Ch. 5: Why I Am An Atheist

Chris OConnor · Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:19 pm

Ch. 5: Why I Am An Atheist

Please use this thread for discussing this chapter. :idea:

geo · Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:07 pm

I thought of posting this in the "Is the agnostic a cowardly atheist" thread, but I didn't want to interrupt the very worthwhile tangential discussion taking place there. In any event, I consider Barker's discussion of the etymological differences between atheism and agnosticism to be one of the more interesting threads of his book. I have never heard agnosticism explained in quite this way and I really like the way Barker explains it. What do you guys think?


	Quote: People are invariably surprised to hear me say I am both an atheist and an agnostic, as if this somehow weakens my certainty. I usually reply with a question like, "Well, are you a Republican or an American?" The two words serve different concepts and are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, " I don't have a knowledge that God exists." The atheist says, "I don't have a belief that God exists." You can say both things at the same time. Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic. Agnosticism is the refusal to take as fact any statement for which there is insufficient evidence. It may be applied to any area of life, whether science, UFOs, politics or history, though it is most commonly invoked in a religious context as it was first used. The word agnostic was coined by Thomas Huxley, who attached the prefix a-- (not without) to gnostic, which is from the Greek gnosis (knowledge). One common fallacy about agnosticism is that it is a halfway house between theism and atheism-but that cannot be since it performs in a different arena. If you answer the question "Do you believe in a god?" with a "yes" (by any definition of "god"), then you are a theist. If you cannot answer "yes" you are an atheist-you are without a belief in a god. Another fallacy is that agnostics claim to know nothing, making them equal to skeptics (á la Hume) who claim that nothing can be known to exist outside of the mind. Although there may be a few who continue to push philosophy to this extreme, most contemporary agnostics do claim to know man things that are supported b evidence. They may posses strong opinions and even take tentative stands on fuzzy issues, but they will not claim as a fact something for which data is lacking or something which data contradicts. Agnosticism is sensible. It turns out that atheism means much less than I thought. It is merely the lack of theism. It is not a philosophy of life and it offers no values. It predicts nothing of morality or motives. In my case, becoming an atheist was a positive move-the removal of the negative baggage of religious fallacy-and that is rather like having a large debt removed. It has brought me up to zero, to where my mind is free to think. Those atheists who want to go beyond zero, who want to actually put some money in the bank-and most of them do, I think-will embrace a positive philosophy such as humanism, feminism or another naturalistic ethical system. Or the will promote charity, philanthropy, learning, science, beauty, art-all those human activities that enhance life. But to be an atheist, you don't need any positive philosophy at all or need to be a good person. You are an atheist if you lack a belief in a god.

giselle · Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:40 pm

"The agnostic says, " I don't have a knowledge that God exists." The atheist says, "I don't have a belief that God exists." You can say both things at the same time. Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic."

I found Barker's discussion of agnosticism as a descriptive term and as an identity interesting too.

What is not mentioned directly in this quote is 'faith', although he does use the word 'belief' and perhaps this is a synonym in this context. Barker does go on a few pages later to discuss faith, saying "Faith is actually agnosticism. Faith is what you use when you don't have knowledge."

I'm trying to distinguish a theistic agnostic, one who has faith in god but who does not know that god exists .. from run of the mill Christians or other believers. Since no one has a definitive proof of god's existence, and I don't think that many believers make any such claim, then by Barker's description of agnosticism, they could all be considered theistic agnostics, could they not?

And all atheists, according to the statements quoted from Barker, would be agnostic since it hardly seems likely that one who does not believe in god would claim to have knowledge of god's existence.

So, as Barker claims, you can say both things at the same time, but it doesn't seem to mean much. According to his definition, you have theistic agnostics that look a lot like believers and you have atheistic agnostics that look a lot like atheists. It is faith not knowledge that seperates the believer from the atheist. Everyone can go about claiming that they do not have knowledge of god and according to Barker, they would be agnostics, but so what? This just does not seem a meaningful way to define/differentiate agnostiscm.

Interbane · Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:21 am

The distinction throws a wrench into a theists idea of his own stance. They think they know, perhaps through faith, but they really don't. Don't tell them this, however, or you'll get yelled at. :crazy:

geo · Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:13 am


	giselle wrote: I'm trying to distinguish a theistic agnostic, one who has faith in god but who does not know that god exists .. from run of the mill Christians or other believers. Since no one has a definitive proof of god's existence, and I don't think that many believers make any such claim, then by Barker's description of agnosticism, they could all be considered theistic agnostics, could they not? And all atheists, according to the statements quoted from Barker, would be agnostic since it hardly seems likely that one who does not believe in god would claim to have knowledge of god's existence. So, as Barker claims, you can say both things at the same time, but it doesn't seem to mean much. According to his definition, you have theistic agnostics that look a lot like believers and you have atheistic agnostics that look a lot like atheists. It is faith not knowledge that seperates the believer from the atheist. Everyone can go about claiming that they do not have knowledge of god and according to Barker, they would be agnostics, but so what? This just does not seem a meaningful way to define/differentiate agnostiscm.

I think you're absolutely right, we can assume an atheist will always be agnostic. But an agnostic can be either atheist or theist and that's what I find especially interesting because I have always considered agnosticism and atheism to be two separate points on the same continuum. An agnostic is a fence sitter, one step away from being atheist if only he would take the plunge. But Barker, correctly I think, makes the distinction between knowledge and belief.

Still, it does seem redundant to describe oneself as an agnostic atheist, doesn't it?

geo · Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:17 am


	Interbane wrote: The distinction throws a wrench into a theists idea of his own stance. They think they know, perhaps through faith, but they really don't. Don't tell them this, however, or you'll get yelled at.

Faith is the key word here. I have a difficult time with those who declare certainty in the existence of "God." For one thing, what is "God?" You have to define the word before you can declare it to be real. But if they say they have faith in God, that feels very different to me. It's more of a declaration that they believe in God with at least some acknowledgement that their position has no evidence to support it.

realiz · Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:09 pm

giselle


	Quote: I'm trying to distinguish a theistic agnostic, one who has faith in god but who does not know that god exists .. from run of the mill Christians or other believers.

A theist agnostic is the one without the instruction manual. No Koran, or Bible, or leader to follow to tell them how to act, how to think, what to believe. Your 'run of the mill' believers use their manuals as the 'proof' of their faith and can turn to this book for answers to any questions they have about God.
I think of an agnostic as someone who has an inner sense of God but no belief in any particular doctrine. Wouldn't it be difficult to be a practicing Christain without faith that there was some 'truth' to your beliefs? And if you believe something to be truth, then you could not call yourself agnostic because you believe you have knowledge of god.

So, as geo said, an agnostic atheist can just be called just an atheist, and an agnostic can be assumed to be an agnostic theist because without some belief would othewise be an atheist, which leaves us with a theist as someone who belongs to a defined religious group. We do not need the terms agnostic atheist, or agnostic theist as they really do not add any clarification.

Is a theist agnostic similar to someone who calls themselves 'spiritual', or would this be something different?

DWill · Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:51 pm

It seems that Barker is saying that more clarity would result if we would go by the etymologies of "agnostic" and "atheist." As things stand now, he's right that people regard agnostics as just less assertive or less commital atheists. But an old friend of mine had a brother--a Lutheran minister--who maintained a website called Christian Agnostic, so maybe it is a useful distinction to say that not having knowledge of God, as Barker says, does not imply denial of belief. In fact, several people I know, including my wife, are this type of Christian. It's all "maybe" for them, as far as belief in God, and that seems to be enough. But it's also not clear that they are theists in a real sense, either.

My reaction to his assertion that an atheist merely starts at zero, has no orientation one way or the other, is that in the sliver of the real world that I know about, this doesn't seem to be so. Isn't an atheist usually someone who considers his or her atheism to indicate belief--belief in science, rationality, and materialism? They aren't just neutral about God, in my limited experience, but feel that non-belief would a better way for everyone to think (just as the religious feel this way about their beliefs). It's very hard, probably impossible, to be neutral about anything one believes rather passionately. I haven't read any of this book, but it seems clear that Barker is one such passionate proponent of atheism.

A dyed-in-the-wool relativist non-believer like me, on the other hand, tends to view theism as another acceptable way of navigating life. That's just the way it is, probably having as much to do with my temperament and personality as with belief per se.

Interbane · Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:03 pm

realiz: "And if you believe something to be truth, then you could not call yourself agnostic because you believe you have knowledge of god."

It doesn't matter really, does it? There cannot be such a thing as knowledge of God, so the term theist means nothing without it also being agnostic. Imagine a person who has no philosophical understanding first label themselves a theist, but not agnostic, but then learned that the evidence simply isn't there to know that god exists. He then understands that what he considered himself before was subjective, and false, and that agnostic theist is the correct label for him, even though his beliefs did not change regarding God.

I think it's better to maintain the objective stance to eliminate confusion.

giselle · Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:15 pm


	realiz wrote: A theist agnostic is the one without the instruction manual. No Koran, or Bible, or leader to follow to tell them how to act, how to think, what to believe. Your 'run of the mill' believers use their manuals as the 'proof' of their faith and can turn to this book for answers to any questions they have about God. I think of an agnostic as someone who has an inner sense of God but no belief in any particular doctrine. Wouldn't it be difficult to be a practicing Christain without faith that there was some 'truth' to your beliefs? And if you believe something to be truth, then you could not call yourself agnostic because you believe you have knowledge of god. Is a theist agnostic similar to someone who calls themselves 'spiritual', or would this be something different?

The use of various books as instruction manuals is an interesting point. This does seem to distinguish believers because they place their 'faith' in the veracity of these books, the meaningfulness of these books. Without that faith, the books would not prove God's existence, it is faith that bridges the gap.

An theistic agnostic, by your description, having an inner sense of God (which sounds a bit like faith) but no commitment to a particular doctrine would leave him without reference to a book. I'm not sure what you mean by "inner sense", but my guess is it's a feeling of God's presence within oneself. Here I think we are verging on spirituality, personal spirituality, and perhaps its something that anyone can feel if they are open to it, including theistic agnostics.

realiz · Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:47 pm

Interbane


	Quote: There cannot be such a thing as knowledge of God, so the term theist means nothing without it also being agnostic.

I guess I was thinking about labeling others, and if there could be no theist with knowledge of god, then all theist would have to be assumed to be agnostic, but, looking at it as a theist acknowledging themselves that they cannot 'know' but only 'believe', then this label does have meaning. And the same could be said for someone calling themselves an agnostic atheist as an acknowledgement that they 'believe' there is no god, but do not actually have 'knowlege' that there is no god.

DWill


	Quote: My reaction to his assertion that an atheist merely starts at zero, has no orientation one way or the other, is that in the sliver of the real world that I know about, this doesn't seem to be so. Isn't an atheist usually someone who considers his or her atheism to indicate belief--belief in science, rationality, and materialism? They aren't just neutral about God, in my limited experience, but feel that non-belief would a better way for everyone to think (just as the religious feel this way about their beliefs). It's very hard, probably impossible, to be neutral about anything one believes rather passionately. I haven't read any of this book, but it seems clear that Barker is one such passionate proponent of atheism.

I think that an atheist can be at zero, or neutral, about belief in god, but not neutral to the effects of the belief in god has on his world. Barker's life was so controlled by his beliefs, that his zealousness to save others from what he perceives as false beliefs comes from the deep resentment he feels for his indoctrination. I have met many people who, when asked, refer to themselves as atheist and seem quite neutral about it, but they are not writing books, trying to change the views of others nor do they feel threatened or controlled by the religious views of other. If these atheist lived in a society where their rights were being challenged then I am sure they would not be so neutral.

Interbane · Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:26 pm

DWill: "They aren't just neutral about God, in my limited experience, but feel that non-belief would a better way for everyone to think (just as the religious feel this way about their beliefs)."

I don't think non-belief is a better way to think. We all must have something to believe. What troubles me is a belief in monotheism, which when viewed from the atheist perspective is so obviously false; it's disturbing that people are still mezmerized by it's memetically contagious features.

I understand that's more or less what you were saying, I just like using the word 'memetically'. The problem also is, it's not simply that atheists think non-belief is the proper stance with respect to religion. It's that most people aren't aware that non-belief is the appropriate, default stance, until religion is shown valid or there is reason to believe. Part of the passion on atheists behalf is that most people are mislead on the groundwork of the debate, and it's frustrating. Like a mass of zombies!

I'm not sure if I've ever spoken about my beliefs. It's always about other people's beliefs, mainly religions, superstitions, and pseudoscience. Atheism does not indicate anything of my beliefs other than that they most certainly aren't theistic.

DWill · Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:44 pm

Interbane:What troubles me is a belief in monotheism, which when viewed from the atheist perspective is so obviously false; it's disturbing that people are still mezmerized by it's memetically contagious features
I just find language such as "contagion," "mesmerized," and "zombies" somewhat overblown, I'm sorry. But I also would be interested in hearing about why monotheism is the exclusive problem. Animism or polytheism okay, then?

As for memes, admittedly I don't know my Dawkins well enough. But do you find something suspicious in the notion of these memes being "out there" in any real sense? (not that I think Dawkins believes this, but his admirers seem to). I mean that of course there is no known physical reality to them, yet we hear them spoken of as if they were somehow really in circulation independent of peoples' minds. Memes seem to pair well with the idea of contagion, as well, as you reflect. My suggestion is that there is a slight touch of hysteria in such views of religion or monotheism, reminding me of the old "Reefer Madness" propaganda film. I have to ask directly: are you truly serious about this language, or are you using rhetorical overkill for effect?

Interbane · Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:10 am

DWill: "I just find language such as "contagion," "mesmerized," and "zombies" somewhat overblown, I'm sorry."

Yes, the language is a bit overblown. Sometimes you have to stress a point to make a point.

DWill: "But I also would be interested in hearing about why monotheism is the exclusive problem."

The others aren't a problem in this respect. It's merely convenient that the three major monotheisms are the ones with the most memetically contagious features. So referencing them by their single god characteristic is linguistically economical. :razz2:

DWill: "But do you find something suspicious in the notion of these memes being "out there" in any real sense?"

They are no more out there than a computer virus is outside a computer. When you do math, say 2+2=4, the idea isn't only inside your head. It is not limited to you. Popper has some interesting ideas on objective knowledge, beyond math. There are ideas which have a "stickiness" characteristic, where people are more prone to accept, legitimize, and spread them.

DWill: "I have to ask directly: are you truly serious about this language, or are you using rhetorical overkill for effect?"

There is overkill, of course. My point for such overkill is that these contagious concepts actually are more contagious than people would like to believe. If structured differently, they would not spread throughout humanity nearly as well. So the overkill is only overkill to an extent, with the truth as I see it lying somewhere between. Like I said, I use the terms to stress the point. If I used more tender rhetoric, the idea(which still is not accurately captured by words) would pass in one ear and out the other of those who are resistant to it.

Robert Tulip · Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:56 am

Re agnosticism and knowledge, there is a strong sense in which faith is agnostic about the nature of God. For example, in Islam, according to the Qur'an, "No vision can grasp God, but God's grasp is over all vision. God is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things" (Qur'an 6:103) There is a logical sense here in which that which makes comprehension possible is itself beyond comprehension. The claim to know the nature of God was traditionally seen as an impious heresy. Jesus Christ was accused of this by the Jewish priests, whose pious worship took an approach of believing in a wholly ineffable source. The ironic problem with this piety is that it became encrusted into dogma which was then incapable of transformation, and claimed status as absolute knowledge, for example with creationism, when science pushed the boundaries to limit the scope of activity previously attributed to God. Niebuhr provides an illuminating analysis of how the modern fetishism of control has absolutised false belief in a dangerous way. RT

Forum rules

Ch. 5: Why I Am An Atheist Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!