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 read a joke somewhere.
Religion is like software license, you dont care to study/read it in detail, just “Agree and Accept” and continue.
For some Agnostics, (who are closet-Atheists), being ir-religious is socially more acceptable than confessing Atheism.
For some other Agnostics, they have a genuine doubt, and think they cannot explain everything by a blunt dis-beleief. And also the hope(blind or otherwise) for God.
I think, if Atheism is THE only reality, people realise that the onus of macro-justice(Judgement-Day) lies with Humans only. But since the possibility of Humans executing macro-justice in an absolutely-just manner is not possible (Just like the theory of relativity : There is no universal frame of reference), hence the wish that some-one outside of Humanity should do that Utopian job. Hence the hope/wish for GOD’s existence.
In reply to Khalil Sawant
Oh I agree. That’s one of the reasons why we all want to believe in god so badly. Just imagine! The idea of a loving just creator who cares for us and who’ll look after us after we die.
No wonder people are still clinging to the god thing after so long. I can hardly blame us actually.
As of now science doesn’t have an all encompassing theory. Till such a theory comes along I see why not sit on the wall between the two.
If Agnostics are agnostics because they want to be comforted by the fact the there is a God caring for them and has a plan for them and their sorry lives. That is only one side of the argument.
As many have said in these comments they are to-be full fledged atheists, and they are in the closet not because they secretly like to have a God, but because current theories are not strong enough.
What is the intellectual superiority you are implying? there are all kinds of people, smug about themselves and their beliefs, their countries (jingoistic) amongst us. While you gladly take one side of an Atheist argument, you discount the other side by saying that it is their secret wish to slant to the other side. That, perceived slant, their is an assumption. Based on that assumption the original post stands.
In reply to Sujith
Again, just because science doesn’t yet have the whole picture doesn’t put religion on an equal footing because religion has no picture at all.
We don’t have proof that fairies don’t exist. Do you tell yourself that there might be fairies behind all the leaves and trees which hide when you see them?
And with regard to the teapot example, do you believe that there might really be a teapot orbiting the sun just because we have no evidence that there is not?
In reply to bhagwad
“Again, just because science doesn’t yet have the whole picture doesn’t put religion on an equal footing because religion has no picture at all.”
So? No one should walk the middle path, but some people *do*. I am proposing that the reason for such an action is the inadequacy of the explanations. I perfectly understand that if, it were you in that situation you would have chosen the atheist path. Why not think that not everyone thinks or acts like you?
“We don’t have proof that fairies don’t exist. Do you tell yourself that there might be fairies behind all the leaves and trees which hide when you see them?”
No answer
“And with regard to the teapot example, do you believe that there might really be a teapot orbiting the sun just because we have no evidence that there is not?”
With all the space junk orbiting the moon, a China teapot is not impossible to orbit the moon, the Earth and by that way the Sun, too. [http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444433,00.html]
In reply to Sujith
I’m not denying anyone the right to believe what they want. But it’s not reasonable to be neutral to two choices which are not equal. Everyone has the right to make any choice they want. But a logical choice must be consistent. Science and religion are not equal choices and therefore a person cannot be logical and treat the two equally at the same time.
You say you have no answer to the question of fairies. Is that the answer you will give your child if they ask you the same question?
In reply to bhagwad
“But it’s not reasonable to be neutral to two choices which are not equal. ”
Even now, why can’t you see that absence of clear explanation from the side of science has a part in it. If it is causing more questions than answers, I don’t see why someone should be convinced. It is supposed to explain everything _as it is_.
In reply to Sujith Abraham
So are you agnostic to fairies?
As an atheist turned agnostic, I find your central notion slightly offensive : )
I think these are complex ideas, over simplified when viewed through the reductio ad absurdum prism. There are also serious scientific theories that would also fail the reductio ad absurdum test (I am not an expert on this but I think String theory is one of them.)
You also seem to assume the infallibility of science. The lifespan of the average scientific theory is about 20 years, when more science reveals that the theory was wrong in parts, and on occasion that it was wrong very substantially. About half of all scientific publications amend, correct, qualify or completely overturn previous “scientific” theories. And you have to remember that these original theories were purportedly arrived with the “scientific method”.
Even though I hated this argument when I was an atheist, it is a fact that there are many serious scientists who are agnostics, some even religious. A case in point is Francis Collins, the current director of National Institutes of Health (the largest disburser of biomedical scientific research funding in the world) and ex-director of the Human Genome Project. He is actually a “scientific- creationist” and a Christian. Most scientist non-atheists however tend to be agnostic, many Buddhists.
Actually, Buddhism is an interesting idea- it has been considered by various people to be all three- atheistic, theistic and agnostic. I believe it is the last one and is the belief system that most fits my world-view.
I wish I could get into a more detailed description of the reasons for my evolution to agnosticism, and it partly involved getting intimate with the workings of science. I am not claiming that most or even many scientists are agnostics, but that a surprising number (of the more perceptive) of them are. And their conversion often relates to an understanding of the limits of the scientific method.
Best.
In reply to fchiramel
Thanks for your thoughts fchiramel. My title was to provoke people into thinking and not to offend per se.
I think most string theorists would be the first to admit that it’s not advisable for anyone to take their theories too seriously – yet. The big difference between god theories and string theories of course is that string theory is in principle testable though those tests cannot be conducted by humans yet. There are attempts to make it more easily testable and such efforts are in progress. In any case, we keep doing it cause we don’t yet know what might come up.
The fact that one day scientific theory can change is no reason to give up on what we know at this point. That would be like entering into the Formula 1 race with a jet propelled engine claiming that one day the rules could change!
Of course, there are many scientists who are either agnostics or even god fearing. Newton was famously religious. But their expertise doesn’t lie in that direction and their skill in science cannot lead them to have any more information about the existence of god than the rest of us. So I see no reason to trust them in this matter.
Scientists are humans too, and are thus susceptible to illogical ways of thinking just like the rest of us. I wouldn’t be hard on them for that reason.
Bhagwad
By acknowledging that scientific theory can change – modified, or be completely proven wrong- you are acknowledging that science is, at least at times, non-scientific. I do not think the Formula1 example is appropriate here; unlike the rules bound sport that F1 racing is, science is open ended and more ambitious- it seeks to explain all of reality, and for all of time. So if the future proves a current scientific proposition wrong, then it is just plain wrong, without caveats.
In my previous post, my reservations were not just about particular scientific theories (which get amended and corrected), but of the “scientific” process that allows for this. I am most critical of the sense of infallibility and absoluteness that gets attributed to science (usually by policymakers and other non-scientists ), and although scientists themselves know otherwise, they do little to discourage the perception. I am not a critic of reason, evidence or empiricism- the ideals of science. But the practice of science is far less perfect, and when it seeks to address larger, universal, complex questions, it is severely limited by the inadequacy of its tools.
With such limitations, to rule out everything that has not been identified by current limited science as completely impossible, I believe, is gross overstatement. My reference to string theory was as an example of a hypothesis that would have been outright dismissed by scientists in another time, which is now considered by some scientists as within the realm of possibility. Science will always operate within a kind of universal Uncertainty Principle – the limits of observation and perception, and any given scientific fact can be qualified with “as per our present understanding, and with our current tools- and liable to change”.
I am not defending unreason or superstition, which is often the simplistic reading of these arguments. Between atheism and dogmatic religion, I would side with atheism as it involves some reasoning. However, I have been feeling that a lot of arguments in atheism are characterized by a failure to understand the limitations of scientific tools or the fact that science at any given point is imperfect and a work in progress.
I have no argument with you if you are only saying that science is one of the best tools we have. But to claim that science has perfect knowledge of all possibilities is simply untrue. Science simply doesn’t know what it does not know. That it cannot rule a possibility in does not automatically mean it has ruled that possibility out.
Sorry for the rambling essay ; ) and thank you for the forum.
In reply to fchiramel
Thanks for the clarification fchiramel. I don’t think I’ve ever argued that the scientific process will lead us to ultimate truth. It is true however, that the scientific process leads us closer and closer to the truth. Given the state of affairs, it is indeed the best tool we have and far be it from me to say that science has a perfect knowledge of all possibilities as you put it.
But you haven’t show why you feel the reductio ad absurdum via the teapot example is an oversimplification. What’s the difference between god, fairies, leprechauns, the flying spaghetti monster, and yes – even orbiting teapots?
Wanted to vote but didn’t like the options. Thought we were not doing name calling. If someone wants the fuzzies that religion provides them, so long as they don’t impose their views on anyone, what is anyone’s issue? If they choose to be agnostic, then why not?! I strongly believe that a God exists and that works for me. Am also strongly secular and not apologetic in any way about all of it!
In reply to Sangitha
It’s partly tongue in cheek Sangitha :) We all have the right to believe whatever we want as long as we don’t impose those views on others…
This is just an intellectual workout.
Being an Agnos, for me means: An Atheist has the arrogance to say “Well, there is no god!”. But who are we to teach the other people, who believe in a god (what ever kind) and therefor ask for their piece of freedom to do so, that they are wrong, even tho we can’t prove it? Doesn’t that make us the same ignorant as the people that think, they have to teach us their religions?
I think, everybody has the right to believe what ever they think gives them freedom and a peaceful mind. Or in other words:
I’m basically an Atheist, just without the ignorant part. I’m an Agno.
In reply to rodnox
I’m not trying to take away anyone’s freedom to be an agnostic – I’m just saying that agnostics don’t apply the same logic which they use for other things to god.
I have not read all the comments, so I don’t know if the answer to my question lies somewhere within. So I will ask you anyway: What do you call people who just simply don’t know. Atheists KNOW there IS NO God. Theists KNOW there IS a God. But I am an ignorant being who simply does not know either way. What name do you have for them??
In reply to Shail
I’ll call them agnostics surely :)
My only beef is that agnostics say they don’t know, but yet will profess an absolute conviction that there’s no teapot orbiting the sun.
I think we need a God. As Bernard Shaw said, “If there was no God, man would have created one.” So it is basically our need to believe in some super power or force – call it by any name. Someone to pray to, to hold on to and even to blame when things arent going our way – that is our need, hence we have a God or many gods as in pantheistic cultures.
In reply to Phoenixritu
Yep – I agree in that humans have always shown a proclivity to believe in a god. It must fulfill some deep urge within us…
In reply to Phoenixritu
Now so far I have never experienced a need for a god. Nobody could name me any benefits out of accepting the existence of a god. So from that point of view, I don’t think we need any kind of god.
Now, always being aware of the fact, that I could be wrong, I’m not saying there is no god. Are you able o prove me wrong? What do we need a god for? And please, bring an argument, not just another “I think we do!” sentence.
I call that open minded. Not wimpy.
In reply to rodnox
To my mind, humans take a lot of comfort in the idea of a god for the following reasons:
1. You don’t really cease to exist after you die
2. There is a moral absolute – someone really cares about good and bad in the long run
3. Someone really cares for you
4. You’re important enough for god to give a shit about your existence
5. The universe isn’t just random. It’s nice to feel that there’s a purpose behind everything
etc…
Now none of these reasons are logical – which is why I don’t believe in god. But there are times when I wish there was one…
In reply to bhagwad
You’re saying: The universe isn’t just random and there is a purpose behind everything.
Now, I’m having trouble to accept that. Why do you think, the universe isn’t random? As far as I’m concerned, all we know about the universe are theories. The chance of a random existence is just as big as the chance of a purpose for everything.
You are taking things for facts, that aren’t facts. Maybe that’s why you struggle to understand agnos.
In reply to rodnox
I’m not saying the universe has a purpose. The universe is random!
You’re missing the point here. I’m saying that there’s a difference between how I feel and what I logically know.
The universe is completely random. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it. And for many people it’s such an uncomfortable thought that they’d rather invent a god to give the illusion of purpose.
In reply to bhagwad
I’m not sure If I understand you.
You are lying to yourself, to have a better point of view? Now that’s a tough statement for somebody that calls other people wimps, because of their way of understanding.
In reply to rodnox
Huh? Did I say that? I’m saying that agnostics are the ones lying to themselves to feel better.
I’m an atheist even though it makes me emotionally uncomfortable. Agnostics like to keep the option open to feel better.
In reply to bhagwad
Well, If you make yourself thinking different from what logic tells you, than you are logically lying to yourself. Except I misunderstand you.
In Fact, I think atheists are sometimes a bit too overconfident. Denying the possible existence of a god, is ignorant and just as extreme as a strong follower of a religion.
In reply to rodnox
Logic tells me there’s no god. My emotions would like a god to exist but I can’t lie to myself like that.
So you’ve got it all backwards. Atheists are the ones being intellectually honest here.
Do you also think that fairies, leprechauns and unicorns might exist? If you say that unicorns don’t exist, aren’t you being as ignorant and extreme as you say atheists are?
Agnostics fail to appreciate the “reductio ad absurdum” fallacy.
In reply to bhagwad
Wrong, Logic tells you, the existence of a god is most unlikely, but not impossible. Since we humans don’t understand how life has been created, it would be highly ignorant, to exclude the existence of a creator completely.
Theoretical scenario: What If you meet a god tomorrow? You’d have to admit to have been wrong. You’d have to admit to have taken things for facts that aren’t.
That’s the only difference between atheists and agnos. Agnos don’t like to be wrong. So I spare my decision about the existence of a god until I can 100% proof there is none or there is one. As I’ve said before: Open minded.
In reply to rodnox
That’s being pedantic surely?
Suppose your child asks you “Papa, is it true there are pixies under my bed who turn invisible when I try and find them”, would you say “Well, we can’t be sure. It’s not impossible. It’s arrogant and ignorant to say there are no pixies. So the answer to your question is maybe?”
Or would you just say “No. There are no pixies.” More importantly, what do you believe? Can there really be pixies under the bed who are undetectable when you try and find them?
I suspect all agnostics would say the latter. But when it comes to god, they apply a double standard. And that is why I call them wimps.
In reply to bhagwad
I would say: “I don’t think so, cause I’ve never seen any there”
In reply to rodnox
And your daughter will say “Of course you haven’t seen any! They turn invisible when you look!”
What will you say then?
We need a god? Mind to tell me for what?
“Well, if they turn invisible, than there is no need to be afraid.”
In reply to rodnox
She’s not afraid. She’s just asking you whether they exist or not because she’s curious. So what will your answer be?
In reply to bhagwad
simply: “I don’t know” …
In reply to rodnox
Are you serious? When your daughter asks you whether or not there are invisible pixies under her bed, you’re going to tell her you don’t know?
What about fairies, leprechauns, unicorns etc? You’re going to tell her that they might be real too?
In reply to bhagwad
Of course. Maybe add the sentence I’ve said earlier “I don’t think so”.
What else should I say? After all, I don’t want her to lose her fantasy, that’s quiet important for a childhood.