atheism versus agnosticism
The agnostic does not believe in God, but allows for the possibility of changing her/his mind. The agnostic sees no reason to believe in God at the present time. He/she sees no persuasive, let alone compelling, evidence of God’s existence. As well, a compellling argument has not been heard (yet) in support of the existence of God. If, such arguments and/or evidence arises, the agnostic is free to change her/his mind, and embrace faith and belief in a creator God.
Not so with the atheist. The atheist of today is of the view that it is not even possible for a “God” to exist. It is not a question of lack of faith or skepticism. It is a deeply held (and clung to) fixed position that God simply cannot even exist. It is not even possible that God could exist.
Given the readers on some of the tag pages this essay is going out to, it does need to be said that that position – that it is not possible for God to exist – is not only not scientific, but is anti-scientific. If God’s existence cannot be proved scientifically, it is equally true that God’s existence cannot be disproved by scientific means. Appeals to logic do not disprove God’s existence. Nor do such appeals to reason or logic support the postulate that God cannot exist.
One can understand the position of the agnostic. Especially so, if she or he has struggled with their faith at some point in their adult life. But, it is difficult to understand the very rigid and close minded approach of the modern atheist.
Except for one thing. The true, original definition of agnosticism is not being undecided on the question of god. It is the belief that the answer is unknowable; that nobody knows.
Good point, Mark. Thank you for your comment. However, I know of people who have come out of their agnosticism and are now believers in God.
Those who have had spiritual experiences know. And, science has its limits. Science is not competent to decide the issue. Many atheists try to use science to support their position.
There are also those who lost their faith in religion and are now atheists or agnostics. It works both ways.
There is a need for organized religion. I have addressed this in other essays. But, sadly, with organized religion come abuses of authority and/or abuses of privilege by the priests. This has been the case in most, if not all, organized religions. But, the sins of organized religion do not decide the issue of God’s existence. Many people believe in God and are not members of an organized religion.
The “bottom line” is that each of us, in the privacy of his or her thoughts, must face this question and decide (choose) what to believe. Faith is difficult at times. I struggled with my faith when I was a young man. But, I found by working at it, my faith grew stronger. And, if one is open minded, one sees hints being dropped in one’s path that God does exist.
As I said in the above essay, I can understand the agnostic position. The atheist, who rigidly denies even the possibility of God existing, baffles me.
I would say the rigid atheist is the creation of the rigid theist. Or if you prefer, they are the reflection. The rigid theist promotes the belief that God’s existence is unquestionable. Then upon the basis of these firmly held beliefs he tries to form his world accordingly, by trying to ensure that others believe as he does, but also by creating laws which enforce God’s morals as he sees them and in some cases restricting the voices and lives of those who disagree.
It’s that second step that brings the atheists to the table. Atheists tend to believe (not universally) that morals are consensually arrived at, and the process works best when there’s some logical, defensible basis to work from. They see the theist promoting ideas based on faith which essentially requires belief without evidence, it runs counter to their own deeply held ideas of how the world works.
I think it is reasonable for a person to act on his deeply held beliefs and ideals, and that is what both sides do. The difference is the atheist tries to base their beliefs on something rational and provable while the theist must base it on personal experience alone.
Thanks Stan for your comment.
You have completely miissed the point I made in the above essay.
I was responding to this bit: “it is difficult to understand the very rigid and close minded approach of the modern atheist”. It struck me the rest of your essay was based on it.
Okay, let’s address some of your points, Stan.
Atheists’ desire to gain a social consensus for morals is not germane to the point of the essay. This desire does not justify their denial of the possibility of God’s existence. And, one must be careful about making morals a product of social consensus. This puts people at risk of being vicitmized by the caprice of a majority (recall slavery in the USA).
But, Stan, you do bring up something that many of us have suspected for a long time. Many atheists hide behind their disbelief in God because they do not measure up favorably vis-a-vis a God given moral code. In other words, many atheists have lived very self-aborbed lives. So, do atheists reject that there are moral absolutes? Many do. They make morality relativistice. If I believe something is wrong, then it is wrong for me. But, if my neighbor thinks that same something is okay to do, then it is all right for him/her to do.
Let me just say that for thousands of years many people believed the world to be flat. All during that time the world was round, despite the ignorance and/or denial of that fact by many people.
Stan, the last sentence in your first comment is not true. Go back and read the above essay, and you will see why the last sentence in your first comment does not follow.
Pingback: Pension agnostic? | The Vision of the Pension Plowman
“Many atheists hide behind their disbelief in God because they do not measure up favorably vis-a-vis a God given moral code. In other words, many atheists have lived very self-aborbed lives.”
Woah … hold on, now … atheists are not more frequently self-absorbed people than theists are … if someone is not living a moral life — then they can either chose to deny that God exists (so it doesn’t matter), they can go to confession if they are Catholic, or they can just simply walk into Church somewhere, go through the routine and feel absolved of all wrong doing …
People who are inclined to find excuses for their behavior are going to find those excuses … this is not a pathology limited to atheists.
Most atheists which I have met (granted a small sample size in comparison to the total) are neurotic and self-absorbed but in a completely humble sort of way … since they are forced to remain quiet about their non-belief in most cases which I have encountered — they are OBSESSED with being good people and not being a burden on society.
Also, the “certainty” that we tend to pin on the atheist with a negative connotation is unnecessary … there is nothing corrupt or delusional about wanting evidence before formulating a belief. We have limited time on this planet and God or no God … is a decision that needs to be made as early as possible … if we leave this one hanging then we cannot appreciate the sense of urgency that we should all feel about life. How can we understand how precious life is … if in the back of our minds we think that there might be more than this …?
You have met a different sampling of atheists than I have. We have addressed this issue in previous essays, and the comments that were not approved, because they added nothing constructive to the debate, came from more strident folks, not so humble as you say.
2 last things to consider: 1. You did not (and neither did the other 2 people who commented above) address the point raised in the essay at top. There are atheists who deny even the possibility of God’s existence. With them (and you can quote this if you like) it is a firmly held conviction that God simply cannot exist. I have read some of the writings of these people and this is not exaggeration. Requiring (or providing) “proof” for these people is not the relevant issue. Their minds are closed.
2. Your last sentence, the latter part of it – you have lost me. Perhaps, rewrite it so it is more coherent.
To your first paragraph … most of us are concerned with having something to say than with what we are saying. This is why the majority of us are following this or that blindly (even if we don’t know it).
1.) I don’t think we can blame atheists (or those arbitrarily attaching the label on themselves) for getting too enthusiastic about things from time to time. While the “why” is important, I think the “what” is more important with belief and God, and perhaps most things. Because we live in a society in which we do not appropriately support each other, we as human beings are forced to focus on a variety of things — most of which have nothing to do with justifying our behavior.
A person who is arrogant in their beliefs about God (or lack there of) — may lose respect from fellow members of society –but, does not demean the utility of the belief they have arbitrarily chosen.
Regardless of the amount of justification which these credulous atheists can provide for their opinions, they have still flipped a coin and gotten lucky — as, we cannot begin to appreciate the limited time we have on this planet if we do not choose heads or tails on this one thing: God or No God.
2.) I think I began to answer this above. But, if we believe in a “back up plan” … if we think that there is any chance that there might be more than this one life … that there might be some benevolent force watching over us … then how can we approach any decision with the appropriate sense of autonomy or urgency?