![[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 21:00 (UTC)From:There's a difference between truth and the retelling of the truth. For example, I believe there was an attack on Troy, but given the nature of oral history, I'm not sure I believe every little bit of what got written down from Homer's memory. In the same way, Christians don't deny that Matthew, Mark, Luke & John wrote their bits of the New Testament, not God. Same goes for the Old Testament, but with anonymous writers. The religious authority took great care in choosing what texts were more reliable and what were less reliable and could be tossed into the Apocrypha. So here I see less of a difference between my stance (it was written by Man) and a Christians stance (it was written by a prophet) than I think you are implying.
Yes, there are plenty who believe if it's written in the book then it's true. But I think, I really do believe, there are many more who use it as a guide, as parable. Now, of course, I'm discounting the fundamentalists who really do believe every word is true, but there's certainly enough of a tradition of interpretation, in Judaism, in Christianity, etc, that I don't feel my comment was that flippant.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 21:19 (UTC)From:But all that said, and noting that the Catholic Church passed on literalism from the beginning... you've still got fundamental beliefs, without which I think Christianity gets gutted, and its martyrs look sad. That Christ was the Son of God, sent to redeem humanity of its original sin (see: Adam, Eve, Eden) not to mention all the other sins, through the miracle of the crucifixion and Resurrection, and providing through faith in Him not hell or death (sources vary) but eternal life. That, and maybe some stuff about the Holy Ghost and Mary, are basic creeds of almost all varieties of Christianity. A congregation of believers vs. apostolic succession and holy priests might be debatable, but what I listed isn't.
Well, *these days* you can find "Christians" who'd bend even on that... but that's pretty novel, I think, and post- the Enlightenment bitch-slapping Christianity for a few centuries. Older Christians would happily burn the lot as heretics.
And the more liberal you get, the weirder it seems to me if you stop to think about it. If one doubts the miracle of the zombies, why believe the miracle of the Resurrection? And that's that say about Matthew, who added the zombies (or believed someone else who added the zombies?) If Gabriel didn't dictate to Mohammed, or God to Moses, what does that say about the books which claim he did, and the religions based on those books?
Huh, I fear I'm rambling now. Oh well.