This is spurred by a conversation I had with Ketan on Twitter yesterday. Agnostics are those who claim they neither believe nor disbelieve in god because there’s no evidence to disprove his* existence. Occasionally one will claim agnosticism with an air that implies intellectual superiority. But that hides the truth. Agnostics are pussies!
People use double standards when it comes to religion. The Russell’s teapot is a good example. What if your three year old daughter asks you in all seriousness, “Papa, is there a fine china teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter?” I think every parent will say, “Of course not!” Never mind the fact that no one can prove there isn’t a teapot. It’s just a loony idea.
But if an agnostic’s kid were to ask them, “Papa, is there a god?” the reply is “Well, we don’t actually know cause there’s no evidence there isn’t one.”
Isn’t that strange? We don’t have “teapot agnostics” – those who believe we should be in intellectual doubt with regard to the existence of orbiting teapots. But we have masses of theistic agnostics.
I wish agnostics would come out and admit it. The idea of god makes us feel warm and fuzzy and it’s an idea we’re loathe to let go of. I understand that and everyone has the right to justify something to themselves. But one should be honest about it instead of cloaking it in a facade of intellectual honesty. It requires guts to let go of the nice comforting idea a god who has a grand scheme for us and a plan for the universe. Agnostics are people who know they ought to take the step, but don’t want to commit themselves. Sounds like cowardice to me.
After watching a horror movie, all of us have sometimes felt afraid the monster is going to pop out at us in some way at night. Though our rational mind tells us it can’t happen, our brains refuse to cooperate. Which one of us hasn’t caste a furtive glance behind at some time or the other when we’ve been influenced by a such a film? There’s no shame in that. Sometimes our rational circuits are just overridden by more primal impulses. But let’s just be honest about it.
[poll id=”24″]
I have noticed there seems to be more agnostic theists then agnostic atheists. I wouldn’t call them wimps though. To be honest the thought of god existing doesn’t really make me feel warm fuzzy. Especially the Judeo-Christian/Islamic god.
Hey what about apathetic agnostics? :P
In reply to RenKiss
What’s the difference between agnostic theists and agnostic atheists? First time I’m hearing of this distinction!
In reply to bhagwad
Really? Well from what I’ve learned an agnostic theist is type you described above, the one who doesn’t know god’s existence but believe there’s a possibility. The agnostic atheist is the one who doesn’t know, but doesn’t really believe there is a god/gods anyways.
As for apathetic agnostics, they don’t know and don’t care. :P
In reply to RenKiss
Hmm, I see the difference. But will an agnostic atheist also say that he/she doesn’t know whether or not teapots orbit the sun but doesn’t really believe?
As for apathetic agnostics, if their kid asks them the same question, will they tell them not to worry their head about it, or just say “no” flat out?
In reply to bhagwad
I think an apathetic agnostic would probably say not to worry about it obviously. Why spend time debating the existence of god when there’s no real way of knowing? I think that’s their position.
Darshan Chande
Agnosticism doesn’t necessarily mean “doubt” it translates to “without knowledge.” It’s just basically we have no real way of knowing whether or not there is a god. It’s more like a middle ground position between atheism and theism. So why is doubt in this stupid?
In reply to RenKiss
I get what you’re saying. I’m trying to use the reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the point of absurdity) argument to show that this attitude of doubt doesn’t translate into other things for which we have no knowledge…like whether or not teapots orbit the sun.
God is placed on a special pedestal.
In reply to RenKiss
RenKiss,
Agnostics are just complicating things to maintain their position by inventing new dimensions to agnosticism, which simply means “doubt”. Doubt in certain things is plain stupid, and “god” happens to be one of those thing.
As you see, this is proven when you think upon Bhagwad’s question as to what will different types of agnostics answer on the “tea-pot” question. All are same!
This is a great post. I always thought agnostics are pussies but never could make up a right example to say it with. Loved your “tea pot” example.
A few days back I penned this thought:
Those who are agnostic about god are either fools wanting to look intelligent, or intelligent cowards.
:)
Thanks to you and Ketan!
(Btw, I found you from Ketan’s blog.)
In reply to Darshan Chande
Lots of fruitful stuff comes about between Ketan and myself! As I told Renkiss abolve, the teapot example is a reductio ad absurdum argument that shows the silliness of doubt when dealing with things that have no evidence…
Ha ha.. amusing.
All of this is under the assumption that someone is believing in something to look intelligent. Since no one can prove one way or the other in the Atheists vs Theists/Creationist/Believer whatever, there is nothing wrong in going a middle ground.
Since none of your arguments are powerful enough to convince the Agnostic to sway them to either side, I can’t fathom why someone should call them wimps. They are the results of your failed persuading skills.
:-)
In reply to Sujith
It’s a question of burden of proof. Atheists are lucky. They don’t have to prove that god exists. The “normal” assumption a la Occam’s Razor is that there is no god. It’s the theists who have the tough job of showing that there is such a thing as god – something they can’t do.
And people express doubt only when it comes to god based issues. Not when it comes to teapots!
In reply to bhagwad
Thiests, lets call them creationists. Well, what they are saying is God created the world in seven days (Christians, Jews, Muslims and other related idiots) and he also created man etc. How is the Atheists countering this? (Evolution + Natural Selection) + (Big Bang). Evolution and Natural Selection is logical. But Big Bang? It raises more questions. What happened before it, before that and before all that?
We have no answer and unless a scientific theory can prove it definitely, questions are always there, giving a small chance to the religious point of view. Which is bigger bullshit than the other? If a mind encounters in such a situation, being an Agnostic is a valid reason. Because the arguments are not persuasive enough.
In reply to Sujith
No – just because there are two views doesn’t mean that both have equal validity. Which is why Intelligent design isn’t taught in schools. Only science is. Kids aren’t told that there could be an alternative explanation.
We have evidence that the big bang occurred. That we need to know more about it doesn’t negate its existence, whereas we have no evidence from the other end.
My question to you is, are you a teapot agnostic? Are you in a state of doubt as to the existence of an undetectable teapot orbiting the sun? If not, why not?
In reply to bhagwad
That we need to know more about it doesn’t negate its existence, whereas we have no evidence from the other end
You are saying the same thing as I did. But you are plying it in a different direction. It is only explaining part of the process. Why is it not proving once and for all that things happened this way, this was the state X years ago and because of SO and SO reasons we wound up getting here, our current state.
The same argument you said above can be used by religious people also, but about faith, not about incomplete scientific theory. “That we need to know more about it doesn’t negate its existence.”
In reply to Sujith
You’re not making a proper comparison. With science, we know something. With religion, we know nothing.
Also, you didn’t answer my question as to whether you’re in a state of doubt regarding orbiting teapots.
Sujith, Maybe you didn’t read (or grasp) Russell’s tea-pod analogy. You seem to be under the same fallacy of double-standard. If this is not a powerful argument then I am amazed at the dimwitness of believers/agnostics, man! Didn’t know agnostics, too, are no different from “believers” so far as intelligence is concerned!
In reply to Anon
Of course it is a powerful argument, the Russell teapot thingy. I also agree with you and others on that point. But why not alter the parameters a little.
Why just limit the location of the teapot between two planets. Widen the gap till it become too big a gap (like a billion light years). Then can anyone say for sure, there is no teapot? No one can prove one way or the other.
It is like looking at vast group of crows. Someone looking at it is saying to the other guy, “There is 10242 crows in there.” Now, the burden is upon the other party to show that it is not. How can he do it? Counting..that would be a silly idea.
In reply to Sujith
Ah – you see, there’s the fundamental flaw in your argument.
The burden is not upon the other party to prove there aren’t 1024 cows. The burden is on the person who proposed that there are 1024 cows.
The burden of proof is always on the person making a hypothesis which is different from the one specified by Occam’s razor. Hence, an atheist never has to disprove the existence of god. Rather the theist has to prove it.
Similarly in your extended teapot example, the burden is always on the one insisting on the teapot’s existence. There is never a burden of proof on someone who says it doesn’t exist.
In reply to bhagwad
Agreed with you. I can’t articulate anything well against what you are saying, first, let me be frank, I don’t understand what this Ocam razor stuff you talking. You are aguing from a high intellectual ground than I am, so I don’t want to put more fragile points.
See my comment below.
In reply to Sujith
Occam’s razor is basically that all things being equal, the simpler explanation tends to be the correct one. Don’t worry about it – the point is that the burden of proof always rests on those who make an assertion and not on others to disprove it.
I see myself as an agnostic. I would like to believe that there is some supreme power that created the world, and that makes sure there is justice in this world and good things happen to good people – but I find it difficult to believe that. And yet, I don’t believe there is no god… I thought being an agnostic means one just doesn’t know what to believe.
In reply to Indian Homemaker
I know how you feel in this case. IMHO, our feelings for this issue cloud our judgment. We want a god to exist and so it’s better for us to feel doubt. There’s nothing wrong with that of course.
I just want agnostics to admit that it’s not just a question of intellect. They’re agnostic not because it’s logical to be agnostic, but because it gives them emotional satisfaction. As I said, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s nice to have one’s motives clear :)
I don’t think it’s fair to characterize all agnostics as wimps. Certainly, some agnostics are merely intellectually lazy or emotionally attached to the possibility of a god. But others have thought the matter thru carefully and can truly not decide. Buddhism, for example, is at its core an atheistic philosophy, but it does not demand atheism from its practitioners, not only because god is an unprovable concept, but because in the big picture, it is an irrelevant concept. That is, belief or disbelief in a god really has no effect on how you choose to live your daily life, much like the possibility of an orbiting teapot! (I am not a Buddhist BTW.) When you take into account matters such as the origin of life, the unfathomable size of the universe(s), and the amazing fact that there are creatures able to conceptualize such a thing as a god at all, there does seem to be something going on that is greater than our capacity to understand. What I, personally, am left with is that the belief in a cosmic daddy is just ridiculously silly, and if that is what you mean by “god” then I am an atheist thru and thru. But if by “god” you mean some pattern of creative emergence and other-consciousness that transcends me and my ability to fully understand it, then all bets are off. I call myself an atheist because that is what most closely describes my beliefs, but in IMO, it is by its nature a highly inaccurate word.
Thanks for a great post, and thanks to Darshan for providing the link!
Thanks for dropping in Kitty! It may be true that the belief or non belief in a god has no effect on one’s daily life – just like an orbiting tea pot.
My poser though is that if a Buddhist’s kid asks her whether or not there’s a teapot orbiting the sun, will she tell her kid not to bother about it cause it doesn’t effect her? Or will she just say no?
I feel that irrelevance to daily life isn’t a good reason not to think or care about something. After all, most of astrophysics has nothing to do with our daily life, but its still interesting no?
Let me confirm that agnostics are wimps!! Some of them are atheists in the “closet”.
Atleast Agnostics, atheist or whatever cynic are required in the society because they question the belief system based on the preassumptions and transferred from previous generation. As long as one does not take the belief system for granted and searches for hsi personal truth with honesty and curiosity, we should not bother that he is thiest or athiest. People who are discussing here are flexible to all sides and thus this question is irrelevant here.
We fail to convince those who are so rigid with their one idealogies and religion as right and call others wrong or not equivalent in back of the mind. Bhagwad has written a good post on them, have a look:-
http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2010/personal/reaching-out-to-the-far-right-start-of-a-dialogue.html
Nice discussion going on. What bothers me is that I am seeing same people everywhere (Minority on the verge of extinction) [No offence please ] on various platforms discussing same theme while majority does not bother to read even.
In reply to yayaver
The post and many of the comments are thought provoking. Essentially, Bhagwad attack agonists by declaring that they are cowards to accept the truth (whatever he think it is). In his argument, they are theists in doubt and have double-standards (in his moral value system). The only way to argue against beliefs is to attack them is it? Arguments are interesting (and intellectually satisfying to create them) only for issues where the truth can be objectively verified. I think there is no point arguing against beliefs when they do not have any rational basis. I wonder, like yayaver, if its the same old question being put into mill again and again!
I am still thinking what to answer to my daughter if she asks the questions you mention… should I transfer my beliefs to her? tough..
For matures only ,rest can go and watch POGO or their religious channel !
When I was 6-years-old, it was an issue how babies were born. There were conflicting theories, and there was not a consensus — some thought a stork brought babies, others contended you bought them at the hospital, the Catholic boys said the Holy Ghost brought them — and one kid said that girls had sort of a — as he described it — flap in front and that men put their penises in it. This seemed the least likely. And yet by the time we reached age 11, even though we still had, none of us, actually seen the flap — the consensus of opinion was overwhelming for the penis-vagina theory — it was no longer an issue. — Bill Maher
I rest my case here.
In reply to yayaver
He’d originally said this with regard to climate change. It’s one of my favorite videos!
In reply to bhagwad
I know that But it holds correct on our belief system based on myths;
I am evidence seeker in reasoning and love in relationships;
I Don’t need god to love or doubt beliefs;