"Why Are There So Few Agnostics?"

Mickey · **Joined:** Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:04 am **Posts:** 583

Quote:

Why Are There So Few Agnostics?

by John Shore

January 28, 2009

For the record: based on the lack of conclusive evidence either way, agnostics claim to simply not know if there’s a God. Atheists flat-out say there isn’t a God.

Okay, so why aren’t there more agnostics? Without question agnosticism is the most logical position to take relative to the question of God. (See my There’s No Arguing It: We Can’t KNOW If There’s A God or Not.) We all think of ourselves as rational, logical beings, right? So then why are so few of us agnostic?

The reason is because the core truth of agnosticism is in direct contradiction to the core truths of the Actual Life lived by everyone in the world. Agnosticism and reality go together like wax fruit and a hearty appetite. Agnosticism is all about doubt, about being uncertain about what it is, ultimately, that rules or determines life.

But the things that actually do rule and determine everyone’s life couldn’t possibly be more certain or clear. Take death, for instance. Talk about a firm, concrete reality. Death is as definite as it gets. As is being sick. As is being pregnant. As is having rickets.

Family. Stress. Joy. Taxes. Hunger. Getting evicted. Falling in love. Losing your job. Getting cut off on the freeway. Tripping on the sidewalk. A dog attacking your ankles. All of our lives are utterly dominated by real, physical, unavoidable, universal facts and truths.

It’s all very real stuff. Real stuff brings up real questions. And real questions need real answers.

“I don’t know” isn’t an answer people can use. It doesn’t help them with anything.

Agnosticism = Ambiguity.

Actual, Physical Life = The ultimate in unambiguous.

Bad match.

LINK

What do you think?

Jedi Mind Trick · **Joined:** Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:21 am **Posts:** 376

Some atheists and some Christians are so caught up about certainty. They must have the absolute answer or life is not worth living. I used to be that way and it about drove me nuts because there is a great deal of ambiguity, even death is only apparently real and final. I am sort of agnostic myself, though I do believe, but belief is not knowledge and I don't think that positive objective proof is available to us.

My metaphysical belief is that we collectively create our shared "reality" and this reality is only an illusion, a dream and sometimes a nightmare. We are attempting to create a separate existence from all that is, as such WE HIDE in our collective illusion from The Source, or , God... Untold trillions upon trillions of sentient minds creating this illusion. Each adding their own music to the Cacophony of creation... Thus the ambiguity and confusion.

Boo · **Joined:** Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:46 pm **Posts:** 154

I prefer the "I don't know" position I have now as compared to the position I use to hold, "I know." That makes me agnostic. God? I don't know. And, I'm okay with that. I live my life without a belief in a God(s). That makes me an atheist. And, I'm okay with that. I'm an agnostic atheist.

Most of the atheists I have known (online) do not "flat-out say there isn’t a God." Most of them are agnostic about it. However, they drop the term agnostic from their descriptive label because they see no evidence for a God, or like me, live their life without a belief in God.

Actually, not knowing can be an answer for people. I was raised believing my parents had the answers, though, they both had different answers for most of my questions. I was educated in the medical field where doctors were considered Gods and scientific medical research pointed to this and that as "the" truth, only to succumb to future advancements that replaced previous thoughts and practices. Thirty plus years I spent inside my born-againism that claimed absolute truth, which can make one and the system they are in, vulnerable to literalism and spiritual abuses.

I prefer not knowing so their is still room to inquire. Maybe, some things are just beyond our knowing.

Ham On Rye · **Joined:** Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:19 am **Posts:** 82

A tangled web indeed…

Much of the problem is in the different ways people define words. Does “atheist” mean lack of belief in a god? Belief there is no god? Is agnosticism saying “we don’t know”? or “we can’t know”? or “we can know, but I don’t yet”? Not to mention the differentiation between hard atheists and soft atheists, and theistic agnostics or atheist agnostics (or agnostic atheists) or deists compared to theists…

And within each of those terms what I mean when I say them may not be quite the same way Mickey of Jedi Mind Trick or Boo or someone else thinks of. One of the biggest differences I see is in the definition of “certainty.”

To many theists, “certainty” (when it comes to God-belief) means 100%--absolutely no possibility of anything but. To many non-theists (well…at least to me) “certainty” means a high degree of belief. But not necessarily 100%. Sure, there is a .1% chance of a god existing. Because the chance is so small, that 99.99% chance a god does NOT exist makes me “certain.” Yet to many a theist, because I allow a chance of a god existing—because I allow a .1% chance—I am not truly “certain” (remember, their definition is 100%), and therefore should be shuffled into the Agnostic column.

Most atheists I talk to on-line allow for the possibility of a god, upon sufficient proof. Most theists I talk to do not think it conceivable there is no god. Therefore, to many theists, the atheist appears “less certain” about their belief.

I suspect the reason there are not so many agnostics is that people do not self-identify themselves as such, either out of concern they are not “getting the definition correct” OR because of the incessant pull of atheists screaming, “You can’t be agnostic—you must be atheist!” and theists equally screaming they are either ignorant through lack of study (which is wrong) or are secretly theists who just want to sin, so they sugar-coat their theism with the label of agnostic.

Not surprisingly, many people I read like the title “agnostic atheist” because it incorporates a better communication of what a person believes. (Yeah—I am looking at you, Boo!)

JFerric · **Joined:** Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:29 am **Posts:** 100

Then there are people like me, who do not, at all, like the fundamentalist dogmatic baggage that goes with atheism. And, there is a description that defines my position; non-theism. While this wiki article might have some issues, it does provide a sense of what non-theism means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism FWIW I think many people define themselves as atheist out of ignorance. They come to understand they no longer, or perhaps never did, believe in supernatural beings. And, they automatically assume this means they are atheists. As Click and Clack, the tappet brothers say "unencumbered by the thought process." People who realize that non-theism provides an alternative can be found in interesting places, for example, here is a place for non-theist Quakers: http://www.nontheistfriends.org/article/what-is-a-nontheist/ How many out there have considered this worldview? Or, for that matter, even heard of it?

Ham On Rye · **Joined:** Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:19 am **Posts:** 82

JFerric,

To be honest, I have never understood the phrase “Non-theistic God.” Since the word “theistic” comes from the Greek word for “God” (theos) this is saying a “Non-Godlike God.” An apparent contradiction in terms. (Like a “non-colorful color” or a “tasteless taste.”)

I always presumed (and the articles seem to support it) that the person was differentiating between a more traditional God—the all-powerful being—and a more mystic God. Do I have that right?

Not having a mystic cell in my body; it would be very possible I have that wrong.

The Real Logos · **Posted:** Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:25 pm

If we're honest about it....we're all Agnostics deep down inside.

It's just that most of us don't like to admit it.

Pax!
8-)

Mickey · **Joined:** Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:04 am **Posts:** 583

Ham On Rye wrote:

JFerric,

To be honest, I have never understood the phrase “Non-theistic God.” Since the word “theistic” comes from the Greek word for “God” (theos) this is saying a “Non-Godlike God.” An apparent contradiction in terms. (Like a “non-colorful color” or a “tasteless taste.”)

I always presumed (and the articles seem to support it) that the person was differentiating between a more traditional God—the all-powerful being—and a more mystic God. Do I have that right?

Not having a mystic cell in my body; it would be very possible I have that wrong.

These are really good questions, Ham. I'll be interested in the answers.

JFerric · **Joined:** Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:29 am **Posts:** 100

Ham On Rye wrote:

JFerric,

To be honest, I have never understood the phrase “Non-theistic God.” Since the word “theistic” comes from the Greek word for “God” (theos) this is saying a “Non-Godlike God.” An apparent contradiction in terms. (Like a “non-colorful color” or a “tasteless taste.”)

HOR,
LOL I first started out to make a point about why there are so few agnostics; to-wit: that people leap into the atheist category without thinking about other worldviews. But I think we are now into a much more interesting subject.

I agree that the term “Non-theistic God” is a bit of an oxymoron. However, from what I can tell it was created to make a very specific point; that the term "God" does not involve any sort of divine, or supernatural being. Even today there attempts to arrive meaning for the term God that are not based on any divine or supernatural being, for example:

Quote:

. . . .

Let me pause to explain just how radical this view is. My claim is not simply that we lack sufficient knowledge or wisdom to predict the future evolution of the biosphere, economy, or human culture. It is that these things are inherently beyond prediction. Not even the most powerful computer imaginable can make a compact description in advance of the regularities of these processes. There is no such description beforehand. Thus the very concept of a natural law is inadequate for much of reality. If this radical new view is correct, it challenges what I call the Galilean spell, the belief that all in the universe unfolds under natural law.

There is a further profound implication: If the biosphere and the global economy are examples of self-consistently co-constructing wholes, and at the same time, parts of these processes are not sufficiently described by natural law, we confront something amazing. Without sufficient law, without central direction, the biosphere literally constructs itself and evolves, using sunlight and other sources of free energy, and remains a coherent whole even as it diversifies, and even as extinction events occur. The same is true of the global economy. Such a self-organized, but partially lawless, set of coupled processes stands unrecognized, and thus unseen, right before our eyes. We appear to need a new conceptual framework to see and say this, then to understand and orient ourselves in our ever creative world. We will find ourselves far beyond reductionism, indeed.

Is it, then, more amazing to think that an Abrahamic transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient God created everything around us, all that we participate in, in six days, or that it all arose with no transcendent Creator God, all on its own? I believe the latter is so stunning, so overwhelming, so worthy of awe, gratitude, and respect, that it is God enough for many of us. God, a fully natural God, is the very creativity in the universe. It is this view that I hope can be shared across all our religious traditions, embracing those like myself, who do not believe in a Creator God, as well as those who do. This view of God can be a shared religious and spiritual space for us all.

. . . .

BREAKING THE GALILEAN SPELL
By Stuart A. Kauffman
The entire article can be read at:
Retrieved from: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kauffman08/kauffman08_index.html

Quote:

I always presumed (and the articles seem to support it) that the person was differentiating between a more traditional God—the all-powerful being—and a more mystic God. Do I have that right?

Not having a mystic cell in my body; it would be very possible I have that wrong.

From my perspective you are half-right. They do make a distinction between ". . .a more traditional God—the all-powerful being. . . .", and their view of what the term God means. Now as for mystic, to me that is a town in Connecticut. So I really don't have the basis on which to form an opinion that ". . .a more mystic God" is what they meant. From my perspective Kauffman's explanation ". . .the very creativity in the universe" makes sense. Interestingly enough I have also read an interview where Dawkins claims that the majesty of the universe creates a sense of religious awe in him. It also seems to me that to use the term God to describe these radically diverse worldviews is a large part of the problem. I do urge people to read the Kauffman article and share their opinions. If you do read it please remember that "emegence" refers to the science of emergent, self-organizing systems.

Kristopia · **Joined:** Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:39 pm **Posts:** 94

I would say I'm agnostic (don't believe in a god at this point because there is no evidence of one, but not opposed to believing in a god in future if the evidence arises). However, I usually use the word atheist simply because (as shown above), the term agnostic just seems to confuse people.

Roselyn · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:57 am **Posts:** 1552

"Why are there so few agnostics?"

Rather, why are there so many?

All gods are inventions of man. The god of Hebrews/Israelites/Jews was that of imagined hero's. The proof and evidence of the invented bible god is the bible story itself. Trace the many gods of worship throughout the story, the many names invented for god in due course of applied need in social conformity.

If man could not think of god(s), where would "God" be? God requires a speaker, a mouth, and without the ability of man to speak He simply cannot and does not exist.

There are places in the world where the Hebrew/Jewish/Christian god does not exist. How many places can you quickly name?

If educational freedom has done anything worthwhile it has progressed our critical thinking skills, caused us to investigate and come to the truth of the past to which we apply to the present. The future does not apply as it does not exist. And, thus "God" does not and cannot exist in that time and space called "future".

XnForums

"Why Are There So Few Agnostics?"

Who is online