Atheists vs. Agnostics

August1991 · May 24, 2007

I have read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker (both are excellent books and I strongly recommend them as part of any thinking person's basic knowledge). I haven't read Dawkins' latest anti-religion book but I heard him on CBC-1's Ideas.

[rant]CBC-1 usually drives me around the bend because it never presents the other side of the story. CBC-1 is, as the name suggests, one-sided.

Yet IMV, the idea of tax-financed, commercial-free radio/TV is a good idea, and so I listen to CBC (and R-C) usually while driving. Bottom line, I get to hear what the Enright/Tremonti Palestinian Leftists are thinking. Nevertheless, I'm waiting for the CBC to hire Mark Steyn for a weekly half-hour on "The Current".[/rant]

----

Dawkins' argument is that we are all atheists with respect to other religions. Buddhists are atheists to Muslims. And Christians are atheists to Hindus. Religious people specifically refuse to believe in other Gods.

If an agnostic meets a Muslim, the agnostic can honestly claim to be possibly wrong. If a Hindu meets a Christian, the Hindu must be an "atheist" in the Christian's eyes.

Dawkins' argument is that the default position, for most if us, is atheism - not agnosticism. Europeans no longer pray to Zeus or Thor. They don't believe in these Gods; they are atheists. IOW, a Christian is an atheist in all other religions.

Is this a good argument against agnosticism? I think it's a good argument against "organized religion". Dawkins is really arguing that if a person accepts to be part of one group, there is an implicit choice not to be part of any other group. Is agnosticism really an expression of the desire not to join?

The Judeo-Christian-Muslim claim to have the same God has always struck me as odd - it certainly undermines Dawkins' claims about the evils of religion. And in the same order of ideas, most religious wars undermine Dawkins' claims about the evils of religion.

In Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites kill each other and yet believe in the same Muslim God. European history - far violent than any other continent on the planet - is largely about Protestants and Catholics killing each other.

----

In short, according to Dawkins, agnostics are taking the easy way out. They are in fact atheists.

I'm arguing that agnostics are refusing to join - when the essence of life is commitment.

Catchme · May 24, 2007

So what you are saying agnostics are sitting on the fence?

Thanks august Dawkins is extremely intelligent, and an empathetic human.

gc1765 · May 24, 2007

I think it's hard to defend the atheist position. It's about as hard to prove that there is no God as it is to prove that George Bush is not actually an alien from another planet. I don't believe in God because I have no reason to (i.e. I haven't seen any evidence for a God), but that doesn't mean I can prove that God does not exist, just as I would not be able to prove that George Bush is not in fact an alien (though I have no reason to believe he is). So, I'd call myself agnostic. However, I think there is a distinction to made with respect to being an atheist (in general) and being an atheist towards a specific religion. I am an atheist to Christianity. There are many ways to prove that the bible, on which Christianity is based, is not correct. In fact, it can be "proven" wrong. So, I guess that would make me an atheist towards Christianity. I could probably find flaws with other religions as well. That does not, however, rule out the possibility of God(s). There may very well be a God, and it may even resemble the Christian God to some extent, but I can say with a fair amount of certainty that God, if it exists, is not the "Christian God" as described in the bible.

gc1765 · May 24, 2007

The Judeo-Christian-Muslim claim to have the same God has always struck me as odd - it certainly undermines Dawkins' claims about the evils of religion. And in the same order of ideas, most religious wars undermine Dawkins' claims about the evils of religion.
In Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites kill each other and yet believe in the same Muslim God. European history - far violent than any other continent on the planet - is largely about Protestants and Catholics killing each other.

How does that undermine Dawkins' claims about the evils of religions? Sunnis & Shiites (or Protestants & Catholics) have different beliefs (even if they are considered the same religion in a broader sense), and each believes without a doubt that they are correct and everyone who does not believe what they do is wrong.

myata · May 24, 2007

How about clarifying terminology?

Militant atheist = someone attempting to prove that god(s) does not exist

(just or simply) Atheist = someone who personally does not believe in ANY god(s)

Agnostic = someone who does not make a statement of belief or otherwise in ANY god(s)

Believer = someone who believes in SOME god(s), to the exclusion of others or otherwise.

I'm not sure that mixing #2 (atheist) and #4 (believer) can explain a lot. There're believers who accept existence of other gods and those who don't. An atheist rejects the believe in certain god because there's no place for any gods in their view of the world while believer in a different god does it simply because the place of the god in their world view is already taken. These are completely different positions.

I also don't see why agnostics should be bundled together with atheists. In their worldview the question has not been decided either way.

myata · May 24, 2007

Also, the argument of multiple religions as disproof of all does not really work. In the ecumenical view of the world, multiple religions are explained as different but equally valid manifestations of the divine (if I'm not mistaken). Therefore, it can only refute the narrow definition of a belief as "my only to the wrong of all others".

Figleaf · May 24, 2007

...
Dawkins' argument is that we are all atheists with respect to other religions. Buddhists are atheists to Muslims. And Christians are atheists to Hindus. Religious people specifically refuse to believe in other Gods.

If an agnostic meets a Muslim, the agnostic can honestly claim to be possibly wrong. If a Hindu meets a Christian, the Hindu must be an "atheist" in the Christian's eyes. ...

I understand what Dawkins is trying to convey, but I don't agree with his formulation. The application of the word 'atheist' to varieties of theists is likely to invite unproductive confusion.

I'd say religious people are all 'non-believers' WRT eachothers' religions.

(Nice sig, btw.)

Figleaf · May 24, 2007

How about clarifying terminology?
Militant atheist = someone attempting to prove that god(s) does not exist

(just or simply) Atheist = someone who personally does not believe in ANY god(s)

Agnostic = someone who does not make a statement of belief or otherwise in ANY god(s)

Believer = someone who believes in SOME god(s), to the exclusion of others or otherwise.

I'm not sure that mixing #2 (atheist) and #4 (believer) can explain a lot. There're believers who accept existence of other gods and those who don't. An atheist rejects the believe in certain god because there's no place for any gods in their view of the world while believer in a different god does it simply because the place of the god in their world view is already taken. These are completely different positions.

I also don't see why agnostics should be bundled together with atheists. In their worldview the question has not been decided either way.

The atheist-agnostic spectrum is complex. Many people declare themselves 'atheist' based on a perceived high probability that there is no 'god', rather than on a final proof. Likewise, many 'agnostics' are effectively atheistic, and reserve only a theoretical admission that a final proof has not been rendered.

And then there are deists, who think there's some numinous unexplained element of reality but that they have no particularly thorough idea of what it's like.

myata · May 24, 2007

Yes, but that's why it's good to define (and keep to) exact meanings of terms, other than of course, in discussions round dinner table. Atheist is someone who does not have a belief in god(s), period. Agnostic is someone who does not reject either choice, whatever probability. Believer is someone who believes in (at least one) god, whether or not they accept or deny the existence of gods from other beliefs. Which by the way is another distinction, because "accepting existence" is not equivalent to "worship". E.g. ecumenical muslim will accept the existence of Hindy gods (as manifestation of divine which is different from her own), but it does not mean that she will worship them. In this way, she will be a believer who is not "atheistic" to other gods.

Apart from terminology, the argument that non-believing in other gods somehow makes atheism a "default" worldview doesn't hold water, even from merely checking the history.

Rue · May 24, 2007

As I understand his positions, he believes there is no intelligent design or something behind it all that originated it all. He seems to argue that everything as we know it is a series of accidents and that anyone who tries to assign intelligent design to these random accidents is suffering from a delusion.

It still doesn't make me an atheist. I still would argue as even he concedes that atheism is arrogant in that it goes so far as to believe in an absolute the same way religious people believe in absolutes about "God".

I myself do not think any human is capable of defining anything absolutely and at best all we end up with are opinions even those tested with empirical methodology.

To me if you could prove God did not exist you would in fact also be proving its existence. I do believe the exact opposites become one and the same in any form of conception. That I believe although not absolutely but most probably.

cybercoma · May 24, 2007

The atheist-agnostic spectrum is complex. Many people declare themselves 'atheist' based on a perceived high probability that there is no 'god', rather than on a final proof. Likewise, many 'agnostics' are effectively atheistic, and reserve only a theoretical admission that a final proof has not been rendered.
And then there are deists, who think there's some numinous unexplained element of reality but that they have no particularly thorough idea of what it's like.

Said better than I ever could. I think there may only be a couple posters on this forum who understand the atheist-agnostic spectrum.

I refer to myself as an atheist because I believe in ANY current religion's God about as much as I believe in the ancient Egyptian Gods or the Gods of Olympus, etc.

Clearly it is impossible to prove they do not exist; however, the believers in God are making it that way. Quite often they make disclaimers that "God is outside scientific discovery" or "God is unknowable". Well, ok then. You know he exists, but... uh... you can't really know he exists. Ok. :rolleyes:

Perhaps there is a God, but since no one has been able to show that there is one -- let alone a benevolent one at that -- I'm going to live my life as though the belief in these things is superstitious.

Deists are a strange duck. There's a supreme being, but he's a lazy bastard that just set the ball rolling. The inactive-higher-power/God-in-the-gaps thing is amusing at best. It's a way of being an atheist, without offending theists. "Oh, I believe in God... but not the one that you pray to. There's a higher power out there, but... uh... he's just steering the vehicle."

Agnosticism is another way of being non-offensive or non-confrontational because you think you need to respect religious freedom. "Well I don't know if there is or isn't a God." Please. "Maybe there is or maybe there isn't" is atheism. Agnostics don't live their life as though there's a God. They don't worship God, they don't BELIEVE in God, they don't have FAITH in God. They're atheists that are doing nothing more than respecting religious freedom.

They're fostering the environment that religion is never to be questioned, which allows dogmatic idiots to blow themselves up on buses, kill their daughters for marrying people of a different religion, shoot abortion doctors, humiliate homosexuals making them feel as though there's something wrong with them and believing that God has charged them with the responsibility to start a war with another nation.

There shouldn't be religious freedom. Religion should be held up to the same scrutiny as scientists and politicians, so that logic and reason can prevail.

cybercoma · May 24, 2007

Yes, but that's why it's good to define (and keep to) exact meanings of terms, other than of course, in discussions round dinner table. Atheist is someone who does not have a belief in god(s), period. Agnostic is someone who does not reject either choice, whatever probability. Believer is someone who believes in (at least one) god, whether or not they accept or deny the existence of gods from other beliefs. Which by the way is another distinction, because "accepting existence" is not equivalent to "worship". E.g. ecumenical muslim will accept the existence of Hindy gods (as manifestation of divine which is different from her own), but it does not mean that she will worship them. In this way, she will be a believer who is not "atheistic" to other gods.
Apart from terminology, the argument that non-believing in other gods somehow makes atheism a "default" worldview doesn't hold water, even from merely checking the history.

An agnostic believes in 50/50 probability. Atheists do not necessarily believe there is a 0% chance of a God (although some poor misguided people do). The fact is, most people who consider themselves atheists simply believe there is very little possibility of a God, so they live their lives as though there isn't one.

There's a big range from 50% chance down to 0% chance and I do believe it's impossible to call yourself agnostic if you think there may be a 1% chance or less of there being a God. Hell, I think it's difficult to call yourself an agnostic even if you think there's a 1 in 10 chance that there's a God.

newbie · May 24, 2007

Agnosticism is another way of being non-offensive or non-confrontational because you think you need to respect religious freedom. "Well I don't know if there is or isn't a God." Please. "Maybe there is or maybe there isn't" is atheism. Agnostics don't live their life as though there's a God. They don't worship God, they don't BELIEVE in God, they don't have FAITH in God. They're atheists that are doing nothing more than respecting religious freedom....

I would challenge that a bit. I consider myself agnostic and hold out that there might be a God. I probably lean a bit more towards there being this enitity, but find all theories as to his/her existence inconclusive. I think your premise is a bit too black and white IMHO.

cybercoma · May 24, 2007

As I understand his positions, he believes there is no intelligent design or something behind it all that originated it all. He seems to argue that everything as we know it is a series of accidents and that anyone who tries to assign intelligent design to these random accidents is suffering from a delusion.

You clearly don't understand Mr. Dawkins or evolution if you think he said it as a series of "accidents". Evolution is not at all accidental and that's what makes it so true.

Richard Dawkins once said, "life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." It is the NOT ACCIDENTAL survival of genes that vary at random. It is because of a genetic fitness for the environment and survival that life evolves.

I'm not trying to be condescending, but there really is nothing accidental about it.

Another great quote from him is this:

"It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism was really a theory of chance, it could not work."

Figleaf · May 24, 2007

You know it strikes me that, observed from a hypothetical external vantage point, Universe might be seen to be intelligently creating itself. Pantheism/Panentheism may be the most difficult of Faiths to disprove.

Which leads to another point -- The pre-occupation of religion/atheism discussions with the existence of God is over done, I think. Most religions have doctrines specifying extensive, elaborate renditions of heavens, hells, magical deeds of prophets, intricately spun webs of arbitrary rules, prescribed rituals, food taboos, sex taboos, and incredible and variegated creation myths.

Quite apart from whether God exists, there is the much more devastating question of whether It could really be so ... inane.

++++++++++++++++

I myself do not think any human is capable of defining anything absolutely and at best all we end up with are opinions even those tested with empirical methodology.

I concur. An element of uncertainty is an ineluctible fact of human existence. For this reason (and quite possibly, this reason alone) the full-on atheist is an irrational-believer (thought not a Believer).

cybercoma · May 25, 2007

I couldn't agree more with Figleaf. We cannot with certainty disprove anything, however, when making a claim that something does exist, it certainly helps to prove it.

cybercoma · May 25, 2007

A great quote from Professor Dawkins on agnosticism:

"There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"

BC_chick · May 31, 2007

The Judeo-Christian-Muslim claim to have the same God has always struck me as odd - it certainly undermines Dawkins' claims about the evils of religion. And in the same order of ideas, most religious wars undermine Dawkins' claims about the evils of religion.

The "God" may be the same ( which is also disputable depending on the interpretation) but the tenets of each religion make them all mutually exclusive. For example, Judaism still awaits the return of the Messiah, therefore it would reject Jesus and Mohammed as prophets. Islam rejects Jesus as Lord, and Christianity reject Mohammed as a prophet. So as much as they they say they're the same, they're not, their tenets make it impossible to accept each other and an unfortunate repercussion of this belief system is the dogmaticism which is often manifested through violence.

Therein lies the "evils of religion" that Dawkins talks about.

IMO God and religion should not be used interchangeably and Dawkins doesn't always make that distinction.

theloniusfleabag · June 1, 2007

I personally am a devout agnostic and make no bones about it. I shun organized religion of all forms. Indeed, most of them are based on the primary notion that someone in the past claims to have met 'god', and then told other people...'God told me that we should eat this and not that, pray this way and not that way, and that you should give me 10% of everything so I can build him a nice, golden temple, etc". Then, someone else came along, and said..."I met god too, and he told me something different'.

Apart from the ending of human sacrafice, (which logic and reason should have led us to eventually anyway), I see religion as causing more harm than good. All by man's hand. So, if I believe that man invented man's notion of god (and thereby all religions), it is easy to refute the current belief system, but I do not have the ability to refute whether a god exists. So I live, happily I might add, without caring what the answer to the question might be.

myata · June 7, 2007

Dawkins' argument is that we are all atheists with respect to other religions. ....
...

Dawkins' argument is that the default position, for most if us, is atheism - not agnosticism.

Also: if the same argument was applied to other aspects of human culture - such as language - it'd lead to the absurd conclusion that the "default position" for most of us would be "alingual" (i.e not speaking any language) simply because we don't happen to speak 99% of the world's other languages.

cybercoma · June 7, 2007

Also: if the same argument was applied to other aspects of human culture - such as language - it'd lead to the absurd conclusion that the "default position" for most of us would be "alingual" (i.e not speaking any language) simply because we don't happen to speak 99% of the world's other languages.

The default position is alingual, until your parents teach you the language they speak.

Just as the default position is atheist, until your parents teach you the religion they believe.

Mad_Michael · June 7, 2007

Just as the default position is atheist, until your parents teach you the religion they believe.

Yes, the vast majority of those who are actively religious had their religion given to them as children from their parents.

Adult adoption of religion is comparatively quite rare.

Any given person's religion co-relates with that of their parents at a far higher rate than political partisanship.

myata · June 7, 2007

The default position is alingual, until your parents teach you the language they speak.
Just as the default position is atheist, until your parents teach you the religion they believe.

You mean, humans have no predisposition (genetic, cultural etc) to learning a languge? Then, perhaps, you could try to teach a newborn pup (or any animal of your choice) to speak e.g. Portugese?

Actually, history has given us a nice experiment, in the example of post communist countries, some of which were strongly enforcing non-religious education, even for several generations, and are currently experiencing revival of religious tradition (e.g Russia). I wouldn't look for the hand of god in this though. Being conscious animals, humans tend extend their perception of consciesness to the outside world, from the times immemorial.

Mad_Michael · June 7, 2007

You mean, humans have no predisposition (genetic, cultural etc) to learning a languge?

I don't belive the quotation in reference admits of that interpretation.

Rather, which particular language that the parents choose to teach is the relevant point.

Remiel · June 7, 2007

Deists are a strange duck. There's a supreme being, but he's a lazy bastard that just set the ball rolling. The inactive-higher-power/God-in-the-gaps thing is amusing at best. It's a way of being an atheist, without offending theists. "Oh, I believe in God... but not the one that you pray to. There's a higher power out there, but... uh... he's just steering the vehicle."

This is exactly why I can't stand your religious arguments, cybercoma. You try to reduce everyone else to the state of being some kind of weak-willed atheist or total quack and yet you have yet to explore the issue of whether atheists are just delusional or weak-willed nihilists. You're so convinced of your own positions superiority that you can't see that it wobbles just as others do.

Deists are not freakin' atheists who just want to be nice to theists. They are the most pure form of theist.