The Absurdity of Agnosticism
Yes, I had another of those bizarre Twitter debates, but amazingly, this time it wasn’t with a delusional theist, but with a delusional agnostic.
First off, there’s the clear misunderstanding of what atheism actually is. Atheism is the single answer to a single question: “do you believe in a god”. That’s it. That’s all. Likewise, agnosticism is a single answer to a single question: “can man know anything about the existence or characteristics of god(s)?” If someone asks you if you’re a theist or an atheist and you answer agnostic, that’s like someone asking you what your favorite color is and answering “elephant”. It’s important to be able to separate your belief structure down into it’s component parts and I think that’s an issue for some of these people who are looking for a single word to describe their overall belief structure. Unfortunately, that just doesn’t work, it’s not a realistic goal.
This is a question about belief, specifically belief in a god or gods. It has nothing to do with certainty, it has nothing to do with knowledge, it has nothing to do with anything but that single answer to the single question “do you believe in a god?” Belief is an active state, it is never passive. You can never be unsure if you believe something, if you are not positive that you do, then you do not. This is also a binary question, you are going to fit into one of these two categories whether you like it or not. If you say that you do believe in a god or gods, that you have undertaken an active belief that they do exist, you are a theist. If you take *ANY OTHER POSITION*, whether it’s no, I don’t know, I don’t care, etc. then you are an atheist.
Unfortunately, our agnostic friend says that because he doesn’t take a firm position one way or the other, he cannot possibly fall into the “atheist” bin, clearly not understanding that the question has nothing to do with firm positions against belief in god(s), only firm position in favor of it. Even after repeated explanations, he still couldn’t grasp that one simple concept.
The problem is, it makes no sense. There are some questions that are entirely binary. Are you dead or not dead? There is no third option for this question. You can only answer one way or the other, ignoring the fact that if you’re dead, you can’t answer at all. Saying “I don’t know” doesn’t change the question or add alternatives. Assuming that you could answer affirmatively in the first place, anything but that “yes” answer would automatically put you into the second category, no matter what other answer you gave. You could be in a coma but that doesn’t represent a limbo state between the two, you’re still alive.
Words have meanings and if you ignore those meanings, no matter what your intentions, you’re still wrong. The reason lots of self-identified agnostics don’t want to call themselves atheists is because they are afraid to identify with the stigma the word has, therefore they go for the milquetoast alternative that they hope will offend the religious less than “atheist”. Seriously though, is fear a sufficient reason for ignoring truth? I don’t really give a damn what you want to call yourself, I only care about fact and accuracy and ignoring a perfectly good word that has a specific meaning in favor of misusing another word that doesn’t mean what you want to insist it does makes no logical sense.
I wish I could say that this kind of disagreement was uncommon but it isn’t. Most of the people, at least in my experience, who cling to the “agnostic” position like this are the young, perhaps college-age who are just getting their first dose of philosophy and suddenly think they know everything. In that sense, they’re very much like a lot of born again Christians who suddenly think they’ve got the whole world figured out because they’ve been introduced to a new concept, when in reality, they’re just noodling their navel and reveling in their own ignorance. It’s sad, but luckily most of them eventually grow up. I hope that’s the case for this particular individual and he stops worrying about what everyone else thinks of him and starts being realistic.
13 Comments to “The Absurdity of Agnosticism”
I agree with you that agnosticism is absurd, albeit my reasoning behind it you won't like nor understand untill you experience certain things for your self. Agnosticism usualy comes from the sense which people get that there is some sort of deity out there and their atheism goes bye-bye. It's a phase when their experinece convinced them that "randomness" isn't that random after all, yet they are not prepared to give up the weight of their egoism that made them aheists. So, they choice is usualy to call them selves "agnostic" rather then to submit to requests this deity(s) could have. It's does look more convinient at first glance, but is logicaly absurd. They claim "agnosticism" is something in between "atheist" and "theist" which in a sense it is from their POV and in a phase they are in. However, one can only either belive in existance of god(s) which makes him a theist, or not believe which makes him an athiest. So basicaly, to me they are theists that decided to ignore implications of their realisation that God does exist.
So much for "I'm not coming back" huh?
I guess you like spam then. Whatever. Moderation is the *DEFAULT* setting for WordPress, like it or not. IntenseDebate has their own settings, of which I am also using the default. The overwhelming majority of all blogs out there use these settings. I guess you and reality just don’t get along.
I'm still waiting for you to think at all, so far all you're doing is spouting nonsense, you are not logically defending your views, and as nobody else has agreed with you…
There is no blog on the planet that doesn't engage in comment moderation…
Then, I guess my blog, and about two hundred others I visit regularly, must be on another planet.
Seriously, man, that's the kind of outrageous statement that pissed me off at you in the first place. Think for a second, before you write.
Since it is pointless to respond to you, I'll only say this. There is no blog on the planet that doesn't engage in comment moderation and, due to the way IntenseDebate is set up, apparently those who do not have accounts will automatically be set up to be moderated every time. It's entirely out of my hands. People like Philly below show up automatically while those without ID accounts just don't. I haven't got a clue how to make it work any differently, if there even is a way.
So stop being a prick and pontificating on things that you clearly have no clue on. Maybe that's why nobody agrees with you.
There's a technical and a colloquial "agnosticism". Technically, it refers to knowledge so we're all agnostics because no one KNOWS if there is or isn't any gods. Now that's not what people think of usually for agnosticism though, they think of the colloquial usage of being unsure or taking a neutral position on the god belief question. As Cephus correctly points out, that's simply not possible and I'll explain why.
Many who call themselves agnostics claim it's impossible to know of gods. Why not? Well, they'll often point to the claimed characteristics of these gods as why they can't be known, but to do so is accepting the premises of the theists' god claims. THAT is certainly not taking a neutral position then, nor is it a position of uncertainty.
I think most are simply confused about what atheism means. If they see atheism to be an assertion that there are no gods, and theism as the assertion that there is at least one out there, then it's understandable that they'd claim to be agnostics for both of those options are less than desirable. If they understood that many atheists see atheism as simply the rejection of god claims, they may be less likely to claim to be agnostic and instead claim to be atheists.
Now of course there is the social stigma, so there are probably agnostics who call themselves agnostics just to avoid pissing people off, but they're not really agnostics. They're just pussies. 
As for dictionaries, they most certainly have not been impartial when it comes to defining atheism. Most are better now, but check out the freedictionary.com:
atheist n One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Capital G? Seriously? And why the distinction? Why not just leave it at gods? Merriam-Webster simply uses "deity" as it should.
The real problem lies in the fact that more and more atheists today consider atheism as the rejection of god claims due to the failure of theists to present an adequate warrant for accepting their claims, but there are still the atheists who simply assert there are no gods, decide there aren't because of silly reasons (ie – tea leaves, gut feeling, their invisible friend told them, etc) or as a doctrinal belief (ie – Buddhists, Raellians, Scientology, etc). We atheists who look at the claims logically and objectively and find them lacking need a term, a label which can set us apart from those other atheists. Until then, or until we force them into another label, we're going to face various ramifications from this confusion of what atheism means, and one clear ramification is so-called agnostics.
I have to agree with Cephus on this.
To me, "agnostic" says absolutely nothing about *what you believe* – It's about *what you can know*. If you state you are agnostic, you are saying that you don't believe god is a proposition which *can be known*. But since it *can't* then, de facto, you *don't" – and that leaves you as an atheist until you *can* know something, one way or the other. If you decide it *can* be known, you may come away as either an atheist or a theist. If you continue to find it *can't* be known, then you continue to be an atheist.
While I agree that words and meanings do change over time and that more than one definition of atheist can be found right this minute if we search various dictionaries, the basic "without god" will always be there in some form. An agnostic is without god, and the fact that s/he asserts it "can't be known" proves it.
Once again, you smugly assert the correctness of your positions because — well, just because you said so. That's right out of the Fundy playbook.
And you put words in my mouth. That's also a Fundy tactic. Neither of my arguments was about "atheist" or "agnostic" being sensitive words. Fuck that. I made two slightly related points in my original comment: (1) There actually are some people who believe that they can truthfully describe themselves as "agnostic." (2) I, personally, dislike the word "atheist" because it implies that we lack something — which we don't. You jumped on both of these statements — the second of which was not suggested as anything other than my own particular preference — because they violated your narrow viewpoint.
You're completely ignorant about how languages work. Guess what? Greek evolved just as did English, Hindi, Hebrew, Chinese, Finnish, and any other other languages you can name except maybe Pig Latin. Going back to meanings that just happen to strike you as the most pure and simple — hey, that's Fundy 101. ("I don't care about facts; here's the truth as I see it, and everybody else should see it that way, too.")
Perhaps worst of all, you made wildly unsubstantiated claims, a common Fundy ploy. Respectable dictionaries are not "notoriously (your ignorant word, based on no evidence but your own self-assertion) shaped by opinions and beliefs of those who write them." Dictionaries like the OED, the Random House, the American Heritage, the HarperCollins, the Chambers, the Merriam-Webster … all go through a complex series of steps, including lots of input from linguistics experts, in the process of being revised and updated. But, hey, don't worry about the truth — because it's much more convenient for you to make up an unfounded slur.
By the way: Comment moderation is a Fundy trait, too.
So, bottom line: Could you tell me how I or any other atheist can view you as a fellow freethinker, when you haven't demonstrated that you possess any more ability to think than the Fundies we scorn?
Don't bother to answer me, unless you absolutely have to get your rocks off. I won't be back because I make it a point never to engage in intelligent conversation with Fundies. But, I'll give you a tip for the future. if you'd like to present yourself as a reasoning human being, you're going to have to kiss those Fundy tricks goodbye.
Being a freethinker doesn't mean swallowing any load of gullible bullshit that comes down the road, sorry. The point is, words have meanings, you either go with what the words mean or you come up with different words to which you're perfectly free to assign your own meanings. Words like "atheism" and "agnosticism" already have meanings which are quite specific. People who want to twist those meanings so they can avoid a potentially sensitive word like "atheist" are just playing semantical games. It's like someone who likes the sound of the word "Jew" and wants to be a Jew, even if they don't fit the criteria. Simply twisting the definition around so that they can fit under that term doesn't make it so, it's just a word game.
The reason I keep insisting on the same position is that no one, yourself included, has presented a convincing case, backed up with logical reasoning and evidence, that supports a different path. To date, the best supported argument I've seen is the binary argument. Like all uses of the "a-" prefix, it represents a position without the initial claim. "Amoral" does not mean "opposed to morals", it means "without morals". It, like atheism, is a binary position. If you have morals, you are moral. Any other claim, including "I don't know" and "I don't care" puts you into the amoral camp. There is no "maybe-moral" position. Likewise, a theist is someone who has a positive belief in the existence of a god. Anyone who does not have that positive belief is, by definition, an atheist. You either have that belief or you don't. For those who aren't sure, obviously they don't have that belief or they'd be sure. It's not rocket science, it's just logic.
As for your dictionary comment, anyone can publish a book, call it a dictionary and claim that it defines words. There's no "rules" that have to be kept, no regulatory industry that keeps track of who is publishing accurate dictionaries and who is not. Dictionaries are also notoriously shaped by the opinions and beliefs of those who write them, they have biases. Therefore, it is important to go back to what words actually mean, not what men publish in books claiming they mean. "Atheism" and "agnosticism" go back to the Greeks. I'm using those definitions because they strike me as the most pure and simple available. Anyone who wants to argue logically for a better definition is more than welcome to do so, but so far, no one has.
You're more than welcome to try, but operating by assertion isn't going to convince anyone of anything.
Hey, you must be right, because you keep insisting on the same positions.
Look, as a freethinker, you should take a moment to consider an alternative viewpoint. If you find that you don't agree with that viewpoint, you should articulate your argument better, rather than stating it over and over again in the same way. You keep saying that belief is an either-or condition. Can you demonstrate the truth of that so it doesn't just sound like a bald assertion?
As a fellow atheist, I respect your passion — and I basically agree with your idea here. But you're going to have to do better than blustering the same thing again and again if you expect to engage in any real debate with theists. (I take it that's the point of your blog and your pugnacious image.) I'm on your side, but I'd like to see you represent atheism more effectively than just digging in your heels.
FYI: Languages evolve. There's no such thing as *THE* definition of any term, because meanings are not carved in stone. Today, there are literally hundreds of English dictionaries, each with different sets of definitions for thousands of words. I suggest that we consider finding or coining another term that's more precise than the religionist-slanted "atheist." But you can't even consider that. Why not? You're beginning to sound like a fundamentalist.
If you're not sure if you believe, then you don't believe. Belief, by definition, is an active state. You have to take an active position in order to hold a belief. If you question the belief, then your belief isn't valid. Like it or not, this is a black-and-white, binary position. You either have a belief or you do not. There is no middle ground. As I said in the "are you dead" question, there isn't any logical position you can take where you are neither alive nor dead. By definition, the second you are not alive, you are automatically dead. Likewise, the second you are not a theist, you are automatically an atheist. Trying to dance around the rim of the cup because you don't like the term is logically irrelevant. You are or you are not, period.
I'm not going by "their" definition, I'm going by *THE* definition. Words have meanings, you don't just get to redefine things to suit your purposes. Whether or not you choose to self-identify with these terms doesn't change that fact that, in some sense, those terms may accurately describe you.
Your response merely repeats what you already asserted — perhaps illogically — in the post. I'm asking you:
What about those people who are not sure whether they believe or not, whose minds fluctuate? I hope you're not going to rely on a false dichotomy, as the idiot religionists do, by insisting that there's always a black-and-white either-or position there. I've known people — and so have you, I'm guessing — who can't say for certain what they believe, because they're just not sure. I'd say that as long as there's an inkling of god belief, they're really theists, as I wrote above. But they, themselves, are sincerely incapable of taking a stand because sometimes they believe; sometimes they don't. "Agnostic" may be a convenient term for them to describe themselves.
As you yourself point out: belief is not subject to the will. Some who claim to be agnostics just don't know their own minds. It's as simple as that. Those people exist. Are you too doctrinaire to acknowledge that?
However, so long as the religious exist and keep telling everyone that their imaginary friends are real, I will continue to stand up as an atheist and speak out.
So you're saying that you buy into their definition of humans as either believers or not. I don't choose to define myself the way they would like me toThere's no need for me to characterize myself by using the term "theist" at all. Politically, I'm not an aRepublican. Culturally, I'm not an a-redneck.
Belief is not subject to the will, you cannot force yourself, or anyone else, to believe something, only to profess belief in something. Therefore, these self-proclaimed agnostics do not hold belief in the factual existence of any god, thus they are atheists. There is really no two ways about it. Unfortunately, a lot of them are looking for absolute certainty and there's virtually nothing in life that we can be absolutely certain about. Hedging one's bets is intellectually dishonest on the face of it, it just means that you're not brave enough to stand up for your convictions.
I'm an atheist. It describes my position on a single question. If all the theists in the world went away tomorrow, I'd never bother describing myself as an atheist because it would be irrelevant. Having no faith in imaginary friends is no more relevant in a faithless-world than having no faith in Bigfoot in a world where nobody talks about Bigfoot. However, so long as the religious exist and keep telling everyone that their imaginary friends are real, I will continue to stand up as an atheist and speak out.
Basically, I agree with you — but I have a slightly different take on this.
A person can't force himself to believe or not to believe; you either do or you don't. I always feel that people who call themselves "agnostics" are uncomfortable acknowledging their own position, so they decide to hedge their bets. Some of them, as you point out, are just afraid calling themselves "atheists," because they fear societal repercussions.
But I think that some self-proclaimed "agnostics" are worried about offending the "possible" god" in whom they don't believe fully. They're testing the waters, to see if their god responds. Really, those people are still theists.
By the way, although I use "atheist" proudly to characterize myself in "mixed" company — because it's a nice shorthand word to describe what I don't believe in — I find it somewhat offensive. I don't lack anything, as the tag "atheist" implies, at least linguistically. I'm faith-free. So, until a better term is suggested, when I'm in the company of others who are similarly free of (not "from") faith, I refer to myself as a "faithfreeist." It's an awkward mouthful, but it describes my worldview precisely.
Bitchscriptions
Revolt Basic theme by NenadK. | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).