The illustrated argument for Agnosticism
September 17th, 2009
I always find it immensely pleasing to discover an image that describes what is often a complex topic in a succinct way. So following on from an earlier post where I discussed the 4 positions of belief, here is a brilliant way to present the argument for Agnosticism:
Hat tip to Godless Blogger.
GD Star Rating
loading...
loading...
Sweet site. Thanks for the hat tip.
I think this is a pretty good explanation here. Glad you like the picture too. I didn’t make it fyi.
Well, this goes lengths to explain why you wouldn’t accept any ancient tomb that’s been edited and translated, making it difficult to follow many of the world’s religions if you only speak English (or similar modern romance languages), but that doesn’t mean you couldn’t still be Christian in the most literal sense of the word (to believe in Christ as a messiah), nor does it rule out faith in new religions like Scientology or Raelianism. And assuming it DID rule out those faiths, wouldn’t aethism be a more appropriate course than indecision?
It’s cute, but this comic doesn’t well represent the complex issues regarding positions of faith, it merely illustrates a single, if potent, argument against the validity of ‘traditional wisdom’.
Thanks for your comment, Etchainer. Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but I suspect that you may not understand exactly what an agnostic or an atheist is, or at least what their correct usage and implications are. But rather than re-hash it all here, please take a few moments to read this earlier post for this topic covered in greater detail.
In the context of this post’s image, the cartoonist is referring to Biblical literalism and those who disregard all logic and thought in the misplaced belief that they must accept every word, nuance and punctuation mark as the infallible, unchangeable utterances of the Judeo-Christian god. In its simplest analogy: read up on the role of scribes throughout history. It is established historical fact that the books within the Bible were selected by committee, that the fundamental tenets and foundational doctrines of the Catholic church (of which ALL Christian faiths are merely sects or derivatives, still using the vast majority of those tenets and doctrines) were decided by committee, and that none of the contents of the volume were preserved in a snapshot from the first time they were written down. For people to think otherwise proves a lack of basic understanding of history, communication, technology, and human nature.
So in answer to your main query, it’s not a case of agnostic or atheist. It’s actually a false dichotomy. I am both: an Agnostic Atheist. In my considered opinion it is the only honest and logical position.
@Jumile
Well, in that particular vein, knowing the impossibility of making any claim with complete certainty, the term ‘Agnostic’ becomes entirely meaningless. If you want to mix it with other terminology to imply it’s literal root (without knowledge), then ultimately, you CAN’T be gnostic (certain) on anything, at all. The popular phrasing ‘Agnostic Atheist’ is generally used by those who prize the scientific method and want to be clear that despite the lack of evidence, the possibility of gods of some kind is STILL a possibility, regardless of how outlandish the idea is. The contrast, then is that a ‘gnostic’ atheist would have to be certain that there are no gods.
Given the many popular agnostic arguments, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the more traditional Russel’s Teapot, it’s clear that without perfect data on a subject, there’s always room for mistakes, exceptions, and aberrations. We can’t be certain of any subject, because perfect data doesn’t exist. So now, you can’t really rely on the gnostic/agnostic definitions, because they’re meaningless. It’s time to move on to agnostic/arrogant, or agnostic/presumptuous if you prefer to be more political.
With that said; it’s CLEAR that the comic refers to biblical literalism. But that doesn’t invalidate the point I made before. The only difference is that you demand that Christians be ‘Agnostic Christians’, as to air that logical, minuscule, potential chance that maybe they’re a grown brain in a tank, being zapped with electric prods that are causing them to hallucinate all of reality, including their religious conviction.
What’s the point of specifying agnosticism when gnosticism is an impossible alternative?
@Etchainer
Precisely because a position of Gnosticism is impossible and yet is that claimed by most theists one encounters on the Internet, and unfortunately also some atheists. You’ve basically outlined and underlined the point I was trying to make.
I do not know if there is or isn’t a god or gods (but many others claim to). And if there is/are then I haven’t a clue which one(s) to follow, as there is nothing but meandering self-referential superstitious gibberish and pointless tribal fighting to use as guidance.
What I do know is that magical thinking has done immeasurable harm to humanity and the earth as a whole, it completely obliterated the advancement of civilisation during Europe’s Dark and Middle Ages, and it still continues to hold a Sword of Damocles over all our heads. And it’s not going to get better anytime soon. This is in spite some of the obvious good works that some people of religion have done and still do.
Do we need a sky wizard to do good things? Of course not. Only an idiot or zealot would say otherwise.
@Jumile
One could easily debate that the vast majority of religious folks aren’t gnostic about their faith. It may simply be the moderates who wouldn’t claim absolute certainty, but my experience says that many don’t ‘know’, they ‘believe’. The basis for their beliefs isn’t rational, however, and that’s what seems to cause the rub. It’s the magical thinking, the application of emotional thought or semi-logical expansions from a non-rational premise, that lead to the biggest problems. And perhaps most importantly is that, while there is a causal relation in modern times between religion and magical thinking, they are not conjoined.
There are rational believers and irrational atheists. The tribal mentality of the debate of faith vs science prevents many people from objectively observing this social problem. We often get so caught up in fighting people over emotional, self selected labels that we generalize and loose sight of both the actual problem of irrational, magical thinking, and the actual people within the debate.
I completely agree with what you’ve said here. And I think we’re both largely labouring along the same path of reason and thought, but perhaps simply with differences in nomenclature, concepts, and opinions of etymology and motive. I like such differences, and I dread a homogenous world.
Of course by “knowing” I’m referring to that blinkered intense belief common to impassioned believers in any topic — whether it be religion, politics, car maker, or the environment. Regardless of what one may call it, it’s still belief. The point in my use of Agnostic vs Gnostic isn’t a distinction between actual knowledge and mere belief, rather it’s recognising that there is a perception of a difference. One could, of course, reduce it down and say that all we know is essentially belief at some level, just as one can say that written words aren’t words, but rather symbolic representations of sounds which are in turn themselves audible representations of concepts.
I feel the faith vs science debate is ultimately meaningless and largely a waste of time that could be spent more productively elsewhere. I say this partly because allowing such debates suggests that faith and science are opposing topics or opinions on the same platform when in reality they’re not even the same game (something that Brian Dunning at Skeptoid discussed recently), and partly because you’re never going to argue someone out of a position they didn’t think themselves into. Faith and woo are positions of credulity, where someone’s chosen magical thinking as the go-to answer for everything they can’t explain. How do you argue logically and rationally against the absence of both logic and rationality?
Don’t misunderstand me: I’m always happy to discuss differing opinions. But I will not indulge dogmatic litanies or cut-and-paste arguments from amateur apologists seeking to hone their skills or gain course credits. I have better things to do than spend my time pissing into the wind.
This is why I don’t spend a great deal of my time debating believers (or even mutually back-scratching fellow unbelievers) in the comments of my blog posts. Others are happy to do it, and I’m happy to leave them that pleasure — providing it doesn’t devolve into ad hominem or pointless “did not/did too” arguments form either side of the discussion.