Agnostic Universe

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.

I’ve written about an article in the Atheism Guide on About.com before. I have to write again about another article there since I saw a tweet about it. It’s called Atheism vs Agnosticism. Austin Cline believes agnosticism isn’t a belief by itself since it speaks of knowledge first and foremost instead of belief. He only thinks atheism and theism are the two major categories of belief and Agnostic is just an adjective to qualify why people have a belief. I guess he forgets that Agnostic is also defined as a noun in the English language.

First, I don’t see agnostic as a useful adjective because I believe that none of us really know. Since we don’t know it means anyone with a belief claim does so without knowledge and only has faith in their belief. It’s a waste of a word and we should just simply use Atheist and Theist and not bother with an agnostic adjective. A Gnostic Theist is not credible without the ability to actually provide us all with proof of their “knowledge”. If that would ever happen we wouldn’t be arguing any of this anyway.

Now back to Agnostic as a noun. I’ll quote from Cline’s article:

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Here we are with a black and white definition of either you believe in god or you don’t. Even in a binary system there is still the option of the variable being undefined which would be a third option for belief. The main problem with this article is the use of the word “god.” It suggests a single creator called god and instantly brings to mind the Christian God. So let’s go ahead and start there. The Theist obviously believes in their human defined god. The Atheist rejects that god or simply lacks belief in it because they just don’t believe in it. This part is easy to define and agree upon. The Agnostic, in stating first and foremost that we do not know about such supernatural things, must say that nobody else knows either. If they don’t say that then they’re not making a statement of belief that matches their statement of knowledge. If they don’t also reject Christianity like the Atheist then they shouldn’t bother calling themselves anything other than a fence-sitter at that point. The Agnostic should logically have a belief the Christian is wrong because the Christian is claiming to know something that collectively we don’t know. In this regards an Agnostic and Atheist can agree on the truth of Christianity even if they don’t get to that conclusion in the same way. The Atheist simply doesn’t believe and the Agnostic can’t agree with the belief because of a belief that we don’t know such things.

Now we need to talk about the supernatural realm in the larger sense and whatever our possible origin may be from a supernatural creation, natural creation (Big Bang?), or even perhaps no creation event at all. The Theist looks at the majesty and mystery of the universe and claims an all-powerful being came from nothing (or always existed) and created the universe. Why they think a being is needed for this magic to happen instead of just the universe coming from nothing in the same way that their god came to exist is beyond me. Regardless, the question of our origin is answered by the Theist with “God did it.” There are other kinds of theisms such as Pantheism which claims the Universe is god or at least is the only thing worthy of reverence like a god. There are any number of words under theism you can dig up to describe a supernatural realm with a supernatural creation concept in it that explains the existence of our natural universe. That is the commonality found in theistic belief.

Atheism is a rejection or lack of all theistic beliefs and the supernatural realm they try to define. If you don’t see a supernatural cause for our existence then you are an atheist. This is the black and white two sides of the theistic belief coin. But what if you haven’t flipped that coin? What if you just don’t know and you acknowledge that humanity is clueless on this subject? What if you hold open the possibility of a supernatural creation that we don’t understand and therefore can’t define it under any theistic label? What if you also hold open the possibility of a natural creation or no creation event as well because you say you don’t know where all of this came from? Well, my friend, you are an Agnostic.

Busy times in my life… so let’s resort to full quoting of interesting articles again. Here’s another good article about freethinkers.

MIDWEST VOICES: Let us bow our heads in thanks for atheists

The re-awakening of atheism in America is going to make for some very interesting times. Leaders of the Christian Right have spent years trying to cast themselves as the voiceless victims in a secular society, but the scapegoating is over. (Want to talk marginalized? How many atheists have there ever been in Congress or the White House?)

Nonbelievers know a lot about Christianity and Judaism, most having been raised in religious families. Believers, however, are somewhat less clued-in about atheists. Here are a few simple truths about who they are, and aren’t.

Atheists are well-behaved. Atheists seem to play well with others overall. They’re not in the news for getting caught doing things they tell others not to do. Most co-exist peacefully with believing family and friends. They pay taxes.

Atheists don’t start wars on behalf of atheism. They do join the military, however, and contrary to the cliché, they are found in foxholes. In fact, there is a lawsuit now against Defense Secretary Robert Gates and a major who harassed a group of “foxhole atheists” who simply wished to exercise their freedom of/from religion while serving their country in the Middle East.

Atheists have a thing for the American Constitution, particularly the First Amendment that separates church and state. They are secularists who support a government free from influence by any religion. They’re not anti-religious but nonreligious.

So when people like Mike Huckabee announce they want to “take this nation back for Christ” and make the Constitution fit the word of God, atheists worry, and feel that everyone else would be wise to worry along with them.

Atheists don’t take up much space. In fact, they only comprise 0.4 percent of the U.S. population, according to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, conducted through the Graduate Center at CUNY. (Agnostics would add 0.5 percent, the nonreligious 14.1 percent more.)

A total of 900,000 people isn’t even enough to fill 10 football stadiums, but evangelical leaders insist the godless are behind the decline of a whole nation. Uh, okay.

Atheists make good neighbors. Chances are, if you lived next door to an atheist, you might never know it. Atheists aren’t known for going door-to-door or shore-to-shore to un-convert people. They will help you even though there’s no heavenly reward in it for them.

Atheists will not infringe upon your life uninvited. On the other hand, you have to wonder about the neighborliness of certain believers when you see, for example, the miracle of the multiplying churches and neighborhood-munching mega-churches.

Thanks to the Religious Land Use law, passed in 2000, it’s lots easier now for religious groups to build more tax-exempt houses of worship, often against the wishes of neighborhoods which they burden financially and environmentally.

Atheists are lousy fundraisers. If you really want to raise a ton of money, oh, say on a weekly basis, don’t ask an atheist. Go to the folks with the know-how.

Televangelists raise almost $100 billion a year. In fact, they are so good at talking money out of people’s purses and bank accounts that six major Christian ministries are under investigation by the Senate Finance Committee.

These prosperity preachers tell their followers that God wants all of them to be well and be rich. (Serendipitously, God wants the preachers to have fancy cars, huge houses and the occasional Learjet.)

Atheists are the quiet type. Religionists have counted on atheists’ need for self-protection, but things are changing. Witness the popularity of Christopher Hitchens’ insightful book, god is not Great, the movie version of “The Golden Compass,” the mainstream media interest in the nonbelievers’ demographic.

There’s a new dialogue beginning between mainline believers and atheists, and among atheists themselves. While militant New Atheists fight on intellectual turf to replace dogma with rational thinking, humanists encourage believers and nonbelievers to get the moral work of peace, social justice and saving the environment done together.

Right-wing Christianity shook the atheist community out of its complacency with its relentless rhetorical badgering and attempts to co-opt the country. A missing piece of the real picture of America is finally being restored. Amen to that.

Richard Carrier replied to my reply on his blog entry: Atheist or Agnostic? Not surprisingly, he defended the argument that there is no difference between agnostics and atheists. Not surprisingly, I still disagree and see a clear difference even though the result of that difference is that we are essentially the same in our nontheism. The difference is still important to me though because it is what I believe to be true.

I focused on divine versus natural creationists as part of the difference since it is a part of my view of the obvious difference between us. He thought I had that as a mandatory part of the definition and threw in the notion of non-creating gods to confuse the subject even more. That’s fine, atheists would not believe non-creating gods are possible and agnostics would leave it as a possibility even though they don’t actually believe in specific definitions of them because it is still part of the supernatural that we have no knowledge about.

He then used the phrase “we are all agnostics” based upon the original argument that any given person could be agnostic in respect to “god x” and atheist in respect to “god y”. These views towards specific god definitions have nothing to do with your overall view though and doesn’t help you figure out a label for yourself. A Christian that is atheist toward “god z” is not an atheist.

I think labeling ourselves is an important point actually. These are labels that we figure out for ourselves just like the religions and their labels attached to their belief. It’s hard to argue about these things because it does come down to a matter of personal belief even when we talk about our own disbeliefs. I don’t imagine Richard will change his view, but that’s fine by me since I don’t need his approval to keep my agnostic label and hold to it. The beauty of being a freethinker is that there isn’t a Church of Freethought that we have to receive a blessing from to participate. Obviously we want to use the same sound definitions to describe things, but I think I am doing that. If there were no difference between atheists and agnostics then we wouldn’t have two words that do not carry the exact same definition as a synonym of each other. The roots of the words are different and speak volumes to me as to their underlying difference of viewpoint.

The following paragraphs are my reply back to Richard in an attempt to clarify my view:

I consider myself a “devout” agnostic and like the meaning of the word even if there isn’t a neat and tidy classification system that puts me there. I actually went from thinking I’m an atheist to a realization that I firmly believe I am an agnostic. It’s not a matter of an unwillingness to commit to atheism, but just my belief for what I think is true. I’m not trying to truly change your mind on this, but just want to share what I believe on this subject.

Your focus on specific definitions of a god/creator and how we can have different levels and labels of conviction for our belief/disbelief about them can be a bit confusing, not to mention your funny god names. Most people are atheistic towards Zeus, so a Christian is an atheist when we’re talking just about Zeus. That shouldn’t give them an overall atheist tag though and just confuses the subject just like when you talk about agnostic and atheist views towards a list of god definitions. Our views toward a specific god you’ve picked doesn’t define our overall view.

If an atheist is atheistic about the whole god concept then that’s what makes them an atheist, otherwise they would be a theist for whichever god they aren’t atheistic about. I agree that soft and hard atheism is meaningless. You said that all that matters in defining an atheist is that an atheist does not believe in any god. When you say “any god”, I take that to mean any concept of a “god”, supernatural creator, or even the noncreating “superbeing” you mentioned. Any god includes all definitions as well as the overall concept, which would include the undefined or not yet defined like when you created a name and definition for Bumpypoo.

I see the atheist as the purist that simply does not believe in any god (no matter the degrees of disbelief) including any vague concepts of gods all the way to an undefined creator (or even noncreating god). As an agnostic, I see the distinction as having an active belief that we do not know. I believe the concept of a god, deity, or any kind of supernatural phenomenon in that realm is beyond us and our understanding. I believe any such thing exceeds our intellect and our place in the physical universe. I don’t lack a belief in the overall god concept and weigh in with an emphatic “it is not known.” In contrast, a theist believes in such things and I think the atheist rejects them all or at least passively lacks a belief in them all as a weak form of rejection.

How about this lame attempt at a breakout?
Defined god (Christian, pantheist, etc.) – theists obviously believe, agnostics and atheists do not believe
Undefined god (god concept) – theists believe, agnostics believe it as a possibility that we know nothing about, atheists do not believe

UPDATE: There was another reply to my reply. He helped explain my belief on this well with this:

Hence I think agnosticism is more about why you don’t believe than how much or which gods. And that is exactly how Huxley coined the word, to demarcate reasons. In his case, lack of knowledge was grounds for unbelief, rather than knowledge of the proposition being false (which he implied would be atheism).

I agree with this as well. Why you don’t believe helps you decide what your overall view is of the supernatural and the gods people think they see there. Richard was able to show the “why” as a breakdown he didn’t agree with as well. He was still able to communicate this and I believe shows the reason for both words to continue to exist and be used even though he still claims no utility in the existence of the word agnostic.

I came across an interesting blog post at Richard Carrier Blogs. It has some wonderful logic along the way that you should read.

…So the only thing that separates believers in God from the rest of us is a belief in at least one god. Ergo, the only thing that can ever logically matter in distinguishing theists from “atheists” is whether we believe any god exists. Hence all that matters in defining an atheist is that an atheist does not believe in any god. Whether there are some gods atheists also deny is wholly irrelevant–because there are some gods everyone denies, even believers! And as long as we don’t believe in any God, we are not theists, and are therefore atheists.

Yes, agnostics and atheists are both atheist about all human defined gods. However, I do not see that thought to be the end of the subject. I am in agreement that to the theists we are and should be viewed as essentially one and the same and it can be just a linguistic nuance, but I think it is an important one.

Therefore, there is simply no such thing as a “soft atheist” who is not also a “hard atheist,” or a “hard atheist” who is not also a “soft atheist.” If you don’t believe in any god, then you will always be both. The only difference will be which gods you put where. Hence all unbelievers are both atheists and agnostics, and neither can deny either name. They can never be separated. Though these categories aren’t synonymous, you still can’t sort unbelievers into “atheists” and “agnostics” any more than you can sort them into “persons” and “people.” Thus it is simply stupid to debate which you are.

The problem I have with the argument is that it is only framed from the viewpoint of the human defined god itself instead of pulling back to the whole reason why people invented these gods, which is the question of the creation of the universe. The atheist either doesn’t really say anything about creation or continues to the logical conclusion that denying the supernatural gods implies that a natural creation could be the only answer. I think the true atheist denies the god concept completely and must come to that conclusion.

The agnostic does not deny the concept of a supernatural creation and instead acknowledges that humanity has no clue on the subject. This profession of not knowing ends up being an active claim that a supernatural creation that we do not understand is still a possible source for our creation. I think this remains in contrast to the atheist belief.

I see it like this:
Theist – universe created by a supernatural creator of my definition
Atheist – supernatural creators are false; this may extend to a denial of anything existing outside of the natural universe
Agnostic – human defined supernatural creators are false because we don’t know such things – we also don’t know where the universe came from or why it came to be, so a supernatural cause remains a possibility even if we may never understand it.

Huxley created the word agnostic. I turn to this explanation from him for the final word:

I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions. On trial of any so-called miracle the verdict of science is “Not proven.” But true Agnosticism will not forget that existence, motion, and law-abiding operation in nature are more stupendous miracles than any recounted by the mythologies, and that there may be things, not only in the heavens and earth, but beyond the intelligible universe, which “are not dreamt of in our philosophy.” The theological “gnosis” would have us believe that the world is a conjuror’s house; the anti-theological “gnosis” talks as if it were a “dirt-pie” made by the two blind children, Law and Force. Agnosticism simply says that we know nothing of what may be beyond phenomena.

I haven’t thrown out the explanation in a while, so here is why I see Agnosticism and Atheism as two separate beliefs or viewpoints and why they don’t exactly overlap with each other or with Theism. I honestly believe it is a third and different viewpoint. Theism and Atheism deal with belief and Agnosticism deals with knowledge and hopefully my explanation with clarify this.

Theists have a belief in some sort of creator for the universe. Theists either have a somewhat exact view or at the very least a vague notion of what this creator is and the nature of that creator’s existence. A theist that qualifies their belief by saying they only believe and do not have actual knowledge are not agnostic. This uses the word agnostic as an adjective to qualify the theistic belief and not as a noun describing the overall viewpoint on creation.

Atheists are the opposite of theists by either actively rejecting the entire idea of a creator or at the least rejecting specific definitions of a creator as defined by theists. An atheist that qualifies their belief by saying they only believe this because they lack knowledge is not an agnostic since they have a belief about creation. This is also using the word agnostic as an adjective to qualify their atheistic belief and not as a noun describing their viewpoint on creation.

We now move from belief to knowledge.

Gnostics have a belief in a creator and the name is derived from the greek word for knowledge. They apparently made claim to know things that others simply had a belief in. It is from this word that Huxley came up with the idea for the word agnostic to describe his lack of knowledge for such things as creation.

Agnostics do not have a defined belief in regards to creation because agnostics do not know. Agnostic means “without knowledge.” An agnostic cannot be a theist because they can’t have a belief in something that they do not have a knowledge of. You cannot believe in the undefined. As soon as the belief takes on any vague definition of a creator then they are a theist (albeit an agnostic theist) and not an actual agnostic.

An agnostic is not exactly an atheist in the strictest sense since an agnostic can’t completely lack a belief in the creation concept in general. This is because an agnostic does not know the nature of the origins of the universe and does not have knowledge to reject such a concept overall. An agnostic’s lack of knowledge does align them with weak atheism in that they must agree in the rejection of theistic definitions since the agnostic believes in the fact that we do not know. This rejection is based on a lack of knowledge, not a specific knowledge or active belief that such things are wrong.

In short, the agnostic sees belief for or against the idea of a creator as wrong because we lack the knowledge to believe in such things as well as the knowledge to completely reject the entire idea of a creator. The agnostic doesn’t jump into the spectrum of belief or complete disbelief in a creator and says they don’t have the knowledge to put themselves on a point of the line for that scale. It is not done to sit on a fence on the subject but just to simply say they are not in the fight for or against belief and anyone engaging in such a fight is doing so from a position of complete ignorance.

I also don’t believe that I lack this knowledge because I’m unwilling or not open to a knowledge that is attainable. I believe such knowledge and concepts are beyond human understanding and ability. I seriously doubt that we can become capable of understanding the true origins of the universe.

If you take the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment and apply it to belief then the cat is god. Theists believe the cat is alive, atheists believe the cat is dead, and agnostics claim not to know that a cat is even in the box and leaves it open to suggest that it could be a dog, a unicorn, something we’ve never encountered before in this universe, or simply nothing at all that we’re arguing about. Without having knowledge of what’s really in the box and believing that we shouldn’t rely on Schrödinger to tell us, unknown can be the only correct answer.

The text of this interview can be found at AmericanAtheist.org

Probably my most favorite author ever is Douglas Adams and The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide To The Galaxy (all 5 books of the trilogy). It’s an interesting explanation of why he’s Atheist instead of Agnostic. I don’t think he understood the point that true Agnostics are atheistic about human-defined gods and therefore agree with much of his reasoning. Agnosticism just does not take the logic all the way to dismissing the possibility of anything supernatural beyond our understanding since we are just simple creatures that are still mostly ignorant about the whole of the universe.

Julia Sweeny of Saturday Night Live fame appeared on Craig Ferguson’s show to talk about her CD “Letting Go of God” with some interesting discussion on belief and atheism.

Here is an excerpt from Julia Sweeney’s Letting Go of God monologue. You may remember Julia Sweeney from Saturday Night Live.

An Agnostic, by the definition of not knowing the origin of the universe, is naturally atheistic towards the human-defined gods since those gods are claims of a known origin. However, Agnostics acknowledge the limits of their knowledge and cannot stake an absolute atheistic claim of a natural creation since we simply do not know. There is the possibility of a supernatural creation that we do not understand and cannot understand that may or may not have some sort of “intelligence” involved.

Here is a blog excerpt from Jim Benton that explains the parameters of the agnostic viewpoint very well. Using Huxley’s original definition I would consider him an Agnostic and not an Agnostic and an Atheist as he appears to label himself. Click on the link below the excerpt for the complete entry and an in-depth explanation for being atheistic towards the human-defined gods:

I am both an agnostic and an atheist. You see, I make a distinction between a ‘deistic God’ (i.e, a ‘Creator’) and a ‘theistic God’ (i.e., one which has in some way interacted with humanity, who has communicated with us.) As for a deistic God, there are three main possibilities:

The Universe is self-existent.
The Universe was created by someone who is himself self-existent.
The ‘demiurge’ hypothesis: the Universe was created by a non-self-existent being who was itself, directly or at some remove, created by a self-existent being.

Something has to be self-existent. That’s a logical necessity. Occam’s razor would argue for #1, but it is not an infallible guide. I would argue that it is neither — currently — possible to distinguish between these three possibilities, nor is there the slightest practical difference between them. Therefore, I have to be technically agnostic on the deistic Creator issue. (There are other minor possibilities, such as solipsism, which is not logically disprovable, or seeing Creation as a joint effort. I like the idea of Slartibartfast designing the fjords, I admit it. But they can usually be reduced to #2 or #3 above.) As for a theistic, interacting, communicating God, here I am an atheist. I have to deny the existence of such a one, at least of one who has already communicated with humanity.

Jim Benton on the Atheist / Agnostic Issue