Ever since I started doubting the existence of God, I have frequently encountered confusion between the numerous labels used to describe non-theistic belief systems. This is most commonly seen between the words “atheist” and “agnostic,” both of which signify the absence of definitive belief in a deity. At first glance, the distinction may seem obvious: an atheist disbelieves the existence of God or gods, while an agnostic believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God and thus refuses to commit to either belief system. However, in reality these two terms tend to overlap to the extent that two people holding exactly the same (non)belief may label it differently, one identifying as an agnostic and the other, an atheist. Further, one’s label of choice is heavily influenced by the public perception of these terms, the word “atheist” being the more pejorative of the two in the eyes of the public. This probably convinces many non-theists to describe themselves as “agnostic,” as this label seems more palatable and less presumptuous than “atheist.” If one carefully examines the definitions of these terms, however, one should become more hesitant at rejecting one label for another.
I will begin my exposition by quoting from Bertrand Russell’s 1947 pamphlet, Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?
[. . .] As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods. [. . .]
Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.
It seems fair to say that nearly every self-identifying atheist would agree with Russell’s strictly epistemological stance regarding the impossibility of ultimate proof. However, the word “atheist” by itself should not imply complete certainty in the nonexistence of God, although it is commonly misconstrued to do so. Indeed, this term would fall out of use if it had to imply absolute certainty, and “agnostic” would take its place. In response to people who believe they are obligated to call themselves agnostics unless they are 100% sure about what they believe, Richard Dawkins points out:
“There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can’t prove that there aren’t any, so shouldn’t we be agnostic with respect to fairies?”
Well, alright; you get the point. But this begs the question: exactly how improbable do you need to perceive God’s existence to be in order to call yourself an atheist, instead of agnostic? In other words, where do you draw the line? There seems to be no definitive answer to that, and it’s entirely subjective. However, on page 50 of his book The God Delusion, Dawkins suggests a probability spectrum of individual human judgment about the existence of God (mind the British spelling):
- Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’
- Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’
- Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’
- Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’
- Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical.’
- Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
- Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.’
Note that this spectrum is continuous and the seven categories represent milestones along the way. Dawkins considers himself to be “in category 6, but leaning towards 7” (51). He also mentions that he would be surprised to meet many people in category 7 because “Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist” (51).* He mainly includes this category for symmetry with category 1, which has a substantial number of members.
Still, there’s a lot more to the definition of “atheism.” Here’s what Wikipedia has to say:
Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism. However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well. In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief (strong atheism) or the mere absence of belief (weak atheism).
Thus, the term weak atheism is a very broad category encompassing a whole slew of nontheistic belief systems, including:
- Apatheism (a.k.a. apathetic agnosticism)—neither believing nor disbelieving in God because one doesn’t care enough about the issue to make a decision
- Ignosticism—believing that the question of God’s existence is meaningless because it doesn’t have any verifiable consequences
- Implicit atheism—lacking belief in God because one has never been introduced to such a concept or has no way of comprehending it; this is the category that includes infants and young children, individuals with severe mental disabilities, animals, etc.
- Many agnostics—people who believe that they personally have no way of knowing whether or not God exists
Looking at the etymology of the word “atheist” (Greek, a-theos) supports the notion that it shouldn’t imply anything other than a lack of belief in deities. In that sense, it should be synonymous with the word “nontheist” because they both share a prefix of negation and the same root word; however, there are certain connotations that have become associated with the word “atheist” that make many people reluctant to use it, most of which stem from a common misunderstanding of that term and cultural intolerance towards people who use it to describe their beliefs. To avoid sounding arrogant or absolutely certain whether or not God exists, many people who regard God’s existence to be considerably improbable choose to use the word “agnostic,” or a similar term, to describe what they believe. To be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing this; perhaps one wants to put emphasis on a certain aspect of non-theistic philosophy that is best captured by that particular word, thus conveying a more desirable or accurate image of themselves to the public. However, it is important to realize that most of these terms are completely compatible with atheism, so one can very easily be both an agnostic and an atheist.
Now, I would like to elaborate on the various nuances of the word agnosticism, which has its own share of misunderstandings. In its broadest sense, this term refers to the philosophical view that certain claims—especially metaphysical ones about God and the afterlife—are unknown and possibly unknowable. But there’s a problem with a strict interpretation of that idea, because even many theists do not claim to be completely certain that God exists; they simply believe that he does and openly admit that their belief is based on faith. Thus, there is nothing distinctive in being an agnostic because the vast majority of the population wouldn’t seriously expound the existence of God with the same epistemological certainly as Descartes’ statement, “I think, therefore I am,” if they even consider that statement to be 100% certain. As a result, many found the need to qualify the term “agnostic” further by dividing it into different categories that each stress different things. These include, but are not limited to, strong agnosticism (the view that the existence of God or gods is unknowable by nature or that humans are not equipped to judge it), weak agnosticism (the view that the existence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, so one would have to withhold judgment until more evidence comes in), apathetic agnosticism, model agnosticism, ignosticism, agnostic theism, agnostic spiritualism, and agnostic atheism. I won’t elaborate on each of these terms, but the reader is invited to research them further.
Then there’s the issue of being agnostic towards some ideas more than others, like the different conceptions of God. Most people, for instance, would consider Zeus less likely to exist than the God whose general characteristics are defined by the major monotheistic religions. Some people may also find the God of the deists more likely than a personal God who answers people’s prayers and concerns himself with daily human affairs. It should therefore be relevant to assign different probability values to each of those beliefs, rather than brushing them off as equally likely and equally improvable. Recall that Richard Dawkins argues that the existence of God (any type of God) should have probability values associated with it; he also assigns a term to those who do not commit to either theism or atheism but are willing to evaluate the evidence for God’s existence and subject it to a probability spectrum, calling their belief Temporary Agnosticism in Practice (TAP). This contrasts with Permanent Agnosticism in Principle (PAP), which is appropriate for questions that can never be answered and for which the very idea of evidence is not applicable. To demonstrate an example of the type of question that would fall into the PAP category, Dawkins cites the idea that others see red the same way he does, instead of seeing, say, the color green but calling it red. The existence of God, he argues, should not be classified into that same category but instead be open to examination with whatever evidence is available. In fact, the whole idea of a probability spectrum does not apply to PAP because it is beyond the reach of any type of evidence, so it would be incorrect even to place God’s existence at the 50/50 mark if one classifies that question into this category.
Because agnosticism is such a vague term with so many possible meanings, and because I consider God’s existence to be very unlikely, I have decided that it makes the most sense to refer to myself as an atheist, rather than an agnostic. Right now, I would even put myself in category 6 of Dawkins’ probability spectrum, though I probably wouldn’t lean towards 7 quite as much as Dawkins himself. Before I self-identified as an atheist, I was probably in category 5, leaning towards 6, but I thought I would always identify as an agnostic because I didn’t have absolute proof of God’s existence and considered it impossible to obtain. In that sense, I am still an agnostic, but only in the same way that I am towards Zeus or Thor. After reevaluating all the evidence for God and gaining a better understanding of the terms atheist and agnostic, I had finally decided to change my label—something I never thought I would do. But there really wasn’t much significance in that: it was all a matter of semantics. In fact, one can argue that I was an atheist for years before I called myself by that term, since the very definition of atheism can encompass most agnostics.
Aside from the terms atheist and agnostic, which relate directly to belief in God, there are other labels out there with which nontheists often identify. Because the rejection of religion usually results from reason and a factual analysis of the world (the perspective of rationalism and freethought), most nontheists tend to be skeptics and hold a naturalistic worldview, dismissing supernatural claims due to a lack of evidence to support them. Of course, there are always exceptions, since there are people out there who lack a belief in God but still hold on to superstitious beliefs such as astrology or luck, and some who even believe in spiritual entities such as ghosts or follow nontheistic religions like Buddhism or Taoism. Likewise, one can hold a skeptical or even naturalistic worldview without necessarily rejecting the idea that there might be a God out there, as long as this God does not interfere with the laws of physics and allows everything to be tested with the scientific method. However, people who do not reject this type of god are either agnostics, who are uncertain about his existence, or deists, who are very few in number these days because science has eliminated the need to invoke supernatural explanations for any phenomena (particularly human origins) and thus dismissed the God of the deists as a superfluous hypothesis. This is why most rationalists were deists a couple centuries ago but tend to be atheists or agnostics today. Recently, a new movement has emerged to unite everyone who holds a naturalistic worldview by assigning them a more positive-sounding name: the Brights. Given that there are already so many labels describing these freethinkers, one may think that this movement is unnecessary and excessive, but a closer look reveals that there really isn’t a sufficient umbrella term that fits everyone with this view. The word “naturalist” is ambiguous and often associated with scientists, and words such as “atheist” and “agnostic” tend to stress one’s position on God and do not apply exclusively to those with a naturalistic philosophy.
Most nontheists also feel the need to subscribe to an ethical philosophy instead of rejecting all morals simply because there is no Supreme Being to dictate them for everyone. Thus, they tend to be humanists, affirming the dignity and worth of all people and appealing to universal human qualities to determine right from wrong. They often use the term secular humanism to distinguish themselves from religious humanists, who also base their moral decisions on human values.
It is very unfortunate that people who lack a belief in God are so misunderstood by our society and have to deal with such a large variety of labels simply to describe their common-sense skepticism. Why is it that calling oneself an atheist, which is the easiest, most direct way of conveying one’s lack of belief in God, considered so taboo? Simply calling oneself an agnostic is more palatable, but it’s not very informative and directly avoids a clear rejection of theism. If we lived in a society in which the majority of the population worshipped the Flying Spaghetti Monster, perhaps a-spaghettimonsterism would face just as much opposition as a-theism does in our culture. I’ve decided that I will no longer give in to social pressure against proclaiming my disbelief in God in a direct fashion, and proudly call myself an atheist. However, I will not go as far as to demand every other nontheist to do this as well, because they may be facing different social circumstances that would make it more difficult for them. Besides, we’re just dealing with words.
* I anticipate objections to Dawkins’ statement from some theists and agnostics, so I will try to clarify what I think he means. Simply making a probability judgment about the existence of some entity has nothing to do with faith; it is perfectly reasonable to withhold belief in something for which there is no evidence, and even more so if the entity in question has extremely unlikely—even contradictory—qualities. To illustrate this, consider the statement, “I believe that fairies don’t exist.” Someone might object and say, “Well, you can’t prove that fairies don’t exist, so your statement is based on faith, in the same way that belief in fairies is based on faith.” What’s important to realize here is that it takes a much greater “leap of faith” to arrive at a conclusion that lacks evidence than one to which most of the evidence points. And if you admit that what you don’t believe in still has an extremely small chance of existing, you avoid this “leap of faith” altogether. The problem is that it’s simply impractical to go on stating things like, “I think the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is extremely improbable,” when you can get the same point across simply by saying, “I believe the IPU doesn’t exist.” Now, if some atheists claim to be literally 100% certain that God doesn’t exist, perhaps it’s accurate to say that they took a small leap of faith, but then again, you can make the same claim about people who are literally 100% sure there’s no orbiting teapot between Earth and Mars too small to be detected by our most powerful telescopes.
I like the scale from 1-7. Also nice that you included your own "rating". I am probably a 7. This is simply because I had been a 6 for so long, and just got sick of it. I think that anyone who is not a 7 is a bit deceived. However, I remember something to the effect of Dawkins saying that on a scale of 1-7 in disbelief in god, he was a 6, and not willing to take that last leap that I (currently) feel very comfortable taking.
To add to Yana's post, this one (http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=218) that also discusses the continuous theism-atheism spectrum, but focuses on the "belief" region. It asks the critical question for believers: how far into the "belief" zone does a believer need to be to get into heaven? With reference to Dawkins' above-mentioned seven-point scale, do only the category "1" believers get into heaven, or do the "2" and "3" believers also qualify? Where's the cut-off? And what if, god forbid, a person does believe in God, but just not enough to qualify for heaven? Such torment they must experience in hell, wondering why their god let them down.
Another issue with the "belief" spectrum is that there are more than 10,000 recognized religions, so we each must have a "belief" spectrum for each one. This poses a considerable burden of research, even for those of us with a broadband Internet connection. No doubt this is why most believers simply chose the religion of their parents — a convenient, if exceedingly incomplete, strategy for choosing our pathway to salvation. Moreover, each of us thus becomes a non-theist (atheist or agnostic) with respect to a huge number of religions. Remember this the next time some Fundie rants about the immorality of atheism: they're all atheists, too. If they claim they are not atheists because they worship the One True God, point out that a billion Hindus would disagree with them.
So, what does it really mean to be a theist or an atheist, when each of us is both, to one degree or another, with respect to thousands of religions? I don't think it's an important question. With so many thousands of religions, what difference does it make to me if my neighbor happens to be a theist or atheist with respect to one or another of them? As far as I am concerned, that is a topic solely between my neighbor and his god, and all that matters to me is how his religion teaches him to treat me and our other neighbors. Indeed, with so many different religions to choose from, what objective yardstick can we choose to evaluate my neighbor's behavior? Not his holy book, of course, because why should we choose his holy book over mine or our neighbors'? The only objective yardstick we can choose is secular law. That's why the constitutional separation between church and state is so critical to a healthy democracy; indeed, to the *existence* of democracy. Only by eliminating the use of holy books from the process of public legislation can a democracy hope to exist.
Great entry, Yana! I hate labeling myself at school (though I have to) because people determine my label in different ways. I have found that more than 95% of my entirely Christian freshman class had NO CLUE what agnosticism was until I gave them a definition. It's sad really. They live their lives on the basis of the only thing they have ever known from their parents. Even after I explain to them I'm agnostic a lot of them call me an atheist. However, if I ever DO call myself an atheist to anyone I notice I get LESS RESPECT than when I call myself an agnostic. Then I've had the situation of being called "heartless" because someone presumed I was an atheist. They don't know my beliefs, my knowledge, or my morals– yet I'm called "heartless." If anything, their religion blinds them into thinking the killing of pregnant women, infants, etc. is NOT wrong because the people disobeyed God– so they go on saying they deserved it. Well, woe to them. At least I have my freedom and the heart to be the ONLY one to fight for humanity.
I'll have to call myself a 6. No one can ever my certain of anything, after all, anyway. There's just extremely high probability that something doesn't exist– thus, the 6.
Definitely keep it up.
-Sasha 🙂
Grumpy Pilgrim writes "Another issue with the “belief” spectrum is that there are more than 10,000 recognized religions,"
Actually I think only Western Christianity is so obsessed with being the only "true" religion, separate and distinct from other religions. Most other religions don't put such emphasis on internal belief systems, but on behaviors. They're also pretty ready to honor "spiritual achievement" in other religions. Muslims honor Jesus as a prophet, Hindus know that all gods are avatars of ultimate truth/reality, etc.
Birth, growth, death, transcendence, regeneration, justice, mercy; every story we humans tell each other combines these elements in different proportions. There just aren't enough plots for every one of these supposed 10,000 (recognized by whom?) religions to be completely unique, and most traditions don't feel threatened by that.
Actually this classification system reminds me of one of the worst excesses of institutionalized religion: that of defining group membership by policing the boundaries, rather than drawing people toward the center. It might be important to you as an individual to define where you stand, but how helpful is it really in dealing with others?
You're defining yourself by absence of something. Believers of the literal sort will view you as a deformed person or amputee, inevitably.
I mean, you do have a worldview and a set of guiding principles, not just an absence of belief in God. It might be worthwhile to accept the challenge put to Rabbi Hillel, and learn how to recite the whole of your "law" while standing on one leg (with your eyes closed and after 3 beers if you have a good sense of balance.) Then when someone asks you what you believe you can say "I'm an atheist" if you want to cut off the conversation (often the best use of your time.) Or if you have to work with the person toward some common goal, you can say something like "I believe it's important to be self-aware and to treat others compassionately." You'll have a better chance of establishing common ground and a basis for continued relationship.
If you have to specify your religion for some official form or other, I suggest checking other and writing in "Jedi Knight." If enough people do it they will have to make it a checkbox and that would be really cool!
Ben:
I know how tempting it is to "go all the way" and declare yourself a 7 when you are so certain that God doesn't exist, but I think that stems from a misunderstanding of this last category. You probably feel like you can't view yourself as being completely committed to atheism if you don't take that leap, which can understandably bother you, but not taking this last leap should by no means imply any lack of commitment. If that probability scale were about Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, most reasonable people (including Dawkins) would still count themselves in category 6, but this obviously doesn't mean they give any serious consideration to the existence of these entities. From a practical perspective, they are in category 7 regarding God and other mythical beings, but that's not what this category is meant to represent. It directly relates to epistemology, acknowledging the possibility that fairies and invisible unicorns exist, that no one except you is truly conscious, that we are all plugged into the Matrix, or that the universe sprang into existence five minutes ago with a population that "remembered" a completely unreal past. You can't logically disprove those things, but believing in them is ridiculous. Since this probability spectrum is continuous, perhaps you can count yourself as a 6.999999999 about all those things and God. It's very tempting to round it to 7, which might be what you meant all along, but I'm just making sure you know what is meant by this category.
Sasha:
You are clearly an atheist, but I entirely understand why you choose to call yourself an agnostic around closed-minded, judgmental Christians. Of course, it doesn't mean you're lying, because technically you're both an atheist and an agnostic, and I must admit that even I would avoid that label if I had to answer a question about my religious views in front of a violent religious zealot or during an important job interview. However, you do bring up a good point about the public perception of the word "atheism"; it reminds me of how Julia Sweeney's parents reacted to the news that she was an "atheist"—they could handle (with mild disappointment) the fact the she didn't believe in God, but they completely freaked out when they found out that she was an atheist (despite the fact that her lack of belief made her one by default). That shows just how much atheists are misunderstood by our society.
And speaking of misunderstanding atheism, I remember a debate I had with a one of Ken's friends at the beach last summer. He brought up the fact that I couldn't disprove anything, including God, and I admitted that this was true. He then concluded, "So you're an agnostic, not an atheist," to which I responded, "I'm an agnostic atheist." Funny how he, at one point, admitted that people can't even disprove Santa Claus—what high skepticism! If I didn't know any better, I would have noted, "So you're an agnostic, not a theist."
Re secular labels, "naturalist" has a 100+ year history of designating someone who holds a naturalistic worldview, and is far less off-putting than "bright", see http://www.naturalism.org/history.htm#modern .
Re being agnostic about the supernatural: In denying the supernatural, such as god and the soul, naturalists don’t claim we can categorically disprove the existence of things for which there’s no empirical evidence. It’s notoriously difficult to prove things don’t exist, unless they happen to be logically impossible. It’s rather that we don’t clutter up our model of the world by believing in them, or by reserving a possible place for them. We believe on the basis of preponderance of the evidence, and absent that, we feel we’re justified in *not* believing.
Yana: I enjoyed your analysis. It brings to mind that almost every poll I've seen forces the respondent to say either "Yes, I do believe in God" or "No, I don't believe in God." Or, sometimes, they try to force answers like "No religion" or "Atheist."
Your post makes me crave a new round of polls that ask the God question in terms of the ratings 1-7. Wouldn't it be interesting to see how many people who "believe in God" would choose 2-6 rather than 1? And how many people who "don't believe in God" might choose 2-6 rather than 7?
In short, there might be a tremendous amount of overlap that could be uncovered by such polls. Perhaps "believers and non-believers are actually a lot more alike than they think. Maybe they can stop their wars of words and live in peace together!
Perhaps there are a lot of 4's out there who think they are at odds with other 4's, because some go to church resentfully and others go to church happily, though, intellectually, they are essentially at the same position as to whether "God" exists.
Perhaps much of the "dispute" in today's culture is really a matter of the labels people are attributing to these numbered positions, rather than to the intellectual positions themselves.
By the way, I consider myself a "6" with "ignostic" leanings. I'm still working through the best way to characterize myself, as you can see here http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=478 and at other places on this blog.
I really enjoyed (and agree with) your comment about the different reactions one can expect, depending on whether one calls oneself an "atheist" or just one who "doesn't believe in God." The reason I don't use the term "atheist" is because many conservatives associate it with a person absolutely devoid of a moral system (despite all evidence to the contrary, in most cases). I've considered using "Bright" in the past, but it just seems to haughty, even after trying to explain it to a Believer.
To potentially unanchor the entire debate, I am entirely convinced that many church-going people I know are "6's", their conception of God not being the cantankerous old Fellow in the Bible, but an ethereal Order, lacking sentience. Sometimes, when I hear that, I think, "Sign me up! I'm believe in God!"
Misunderstanding in regard to belef/non-belief cuts both ways. Dawkins refers to Jung's statement, "I don't believe, I KNOW" . but projects his own simplistic idea of religious faith onto this statement. Jung was pretty out there in certain ways but there's nothing to suggest he believed in God as an entity independent of the human mind.
From the "Art of LIving" lifted from hereL http://www.swans.com/library/art11/mgarci29.html#…
"If you should find, for instance, an ineradicable tendency to believe in God or immortality, do not allow yourself to be disturbed by the blather of so-called freethinkers. And if you find an equally resistant tendency to deny all religious ideas do not hesitate: deny them and see how that influences your general welfare and your state of mental or spiritual nutrition. But beware of childishness: whether you call the ultimate unknown "God" or "Matter" is equally futile, since we know neither the one nor the other, though we doubtless have experiences of both. But we know nothing beyond them, and we cannot produce either the one or the other. "
Several of the previous comments cautioned against going all the way to "7" on Dawkins' probability spectrum, citing epistemological reasons. I see no such difficulty, at least with regard to the god of the Bible. The Bible contains so many contradictory descriptions of its god (e.g., infinitely cruel, yet infinitely loving; infinitely vindictive, yet infinitely forgiving; genocidal, yet life-giving; etc.) that I think we are justified in concluding that such an entity could not possibly exist.
Yet another argument in favor of choosing "7" is the issue of miracles. One of the few ways of knowing that gods exist is that they perform miracles. Without miracles, the only remaining "proof" of any god's existence is dreams and visions, which are subjective and unreliable. But consider, however, what our world would be like if miracles actually happened. Amputees would suddenly grow new limbs. Paraplegics would suddenly discard their wheelchairs and run marathons. The old would suddenly become young again. The dead would come back to life. Idiots would become straight-A students. Fools would become president (on second thought, I'd better scratch that one). Sports records would be shattered every week. We would all walk on water, feed the multitudes with a few loaves and fishes, and heal the sick. Everyone would win in Vegas and on Wall Street. We would all fly like birds and swim like fish. Beautiful Hollywood starletts would all find me irresistably handsome.
In other words, the Universe as we know it would not exist. Natural laws would not exist. The fact that they do exist testifies to the absence of miracles and the absence of gods. Gods — supernatural causes — were what pre-historic humans invoked to make the sun rise, the rains fall, the women pregnant and the hunts successful. They imagined supernatural causes for these seemingly random, unpredictable events, because they could not yet fathom natural causes. Natural philosophers (we now call them scientists) of the 18th and 19th century finally hacked away at this ignorance, replacing it with a new metod — the scientific method — of finding answers. Earlier philosophers would, no doubt, have discovered this method had the Christian Church not terrorized the population for the previous sixteen centuries. It is no coincidence that Martin Luther's 95 Theses of 1517 c.e., which finally derailled the Church's political power and corruption, began our transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern Era. Without that transition, we would no doubt still be burning witches, whipping slaves, treating women as chattel, blaming diseases on evil spirits, and teaching our children that the world is 6,000 years old. Indeed, who knows were human society might be today if natural science had begun to flourish in the 8th century instead of the 18th. Remember: nearly everything that distinguishes a First World country from a Third World country was created in just the last 300-400 years, with most of it arriving in just the last century.
I assume, of course, that science and technology are beneficial to human society in the long run, but that has yet to be proven. For all we know, an 8th century Enlightenment, and another millenium of scientific advances, might have ruined our planet and destroyed our entire species by now. Who knows, perhaps widespread atheism (or, at least, widespread natural science) actually will bring an end to the human race, and religion has been the only thing preventing that from happening.
Somehow, I think not.
Great to meet you Yana (and her sisters). Go ahead and call me a screwball…but I was still a 7 when I woke up this morning. Now, if you had offered a scale of 1-1000… indeed you are right, my choice might be somewhere like 995. The 1-7 scale seems to be somewhat ambiguous, especially if you are then going to start assigning values like 6.9999999 as actually being "6". I know a few scientists (me is a scientist, too) who would have no trouble rounding 6.999999999 to 7. Just some food for thought… it's amazing how we are actually (at least some of us) sliding up and down this theoretical scale of of belief in God on a moment to moment basis… In fact, I was about to agree with you, and call myself a 6 immediately after reading your response. However, I ended up reverting to 7 after I mulled it over for a minute.
Last night, I read some more Sam Harris, (The End of Faith) and he agrees with you that it is perfectly reasonable to have a bit of doubt about the unknown. However, do not let this blind you to the danger of unsupported faith, which is where I seem to be venturing, until science bails us out again, (like it always has).
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sam_Harris
I also suggest the Wikipedia article; it's quite good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Vicki- You said, "Western Christianity is so obsessed with being the only “true” religion, separate and distinct from other religions," and went on to say that other religions recognize the spritual achievements of others. I disagree. Christianity shares that obsession with most other religions. They nearly all claim to be the only 'true' belief system. You point out Islam. Sunni vs. Shiite seem to be pretty obsessed with which sect is 'true,' and they sure seem to be obsessed against Christianity. Look at the differences between Hindu and Muslim that split India.
Maybe you are just particularly offended by Christianity, and not willing to make the same comparisons to other religions. I'm an equal opportunity religion hater. They are all bad. I don't hate spirituality, I hate religion.
Well, I'll try to explain my point again. Religion and science are 2 different types of discourse. Scientific discourse takes place at the point where human consciousness meets the material world and aims for objectivity. Its language is that of factual statements and Its goal is producing mental constructs/ideas/theories that can be tested against a reality outside the self.
Religious discourse takes place at the point where consciousness meets human biology and is necessarily subjective. Its goal is to produce certain mental states and behaviors desired by the adherent or by the group to which s/he belongs. It speaks in metaphor, poetry, art and ritual. It is quite possible to engage in this discourse, and to benefit from doing so, without "believing" in the objective reality of any of it.
Both types of discourse have enormous potential to both solve and to create problems for the human race. I don't understand how anyone can believe that science alone can get us out of the present crisis. Eliminating religious belief will not eliminate irrationality, greed or violence from human nature.
grumpypilgrim says:
"The Bible contains so many contradictory descriptions of its god (e.g., infinitely cruel, yet infinitely loving; infinitely vindictive, yet infinitely forgiving; genocidal, yet life-giving; etc.) that I think we are justified in concluding that such an entity could not possibly exist."
Grumpypilgrim you have met the enemy and he is Us! Substitute "almost unimaginably" for "infinitely" if you're picky about definitions, and you have described the human race. Not surprising since we invented Him!
grumpypilgrim:
Perhaps it's possible to make a case for placing certain versions of "God" into category 7, if this God has logically-contradictory qualities or entails certain predictions for how the universe should behave that can be falsified through a reductio ad absurdum argument. Some skeptics may appeal to the Regress Argument to claim that we can't even prove that LOGIC works, thus barring everything from being placed into category 7, but many people don't find that convincing. I must admit that the Christian God can be logically disproved if you take his characteristics seriously, though some people I've debated claim that he is beyond logic, which, to me, just seems like a cop-out. Anyway, Dawkins didn't just have the Christian God in mind when he laid out his probability spectrum, but was referring to any version of God as a sentient, supernatural being who created the universe. I myself consider the God of the deists way more likely than a personal God, but I view both as extremely improbable.
Ben:
I think your level of disbelief in God is more-or-less equiavalent to Dawkins' (he said he is agnostic about God to the same extent as he is about fairies at the bottom of the garden), but you just interpret the spectrum differently. As far as I know, he invented the 1-7 spectrum, so it's reasonable to conclude that category 7 was only intended to represent total certainty. You can personally feel "total certainty" through faith, which is true for members of category 1, but his entire point was that atheists try to avoid faith, so they can only appeal to logic (and epistemology), which can take them very close to the end of the spectrum but not to the very end. I also agree that people's position in the spectrum constantly changes, which seems true for both theists and atheists. For instance, people's faith may increase when they witness an improbable event they interpret as a miracle, or decrease when they experience a tragedy and wonder why God let it happen.
P.S. I only have one sister. 🙂
Devi and other posters:
What makes you think eliminating religion will reduce violence, greed, and intolerance? Governments which have adopted atheism and the abolition of religious institutions as official policy have been among the most murderous in human history.
Vicki:
Eliminating religion certainly won't abolish all the violence, greed, and intolerance in the world, but I am certain it will significantly reduce them. Do you really think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict won't benefit from a lack of irrational religious conviction from the people involved, who would no longer be able to claim that God is on their side? All those people, including children, who are literally willing to lay down their lives for their God with expectations of reward in the afterlife would surely lose much of their fervor. Religion also has a tendency to breed irrational hatred towards people who don't share a particular dogma or behave in accordance with an outdated tradition—hatred that could NOT be justified on any secular grounds. Granted, I can't make this generalization about all religions, particularly some Eastern ones like Buddhism, but such a large portion of the world subscribes to the intolerant forms of religion that the net effect of eliminating all religion would be positive. Or we can focus on eliminating only those religions which rely on personal deities whose whims supercede all human notions of morality, not the ones that merely posit a harmless spiritual "Order" in the universe.
The point I'm trying to make is that we should focus all our efforts on promoting rational thought and an ethical system derived from it—namely, humanism. This would include freedom of speech and the enforcement of basic human rights to live happy, healthy lives devoid of suffering and persecution. The goverments you've cited were misled and corrupted by greed and a thirst for power; but totalitarianism and communism are NOT atheistic values. Sure, the leaders who set up those governments happened to be atheists, but all their abuses of human rights were not based on atheistic ideologies and were instead derived from unproven political theories popular at the time. Also, I would oppose the adoption of ANY official belief system by a government, INCLUDING atheism. People should be free to examine all the evidence for any claim before accepting it as true, and accepting atheism on blind faith (regardless of whether or not it's accurate) is almost as bad as blindly accepting Christianity or Islam. Thomas Paine expressed it very well when he said, "It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." There's no need to suppress information if you're trying to promote the truth, so forcefully suppressing religion was a bad move for those atheistic governments; it could, in fact, make people find religion more alluring, making them wonder, "What is it that they are hiding?" People who truly believe atheism results from a thorough examination of ALL evidence, including religious texts, would by no means try to hide any of it from the public.
Also consider the following quote by Steven Weinberg:
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Secular morality has been shown to work very well, so religion is not necessary for people to treat each other nicely (just look at the most secular countries in the world and compare them to religious ones like the US). On the other hand, religion often makes people ignore their own moral compass and commit horrible acts against humanity to please their God. Thus, I am entirely convinced that eliminating religion will be a step forward for human civilization.
Putting me in the same boat with Dawkins… okay, I gladly accept that. You have a gift with words Yana. You are right (again), that I am not certain that God does not exist. However, I do find myself "believing" that God does exist…if that makes any sense. To this end, when stories of miracles come along, or some "evidence" that the universe was created by an intelligent designer, or just another preacher/reverend/minister/pope spouting off, I am very wary.
At the foundation of my person, and rooting every thought which I entertain, is the notion that there is no afterlife, no God, no supernatural, no Creator. So, how bout those Mets…
(Vicki)
We atheists don't like religion being foisted upon our children. When a child is born, she does not have a religion, except that which is put in front of her. Religion is based upon folklore which at one time proved important to survival. In the modern world, religion has been phased out in places where it has been exposed to critical analysis. I hope you can see the danger inherent as globalization continues, and our unbending Christian beliefs clash with the unbending other HALF of the world. Ignorance will always be the greatest danger that faces Earth. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that we keep religion out of school, and reduce irrational belief in absurdities like Christianity and Islam.
Yana writes:(just look at the most secular countries in the world and compare them to religious ones like the US
If you mean W. Europe/ Scandinavia, they all have state=supported churches. The established churches receive tax support and religion is taught in state-supported schools.
Oops, meant to say that I find myself 'believing' that God does NOT exist.
Here is a link to address the claim that Christianity is better (or worse) than other religions…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_grou…
And for the doubters that humans embrace over 10,000 religions…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions
Ben writes: (Vicki)
"We atheists don’t like religion being foisted upon our children."
Umm, I can't recall offering religious instruction to anyone's children. Just mentioned the bit about religious ed. in W. Europe to correct the impression some of you have that these countries are secular.
"Religion is based upon folklore which at one time proved important to survival. "
You'll get no argument about the folklore part from many religious believers. You've simply bought into the fundies line that "real religion"=fundamentalism, Based on your wikipedia link, about half of the world's Protestants belong to denominations which believe the bible can be subjected to critical study like any other book. Add reformed Judaism and the dharmic religions, plus a good many Catholics, and that's a signficant portion of the world's believers that agree the religious writing is a collection of myths and moral maxims. They would just differ with you that religion no longer has anything to offer humanity.
" religion has been phased out in places where it has been exposed to critical analysis. "
See the points i made earlier re: W, Europe Religion there has not been phased out, rather drained of much of its power to harm while preserving its progressive moral values.
"I hope you can see the danger inherent as globalization continues, and our unbending Christian beliefs clash with the unbending other HALF of the world."
All religions bend in one direction or other over time as people adapt to new conditions. Religion is highly adaptive in a cultural sense. Ever been to a modern synagogue? Did you see any facilities for animal sacrifice? The Jewish faith, has largely eliminated the worst traits of the Old Testament God. Christian fundies claim to be the only old-time religion but many of their beliefs are of modern origin. The formalized "born -again" experience or "altar call" so important to evangelicals dates only to the 19th century. Christian fundamentalism is highly innovative, just not in the service of what we humanists recognize as "the good."
I see the main danger is that we are evolving technically/scientifically much faster than we are culturally/ethically/spiritually. Based on what I've seen of the new "dogmatic" atheism, I don't think it holds out much of a solution.
I don't think that most of the world's ills may be left at the feet of religions, or belief in God. Most of us are stupid, vicious, or greedy without religion or God's will.
I remain a practicing Roman Catholic, and find people to be my favorite species. I perceive no insurmountable obstacles to being humanistic and Roman Catholic (and a Democrat). Faith may be a bridge between observable reality and my religion. But, notwithstanding any beliefs we all have choices to make whether to be compassionate, generous and merciful to ourselves and others. People have been almost always kind to me and I believe in people and their fundamental goodness.(http:/dangerousintersection.org/?p=788).
Let's try this, if you don't ridicule and abuse me too much for my theism, I could care less whether you are a theist, agnostic or atheist. Let's play!
Yes, the problem is the human ability to rationalize that the harm they do to others is justified – either the person "deserved" it or the harm is in the service of some greater good… Obviously there will be many more examples of horrific crimes where the rationalization is couched in religious terms. This is statistically unavoidable because throughout most of history there was no alternative non-religious or materialist worldview.
Regarding my position on this belief/non-belief spectrum, I guess a beginning Buddhist my response would be that it indicates an error in thinking as inChien-chih Seng-ts'an,'s Verses on the Faith Mind:
If you wish to see the truth then hold no opinions for or against anything.
To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind….
Indeed, it is due to our choosing to accept or reject, that we do not see the true nature of things.
Be serene in the oneness of things and such erroneous views will disappear by themselves.
(lifted from http://evelynrodriguez.typepad.com/pointingtothem…
For at least 10 years or so I've subscribed to Wittgenstein's views in the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus:
6.51
Scepticism is not irrefutable, but palpably senseless, if it would doubt where a question cannot be asked.
For doubt can only exist where there is a question; a question only where there is an answer, and this only where something can be said.
(By "said," he means stated as verifiable proposition.)
6.53
The right method of philosophy would be this: To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other — he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy — but it would be the only strictly correct method.
and
6.52
We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course there is then no question left, and just this is the answer.
6.521
The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of this problem.
(Is not this the reason why men to whom after long doubting the sense of life became clear, could not then say wherein this sense consisted?)
6.522
There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical.
-Lifted from http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/t652en.html
Ah, a Wittgensteinian in our midst! How delightful!
I agree with Vicki, in the last generation we have developed the capacity to end the human species but, unlike in other eras of technological and social development there has not been a concurrent development of an ethical and moral structure to move the species forward. I have written on this topic before in these pages, and in my own writings.
Regarding such, what is the first principle?