Agnostic Universe

I’ve been pretty busy and haven’t had time to post very often but this comment to a previous post gave me a chuckle so I wanted to provide a response.

You: “out out of all of these possibilities I don’t think it’s enough to just say that I don’t believe in any of the human defined theisms. I think it is much more honest to say that all of humanity definitely doesn’t know.”

Since when is it more honest to speak for all of humanity instead of just yourself? That sentence didn’t make sense to me.

I don’t speak for all of humanity but I definitely have an opinion of truth, our collective knowledge, and our ability to know the truth. If my viewpoint is confined to my own limits of knowledge then I’m just a fence-sitter that hasn’t yet heard the right truth from my fellow humans. I don’t think any of you have the answers to my questions about existence since I don’t think any of us possess the ability to understand. I may not speak for you but I do believe you share in my condition of ignorance. If I spoke for you I’d be compelled to have you believe as I do, and I honestly don’t care if any of you do.

You: “Even though I’m without theism (a-theist), that is why I use the Agnostic label.”

I use both (agnostic atheist). But for short I say “atheist” because in most cases agnosticism is a given (as in: you can’t be absolutely certain about anything).

Also, not bringing up the agnostic label might just help avoid the brain-in-a-vat discussion.

I can have reasonable certainty of many things starting with my own existence as well the existence of the wife and children I love. My certainty also includes religion and the supernatural. Whatever real truth is out there, I am certain we are too simplistic to know it. A completely natural universe that just came to be in a big bang is an interesting theory of our beginning, but I find it hard to believe that it’s the complete story. There may just be more than this that we just don’t know and can’t understand.

It may just be that I’m dreaming and I’m simply a brain-in-a-vat and none of this is truly real. LOL

Here’s a more logical view of Pascal’s Wager that I can actually agree with:

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.” – Marcus Aurelius

The other problem I always see with Pascal’s Wager is the assumption that there is only one right choice for deity belief and you would be able to make that right choice when you follow Pascal’s Wager. I’d add to the line of “if there are gods, but unjust” and say that we’re all screwed anyway in that case and you couldn’t really hope to know how to do right for such gods.

A post on Evangelical Realism concerning How God Really “Works” is a prime example for how people try to tie normal human activity to acts of a supernatural deity. It references a story about a professor who states “God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I’ll give you exactly 15 minutes.” Of course nothing happens until a Marine steps up and knocks him down. The Marine calmly replied, “God was too busy today protecting America ’s soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid stuff and act like an a$$. So, He sent me.”

Evangelical Realism has an excellent rebuttal for the whole thing discussing something I’ve brought up many times. Acts of God are simply just acts of humanity attributed to the wrong person. Prayer is just hope given over to the supernatural and hope doesn’t result in any real actions unless we decide to act. The blog post ends with a great summary of this:

This is the secret. This is how God really “works” in the real world: somebody thinks they know what God ought to be doing, then they sit there stewing about it because God’s obviously not taking care of the matter, then they jump up and do it themselves, then they claim that God ought to be given credit for having gotten the job done. A classic case of sock-puppet deity. Rather pitiful, really, but so long as God persists in failing to show up in the real world it’s the best Christians have to offer.

Mr. Anonymous And Probably Fictitious Marine, I salute you. You may have acted violently, ignorantly, and unjustly, but you at least gave us a clear demonstration of how Christians perpetuate the delusion that God actually does things in the real world.

I’m trying to actually catch up on some old things I wanted to post about. I’m not an entirely consistent blogger and often look to outside content for blogging ideas. There is an old post on Daylight Atheism called Whence Comes God’s Nature? It touches on some good ideas as to why I can easily reject the religions of my fellow humans. Even though I’m rather firm in my belief that we don’t know what, if anything, exists in the realm of the supernatural since we are natural, I’m equally firm in my belief that the existing religions are simple creations of our primitive ancestors. Read the entire article at the link above but here are some of the major points I like.

God, so we’re told, is eternal and unchanging. He is pure reason, pure mind, pure spirit – no physical needs to fulfill, no past history, none of the contingent events that make human nature what it is. So how is it that he has, just like us, a complex nature with specific likes and dislikes? He did not undergo the process by which human beings acquire their preferences, so where does he get them from? Why does he prefer things one way and not another?

Read the original post for various examples of gods that would have different major traits and personalities of humans to see how weird it is to think something so supernatural and powerful would be as petty and simple as a human in thoughts and desires.

There’s an interesting parallel here with the “fine-tuning” argument sometimes used by religious apologists. They ask how likely it is that a universe with physical laws conducive to life could just happen to exist with no prior explanation. But atheists can ask an analogous question in return: Out of all the billions of possible gods, each one with a different highly specific and arbitrary set of desires and preferences, how likely is it that there just happens to be one who’s benevolent and kindly disposed toward humans? What prior cause can explain that favorable coincidence?

Out of all of the billions, trillions, etc. of possible supernatural beings or supernatural causes for all of existence to be I’m fairly certain humanity has no clue as to what that really is. But out of all of these possibilities I don’t think it’s enough to just say that I don’t believe in any of the human defined theisms. I think it is much more honest to say that all of humanity definitely doesn’t know. Even though I’m without theism (a-theist), that is why I use the Agnostic label.

Atheist Revolution has a post concerning Taking Back America For Atheists which suggests that Christians have taken over America. It has a criticism of patriotism while suggesting atheists should become patriotic to “take back America.” I need to reply to a few of these ideas.

First, this isn’t a Christian nation and there’s nothing to “take back” since it still belongs to all of the people regardless of their religious belief. Even the Muslims still have freedom of religion even if there are currently some that are vocal for limiting their freedoms in this country. Religious freedom needs to continue to be protected for all, but it’s not yet time to sound the alarm of a Christian takeover. Yes, I said religious freedom needs to be protected. If I am free to think and believe what I want then everyone else should be free too. We need to live together without interferring with each other’s freedoms.

I never feel threatened or compelled to engage in religious belief because of my government. The only threatening thing I can’t opt out of that I can think of is “In God We Trust” on my money. Obviously we don’t all trust in God so that needs to change back to E Pluribus Unum as the original motto that captures the true spirit of the country. “One Nation, Under God, Indivisible” is also divisive but I’m not obligated to say it and I won’t get thrown in jail if I don’t. I can hold my head high and reflect on our freedom while everyone else bows their head in prayer at a sporting event. The religious police don’t come over and haul me away for not praying and I’ve never received any weird looks or threats for it. If most people at the event want to participate in a prayer, then why should I care as long as I’m not compelled to join in?

Yes, I think prayer has no business in an official government setting led by government officials, but if they allow all beliefs to have a turn at it then that supports freedom of religion for me. If they limit it to Christian prayer then they’re just wrong since that’s not the law of this country. We usually get that kind of thing corrected. A “take back America” for any one group as an attitude is unpatriotic to me since we should all fight for each other’s freedom to believe and act how we want. Many times I’ll see the majority doing things I don’t like or won’t participate in but as long as I’m still free to not join the majority, then we’re good.

Our very secular government serves all of the people. Until I hear of a day that the police, fire department, social services, or any other governmental function will not serve me for my lack of belief in god, then I see every reason to continue as a patriot of our country. In my time of need I know I won’t just get prayed for instead of receiving government action. There are flaws and problem areas caused by religious people, but we’re doing pretty good overall. Our government and the laws of this country are the only things a freethinker has to be thankful for on any level close to that of a deity. The country is definitely a greater power than any individual. Our society and our government allows me to live the life I have without fear of the thought police or other forms of mob rule over an individual. These are some of the reasons I think freethinkers should be a patriot and a fan of our country. This definitely isn’t Iran, North Korea, or China. Right now we have some pretty good legal protections for a lack of belief even if we don’t exactly have a utopian freedom from religion. I agree this isn’t a permanent trait of the country and it does need some improvement and protecting, but we haven’t lost America yet.

Freethinkers are the best patriots as exemplified by someone like Thomas Paine and we have every reason to continue in the footsteps of someone like him. If this country really is about liberty, freedom, and the Bill of Rights then anyone trying to remake us into a Christian nation is the most unpatriotic type of person of all. The Atheist Revolution post has it right in saying:

The Christian right has long had their version of a “take back America” movement, exemplified most recently by Fox “News” windbag, Glenn Beck. But they seek to take us back to a fictional time and place, turning us into something we’ve never been and that actually violates much of the Constitution.

My feedback on the marketing approach of saying atheists should have their own “take back America” movement is to say that America isn’t lost yet. The real movement would be to remind everyone how secular the government really is and have a patriotic movement that protects freedom, liberty, and justice for ALL, not just the “right type of Christian” that would get more and more restrictive if we ever went down that road. Marketing would say things like “True patriots defend freedom of belief” and “true patriots want liberty for all, not just one type of God believers.” We don’t need to “take back America” and we just need to protect it from “my group only” attacks since “America is freedom for ALL.”

I have a funny side note since the post mentioned Glenn Beck. I’ve seen where Glenn Beck apparently idolized Thomas Paine for Common Sense and wrote a book based on that pamphlet. I definitely recommend another work by Thomas Paine called The Age of Reason, which is a wonderful critique of religion. This is from the same person that’s hailed as the The Father of the American Revolution and considered to be one of the founding fathers of the United States. Some Christians believe the United States was built in the Christian image while leaving God and Jesus completely out of the documents that serve as the foundation for our government when in truth it was created in the minds of people like Thomas Paine.

Speaking of the Pledge of Allegiance, if you don’t believe me that it didn’t always contain the phrase “under God” then I’m sure you wouldn’t doubt Porky Pig, would you?

There’s billboards showing part of the original 1892 version of the Pledge of Allegiance before it was modified in 1954 to add in the words “under God.” Some anti-free speech Christians vandalized and defaced one of these billboards to add in the words “under God.” This funny cartoon takes it to the next step by adding in a variety of gods that it would apparently represent in a free country. Can’t we just get back to E Pluribus Unum??? Out of Many, One!

Excellent excerpts from Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space. More specifically, from the chapter titled A Universe Not Made For Us.

There’s a Slate article by Ron Rosenbaum on An Agnostic Manifesto as well as an Atheist response article by PZ Myers called “New Agnostics” or “Same Old Ineffectual Wafflers”.

First, I’ll reiterate that I continue to concur with the prevailing view that agnosticism is not a “third way” from theism and atheism. However, agnostic theists are focused on their faith and have no use for the agnostic label or qualifier since for them knowledge has no importance and their faith is all that matters. Those that argue agnosticism does not stand alone successfully argue that atheism means nothing more than being without (a-) theism. It is not synonymous with anti-theism (gnostic atheist?) so to proclaim to be atheist is only to claim “I don’t believe that.” I believe agnostic atheist is the correct worldview and that the Agnostic label alone says the most for my belief. I don’t just simply “not believe that” but do believe that “we do not know.” I am Agnostic. Yes, a big letter Agnostic could semantically be theist or atheist but in practice I only know agnostics to be “without theism.” I think I’m safe to assume I can use agnostic without atheist and not get lumped in with Christians or other theistic groups.

The New Agnostics article tries to carve out agnosticism as completely different from atheism in general. Agnosticism is really only a different view from the hardline anti-theism or a strong atheism if it were akin to gnostic atheism. Read Huxley, Ingersoll, and Russell and you’re reading people that could easily use a broad “without theism” label. It’s just that the label wasn’t the right fit for them personally and didn’t say enough about what they really thought about being outside of theistic belief. They all gravitated towards what Huxley created in the term Agnostic. I agree with Ron that agnosticism isn’t an exact subcomponent of atheism but that is just because it concerns knowledge and not faith so semantically it isn’t just “weak atheism.” However, in common practice I wouldn’t see a problem with agnostic and weak atheism becoming synonymous. There is no dogma to being outside of theistic belief, so why not?

You can read through both articles but it really comes down to what PZ Myers closes with:

I know he hates it when we say this, but Wilkins is awfully hard to distinguish from any other atheist, except for the fact that he insists on the label “agnostic”. If it makes him feel any better, he can always call the rest of us agnostics, too. We’ll humor him.

Exactly! I’ve personally backed off from the notion that agnosticism is unique from atheism. We are all truly agnostic atheists as a total set of labels concerning knowledge and faith. If you bother to use a label at all for this subject it’s easier to use just one and for reasons I’ve already described above I believe either one is fine to distinguish yourself from theists.

If I’m a “New Agnostic” then I’m just here to proclaim that we are all agnostic and atheist. Agnostic is a perfectly respectable label to use for a viewpoint on theism even though it is about knowledge and not faith. Just know that Agnostic as a standalone label generally implies that you are not a theist and are therefore also a-theist. Now get back to your lives, family, and friends and just enjoy what you do know.