Agnostic Universe

from LOL god

This is a cartoon about militants with the militant atheist portrayed as a rational person typing away at the keyboard while the agnostic buries his head in the sand and the Christian and Muslim both have weaponry. I assume it’s supposed to be a joke and I’ve seen it on some atheist blogs like Friendly Atheist where it seems to be presented as a joke. However, it reads like a smug “we’re better than them” banner. The statement it makes (serious or not) is that atheists are always so rational that even their worst adherents are better than anyone else.

Let’s look at this seriously for a moment because I want to focus on the message it conveys. The word militant means “1) vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause or 2) engaged in warfare; fighting.” Any time you argue about belief or disbelief, you’re arguing about what is most likely an unprovable viewpoint. When you argue over belief then you aren’t arguing over knowledge. One or both sides in those arguments have no interest in what is truly known or it wouldn’t last as an argument. An atheist could believe so much in their rejection of belief that their militant behavior and insistence on disbelief could be fought for with the same misguided passion as the militant believers. The term militant is about the behavior and tactics of the person and not about the belief or disbelief. Any person could be irrationally aggressive with weapons. Anyone that suggests that could never happen in the freethought community isn’t being honest about human behavior and the ability for some people to forcibly exert their will on others.

I support most of the efforts of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. However, I also see how freedom FROM religion could be twisted into a stronger and more militant stance to remove religion from the public entirely. This is similar to how some Christians want homosexuality to only be a private matter and not allow for any aspects of it to appear in public. On the extreme end of the spectrum are the Christians that don’t want to allow homosexuality in the private either. I believe in equal access in the “public square” for belief and non-belief. I don’t see how it helps society to remove or restrict religion from the religious. I just want to be free from having to support their religions with my tax dollars and from being forced to be more than a bystander as they do their thing. If we really value our own freedom from religion then I think we need to value everyone else’s freedom of religion.

I don’t ever want to see any militant people and that includes militant atheists or agnostics. Going back to that picture, the militant atheist and agnostic would also have weaponry. The militant believers want everyone else to believe as they do and the militant non-believers would also want everyone to not believe just like they do. The militant atheist would tell you that “you don’t believe” when they point the gun at you and the militant agnostic would say “you don’t really know.” I believe none of us really know or can know how or why existence came to be. All there is is belief or disbelief about such things and belief is definitely not knowledge. I’m atheist since I don’t know of anything about a creator or cause for existence that’s worth believing in. However, I don’t see the need for militancy on any side of this question since there’s no true knowledge on this subject to be defended by anyone. This is why I primarily identify as an agnostic “I don’t know, and you don’t either” instead of an atheist “I don’t believe, and you shouldn’t either.”

LOL, the cartoon is titled “let me rephrase that…” but there’s definitely some truth to this one. When it comes down to it, all of us unbelievers are both agnostic (without knowledge) AND atheist (without theism). The important thing for “freethinkers”, “unbelievers”, etc. is that we don’t blindly follow ancient religions.

I’m a weak atheist and strong agnostic. A weak atheist is a person lacking in a theistic belief. A strong atheist would be akin to an anti-theist and a belief that it is proven that there are no gods or a creator of this universe. I’m a strong agnostic and believe that we don’t know about anything supernatural since we are natural and possibly aren’t capable of knowing the true origin and nature of the universe we live in. I assert that even if the big bang is provable that it is an incomplete view of the origin of this universe because it is from within this universe after the event occurred. I don’t believe we are intelligent enough to figure out what may or may not be outside this universe from our vantage point and that we may never know what truly happened in the first moment of existence.

If someone asks me about my religious beliefs then I view my weak atheism as the lesser trait and my strong agnosticism as the dominant trait since I value knowledge over belief. A label of me as the atheist unbeliever just doesn’t adequately describe me. I prefer the label of the unknowing agnostic and I would assert that it best describes us all. I believe agnosticism should be shared as a universal truth. It makes more sense to speak to god believers in terms of what they don’t really know instead of the simply contrary view of “I don’t believe you and you shouldn’t believe it either”. Agnosticism is more of a philosophical methodology that can be used to frame your beliefs and examine the supernatural instead of just using atheism as a lack of belief. What is the rejection of belief based on other than to say the burden of proof is on the believer? I see my weak atheism about defined religions as a result of my active use of agnosticism. Some people trace their movement to freethought as moving from not knowing (agnostic) to not believing (atheist) as two different beliefs. I first thought of myself as an atheist because I stopped believing and after further reflection decided agnosticism was the reason for my rejection of the defined religions.

Here is where we get into the main difference between myself and the typical atheist and where the atheists accuse me of heresy to “their belief”. I have the agnostic nuance of saying that even though all of the defined religions I know about appear to be fiction when critically examined, I do not fully reject the possibility of a creator or gods we don’t know about. Theists jump on that statement and think they can convince me of their nonsense, but I think even if there were a creator or gods then we’re unable to understand such a thing and it or they have no dealings with us as far as I can tell. If there is a god and it cares about me then let it interact with me directly instead of through my fellow humans. None of you can be trusted to give me the correct truth about something so important and bigger than our insignificant existence. I’m still waiting for the gods to speak to me directly but I’m smart enough to not hold my breath in anticipation.

The main point of this post is to say that I’ve given creation itself some more thought lately and I’ve come up with a possible god hypothesis to support my reason for not being a complete anti-theist. I have to consider the possibilities of an infinite physical universe, multiverses, the big bang of this universe, string theory, m-theory, the theory of everything, etc. I’m just an average person and read a little here and there about these things but I think there’s enough there for a basic god hypothesis that I’ll call the Rube Goldberg Machine for Creation of this Universe.

If infinity, mulitiverses, origin theory, etc. is capable of randomly creating our one specific universe as a subset of all of existence with the right conditions to evolve the human intellect, then the infinity, mulitiverses, origin theory, etc. could have been capable of randomly creating an intelligent being capable of creating our one specific universe as a subset of all of existence.

So I think that if there were an intelligent creator of this universe then it was just something that arose within the entirety of existence and only created our one universe and wasn’t the cause of all of existence itself. This creator wouldn’t be all-powerful and all-knowing and would just have to be powerful and intelligent enough to create RNA, DNA, etc. and code macromolecules for life. I don’t believe that such a being is necessary to create us and Occam’s razor suggests the extra step of an intelligent designer for our universe is an unnecessary addition of complexity. This is why I call the hypothesis the Rube Goldberg Machine for Creation because it throws in an extra creation step just to make it more interesting. However, if you’re being intellectually honest and believe that we could arise from randomness and think and create what we are able to create then a singular being or beings that could intentionally or unintentionally create the building blocks of our life could also be a possibility. I still firmly believe that we don’t know and are generally clueless about the true origins of our universe. I still believe it’s all a big mystery and I choose to remain firmly agnostic.

I can look at the majesty, power, and wonder of our entire universe and see the need to ask why. Religious people (theists) say they have a very simple answer to this and it is God. They believe in God as a single all-powerful intellect that exists without cause yet amazingly possesses the attributes of thought and power sufficient to create this mysterious mess of a universe. Which one of these two things is more likely to exist without intelligent cause and design:

1. A god with amazing intellect and power capable of creating this universe with our own individual awareness and thoughts for the sole purpose of loving and worshipping that god
2. An environment and existence that is without intelligent cause and design that’s vast enough to develop and evolve our physical bodies with awareness and thought through natural processes over billions of years in one small speck of this grand lab we call the universe

If you think our simple bodies and minds must have a God to create them then what does that say about God itself which is much more complicated than us? It is obvious to me that God is just an invention of our more primitive ancestors. They imagined that since they could create simple things then a greater intellect must have created more complicated things like us. They extrapolated what they knew to incorrectly bridge the gaps for what they couldn’t possibly know. Why do people trust their knowledge about the universe over any scientists working today?

The mythological gods were human forms possessing more power than us. The Judeo-Christian God is just a more powerful singular version of these gods possessing the attributes of something so powerful and beyond us that it is now claimed to be beyond questioning. I can’t believe in such a God for so many reasons including our inability to know or understand such a being which means you can’t claim to define or know God. The existence of such a being with the attributes of a creator without origin makes no sense.

My knowledge tells me that all gods exist only in belief and faith without any real evidence showing gods are the reason for existence. I can’t believe such things without knowledge and so I cannot be a theist. I’m without theism and am by definition an atheist. Not believing isn’t everything to me since actual knowledge about the origin and root causes of our existence are important to me. I would like to know why all of this exists. The answer may only be natural processes and the theory of multiple big bangs may mean that matter itself is infinitely old and the universe infinitely large. How could a singular uncaused intellect outside of the universe be the cause of such a universe? It is not necessary and makes no sense.

If I have belief, faith, and feeling concerning all of this it is telling me in my core that the religions of mankind are false. I have stood on the shores of Oahu in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and felt the vastness and power of the ocean around me and felt so very small. I have walked through Carlsbad Caverns and felt the weight of the earth over my head and under my feet and felt so very small. I have stood on top of Pike’s Peak and looked out at the land the farthest and highest I have ever seen and felt so very small. I have looked up at the clear unspoiled night sky and the vast multitude of stars and galaxies and have felt so very small and insignificant in the face of the amazing power of the entire universe that exists outside of my simple little mind. I have considered the amount of knowledge humanity has collected over our short existence and imagined how insignificant it is compared to the potential knowledge of true omniscience. I have left my mind and heart open to the truth concerning the true nature of existence and I continously feel the amazing powers of the unknown.

Why does the universe exist? I can tell you what I think makes the most sense concerning the evolution of our physical existence and that the universe may have always existed. We can still look at it all in wonder and ask why but I can honestly say that I don’t really know why. I believe that none of us know and anyone claiming to know a god is faking it for some human motivation that you can figure out. But when it comes to the universe, isn’t the universe itself amazing enough?

This is the perfect cartoon for this post and for this topic that comes up so often. The latin root of agnostic as a noun means “without knowledge”, “unknown”, or “unknowable” and is so often criticized as meaning “fence sitter” or “undecided” regarding theistic beliefs. Perhaps the better word for undecided would be non-theist or just simply undecided. Continues below the cartoon…

The word agnostic as an adjective obviously applies to both theist and atheist as the cartoon demonstrates since nobody knows. Ask most theists and they’ll tell you knowledge isn’t important since they have belief and faith to support it. I don’t know of any theists that go around calling themselves agnostic theist, agnostic Christian, or agnostic since they’re defined by their belief and not their knowledge. There are other theists that might claim they know their god exists based on the Christian Bible or some other claimed proof and they also wouldn’t call themselves agnostic or even Gnostic since that’s usually associated with a specific Christian sect that claims special knowledge of their God. If you currently call yourself agnostic then you’re not in that theism pool. Even if you may be a theist some day you’re currently lacking theism, right? Guess what, that makes you an a-theist regarding theistic belief!

Atheist means “without theistic belief” and is a lack of such beliefs. Some atheists claim it is synonymous with antitheist or an active opposition to theism, but the root meaning of the word itself doesn’t support that definition so it is simply a lack of theistic beliefs. Atheist also doesn’t make a statement concerning knowledge. Unless you have absolute proof for the origin of the universe and proveable knowledge that there is no cause or reason for existence of the universe and possibly even us humans then you can’t claim to have knowledge counter to what theists believe. Since none of us know then the most defendable viewpoint should be agnostic atheist or atheistic agnostic depending on where you choose to put the noun concerning belief and knowledge.

I consider myself an atheistic agnostic since I see much more importance in knowledge over belief. I don’t see the use of telling a theist that I just don’t believe them. When I come across a Christian or some other religious person I want to use a label that means something to me. If they say they believe in god X and I should also believe as they do then I don’t want to just say I’m atheist. All atheist really means is that I don’t believe what they believe. The reaction from the believer is to see me as a doubter that is being contrary to the truth that is perfectly obvious to them.

I prefer to start the knowledge sharing with theists from the standpoint that we don’t know and the answer I have for many of their questions is “unknown”. Unknown doesn’t mean their beliefs are correct, justifiable, or useful in any way but by saying they don’t know it highlights that the burden of proof and requirement of actual knowledge is on the theists. Apparently the agnostic noun also causes arguments with many atheists as well. I’m fine with that since theistic belief is unimportant to me other than to say I’m also atheist and don’t believe in gods.

I’m not sure why some self-identified atheists feel the need to say I’m not a “true” atheist by using the agnostic label without the atheist label. I know I’m not saying anything about belief just calling myself agnostic. It’s entirely intentional since belief isn’t important in the face of knowledge. I’m pointing out the limits to the finite and small amount of knowledge humans actually possess concerning the universe, existence, and what may or may not be the root cause or a reason for any of this if it hasn’t just always existed like this. The funny thing is that most atheists don’t attack theistic belief solely from the validity of just disbelief versus belief and very quickly move to our lack of knowledge as the basis for their disbelief and reason theists should stop believing. In the end, can’t we all agree that knowledge is the most important thing? It’s what makes agnosticism a more useful viewpoint for me than just embracing atheism.

I received a few tweets asserting that I’m “an atheist without a spine or a dictionary”. Another tweet said “agnostic isn’t a better label for anyone when it comes to belief, theism is a belief, atheism the lack of it.”

I agree that agnostic is not a label for belief because it concerns knowledge. You can go through this blog and see that I am consistently without theism and therefore atheist by definition of belief. I might be critical of religious belief at times but I wouldn’t consider myself anti-theist, just lacking in those beliefs as an atheist and not seeing their usefulness for being human.

Regardless, people’s beliefs aren’t as important as what they KNOW. I know that if someone claims gnosticism they don’t actually have provable knowledge of anything supernatural. I have yet to see such claims proven without some flawed and convoluted circular logic. Knowledge is more important than belief and from our knowledge of the universe we don’t know why it exists or the actual root cause for it to come to be if it hasn’t always existed. Anyone claiming such knowledge has not come with proof that we can all confirm and agree upon. It is from knowing the limits of our knowledge that we know theistic beliefs don’t have the answers and is why I embrace the Agnostic label as the most important to me. Atheist just doesn’t mean much. I don’t have the same beliefs as religious people, so what? Why don’t we believe them? Atheist only sounds contradictory: I don’t believe you. I’d rather say that we don’t know and beliefs aren’t important in the face of actual knowledge.

Another tweet said that “there is no supernatural since the big bang, anything before the big bang is, by definition, not natural, even if it’s not magical or aware.” I’m not sure I follow that comment, but I can say that since we’re in the universe I’m not sure if we can accurately determine what may be beyond our current phenomenon. We do try and we may one day find whatever caused creation if there really was such an event. See these recent articles from a SETI astronomer for interesting ideas in this area: Who or What Built the Universe? and When One Big Bang Is Not Enough.

The Big Bang as the first natural event of a completely natural existence may not be the complete picture.

I love the British version of The Office and I think Ricky Gervais has always been outstanding. Now I know why I really like him as a person. Here’s some excellent holiday reading for you all:
A Holiday Message From Ricky Gervais: Why I’m an Atheist

Along with the excellent follow-up:
Does God Exist? Ricky Gervais Takes Your Questions

The fact that science can say “we don’t know” is exactly my point. Science doesn’t start with a set of convenient conclusions and try to justify them. It follows evidence. In fact, it tries to prove itself wrong. When it can’t, it’s right. Superstition, religion and blind faith cherry pick the evidence and justify the results by changing the goal posts. There are no cover-ups in science. For better or worse it finds stuff out. It has no moral code as such. It leaves those decisions to society. It discovers life saving drugs but leaves it up to you whether to use them or not. It discovers that splitting the atom can release a massive amount of energy very quickly and leaves it up to governments to try it out or not. It finds out what and how and why. It asks can we? Not should we? This is why it baffles me that some god fearers believe that without a god there is no reason to be good. Really?

If you don’t know what made the universe it seems pointless to say a God must have made it then. You have to then say “But what made God?” If you are then willing to say that God was always around, you may as well say that the universe was too. Saves time doesn’t it? How long did he wait till he made the universe by the way? And where was he? Did it turn out just like he planned? If he had to make another one would he do it any different? Where would he put it?

Since there is nothing to know about god, a comedian knows as much about god as any one else. An atheist however is alone in knowing that there is nothing to know so probably has the edge. An Atheist comedian can make people laugh about belief or lack of it. A good atheist comedian can make people laugh AND think about belief or lack of it. An agnostic would say that since you can neither prove the existence nor the non-existence of God then the only answer to the question “Is there a God?” is “I don’t know.” Basically they are saying just because you haven’t found something yet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Well firstly we have to know what definition of God we are asking about. Many can be dismissed as logical impossibilities. In the same way that if you were asked can you imagine a square circle the answer is of course “No.” Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. Let’s just say there is a definition of a God that is possible. Does he exist? “I don’t know” in this case is indeed the correct answer. However this must also be the answer to many other questions. Is there an elephant up your a—? Even if you’ve looked you can’t say “no.” It could be that you just haven’t found it yet. Please look again and this time really believe there is an elephant up there because however mad it sounds no one can prove that you don’t have a lovely big African elephant up your a—.

Peace to all mankind. Christian, Jew, Muslim and Atheist.

What about Agnostics?

Uhm?…I don’t know. Only joking. Yes even Agnostics.

Peace and goodwill to ALL mankind.

We love you Ricky! Peace and goodwill to you too!

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then how many words is a video worth? I like finding well made videos about nonbelief since they serve as wonderful examples and tools for communicating what I believe. Here are two recent finds I enjoyed that I want to share.

Coffee with Bernie is a good dialog describing the nontheist point of view. Watching the back and forth between belief and nonbelief is more compelling than just presenting one view or the other by itself.

So now that you’ve heard arguments against belief in gods, now what? This next video is a good one with the honest dialog, beautiful pictures of the universe, and the music at the end. Science Saved My Soul is something that I personally find emotionally moving. It’s an agnostic religious experience. The jealous god of the Bible dreamed up by our primitive ancestors is pathetic in comparison to the majesty of the universe itself.

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.

I’ve engaged in a forum discussion on the subject of Agnosticism being a “third way” in addition to Atheism and Theism. I want to retract that notion and say that I am an Atheistic Agnostic or alternatively I’m a strong Agnostic/weak Atheist. Either way, I will continue to go by the label Agnostic as the shorthand for both.

Here is what I posted to the forum at About.com:

I’ve never found the atheist label troublesome since I believe a rational agnostic should be in agreement with atheism. I am definitely a strong agnostic as contrasted to a weak agnostic. OK, I think I’m understanding this better and would revise my stance of putting agnosticism in as a “third way” between atheism/theism sitting right on the line between them or outside of that set of 2 that I was last trying to argue.

Let me look at some other labels for a moment as to why I was flawed in thinking of it as an independent “third way”. I’m a male (XY). I’m a non-female (non-XX) or A-female. Not all A-female’s are actually male even though that is definitely the first assumption a typical person has. There is such a thing as a Human Intersex or Hermaphodite with XXY chromosomes or other variants. They are A-female even though they share chromosomes of both male and female. I could argue XXY is both XX and XY, however it actually is a new third category. I was there with my thoughts on atheism, theism, and agnosticism. However, XXY in the strictist sense is definitely not XX so it is logically in the A-female category. So XY isn’t atheism, it’s some sort of active non-belief or rejection of theism. XXY could be a passive non-belief, lack of belief, or those open to the possibility of belief. Atheism is simply being non-XX which does not logically imply XY. I think I’ve gotten that now.

Let me add that I’m a left-handed male which is A-right-handed. We have the same thing going on with this category. There are ambidextrous people that are also A-right-handed so the A-female logic applies to this category as well.

I’m an A-right-handed A-female person and also an A-female A-right-handed person. It means the same thing but I’ve just flipped the perceived importance of the traits by their order of appearance. You could argue that being A-female is a much more important trait than being A-right-handed. However, what I feel more impacted by is my A-right-handedness like when I’m trying to use scissors or any other devices designed for right-handed use. Other people may be more impacted by their A-female trait then the A-right-handed trait or modifier. Both traits aren’t always worth mentioning at the same time. I could say I’m A-female as much as a I could say I’m A-right-handed.

Are there atheistic agnostics? I lack belief because god isn’t knowable. I like that usage of the terms and that is actually what I would consider myself. I would then just use agnostic in the same way that an agnostic atheist just uses atheist since they don’t feel the need to differentiate themselves from the gnostic atheist label. Atheists simply care most about the atheist part of the grid and don’t feel the need to always point out they’re agnostic in regards to knowledge. I’m an atheistic agnostic that goes by the label Agnostic for short.

Now if you say there is no such thing as an atheistic agnostic and agnostic only exists as an adjective modifying atheist/theist then I have this thought on using the agnostic noun as a primary label. There are strong and weak agnostics and strong and weak atheists that can subdivide the options into a grid of 4.

weak agnostic weak atheist – god could be known/proven and lacks belief

weak agnostic strong atheist – god could be known/proven and does not believe

strong agnostic strong atheist – god cannot be known/proven and does not believe – this one appears contradictory so you probably can’t be this

strong agnostic weak atheist – god cannot be known/proven and lacks belief

I would consider myself a strong agnostic weak atheist. As a “STRONG AGNOSTIC/weak atheist” I would simply shorten it to Agnostic. The reason for this isn’t just convenience of using a single word, it’s because I think a strong agnostic theist position is contradictory.

Strong agnostic theist – god cannot be known/proven and believes in god – this one doesn’t make sense since how do you believe in something that can’t be known to you? That is why I think as a strong agnostic I wouldn’t consider being a theist as a valid position to hold since as soon as you’re stating a belief in god you’re making god into something knowable. Because of this I feel it’s not important for me to state an atheist position since I feel it is implied by my strong agnosticism.

There is also the weak agnostic theist – god could be known/proven and believes in a god based upon faith. That is how they are able to describe something they claim to not have knowledge of because god could be known. Anyway, I don’t care about the theist labels so much since I’m certain I’m not a theist.

Me: I’m an agnostic

Me: Yes, I’m an atheist agnostic or just agnostic for short. Alternatively I’m a strong agnostic/weak atheist or I still just prefer being called an agnostic for short.