When I was younger by parents sent me to a posh as cushions private school.
This particular school was affiliated with the Presperterian church,
and belief in a specifically Christian god was naturally encouraged.
A friend of mine had been encouraged and explained to me that the existence of life demonstrated
the existence of god.
As the odds of life occurring was similar to a wind blowing through a hanger and assembling
an aeroplane from spare parts just lying around.
I was unconvinced, he had very astutely argued that wind assembled aeroplanes haven’t been invented
but life?
Regardless of slim odds or not, life did exist, as evident by us being there … living.
I was swiftly accused of being an atheist who believed god doesn’t exist.
But believing god doesn’t exist seemed equally irrational.
If not worse, with no more evidence than the religious, that would be choosing to believe
in a world objectively worse; one where upon death there was only oblivion awaiting.
No, I had triumphantly declared myself Agnostic!
And I still use that label today.
But some Atheists might already be down in the comments starting a flame war claiming
me as one of their own to undo God’s work.
So perhaps I should add some nuance to my position.
The idea that we should suspend judgment about questions which cannot be resolved with certainty
emerged as a formal philosophical position in ancient Greek and Hindu philosophy.
But the term agnostic was coined by Thomas Huxley in 1869 from the Ancient Greek a meaning
'without', and gnosis meaning ‘knowledge’.
This was in opposition to the gnostic views of the church who professed to know so much
about the very things of which Huxley felt ignorant.
In Huxley’s words “Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern.
It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific
grounds for professing to know or believe.”
That is, the core tenant of Agnostic thought is to suspend judgment on that which there
is no evidence; and ultimately I’m Agnostic because I don’t think the question of belief
is a useful question.
But not everyone uses the term in this way.
In his book “The God Delusion” Richard Dawkins presents the spectrum of theistic probability.
A seven point scale ranging from one, a full Thesis with absolute believe in a god,
to 7, a full Atheists with absolute believe no god exists,
With Agnostics holding the numbers in between
representing differing probabilities of the existence of a god.
Dawkins places himself at number 6, not certain no god exists, but confidant enough to live
his life as an Atheist.
So where can I place myself on this spectrum of theistic probability?
I’m yet to be convicted by any religion or philosophy that any god exists, so perhaps
I should be towards the atheistic end of that spectrum.
But to counter that, I don’t feel like I have no soul, and I’d prefer a benevolent
deity to grant me a happy eternal afterlife than eternal nothingness.
So while this helps me understand how Dawkins and those like him view the world,
I don’t think it helps people understand my viewpoint.
The truth is I don’t think it’s possible to answer that question of probability.
I think the unknowable nature of the problem leads every position on the spectrum of theistic
probability to be equally irrational.
This pulls agnosticism away from being an intermediate between Atheism and Theism,
so a different model is required.
And fortunately (maybe) Atheists wanting to recruit Agnostics to their cause have a model
that fulfils this requirement.
With this model Theism and Atheism describe what a person believes, you either believe
in a god and are a Theist, or you don’t and are an Atheist.
This asserts that when you answer the question “Do you believe in a god?” with
“I don’t know” you haven’t answered the question of belief; you simply either do believe
or you don’t.
A separate question of knowledge of the matter can be answered with “I don’t know”
making you Agnostic or if you do know it’s “I know” opposite making you Gnostic.
I’ll concede that under this model I can best be described as an Agnostic Atheists;
but I’m still deeply uncomfortable with the label Atheists.
That label seems disingenuous because it makes it seem I have an answer to a question I simply
don’t have an answer to.
And, the vocal people who are out there using Atheist are not particularly like me, I have
little desire to change any believers mind, their beliefs are their own.
But since they are the vocal Atheists, in the minds of others the meaning of Atheist
has drifted towards their style; and while a groups definition of a word they self-identify
with is important, equally important, especially in the communication of ideas, is how outsiders
of such a group view the word.
For many the term Atheists implies a hard disbelieve in any higher power not simply
the broad not believing in any god.
But there is a problem with labels around beliefs in general.
A label simplifies a person’s belief down to a single sound bite, ignoring nuances and
intricacies of the person’s true beliefs.
After all your beliefs, whatever they are, are in inside your head built upon your logic.
So if you really want to understand what a person believes you’ll have to go further
than a couple of nouns; but in polite conversation, a label is useful, and Agnostic is likely
the closest to describing me.
What about you?
What label do you use and how do you describe your beliefs?
Let me know in the comments.