On agnosticism and those who would deny it:
First, a word of explanation. I post this to myself for a number of reasons. I'm immensely tired of having people tell me "you are not an agnostic," so I feel no need to post to one of them just to hear it again. I had thought to post this to one of the people who had supported my position, but there's really no reason to drag somebody else into what is essentially my battle. By posting to myself I not only don't involve anyone else actively, I really don't even involve anyone else in any way unless they see the header and come to take a look. This will only appear in my own inbox, so nobody has to deal with it except me.
To any who have chosen to read this, hello.
In recent days, I have been told by two different people that I am not what I claim to be, that is, an agnostic. Why? This is the thing that I just can't fathom.
First my views for those who haven't seen them yet. To those who have, please feel free to skip to the next paragraph:
I am an agnostic. This is, for me, a reasonable and logical thing to be. As a matter of fact, I consider it to be the only reasonable and logical thing to be. I only accept that which can be in some way observed or measured-- in short, that which can be proven. The existence or non-existence of a supreme being is not one of these things. I don't know how big the universe is, I don't know what if anything is outside of it, and I don't know where if anywhere it came from. I am fine with this. I really don't feel a need to assume an answer to any of these questions. Likewise (and contrary to opinion), I don't feel a need to assume anything about the existence of some sort of supreme being. I really don't see how it's pertinent to my day-to-day life. And I apparently need to make clear-- I do not assume either the existence or non-existence of a supreme being. I am not an atheist, and actually will argue with atheists, because I feel that ultimately it is just as much an act of faith to state categorically that there is not a supreme being as it is to state that there is. I repeat, for me at least, agnosticism is the only tenable view to hold. It is the only view that is supported by the facts as we know them. The fact that it is not an active view but rather a passive one is of no concern to me. I simply feel that in lieu of any evidence one direction or the other, the only rational way that I can approach this is to withhold judgment. But others continue to insist that I do not indeed hold this view.
So, first-- a confession, a defense, and a criticism:
Whenever anyone says to me, "I am a (insert name of religious persuasion of your choice)," I simply accept this. If the person in question then proceeds to in some way violate or ignore the tenets of their faith, I have a regrettable tendency to call them on it. I might say "well then, why do you do this?" or "why don't you do that?" or "I thought that ________s were supposed to do the other," or in one of many other ways express to them that it doesn't seem to me that they're doing a very good job of living up to their faith. However, I would never just blithely state "no you're not." I really don't care what it is, if someone honestly states to me "I am a ______," I take their word for it. I might think they aren't very good at it, but if they say that's what they are, then that's what they are. We're speaking here of matters of belief, so obviously if they believe themselves to be something, then for all intents and purposes they are. Saying to someone that they are not what they claim to be, at least in matters of personal belief, is presumptuous and rude, not to mention irrational. So why does anyone feel the need to tell me that I cannot be an agnostic?
Both of the people involved have expressed amazement that I would take their denial of my claim to my views personally. While this demonstrates an uncomfortable level of arrogance and disrespect, I don't think that's the issue. Pilch even went so far as to say that his problem isn't with me, but with agnosticism. Neocon hasn't stated this clearly, but he too continues to express shock at my outrage. Again, I think that part of this is simply a callous disregard for my feelings, but that can't explain it by itself. I would certainly assume that if someone were to proclaim themselves to be Hindu or Buddhist or whatever, they wouldn't rush to tell him that that's impossible. I don't think they'd even dare dispute it. If someone were to claim to be an atheist, I could see them pulling out some "proofs" to try to convince him to change his mind, but again, they would not say "no you're not." Neocon in particular usually goes out of his way to not offend people, unless there is some higher principle at stake. So what is the real issue?
Since they claim that this is not meant personally, then they must mean, "no one can be an agnostic."
But why? What is to be gained by this? What is so important that they would attack my claim to my view? It's possible that they simply can't grasp the idea that one could leave unanswerable questions unanswered. But the universe if full of unanswered questions, and for most of these it is perfectly acceptable to not answer them. As a matter of fact, many would dispute any answer that someone might have to an unanswered question. For instance if I were to say "Earth is the only inhabited planet in the universe," there would be many who would come running to tell me that I didn't know that to be true and therefore couldn't definitively state it. They would actually argue that we don't know whether there's other life or not, and that to make a judgment on the question would be at least premature. But this is not the case with agnosticism. For whatever reason, they refuse to even accept that it is possible to live one's life without making any assumptions about the existence or non-existence of a supreme being. The only viable explanation for this is that agnosticism is somehow a threat to them. If the issue isn't me, but the belief, and if the belief is simply mine, then I don't see any other explanation.
And the more I consider that idea, the more sense it makes.
If you think about it, agnosticism is ultimately the only threat to faith. So long as a person lives according to faith, they can often at least tolerate other faiths. They are able to believe that their faith is correct, and the other persons isn't, because the other has no evidence to support his or her belief. The fact that the person in question also has no evidence to support their belief is unimportant. They have faith, the other person is misled, and all's right with the world. And this includes atheism. Atheism is a form of faith, and as such is not a threat. And atheism has the added advantage of being the opposite of their theism, and therefore, in their eyes, completely untenable. However, agnosticism is truly a threat. This is because agnosticism is the only view that is consistent with the world as we know it. By dint of the fact that it doesn't attempt to answer the unanswerable, it is unassailable. You cannot say that I am wrong, because I do not believe in anything that cannot be proven. I can provide proofs (real ones) for everything that I do believe, and anything that I cannot prove, I do not claim a belief in. It is, not in spite of but because of its refusal to accept anything on faith, not open to disputation. That is a part of the threat. The rest of it is that I can hold the beliefs that I do, and leave open the questions without answers, and still accept the need for and do my best to live within, an ethical structure. This flies in the face of the notion that all morality comes from religion. If I don't hold any religious beliefs, yet am nonetheless essentially moral, then that means that religion is not a prerequisite to morality. But if it is neither necessary to my existence nor my ethics to hold a religious belief, then there is no real need for any religious belief. That is the threat. I hold the only view of the world that can be proven to be true, simply because I limit my view to only that which can be proven. And it's the only view that they cannot dispute, again because if any part of it can be disputed, I do not assume an answer either way. I only believe what can be proven, therefore, my beliefs cannot ever be disproven. Therefore, in their eyes, I cannot be allowed to claim to be agnostic.
Well, I suppose that's plenty for now, so...
-BLT |
