![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In my experience, most agnostics are practically atheist. They don't believe in god or afterlife, they're not praying, they're not worrying about it all. There are exceptions, from the occasional "agnostic theist" to a more common agnostic who is "seeking", or struggling, or wistfully wishing X was true, or on their way from being Christian to being atheist. But even those could largely be seen as functionally not-theist.
Conversely, most atheists are philosophically agnostic. Some do say that they've proved God can't exist, or think that has been proven, but most, if pressed, will disclaim certainty. They don't need it, being happy with implausibility rather than impossibility, because their (our) key argument is not "I know you're wrong" but "there's no evidence that you're right."
Conversely, most atheists are philosophically agnostic. Some do say that they've proved God can't exist, or think that has been proven, but most, if pressed, will disclaim certainty. They don't need it, being happy with implausibility rather than impossibility, because their (our) key argument is not "I know you're wrong" but "there's no evidence that you're right."
So if the bulk of atheists and agnostics overlap, why pick one label over another? Part of it is beliefs about what the definitions are, or what "belief in no God" means: countless times I've seen agnostics say that they're not atheist because that would be claiming certainty "just like a believer", immediately followed by atheists saying "no, you've missed the point." Part of it's personal history and what one is comfortable with for subrational reasons; in my case, I once as a child answered that I was agnostic out of cowardice and promptly got called on it[1], leading to a vow to not sell out again.
But there's also what message you're sending. Agnostics aren't the only ones who think 'atheist' means faith-like certainty in non-existence, for believers often respond that way too. But that's not the only message in play -- what message does calling yourself 'agnostic' send, and is it one atheists would want? To my mind, agnostic isn't just making a philosophical point about lack of certainty, but says that various religions have a real chance of being right, that there's a level playing field between atheism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Scientology, Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, Sioux beliefs, Mbuti beliefs, etc. Well, maybe most agnostics would balk at some point in that list, but certainly level playing field between atheism and Christianity is often implied, or at least inferred by me. And then the atheist asks why one should stop at any point on the list.
Whereas the atheist uncertainty is more on the order of "there's no proof the Sun will rise tomorrow; the laws of physics are just observed patterns which *could* be a big coincidence." A philosophical point, not a practical one. The message the atheist really wants to send is "So, what's your evidence, anyway? I'm sorry, let me rephrase, what's your *convincing* evidence? Why should I take Jesus any more seriously than Zeus, or than you yourself take Brahma or Mohamed? You don't believe in Islam, well, I don't believe in Islam *or* Christianity." Do you (for agnostics) really think general Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology, Shinto, and the latest cult are on a level playing field, and if not, if you feel able to rule out some of those, why not all of them?
Core agnostic message: "I don't know", with room to infer "and maybe I can be convinced." Atheist message: "I may not KNOW, but damn am I skeptical." Often with "and I've looked at other religions, and for that matter your own religion, more than you have" as a followup.
Of course, this all assumes that truth-value is relevant, as opposed to social-utility value.
[1] It was on the schoolbus, 8th grade probably. For some reason I got asked what my religion was, and surrounded by a bunch of not overly friendly kids, I said agnostic, despite thinking of myself as atheist. They asked what agnostic meant, and another kid answered "it's what atheists answer when they don't want to say they're atheist." Which isn't true in general, but was really specifically true of me, and I burned with shame.
But there's also what message you're sending. Agnostics aren't the only ones who think 'atheist' means faith-like certainty in non-existence, for believers often respond that way too. But that's not the only message in play -- what message does calling yourself 'agnostic' send, and is it one atheists would want? To my mind, agnostic isn't just making a philosophical point about lack of certainty, but says that various religions have a real chance of being right, that there's a level playing field between atheism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Scientology, Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, Sioux beliefs, Mbuti beliefs, etc. Well, maybe most agnostics would balk at some point in that list, but certainly level playing field between atheism and Christianity is often implied, or at least inferred by me. And then the atheist asks why one should stop at any point on the list.
Whereas the atheist uncertainty is more on the order of "there's no proof the Sun will rise tomorrow; the laws of physics are just observed patterns which *could* be a big coincidence." A philosophical point, not a practical one. The message the atheist really wants to send is "So, what's your evidence, anyway? I'm sorry, let me rephrase, what's your *convincing* evidence? Why should I take Jesus any more seriously than Zeus, or than you yourself take Brahma or Mohamed? You don't believe in Islam, well, I don't believe in Islam *or* Christianity." Do you (for agnostics) really think general Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology, Shinto, and the latest cult are on a level playing field, and if not, if you feel able to rule out some of those, why not all of them?
Core agnostic message: "I don't know", with room to infer "and maybe I can be convinced." Atheist message: "I may not KNOW, but damn am I skeptical." Often with "and I've looked at other religions, and for that matter your own religion, more than you have" as a followup.
Of course, this all assumes that truth-value is relevant, as opposed to social-utility value.
[1] It was on the schoolbus, 8th grade probably. For some reason I got asked what my religion was, and surrounded by a bunch of not overly friendly kids, I said agnostic, despite thinking of myself as atheist. They asked what agnostic meant, and another kid answered "it's what atheists answer when they don't want to say they're atheist." Which isn't true in general, but was really specifically true of me, and I burned with shame.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 20:53 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 23:02 (UTC)From:gods. The type of atheism you describe is philosophical atheism based on an empirical/materialistic world view which in turn is likely to lead to a rejection of certain values of God, but in principle you can believe in spiritualism, astrology, reincarnation, pixies, homeopathy or that Newcastle will win the Premier League and still be an atheist.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 23:15 (UTC)From:Whether Fanw's inclinations and beliefs actually qualify as what I'd call woowoo I don't know; I hear the words, but the actual intended meaning has always been elusive. "spiritual" is a slippery word.
While I'm posting, I'll add a clarification I'd been thinking of: I'm not out to relabel all agnostics. Someone who's broken somewhat with their religion, but has lots of doubts, is perfect for the agnostic label. And there may be other good varieties as well. But I think I've seen people who are practically atheist in every way, and even attack religion on their own, but who then turn and say "oh, I'm not atheist, that'd be being as dogmatic as a believer." (I know I've seen that statement, many times; I'm not *certain* I've seen it coupled with the other traits, it could be my memory is conflating things.) Grrr.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-03 21:38 (UTC)From: (Anonymous)no subject
Date: 2007-11-03 21:46 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-03 17:01 (UTC)From:Of course you say they're articles of faith, so maybe there isn't supposed to be an external difference. But surely there's a difference to you? How is your life and behavior different for having those beliefs compared to not having them, or having the alternatives you might imagine?
As an example, if I believed in the inherent evil of humans, I imagine I might never trust anyone. Never really opening up emotionally, looking for the 'inevitable' betrayal. If I believed in inherent goodness as some potential, I'm not sure my life would be much different compared to not believing in inherent anything, but just expecting people to be various mixes of good and bad, or of various personality traits. If I believed in goodness as some 'stuff' infusing people... nah, I don't think I can actually wrap my mind around that.