I was grateful and humbled to see my
first diary entry recommended and to follow the ensuing discussions about the role of atheism, agnosticism, religion and spirituality in American politics. As these concerns have become fundamental to the development of my
weltanschauung, I was awed at the range and thoughtfulness of the dialogue. I offer this follow-up diary (and hopefully future ones as well) to explore further some pervasive themes and thorny philosophical issues that rippled through the conversation
(hopefully with less emotional intensity, poetic license and, yes, monumental generalization).
Today, I will provide some perspective on the following two areas: 1) Contrasting Atheism and Agnosticism, and 2) Atheism as a "Faith" Position. None of the following is inherently original, in that I have been much influenced by Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Russell, Beggini, Pinker and many others. I hope it stimulates further discussion.
More below the fold...
Atheism vs. Agnosticism, or "I Can Neither Prove Nor Disprove That the President is a Cyborg"
Some would say (although nobody posted as such on my initial diary) that agnostics are merely atheists who don't like gambling. Although as quaint as the Geneva Conventions, such a viewpoint misses the mark. Some commenters posited that atheists were merely dogmatic agnostics, whose basic claim regarding God's existence goes something like, "It can't be proven and never will be." Although some militant atheists may fall into this category, with the inclusion of the followon, "...so DIE, DIE, DIE!", such a claim is as gross a generalization as the claim that all theists are dogmatic. Atheists and theists alike may have firmly held beliefs, but neither group need be guilty of dogmatism by default. The distinction between dogmatism and subscribing to firmly held beliefs is a subtle but crucial one.
Defeasibility is a legalistic and logical term to describe something (such as a contract or a hypothesis) that could be rendered null and void, or is subject to forfeit. Beliefs are defeasible when the possibility exists that they could be proven inaccurate. One could characterize mathematical or analytical claims, such as "1 +1 = 2" as indefeasible. Dogmatism occurs when one holds a belief to be indefeasible, when such a refusal to accept the possibility of being wrong is not justified.
It is fair to reject both theist and atheist dogmatism, since there is no way either can be so sure that they are right. In fact, it is the dogmatic nature of some views that one should consider dangerous, not the viewpoint itself. Perhaps this is why one commenter replied to my initial rant with "Bullshit!", which was the accurate way to respond to my absolutist tone. Still, this does not mean that an atheist or theist should ascribe to agnosticism, merely based on the defeasibility of their respective beliefs. One can still ascribe to a strongly held belief, while allowing for the possibility that further evidence will change one's mind. Few doubt that the earth is round or that a boulder will crush someone when dropped on them, although it is possible that we are incorrect on either count. That does not mean that we must suspend our beliefs about such seemingly obvious "truths." If such were necessary, we would have to suspend belief about everything, since we could not be absolutely sure about anything. As we need to navigate through the natural world, such suspension of belief would be ludicrous, not to mention it would make riding unicycles exceptionally difficult.
Further, it does not follow from the fact that we could be wrong that we have no good reasons to think we are right. It is equally unreasonable to claim that the mere possibility that something might be true is a good enough reason to believe in it, however much we might wish it to be true. It seems strange that most people that pose that atheists are actually agnostics are themselves theists. Even more peculiar, the reasoning that atheists should consider themselves agnostics, given the defeasibility of atheistic belief, would seem to lead to the equally credible view that theists themselves should also consider themselves agnostic. In such a world, only the dogmatic could lay claim to a particular label identity. It is these dogmatic types that we have the most reason to distrust, or at least not invite over for cocktails, regardless of any underlying philosophical or faith-based agreement...which leads to the next topic.
Atheism as a "Faith" Position, or "Jumping Out of a Perfectly Good Airplane (with or without a parachute)"
If all beliefs are faith positions, are we not left with a relativistic triviality, where there is no way to establish the truth or falsity of any belief system? If so, then John 14:6 would read something like, "Dude. I am the way, the truth, and the life. I suppose. No one comes to the father except through me...but that's just what I believe, so whatever. It's all good. Pass the nachos."
To claim atheism is a faith position is to "misunderestimate" the role of proof in the justification of belief. The bridge between proof and belief need not be built of faith alone. In fact, it might be better to use spare pieces of bridge you have laying about. Absolute proofs are not available for the vast majority of beliefs, but a lack of such proof is no grounds for the suspension of belief. This is because we can still have overwhelming evidence or one explanation that is far superior to the alternatives. When such grounds for belief are available, we have no need for faith.
Is it faith that tells us not to put live scorpions down our pants? Is it faith that prevents us from jumping out of moving trains? No. It is evidence and experience (incidence of psychosis notwithstanding), derived from understandings about cause and effect in the physical world. If we were to claim that every such decision actually required faith, then either faith is of trivial value or it manifests itself in degrees. If it is trivial, then the discussion ends with absurd correlations to the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus over another round of beers. If faith occurs in degrees, then we need to contrast the degrees of faith required for atheist and theist beliefs.
Atheists believe in only those things that they have strong evidence to believe, and disbelieve those things that there is weak or no evidence to believe. Contrast this with the theist, who believes in something for which there is little or even contradictory supporting evidence. Atheism is not a faith position because it is belief in nothing beyond which there is evidence and argument for; religious belief is a faith position because it goes beyond that for which there is evidence or argument.
Aside: SnyperKitty's Disclaimer, or "Why I Became an Atheist"
As a child, I was terrified of the Tooth Fairy. I would sit Indian-style on my bed with a fly swatter on my lap. With the taste of blood still in my mouth after evacuating the latest baby tooth, I was hell bent on protecting my privacy and controlling my own destiny. I wasn't going to let some little pixie bitch poke around under my pillow without my say so. If other kids didn't mind, that was fine, but I could think of better ways to get a quarter or two. If she wanted to make an exchange, I was willing to meet her halfway with a verbal contract. In my mind, I hadn't accepted the offer, so there was no agreement, tradition be damned. Although my father poked his head in a few times during the night, I didn't put two and two together until a few years later. I suppose I must have fallen asleep after he did, because the tooth was still under my pillow in the morning.
I had no beef with Santa Claus because he didn't come in my room. I always knew it was the same day of every year, every other kid had to deal with it too, and I got way more than a quarter. The Easter Bunny was in the same general category, although I thought he (or she) was a real asshole for hiding the basket in the house.
Anyway, I don't know exactly what that had to do with Atheism, but it's one of my favorite anecdotes. See you next time.