Agnostic is the term people use to describe your last sentiment. Alas, agnosticism is one of the less fashionable -isms.
Atheism is a belief system that has exactly as much logical validity (or empirical support) as theism, and can be executed with just as much arrogance.
It is not a sign of weakness to admin that one doesn't know the unknowable. In fact, to claim otherwise is by definition foolish. (How 'bout that for arrogance)
It is an interesting point and one I've heard a number of times from people. I don't really agree, so I thought I'd set out a response, this time sober and hence hopefully with a little more logic and thoughtfulness, and with a little less volume and bombast.
To start off, I will admit that many dictionaries perhaps give such a definition, but dictionaries don't give much space for a lot of philosophical nuance, and these are very contested terms. In any case, this being the internet after all, dictionary.com actually gives a different definition:
- The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
- disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
I also tend to like the weak form of atheism because it closely matches the meaning of the word itself. Atheism to me implies that it is outside of any theistic system. I guess the best analogy would be the word amoral. You can talk about people or their actions being moral or immoral, but the actions of ants, for example, are neither, they are simply amoral. The notion of morality simply doesn't apply on an insect level: inserts possess neither consciousness nor free will. Tying this back to atheism, the term itself to me very simply means that it is entirely outside of any theistic system at all.
But lets consider the strong form of atheism as well for a moment. The statement that "I believe there is no God" might well be a leap of faith, but is it really comparable to the statement that "I believe there is a God"? After all, I will quite comfortably tell my children, as a statement of fact, that vampires, unicorns and martians do not exist. But I can't prove that. No one on Earth, in fact, can actually prove the positive non-existence of any of these things, and yet we would all feel quite comfortable saying similar things. Does God get some sort of special dispensation against this because he's, well, kind of bigger in a cosmic way?
Agnosticism is, I think, a wholly different animal. Again, from dictionary.com:
- a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate case, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
- 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
This definition also has the advantage of according with what the word itself means. The term agnostic was coined by Huxley and is based on the Greek agnotos, meaning "not known" or "incapable of being known". Hence, and as Wikipedia points out, it would be an entirely logical position to be an agnostic Christian.
However, I don't seen any particular reason why God, if he or she exists, should be beyond all human conception. If we can study what happens in the first few seconds of the birth of the universe, why couldn't we conceivably figure out some way to study God eventually. I guess this is why I don't think of myself as an agnostic. Besides, and more tellingly, how do agnostics know that God is unknowable. That, in itself seems like a big leap of faith. From my perspective it seems like agnostics may have a positive belief that anything to do with God is beyond human conception. What is their basis for that?
I guess I have a couple of questions of my own back for Danny:
- Should we draw a distinction between God and other mythological creatures, such as unicorns, or even earlier polytheistic beliefs? If so, why?
- Given that Christians positively deny the 'truth' of other religions, does that make Christians also atheists (strong form) with respect to earlier or different religions, for example, the polytheistic Norse Gods?
You define atheism as:
ReplyDelete"1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."
You go on to argue a "weak form" of atheism: "absence of belief in God."
Where is the weak form, or passive disbelief in this definition? Certainly not definition 1. As for definition 2, the word disbelief describes an active, not passive sentiment.
The relevant definition of disbelief according to dictionary.com: "the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true." The definition page also includes this highly relevant aside from Websters, contrasting the word “unbelief” to “disbelief”: “One may be an unbeliever in Christianity from ignorance or want of inquiry; a unbeliever has the proofs before him, and incurs the guilt of setting them aside. Unbelief is usually open to conviction; disbelief is already convinced as to the falsity of that which it rejects.”
The whole issue boils down to semantics. I don’t think our sentiments are far apart.
Another comment of yours got me to reconsider one of the statements I casually tossed out before: that God is unknowable. This implies that it is in principle impossible to discern whether God exists or not. Now, while it is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist, it is not logically impossible to prove that God DOES exist. If some entity were to show up and start throwing around lightning bolts, raising the dead, ressurecting Michael Jackson's career (requiring both of the above), etc... only a hardened skeptic would continue to deny the possibility of a supernatural omniscient diety. But I require first-hand or verifiable -– preferably repeatable -- empirical evidence to even begin to admit God’s existence.
I still doubt whether we can ever know God on a scientific basis. Consider this theorem: If science could understand God, then by definition God wouldn’t be supernatural. And if God isn’t supernatural, well, then God just ain’t all he’s cracked up to be.
Can we ever know God on a non-scientific basis? Perhaps. But when we throw away science, what are we left with? Anything goes.
One more comment on your definition of agnostic.
The part of definition you provide of agnostic that resonates most with me is the notion “that human knowledge is limited to experience.” But that can’t be the whole story, can it? I would claim to know certain things I have never experienced. We rely on other’s experiences to help inform our understanding of the world. Humanity could hardly progress without that. Now, some people have had genuine religious experiences, in which they say (and believe) they have communed with God. Why do I reject the evidence of those experiences out of hand, but not the imputations of a scientist describing the moment after the Big Bang? I need to ponder that, and I pose that as a question for you, Brod.
As for your questions:
1. The Big Kahuna argument you suggest earlier seems correct. God: alleged all-powerful creator of the universe. Unicorn: Alleged horse with a horn sticking out of its head. God gives much of the population of the earth a reason to get up in the morning. Unicorns give much of the female 5-9 demographic a reason to stay up past bedtime. 'Nuff said.
2. The definition of atheist you cite is that it is the belief that there is NO God. So no, a Christian atheist seems impossible, as they do believe in A God, though not the God of other religions. Interesting idea, though.
Having just completed a 10-day course in Buddhist meditation, I wonder about the idea of a human God anyway. As our teacher said, God did not create humans in God's own form, rather Humans created God in their own form. To me it makes more sense to keep a focus on spiriruality as the sense of 'wonder and unknowingness' which we as humans have, rather than trying to wrangle it into some human shape which by definition is always going to be defined by our own limitations. I wonder if it's possible to have it as an intellectual definition anyway, from what I understood of it, this Buddhist doctrine focussed on sensory experience of existence as being a basis for personal truth.
ReplyDelete