Do you know what the difference between atheism and agnosticism is? It’s pretty simple. Atheists say, “There is no god,” while agnostics say, “I don’t know it there’s a god.” A simple look at the etymology of the two words can help. Atheist is basically Greek for ‘having no god’. Agnostic is basically Greek for ‘having no knowledge’.
Atheism has become the default ‘religion’ for people who don’t believe in Jehovah, Vishnu, Allah, Waheguru, baby Jesus, Santa Claus, or Xenu, and I can definitely see where they’re coming from. It’s pretty easy to step a little too far and say, “These religions are preposterous fairy tales. Clearly they are all wrong and there is no god.” But remember, the opposite of something wrong is not always right.
I see atheism as something reactionary, whereas agnosticism is born out of true critical thought. Socrates once said, “I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.” This is the tenet upon which agnosticism is built. The fact is that our ignorance is a universe unto itself, and it takes a good deal of critical though to understand this.
Albert Einstein was not an atheist. He understood the universe too well to say something as definitive and full of hubris as “there is no god.”
That brings me to the best thing about agnosticism — agnostics are never wrong. “I don’t know” is always a valid and respectable answer when asked about god, devoid of pomposity and judgment. And there’s another plus — it’s one of the few ‘religions’ that doesn’t say that everybody else is wrong.
Start asking some real questions about the world. Not like, “did dinosaurs really exist?” but like the following:
- If there is a god, where did it come from?
- If there is no god, where did the universe come from?
- If, through our senses, we cannot hope to understand the universe, is our vast ignorance not forgivable, and ultimately, acceptable?
- If there are multiple dimensions that we do not comprehend, and that leading scientists have only recently discovered, how can anyone with any certainty say that there is no higher power?
If you don’t have answers to these questions, don’t worry. Nobody else does either. There is more pride in saying “I don’t know,” than answering yes or no when you really have no idea. Agnosticism welcomes with open arms anyone wise enough to be sure of their ignorance.
The more you think about it, the more atheism seems like just another religion that can never be proven right. This is why it pains me to see so many intelligent, critically thinking people calling themselves atheists when in fact they are agnostics. Spread the word.
March 6, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Or you could simply take the scientific approach and apply Occam’s razor. There is no evidence of a god, therefore I choose not to believe in a god. If given solid evidence of a god, I would then believe in a god. However, as it stands I am an atheist and do not entertain notions of god’s existence.
March 6, 2008 at 7:14 pm
But there are plenty of forces we cannot see, and had no evidence of 100 years ago. We should certainly not go about assuming there are no other such forces to be discovered, that there is no grand unifying theory of the universe, etc.
March 6, 2008 at 10:09 pm
I think agnostics make the mistake of thinking that because there are 2 available options: God or no God, that each must be equally likely.
Where as Occam’s razor tell us that the more fantastic and extraordinary and idea is, the less likely it is to be true. Therefore, the probability of God existing must be regarded as much lower than 50%.
How low? That is as bit subjective. But to be an athiest you don’t have to regard the probability of God existing as exactly 0.0%. You just have to regard it as low enough that the possibiity of there being a God is simply not worth considering.
As an agnostic, what is your estimate of God’s likelyhood, and why?
March 6, 2008 at 10:22 pm
One thing I should mention is that I believe that, if there is a god or higher power, it would be something like the force or like Spinoza’s concept of god. For me, notably, this would not include any real afterlife. That being said, any estimate of ‘God’s likelihood’ would be pretty arbitrary — I consider guess between 1% and 99% to be more or less the same answer. I suppose that’s my answer too, so let’s say 50%.
March 7, 2008 at 1:08 am
That’s a bit different. I think you are watering down the concept of God so that it looses too much of its common meaning. God should at least have the attributes of intelligence and intent.
Having said that, what do I think is the likelyhood of your concept of God? I’m not familiar with Spinoza, but I have watched a lot of Star Wars.
That depends on how specific your concept is. If you’re going to argue for a specific idea, like midiclorians, then I would say, very unlikey. If you’re going to argue for a general idea of unseen and presently undetected forces operating in the universe, well we already have evidence of that from dark matter and dark energy, quantum entanglement etc, so this is more likely.
Everything I’m telling you is just, I believe, the correct application of Occam’s razor. Would you agree? Do you have an arguement against Occam’s razor, or the way it is used by atheists?
March 7, 2008 at 1:51 am
The thing about Occam’s Razor is that it doesn’t always work. The simplest explanation is USUALLY correct, which is fine if you’re diagnosing STD’s, but doesn’t necessarily apply if you’re identifying the forces that control the universe.
I feel that the search for God is a lot like the search for consciousness – you know it’s not physical or quantifiable, but enough mystery exists surrounding the concept that you can’t rule it out. If life is defined as membrane potential, consciousness is the transcendence of ion movement into thought and feeling. I imagine that God would be like the transcendence of physical laws to higher powers.
But I suck at physics.
Incidentally, Richard Dawkins would be mocking me right now, saying that I’m so insecure with my role in the universe that I have to create a higher power to validate my choices. He has a point. But “The God Delusion” is clearly far inferior to the genius of George Lucas.
March 7, 2008 at 4:37 am
When stated this way: “The simplest explanation is the most likely”, Occam’s razor always works, even when the simplest explanation is incorrect!
A more complex explanation can still be correct, it’s just not as likely.
God is the more complex explanation, and is therefore, not as likely as no God.
March 18, 2008 at 3:27 am
Will there be more content soon?