![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Why I do not call myself an agnostic
May. 8th, 2004 09:59 amThinking about ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ronebofh's post on militant agnosticism:
There are a few reasons why I call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic, though by the popular definition of the term (someone who admits not knowing whether there is a God or not) I suppose I am an agnostic.
1. First, the nitpicking reason: There's a little-known technical definition of an agnostic as a person who believes that knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God is logically impossible. While I do not personally know whether there is a God and I know of no good way to find out, I believe that reliable knowledge of this is logically possible under some conceivable situations. For example, we could live in a universe like ancient mythology in which God messes with us directly all the time, makes obvious miracles on a daily basis and constantly speaks in public about his actions and desires. (Some people believe that we do live in such a world, but I do not; however, I regard it as a contingent fact, and find it logically possible that the situation could change.) In this case I would be comfortable in saying that God exists, for some pretty good working definition of the phrase.
This is, in itself, not much of a reason, because only philosophers and people who post to alt.atheism have heard of this definition.
2. Second, for some people the term seems to have a connotation of someone who finds their own religion and atheism equally plausible, that is, conversion fodder. I've called myself an agnostic at various times and it is a good way to get unwanted attention. The only concepts of God that I do find at all plausible are extremely austere and deistic ones (at least from the perspective of us humans), and I am not emotionally inclined to regard even those as fifty-fifty propositions, so this would be a wrong impression to make.
3. Third, and probably most important (though I am a bit ashamed of this since it speaks of a certain macho pride), there's an illogical but popular notion that an agnostic is just a cowardly atheist; this is why the notion of "militant agnosticism" is funny. Somehow, people consider it a manifestation of indecisiveness to refuse to admit things that one has no basis for knowing. Or, they imagine that agnostics really know there is no God but don't have the courage to say it out loud.
However, there's a contrary problem as well: say that you're an atheist and many people will ridicule you for claiming to be able to prove the nonexistence of God, which I certainly don't claim at all! So the religious skeptic of atheist inclinations and no grand claims of certainty is stuck either way.
ronebofh's post on militant agnosticism:There are a few reasons why I call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic, though by the popular definition of the term (someone who admits not knowing whether there is a God or not) I suppose I am an agnostic.
1. First, the nitpicking reason: There's a little-known technical definition of an agnostic as a person who believes that knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God is logically impossible. While I do not personally know whether there is a God and I know of no good way to find out, I believe that reliable knowledge of this is logically possible under some conceivable situations. For example, we could live in a universe like ancient mythology in which God messes with us directly all the time, makes obvious miracles on a daily basis and constantly speaks in public about his actions and desires. (Some people believe that we do live in such a world, but I do not; however, I regard it as a contingent fact, and find it logically possible that the situation could change.) In this case I would be comfortable in saying that God exists, for some pretty good working definition of the phrase.
This is, in itself, not much of a reason, because only philosophers and people who post to alt.atheism have heard of this definition.
2. Second, for some people the term seems to have a connotation of someone who finds their own religion and atheism equally plausible, that is, conversion fodder. I've called myself an agnostic at various times and it is a good way to get unwanted attention. The only concepts of God that I do find at all plausible are extremely austere and deistic ones (at least from the perspective of us humans), and I am not emotionally inclined to regard even those as fifty-fifty propositions, so this would be a wrong impression to make.
3. Third, and probably most important (though I am a bit ashamed of this since it speaks of a certain macho pride), there's an illogical but popular notion that an agnostic is just a cowardly atheist; this is why the notion of "militant agnosticism" is funny. Somehow, people consider it a manifestation of indecisiveness to refuse to admit things that one has no basis for knowing. Or, they imagine that agnostics really know there is no God but don't have the courage to say it out loud.
However, there's a contrary problem as well: say that you're an atheist and many people will ridicule you for claiming to be able to prove the nonexistence of God, which I certainly don't claim at all! So the religious skeptic of atheist inclinations and no grand claims of certainty is stuck either way.