That blog post starts with identifying the Militant Fundamentalist Agnostic (bonus points for the accompanying comic from my favorite XKCD):
I'm agnostic and I fully agree with this article. Militant Fundamentalist people of every stripe are annoying. Agnostics can go too far like anyone else. I can half-jokingly call myself a devout agnostic but it's ridiculous to declare superiority for my viewpoint when it's based on our lack of verifiable truths. How can a lack of something be superior? If I had some real verifiable answers to share then that would be superior.
Most atheists aren't Militant Fundamentalist Anti-Theists based on my experience, so it's best to treat atheists as if they're on the agnostic spectrum of probabilities as discussed in a previous blog post. They're likely agnostic in their thought processes regarding knowledge to arrive at their conclusion of disbelief. It all fits together in an overall reaction to the claims of theism and their reliance on faith. Hopefully we can steer the discussions to science for answers about the big questions of our existence.
Religious literalists and creationists can be annoying, and liberal believers whose theology is entirely apophatic can also be annoying; however anyone who espouses atheism on the internet will soon encounter an even more annoying group: the Militant Fundamentalist Agnostics.
The what? Surely that’s a contradiction in terms?! Sadly not, the Militant Fundamentalist Agnostic, while pretending to complete ignorance of gods, will confidently assert the central dogma of the agnostic faith, and cling to it tenaciously. Their one dogma is the claim that atheists make dogmatic assertions about the non-existence of gods. And hence, by declaring themselves to be free of such unwarranted, beyond-the-evidence assertions, they feel themselves superior, not only to the believers, who have no proof of their deities, but also to the atheists, who have no proof to back up their supposed claims of certain non-existence.
I'm agnostic and I fully agree with this article. Militant Fundamentalist people of every stripe are annoying. Agnostics can go too far like anyone else. I can half-jokingly call myself a devout agnostic but it's ridiculous to declare superiority for my viewpoint when it's based on our lack of verifiable truths. How can a lack of something be superior? If I had some real verifiable answers to share then that would be superior.
Most atheists aren't Militant Fundamentalist Anti-Theists based on my experience, so it's best to treat atheists as if they're on the agnostic spectrum of probabilities as discussed in a previous blog post. They're likely agnostic in their thought processes regarding knowledge to arrive at their conclusion of disbelief. It all fits together in an overall reaction to the claims of theism and their reliance on faith. Hopefully we can steer the discussions to science for answers about the big questions of our existence.
The blog continues with another thing this particular agnostic agrees with:
Conceptions of atheism were therefore not based on evidence, not on talking to and listening to actual atheists, but were about constructing a straw-man position that was easier to attack. Thus the “atheist” is considered to be going around angrily asserting, with absolute 100% confidence and spittle-flecked lips, the non-existence of gods.
This reassures the believers by painting atheists to be as bad as the theists are, in adopting an ultimately faith-based position. And it reassures the agnostics by giving themselves an excuse not to call themselves atheists.
As atheists patiently and repeatedly explain (and as everyone else usually ignores), atheism and agnosticism are about different things. Atheism is about lack of belief, agnosticism is about lack of knowledge. Since the two words refer to different things, ‘atheist’ and ‘agnostic’ are not mutually exclusive categories. It is possible to lack secure knowledge of the existence of gods (agnosticism), and also to lack belief in them (atheism), and thus be an agnostic atheist; and it is possible to lack secure knowledge and yet believe (thus being an agnostic theist).
The blog has a really good discussion about disbelief and burden of proof so I recommend you read the whole thing at the link above. The author provides this conclusion:
Calling yourself an agnostic may tell us how you approach the question, and your lack of secure knowledge, but you are not being fully honest with yourself if you don’t then go on to ask yourself whether or not you believe in any god.
This is where I diverge just a little bit. Saying you don't know and calling yourself agnostic implies an importance for knowledge. Most humans operate with the importance of knowledge in their daily lives. Well, unless you're the Ruler of the Universe (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) and have little trust in reality.
Agnosticism is about applying the scientific method and seeking knowledge as verifiable truths. Someone calling themselves agnostic may not positively engage in this but there's at least a passive acceptance of it under the common definitions of agnosticism and human knowledge. Agnostic theists put belief over knowledge with their faith in a particular theism. This implies knowledge is unimportant to them which should mean agnosticism is unimportant to them. Therefore, I think most single-label agnostics aren't on the theism side of the belief spectrum if they're being fully honest with themselves which is what the post suggests.
I agree that calling yourself agnostic only tells us how you approach the question, but that approach should lead to a lack of belief and at the very least to the weakest part of atheism. I know some of my fellow agnostics have a problem with admitting a de facto atheism but they shouldn't be afraid of it. Sure, downplay it and minimize it if you want. I still think agnosticism is the best answer even when the question is about my beliefs. Knowledge should be our primary focus so I try to steer the conversation back in that direction. I do that first and foremost by calling myself agnostic but not in a militant or fundamentalist way.
No comments:
Post a Comment