Source
r/atheism•
circularfish

Identifying as Agnostic - Why Not?

Howdy, baby eaters. Long screed – read at your risk, but this one has been bothering me for a while.

For years I’ve gone about happily referring to myself as an “agnostic”. It has always seemed less confrontational when addressing matters of belief -- the speech act of declaring oneself to be an atheist has always seemed to amount to a direct refutation of the theist (“your god does not exist”) whereas the agnostic descriptor at least allows room for common ground (“I doubt your details, but you might be right in some abstract sense”).

That said, I was fascinated to read explanations such as this one, where it is argued that a distinction ought to be drawn between gnosis and belief, such that one is correctly labeled an atheist so long as one believes it more likely than not that god does not exist. This argument seems o.k. as far as it goes, but leaves me cold for a number of reasons:

  1. I’m uncomfortable with the proposition that belief ought to be evaluated separately from knowledge. I don’t want to set up a straw man, but in general terms one would think that the certainty of belief ought to be wholly dependent on the certainty of knowledge, at least for rational people;
  2. Even more generally, the distillation of this issue into a two-dimensional grid seems awfully reductive;
  3. This simplification seems, somehow, to be profoundly disempowering. I like the ability to describe myself to friends, family, co-workers in a way that remains true to my beliefs, yet acknowledges that they may not be full of shit in every respect.

Then it occurred to me, doesn’t this entire definitional tar baby depend on what definition of ‘god’ you are talking about? Define god as a man in a white sheet hurling lightning bolts and I’m squarely in the atheist camp as defined here. But define god as the irreducible “is” of existence, or something similarly abstract, and I’m not just not sure.

And here’s the kicker– whether or not I consider myself “atheistic” in either case is a direct function of the certainty of knowledge about the particular theological proposition. When we speak of Zeus, or the Easter Bunny or whatever, the causal complexity of the proposition, were it to be true, flies in the face of experience, and there are other anthropological and psychological explanations for the myth that are more likely (and falsifiable). When we speak of the more abstract conception, the level of uncertainty is much greater because the proposition (for now) lies beyond direct experience.

Seems to me, if you are really going to reduce matters of belief and knowledge down to a grid, you need at least a third axis accounting for the nature of the theological proposition (Occam’s yardstick, maybe)? I’ll leave that to brighter minds, but until that complexity is accounted for, when a theist with whom we’d otherwise like to retain good relations asks “do you believe in god” without specifying what conception of god they are talking about, then why shouldn’t we have the ability to focus the conversation on gnosis? As long as I like you, or I just don't care, I’m an agnostic, damn it.

TL;DR: if all rational agnostics are atheists under certain conditions, then can’t all rational atheists identify as agnostic under others?

Posted Feb 8, 2012, 11:34 PM UTC

640
Irish_Whiskey•

Sounds like you're Ignostic.

Ignosticism is reasonable, but I don't think it changes the fact that, once a specific concept of God is described or considered, asking whether one knows (under a reasonable, not absolute knowledge standard), or believes but doesn't know, are two reasonable and common questions. A lot of your post involves being 'uncomfortable' with the label of atheism, which is common to people who identify as agnostic. But the problem there isn't with the term, it's with societal perception. Atheism is simply a description of a person lacking a belief in a God. I'd rather try and change the perception that reinforce it by hiding from it.

5
circularfishOP•

That is very interesting. Thank you!

3
boogabooga08•

Completely agree. It is as if 99% of people that are "without god" call themselves by many names other than Atheists because that one word carries a strong social stigma.

2
[deleted]•

The only question that matters to me is: do you believe a god exists? If yes, you're a theist. If no, you're an atheist. If maybe, you're a theist in denial.

3
dementedsnakeSecular Humanist•

There is no maybe.

People seem to not understand the question "Do you believe?", which is where this fictional middle ground comes from. So a clearer question would be "Are you convinced?" It's the same question, with the same options, just in a less confusing form.

Are you convinced a god exists? Yes? You're a theist.

Are you convinced a god exists? No? You're an atheist.

Are you convinced a god exists? Maybe? Then you're not convinced. So, "No". You're an atheist.

A really simple version is this:

Theism is "A".

Atheism is "Not A"

There is no "Sort of A" or "Half A".

4
circularfishOP•

What I'm trying to say, I suppose, is that you have to define the truth assertion (the god in your question) carefully before you expect an answer, and it seems that a lot of the middle ground that you describe arises from a failure to do so.

If, by "god" you mean a Christian god, then clearly I'm an atheist by your definition.

If you mean something more abstract ("fundamental ordering force of existence") or something else, then why can't I say I am not convinced either way?

3
dementedsnakeSecular Humanist•

then why can't I say I am not convinced either way?

That's the problem people keep making. There aren't two ways. There's one way. Theism is the position that gods exist. Atheism is simply saying "I'm not convinced of theism.". That's it.

It isn't "A or B", it's "A or Not A".

1
circularfishOP•

Got it. "A or Not A".

I see two problems with this approach as it pertains to a self-described agnostic: (a) as I said, with this framework it then becomes possible to simultaneously be a theist and an atheist depending on your definition of "god" - that isn't a deal breaker, but it is ... odd, (b) why purposefully adopt a definition that papers over the fact that individuals can lack sufficient knowledge to assert the truth value of a proposition?

As a loose metaphor, I see it as the difference between modal logic and propositional logic.

2
[deleted]•

Are you convinced a god exists? Maybe? Then you're not convinced. So, "No". You're an atheist.

I disagree with that conclusion. All of the maybes I've ever known have had religious leanings. I agree there is no "maybe" in answering the question, and I conclude that a person who refuses to answer (a person who says maybe) has lingering doubts about the nonexistence of gods; they cannot bring themselves to say no gods exist. These are all people who were brought up in religion as children. I suspect they have yet to fully overcome their indoctrination, their lingering doubts that gods really don't exist.

2
dementedsnakeSecular Humanist•

Well, if they're religiously leaning, then they have some belief in god, though they may doubt them. I can be convinced that my friend is having a fun trip in Rome, but be worried (doubt) if they forget to call me for two days. My belief that they're in Rome and happy is still there, but fading as my doubts increase.

Maybe that's a bad analogy, it's hard to compare religious belief to other things with tangible sources and effects.

1
[deleted]•

There is no "Sort of A" or "Half A".

There is if you're not a robot.

1
dementedsnakeSecular Humanist•

No, there isn't. Not in "yes or no" questions about belief.

Do you think aliens are probing my ass right now? Yes or no?

Yes is "A". Everything else is "Not A".

It's a yes or no question. If you can't answer (maybe/I don't know), then that means you don't believe it, so "no".

This isn't a question about knowledge or proof. It's a question about whether or not you accept a claim. Do you, or don't you?

It's exactly the same as "Do you believe in a god?". There is no "Yes, but also no at the same time.".

There isn't any "I neither believe nor disbelieve. I exist in a superposition where I'm in all groups at once, not none of them at all!"

Yes or no? If you say "Yes I believe in a god", then you're a theist. Every other answer is equivalent to "no", because every other answers isn't "yes".

1
[deleted]•

No, there isn't. Not in "yes or no" questions about belief.

Well, I'm not asking a "yes or no" question about belief. I'm perfectly happy with answers like "sorta, kinda, and not sure"

It's a yes or no question. If you can't answer (maybe/I don't know), then that means you don't believe it, so "no".

Prove it. You're just making a semantics argument and nothing else. If I gave you an apple that was partially ripe and asked you if it was red, what would you answer? Yes or no?

Do you, or don't you? I kinda do, and I kinda don't

There isn't any "I neither believe nor disbelieve. Why not?

Every other answer is equivalent to "no", because every other answers isn't "yes".

So If I said "mostly" or "probably" or "more or less" or "I'm inclined to think so" I'd be an atheist under your system? That doesn't seem all that useful to me.

1
vytah•

If maybe, then think again.

FTFY

There are some people, who really do not know whether they believe, but it's not agnosticism, and they need professional help.

Most "maybe" people do not fucking know what "believe" means.

1
[deleted]•

FTFY

Oh, please, don't bother. My secretary can take care of it.

2
ElboRexel•

Gonna have to disagree with you on that one. Humans are complex, complex people. People's beliefs can be, and often are, poorly defined. By trying to force the issue into black and white, I think you'll end up alienating alot of fence sitters.

1
squigs•

I believe that in all probability that a god doesn't exist, concede that a god could exist, and have some idea of what its nature could be.

So I'm both a deist and an explicit atheist. This is a very different belief from one a strong agnostic who refuses to even have a position on account of it being unknowable.

If your interested in what I believe, then that's reasonable, but I don't think limiting that to "are you a theist" gives a very good answer.

Normally I identify as an atheist, and define that as one with an explicit opinion. However, as far as religious beliefs go, I don't actually think a lot differently from a deist. We both have the same position on the formation of the universe, evolution, keeping religion out of politics, the source of morality and the effectiveness of prayer. We even have the same view of the provability of god.

So why does the "theist/implict atheist" distinction matter?

1
taterbizkit•

Yeah, pretty much. Most atheists are also agnostic. There are gnostic atheists, but usually people making the claim of gnosis are redefining the question in some way (gnosis as to all known gods, or that the concept of god is inherently an impossibility like a square circle, etc).

2
TheJockey•

Interesting. I myself associated with atheism, then after acquiring more knowledge about the ancient religions and human ability I started leaning toward calling myself an agnostic. Interesting read.

1
dementedsnakeSecular Humanist•

I’m uncomfortable with the proposition that belief ought to be evaluated separately from knowledge. I don’t want to set up a straw man, but in general terms one would think that the certainty of belief ought to be wholly dependent on the certainty of knowledge, at least for rational people;

But knowledge and belief are separate things. Knowledge informs belief, and if you're not careful, belief can color your knowledge. But one is a question about what we've demonstrated, or can demonstrate, and the other is a question of our opinion.

I believe my foot is real because I know I can stand on it, see it, feel it, and that others can too. Here, my knowledge informs my belief. But some people don't tie the two together as they should. They put belief before knowledge, and end up ruining both. I agree that rational people should only believe what they have a good reason to. There is no such good reason for most god claims, maybe even all of them. Yes, knowledge and belief should be closely tethered, but to say they're the same thing is risky at best. It leaves you open to "knowing" things you believe in, instead of the other way around.

Am I making any sense?

1
circularfishOP•

You are making sense, and thanks for the observation.

It is certainly an interesting question and cuts to the core of what I'm having trouble with. Of course humans believe things about which we have no knowledge, and that is precisely the part of religion that seems nonsensical (to me, at least).

On the other hand, if we were to limit our beliefs to that about which we have reasonably certain knowledge, though, doesn't that open up a category of things about which we form no belief precisely because we lack sufficient knowledge?

Edit: and if so, can't the existence of a divine being be such a question, dependent on how abstractly one defines the term?

Edit #2: probably shouldn't say "divine being" since those are loaded terms about which I can't imagine a sufficient set of abstractions to salvage the concept from reasonable skepticism.

2
dementedsnakeSecular Humanist•

What sorts of things would be in this category? Leaving out the supernatural, I mean.

1
[deleted]•

Yeah, this has bothered me before, too. When I think "atheism" I think, "sure of no god." When I think "agnostic" I think, "not sure." And honestly, even though there's a lot of push to label non-religious people one way or the other, I still think it's up for interpretation.

The bottom line is, it doesn't matter, so call yourself a purple pony or whatever makes you happy. If someone REALLY feels it necessary to categorize you for their own sake, when they talk to you about your views they can categorize away in their own head.

1
squigs•

I agree. Although for my own reasons

I've always been of the opinion that if you identify as atheist, you're an atheist, if you identify as agnostic you're agnostic and if you identify Christian you're a Christian. As long as you can rationalise those terms with an accepted understanding of what they mean then I'll not argue.

Telling other people how they should identify seems to me to be the height of arrogance.

1
Teuthex•

I’m uncomfortable with the proposition that belief ought to be evaluated separately from knowledge. I don’t want to set up a straw man, but in general terms one would think that the certainty of belief ought to be wholly dependent on the certainty of knowledge, at least for rational people;

Gnosis refers solely to knowledge. It's a binary proposition, not a sliding scale. There's a difference between 'we know' and 'we have a pretty good idea', you know? Gnostics are certain, but agnostics can still be fairly certain.

Even more generally, the distillation of this issue into a two-dimensional grid seems awfully reductive;

Whine whine whine.

This simplification seems, somehow, to be profoundly disempowering. I like the ability to describe myself to friends, family, co-workers in a way that remains true to my beliefs, yet acknowledges that they may not be full of shit in every respect.

So you're a non-confrontational douche. Anything else?

Then it occurred to me, doesn’t this entire definitional tar baby depend on what definition of ‘god’ you are talking about?

Oh, actually I completely agree with you there. What I usually say is 'I'm gnostic towards most definitions of God.'

As long as I like you, or I just don't care, I’m an agnostic, damn it.

Yes. You're an agnostic... atheist. Suck it up.

-1
circularfishOP•

Sorry, but if there is a difference between "we know" and "we have a pretty good idea" then knowledge is not a binary proposition. Care to expound, or are you content just to be abrasive?

2
Teuthex•

It is. Gnosticism doesn't account for any uncertainty. Either you know, completely, or you don't, in which case you can certainly still have a fair bit of certainty. As long as there's some uncertainty, you don't know, you're just making a conclusion based on what we do know.

1
circularfishOP•

Interesting. That doesn't seem to be the sense in which Huxley used the term, but speaking of knowledge, I don't claim superior knowledge here. Can you hit me up with a cite (I can't seem to find one with a quick Google).

And, if that were the case, then the grid cited in the OP is an even more profoundly impoverished approach. Not allowing for degrees of certainty regarding knowledge claims forces people into boxes that don't necessarily explain them.

1
Teuthex•

Huxley used the term to mean 'cannot possibly know' as opposed to 'do not currently know', and I very much see the need for a distinction between those two terms. Gnosis and its derivations are words that greatly predate him. 'Agnostic' describes a great deal of positions, which is why I prefer actually talking to using labels.

1