Agnosticism

Jedmunds asks, "What's up with agnostics?"

Of what real use is the term "agnostic?" My understanding has always been that it means “someone who believes it is impossible to know if god exists,” or believes it impossible in terms of the limits of human understanding. But that seems to me to either describe just about everyone or to describe just about no one.

The term "agnostic" is useful for people who think that we can't know whether God exists or not, and decline to fall back on faith to make up the difference. The term is also useful for people who haven't made their minds about whether there is a God, but who assume (at least provisionally) that the question makes sense and that human beings can answer it.

People often envision religious belief as a symmetrical spectrum of opinion with devout believers on one end and atheists on the other. According to this model, the devout believers are convinced that God exists, and the atheists are convinced that he doesn't.

In fact, most atheists lack religious beliefs for the same reason they lack other beliefs--insufficient evidence.

I'm an atheist. I can't prove there isn't a God. (I'm not even sure that the concept of God has been sufficiently well-defined that I would recognize a proof of that particular entity's non-existence.)

I can't prove that the phone company didn't kill Kennedy, either. But if someone asks me whether I believe that the phone company whacked JFK, I say no. When I do, nobody asks me to supply proof of the phone company's innocence, or accuses me of taking the phone company's innocence as an article of faith.

People often like to play "gotcha" with self-professed atheists. If you say that you don't believe in God, they counter with "Well, isn't that just like a religion, then?" These people are twisting the normal vocabulary of knowledge and belief. If we talk about belief in God the same way we talk about belief in other propositions, then it's perfectly natural to call yourself a non-believer.

Comments

[Bob in Pacifica]

Very thoughtful Sunday morning piece.

[pebird]

Agnosticism is not about god - it's about the limits of our knowledge and the interplay of perception with emotion that gives rise to faith. God is a handy MacGuffin that helps the conversation - but it isn't about an all-powerful entity - it's a discussion revolving around the constraints of our existence and our ability to transcend our circumstances.

[Nick Pilon]

I think it's important to make a distinction, though. You are not a religious atheist. I have, however, met religious atheists. They're the people whose conviction that there is no God, and we exist in a meaningless, perfectly deterministic world and have nothing look forward to but oblivion approaches a Republican's belief in the Word of Dubya on the zealotry scale. They're also the same ones that tend to insist that science (specifically physics) can (and, often, that modern science does) explain and predict absolutely everything.

Amusingly, I've yet to meet one that's actually a scientist. Scientists tend to, in my experience at least, match your definitions of agnostic or atheist, or be reasonably religious/spiritual. The third option seems to me to be the most common, but my sample is almost certainly insufficiently random.

[God]

Are you all discussing my demise again?

[Matt P]

People answering "I'm an agnostic" to the question "Do you believe in a god?" remind me of closeted homosexuals referring to their partners in carefully gender-neutral terms. It's an understandable affectation, often situationally beneficial, but still kind of annoying to those of us willing to lay our cards on the table.

It seems to me that anyone asking the question isn't interested in the complexities of one's cosmological views but instead is more interested in knowing whether one believes a deity exists. As a person self-describing as agnostic does not hold such a belief at the time the question is being asked, he or she seems to me to be clearly an atheist within the context of that particular conversation.

Reading comments on various blogs in response to these related posts, though, it looks like for many people "agnosticism" has come to mean what I've always thought of as "weak atheism"--"I don't believe in a god, but I can't prove one doesn't exist"--and that "atheism" has come to represent the position that no such thing as a deity or other godthing could possibly exist. This seems peculiar to me.

[Nick Pilon]

As a person self-describing as agnostic does not hold such a belief at the time the question is being asked, he or she seems to me to be clearly an atheist within the context of that particular conversation.

Untrue. They can be unsure whether or not God exists, or think there might be a God. This is different from belief or disbelief, or even suspended judgement due to a lack of evidence.

The reply to the question is not necessarily "1" or "0". There's a spectrum of valid replies.

[Eli]

Thank you so much for posting this. I'd been hoping for a quick, accessible version of this explanation I could link to instead of having to go over it repeatedly. Bookmarked.

[Sean]

I don't think "insufficient evidence" is quite the right characterization of why people are atheists. If someone asks why you don't believe that the phone company killed Kennedy, it's true that you don't have sufficient evidence for that belief, but more relevantly that belief is just silly, in the context of other beliefs you have. It runs sufficiently counter to other expectations you have from experience that it's perfectly reasonable to disbelieve it, not to simply remain undecided.

Likewise, proposing to invoke an entirely distinct and ill-defined metaphysical category (God) on the basis of some awfully thin justification isn't something that a reasonable person needs to remain open-minded about; it makes perfect sense to not give that hypothesis the time of day in the absence of much stronger evidence than anyone has ever offered.

[Eli]

They're also the same ones that tend to insist that science (specifically physics) can (and, often, that modern science does) explain and predict absolutely everything.

Maybe I've lived a super sheltered life, but I doubt the existence of these people. They insist that modern science can predict football scores and lottery numbers?

[David]

>I can't prove that the phone company didn't kill Kennedy, either. But if someone asks me whether I believe that the phone company whacked JFK, I say no.

Believing that the phone company killed JFK isn't useful. Imagine, though, that positing the truth of such a proposition helped to explain a great deal about the world and the human condition. In that case, given the absence of proof to the contrary, you may very well believe it.

Granted, this argument in a theological idiom is difficult and complex. But I think many intelligent theists think along those lines.

[Jedmunds]

The term "agnostic" is useful for people who think that we can't know whether God exists or not, and decline to fall back on faith to make up the difference.

I have trouble distinguishing this from atheism. Is the "we can't know whether god exists or not" part really doing that much work?

[rob helpychalk]

There's a brilliant passage in Hume's *Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion* where a character suggests that there is no real difference between an atheist and a mystic, since they both suggest that the ultimate cause of the universe is unknowable.

Now Hume was writing in the 1770's, a hundred years before T.H. Huxley coined the term "agnostic" so I think in this context when he says "atheist" he really means "agnostic" or as he sometimes puts it "skeptic." The atheist in this context is someone who refuses to posit a creator as an explanation of the existence of the universe. But there simply isn't any difference between refusing to posit a god and saying that there is a god and refusing to posit any claims about him.

The fact is "atheist" v. "believer" is a political distinction, not a metaphysical one. I identify as an atheist, because I do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic God, which is usually what people are asking about. My actual beliefs--or rather lack of beliefs--falls into agnostic/mystic camp.

Ps: Newtonian physics, at least, pretends to be able to explain lottery numbers. If the lottery numbers are genuinely determined by pulling balls out of that air-popper thing, the motions of the balls are supposedly determined completely by Newton’s laws of motion. Assuming there are no quantum phenomena at work in the air-popper thing, the explanation should still apply. You might be able to try a similar explanation for football scores if you add an eliminativist theory of the mental states of the football players. (Which is tempting.)

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I have trouble distinguishing atheism from agnosticism in a lot of cases. There are some belief systems that are distinctively agnostic, though.

Suppose you are convinced that humans cannot know whether God exists. That's a strong agnostic view. Personally, I'm not prepared to go as far as the strong agnostic on that point. I think a logical proof would settle the issue once and for all. I don't expect any such proofs to be produced, I'm just saying that if we had one, then we'd really know.

[Matt P]

They can be unsure whether or not God exists, or think there might be a God. This is different from belief or disbelief, or even suspended judgement due to a lack of evidence.

I agree, that is different from belief or disbelief. The querent, however, in my experience tends to be asking only about belief or disbelief, not the reasoning the respondent used to arrive at that position. While it's easy to see that there's a wide spectrum of certainty, I cannot conceive of belief as being other than binary. This could be a failing on my part.

(Perhaps the more problematic question here is not what is meant by "atheist", "theist", or "agnostic" but by "Do you believe in a god?".)

[Aeolus]

Sean rightly points out that the belief that the phone company killed Kennedy "runs sufficiently counter to other expectations you have from experience that it's perfectly reasonable to disbelieve it, not to simply remain undecided." However, the person who claims that God does not exist has no more evidence on her side than the person who claims that God does exist. (That's not to say there isn't evidence against the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent God.) Atheism (in the strong sense of a claim that there is no God) is every bit as irrational as theism, and equally a matter of faith. I would say that people who claim it's rational to be an atheist are twisting the normal vocabulary of knowledge and belief. To my mind, agnosticism is the only rational position, although I'm tempted by the claim I came across that there is an evil god, but he's only about 80% efficacious.

[bob mcmanus]

1) The analytic side of me has great difficulty attaching meaning to words like "transcendance" and "God" that would allow communication with the great mass of believers. I will not call myself an atheist because I literally do not know what the word means.

2) On the other hand, the continental half (I walk funny) has read a bunch of Kierkkegaard, and attaches small value to the analytic side. The best in people is not rational or scientific, and the most valued (and most reviled) is the least rational and scientific. We do not admire Ghandi or MLK on strict consequentialist arguments and the Gates and Bono are not on the cover of Time because of their utilitarian analyses. Call it High Epicureanism of Nietzschean or whatever, but what we value irrationally defines us.

This is not an argument (if it is an argument at all, I am no philosopher) for the existence of God. But in the admitted overt craziness of the Dane, it is an argument for the belief in God. Belief in God (and more) is the highest actualization of humanness.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

The term "agnostic" is useful for people who think that we can't know whether God exists or not, and decline to fall back on faith to make up the difference.

I have trouble distinguishing this from atheism. Is the "we can't know whether god exists or not" part really doing that much work?

It's very hard work keeping a mind open. There are so many wanting to slam the door open or closed. I'm still convinced that there can be, and will be, theoretical and clinical proof for or against God, once God's properties are defined (e.g., as mentioned on the Dawkins thread, God's omnipresence in thought, or hearing of prayers, or of life after death, will be debunked once telepathy [transmission of thought] is conclusively disproved.).

I think that Richard Dawkins is the perfect example of Egarwaen's "religious atheist." He advances the conclusion that God and life after death is impossible, and that those who believe in these things are delusional, but offers no evidence to support it. Sorry, Lindsey, but Dawkins is offering a leap of faith (not to mention preaching to the choir), if he states these things without evidence. To state, as most atheists seem to, that you simply can't, and see no reason to, believe in God without evidence, is perfectly reasonable. It's when someone goes a step further and concludes: "I know that God DOES NOT exist" that we will then ask, "Oh, good--someone has proof. What is that proof?"

God is a handy MacGuffin that helps the conversation - but it isn't about an all-powerful entity - it's a discussion revolving around the constraints of our existence and our ability to transcend our circumstances.

I Love this sentence. God is a MacGuffin.

[The Great Beast]

I'm a militant agnostic.

My problem is, proof of god can't be falsified. Every time you counter one of the 'big man with beard did it' arguments, the goalposts move.

God-longing isn't philosophy. It's wishing.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

>It's wishing.

Without the empirical proofs I mention above, this will remain true for both the atheist and the believer.

To state, as most atheists seem to, that you simply can't, and see no reason to, believe in God without evidence, is perfectly reasonable. It's when someone goes a step further and concludes: "I know that God DOES NOT exist" that we will then ask, "Oh, good--someone has proof. What is that proof?"

However, the person who claims that God does not exist has no more evidence on her side than the person who claims that God does exist. (That's not to say there isn't evidence against the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent God.) Atheism (in the strong sense of a claim that there is no God) is every bit as irrational as theism, and equally a matter of faith.

[Gary Sugar]

I think when someone does believe in some God, their evidence is either tradition or a mystical experience. An evangelical Christian might say, first, 'Every decent person I know believes in God, and in most of the world, for thousands of years, people have believed in God,' and second, 'I have felt the hand of God upon me' or 'I have felt the holy spirit within me.'

This evidence doesn't come close to convincing me; but on the other hand, so far this conception of God doesn't really bother me. But what's the next step? Does this God do miracles? Does this God provide an afterlife with spectacular rewards and punishments? Well, that kind of stuff is preposterous; and there isn't any evidence at all, unless you count deranged prophecies as evidence.

[Josh]

"Atheism" is religion in the way that "bald" is a hair color. The analogy breaks down for agnosticism, I think.

[Patrick]

Lindsay,

I think that if you go with Clifford and say that we shouldn't believe anything we aren't justified in believing, then your strong agnostic position is an atheistic one.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

You're absolutely right, Sean. I really should have said "not good enough reasons." Insufficient evidence is only part of it.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Yes, Dawkins' rhetoric outstrips his evidence, at least on some readings. However, I think it's often a mistake to read atheists as the logical mirror image of devout believers.

However, when Dawkins asserts that there is no God, he's not making the same claim as a devout believer who asserts the contrary. Most believers concede that the existence of God can't be demonstrated and emphasize that their belief in God rests on faith. That is, they have a special category for believing without sufficient evidence, or believing despite the evidence.

Dawkins thinks that he has enough evidence to dismiss the possibility of a supreme being. He may be wrong, but he doesn't take atheism as an article of faith.

Patrick, Clifford says that it's morally wrong to believe anything on insufficient evidence. But he's clearly not saying that the standard of sufficiency is absolute proof. Consider Clifford's famous example of the ship owner who believed without sufficient evidence that his ship was sound. Clifford isn't saying that the owner wasn't entitled to believe that the ship was sound under any circumstances, he's saying that the owner should have held out for more and better information before believing that his craft was seaworthy.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

I think when someone does believe in some God, their evidence is either tradition or a mystical experience. An evangelical Christian might say, first, 'Every decent person I know believes in God, and in most of the world, for thousands of years, people have believed in God,' and second, 'I have felt the hand of God upon me' or 'I have felt the holy spirit within me.'

This evidence doesn't come close to convincing me; but on the other hand, so far this conception of God doesn't really bother me. But what's the next step? Does this God do miracles? Does this God provide an afterlife with spectacular rewards and punishments? Well, that kind of stuff is preposterous; and there isn't any evidence at all, unless you count deranged prophecies as evidence.

I agree with all of this. The minute the God breaks a natural law, I don't believe it (e.g., unless the "Poof! You're a pillar of salt!" was somehow allegorical, or unless God's angel was really an ET with a Star Trek-style humans-into-salt machine, this seems far enough out of keeping with everyday experience to be implausible). As to the grounds for believing in God, of the two mentioned, Tradition seems to me a stupid reason for believing in God; Tradition once held that the Earth was flat.

Mysticism is my reason; but it is so subjective that it cannot, and I think should not, convince any atheist, unless he or she has a similar mystical experience. As mentioned, though, the fact that SOME such subjective experiences are delusional simply does not prove that ALL such experiences are delusional:

Burt Rutan, the winner of the recent challenge to privately design a reusable space shuttle, had his engineering problem solved when he dreamed of a badminton shuttlecock, which always came down feathers-up. He then applied a similar design to his space shuttle. This dream was a mystical, subjective experience (though non-religious), but it was perfectly useful in his practical, exoteric life.