Ch. 5: Why I Am An Atheist
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:19 pm
Ch. 5: Why I Am An Atheist
Please use this thread for discussing this chapter.
Please use this thread for discussing this chapter.
Quality books. Great conversations.
https://www.booktalk.org/
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 (รก 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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'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.
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.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?