side of the fence on its own. It’s the side that cautiously refrains from making claims about things that are not yet known, as opposed to the side that has no problem making such claims.
A juror IS expected to enter the courtroom with the mindset of “I dunno if OJ did it”, and then they are expected to make a decision after being presented with as much evidence is available. They may STILL be agnostic about their decision, knowing that they weren’t at the scene of the crime and therefore can’t be 100% certain, but must choose the most likely scenario based on the evidence. Even that doesn’t always happen, and some juries are hung. Agnosticism plays an important function here, preventing convictions based on whim or emotion. It’s better if the trial was scrapped because the evidence was insufficient, than for people to force themselves to make a snap decision one way or the other out of fear of being labeled fence-sitters.