Radical Atheist

I have a few questions for those who self-identify as agnostics when it comes to questions about gods.

First I suppose I should give my opinion on agnosticism to provide context for my questions.

Whenever possible I prefer to read the originator’s opinion on a concept and let that influence my opinion, and when it comes to agnosticism we can read what Thomas Henry Huxley intended the term he invented to mean.

When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain “gnosis”–had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion …

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of “agnostic”. It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the “gnostic” of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. [Quoted in Encylopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 1908, edited by James Hastings MA DD]

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, ‘Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction. [" Agnosticism," 1889]

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism. ["Christianity and Agnosticism," 1889] (Source-Infidels.org) {Emphasis mine}

As a method, agnosticism is the application of skepticism to the quest to discover reality “without regard to any other consideration”. That last part is key. All preconceptions color perception. I’m not sure anyone could live 24/7 as a diehard agnostic or skeptic. We all make presumptions, we all operate daily depending on certain things like gravity to be consistent. But that doesn’t mean we understand gravity. We know too little of our universe, even about ourselves, to think that we have “all the answers”. So the agnostic would be very suspicious of anyone who claimed to have “all the answers”, especially when that group is exclusive and requires a suspension of disbelief in order to attain those answers.

“It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty.” Agnosticism doesn’t accept absolute statements without logical justification. “Absolute truth” is a concept foreign to Huxley’s agnosticism, unless it can be shown that there are no exceptions, none, anywhere in our common reality. “Absolute truth” implies absolute knowledge. Even theists would have to agree that human beings do not posses absolute knowledge. No human who has ever lived has had absolute knowledge. I am confident in stating that as a fact. If someone can illustrate that they do posses absolute knowledge, please comment below. I hope you don’t mind some healthy agnostic challenge. And obviously “absolute knowledge” would include knowledge of the future. There can be no exceptions to an absolute.

I see no inconsistency in being both agnostic and an atheist. I’m an agnostic in the methods I use to discern truth (small “t”) and appreciate reality. I’m an atheist in my opinion on theism. I do not contend that gods absolutely do not exist. That would contradict my opinions on absolutes. But the probability of something like any god existing, let alone any specific god, without leaving any unmistakable physical evidence of its existence that unequivocally points to the god, is so infinitesimally small that it is barely possible.

So my questions to those who define themselves as agnostics are:

If you consider yourself agnostic in matters of theology, and if you believe that as an agnostic you have no opinion on whether or not gods exist, what would you accept as evidence one way or the other?

If you’re theistically agnostic, do you consider miracles, signs, predictions and religious visions possible?

Would you be just as comfortable having someone pray over you for a healing as you would visiting an emergency room if your appendix burst?

If you don’t use skepticism in order to reach defensible conclusions (not absolutely right answers, though) then what good is it doing you?

Perpetual wonder is one thing, perpetual ignorance is another. Eternal indecision isn’t a blessing, it’s a curse. Agnosticism is a great tool for liberating your mind but a poor excuse for ignoring evidence. Look at the evidence.  Look at it “without regard to any other consideration”.

Agnosticism isn’t an endpoint, it’s not a goal. It’s a means of reaching those. The goal is to see clearly. The endpoint is yet to come.

Related articles by Zemanta

• A Skeptic’s Take on the Public Misunderstanding of Darwin (sciam.com)
• The Harder Debate (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Shut Up, That’s Why (tuibguy.com)

Print Friendly

From the massive irony file:

A prominent Buffalo area businessman who founded the BridgesTV network to improve the image of Muslims in the U.S. has been arrested and charged with murdering his estranged wife – by beheading her at his company’s office in Orchard Park, N.Y., on Thursday.

Police have charged the husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, with second-degree murder in the death of Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37.

In its logo, BridgesTV boasts of “connecting people through understanding” via its dish network available in several states. Its Web site quotes comments about the company by Jay Leno, Brian Williams and others, plus a screen shot of a CNBC interview with Hassan conducted by Maria Bartiromo.

Programs include kids shows, “American Muslim Teen Talk,” Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” and an interview show with James Zogby. Its news program “brings you balanced coverage from around the world. News you can trust.”

Police say the wife had an order of protection from the man. A murder weapon has not yet been recovered. The couple had two children, ages 4 and 6.

Khalid J. Qazi, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York, said, “There is no place for domestic violence in our religion — none. Islam would 100 percent condemn it.” (Source-Editor & Publisher)

“Islam would 100 percent condemn it”? How about “Islam does 100 percent condemn it”? Why the timid response?

Islam, like Christianity, is an ancient religion that has no place in modern societies. It’s rules of conduct and moral code are suited for 1st century goat-herders, not people living in the 21st century. In the civilized world, women are not property.

If Hassan wanted to change the Western concept of Islamic barbarism, he certainly went about it the wrong way. At least he committed this atrocity in the U.S. where he’ll be held accountable for his behavior and not in the Middle East where his actions would have been excused and accepted.

Related articles by Zemanta

• -Muslim ‘Honor’ Beheading in Buffalo? (answersforthefaith.com)
• Iran leader wants U.S. apology for ‘crimes’ (msnbc.msn.com)
• Founder of Islamist TV Channel Arrested in New York for Beheading Wife (littlegreenfootballs.com)

Print Friendly

Those who have reached the conclusion that gods either do not exist or are so improbable as to be unlikely in the extreme are atheists. Other than that one specific philosophical opinion, atheists do not necessarily share any other conclusion, interest or attitude.

It’s difficult to form a cohesive social network based solely on the issue of atheism. Atheists are often too different in what they do believe to feel a strong fraternity with others just because they both disbelieve in gods.

And it’s for this reason atheism fails to capture the interest of most people. Indeed, it actually repels many. Their is no community aspect to atheism.

Humans are pack animals. We respond to strong leadership, we take comfort in numbers. Strays and those outside the pack are suspect, potentially dangerous. One particularly powerful pack in this country is the religious pack. By having the numbers, this pack has established itself as the predominant pack in this society. Those outside this particular pack are viewed as so dangerous they required legislating against. This pack is so large it presumes the title of “normal”. It has determined that its standards be the standards for everyone of every faith and of course those of no faith. As compensation for requiring the sacrifice of personal freedom, it offers the sop of community. Even a fool feels less lonely in a crowd of fools.

But we can’t underestimate the power of community. There’s power in numbers. Might may not make right, but it’s still might. Because of our pack mentality, we are suckers for groups, communities, nearly any collection of human beings assembled for any old reason. We have ample evidence of humans surrendering, of their own free will, their rationality, logic, common sense, skepticism and disbelief when the appearent reward for doing so is sufficiently desireable.

I was recently reading a discussion between atheists about the benefits of using groups like MeetUp to get together with other atheists. Atheists are no different than anyone else in being pack oriented. Unfortunately many of us are a pack of cats. The packs we form often leave much to be desired, when a pack can be formed at all.

By not offering a community, we fail in marketing. We have to concede to the religions that they prevail in meeting that human need better than non-believers on a social scale. We aren’t different in the way we feel about our friends and families, but we tend to commune with those who share our common beliefs, not common disbeliefs. Just like Christians, Muslims, the Amish and the Scientologists do. Otherwise there would be a “Church of the Non-Atheists”.

There is one community that being an atheist allows a person to appreciate, the community of humanity. You don’t have to be an atheist to be a humanist, but being an atheist frees you to see humanity as it exists in reality, not fantasy. Granted, the community of humanity is open to all, totally inclusive, non-judgmental, all the things that religion isn’t. That’s why every successful religion has told its believers that they are separate from humanity, that they’re special, the select, the chosen few selected by the god itself to know the real truth about everything, the secret of reality, the answers to all the really big questions. Religious communities make their members feel comfortable with this attitude that drips with pride and superiority. Otherwise reasonable people who practice skepticism and common sense in every other aspect of their lives can fall prey to this insidious group-think, and do, in large numbers around the world.

And one of the greatest attractions is the religious community.

The best we can do is sneak into Unitarian services and try not to wince too often. Cookies and punch if you’re successful.

Print Friendly

Be sure to check out the “Pages” link in the right menu. I’ve added new videos to Media today for your enjoyment.

Print Friendly