Agnostic Atheism - Isn't It Really The Only Reasonable Stance To Take?
This post asks a lot of questions and invites anyone to participate in a respectful conversation or debate. I don't claim to have all the answers and am open to entertaining any ideas on the matter you may have.
I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't claim to know the answers regarding the origins of existence and I don't believe any of the theistic claims so far made by anyone else due to a lack sufficient evidence supporting the claim. When I speak of know the answers I'm speaking of a practical and useful version of knowledge which I wrote about in my previous post Truth Seeking and The Problem With Trusting Personal Experience. Casting aside solipsism for something useful we must operate under the guide that knowledge is demonstrable.
Quite frankly I can't conceive of how anyone would be able to have the answers to these questions. I have also not come across a single theistic supernatural claim that stands up to scrutiny. They all seem to fall on logical fallacies. Some claims seemingly fail in their definition of a god as being logically inconsistent with itself. We also know that some of these claims have to be false if others are true, meaning someone is wrong for sure. Given some of the religions have to false how do you know your religion isn't the wrong one? There certainly is no proof that any of them are the right one.
When I look at all the theistic supernatural claims of the thousands of religions, many being contradictory and impossible to simultaneously be true I can only think one thing. Isn't this exactly what you would expect to see if none of the claims were true? Isn't existence as we see it today exactly what you would expect from a godless universe? How would things be different from now if there is no god? I can't think of how it would be different from what we have. Conversely I can think of many ways things would be different if there was indeed a god. Answered prayers would be a thing for starters. We would witness this god intervening and bringing inconsistency in physics while doing so.
I know many apologists have ready baked answers for my questions but none of them seem to pass the sniff test.
Why is faith a virtue? When I talk about this with my religious friends it always comes down in the end to that they have no logical reason to believe but they have faith. Why is that a good thing? Why is suspending your critical thinking and allowing cognitive dissonance not shunned?
Is it not selfish to feel entitled to answers? Another thing my religious friends have told me is that it's an answer that makes sense to them without it things don't make sense. Why should the universe have to make sense to us though?
Isn't just admitting you don't actually know the most honest stance to take?
Please leave your thoughts in the comments.
Belief is the #2 problem for humanity. People want to believe whatever they want when they are low quality thinkers. Learning how to think properly is a skill that needs to be developed throughout life. Believing whatever you want is easier.
Why do they believe what they want? Because they have a question, that creates a gap, void, abyss and darkness in comprehension. This is in turn the fear of the unknown. This fear creates anxiety, discomfort, insecurity. This is not "feeling-good", and most people don't like this. They need to get rid of not feeling-good. They need an answer, an imagined known to no longer not know.
The way for cognition to resolve this, is to imagine/invent an answer or have one provided, that will fill the gap of lack of comprehension that is created by a question. Now they feel-good again. The feel-good pleasure trap applies with many things in life from sensual pleasure focus and seeking, as a primal desire for animal life. This is the #3 problem, that is desired from beliefs as the #2 problem, all coming from consciousness the #1 problem and the lack of knowing how consciousness functions to do all of this and fool ourselves, deceive ourselves, and accept delusions so that we can "feel-good", be comfortable, secure, no stress, no aanxiety from that fear of the unknown, abyss, darness void in comprehension of reality.
More mature and quality thinkers can recognize they don't know, and can accept it, and be comfortable, secure, and at peace. They don't need to invent fantasy beliefs or accept fantasy beliefs from others to put them at ease.
This is the underlying psychological processing for why these things are accepted. But these people don't understand any of this. Nor do they want to. Their beliefs make them feel-good, and they don't want to let go of this attachment. To do so, would put them back into the state of the unknown and fear and all the psychological and emotional negative states they have not been able to cope with in questions not having a known answer. Attachment is indeed the root of all suffering. Look at human history, and what unfounded beliefs as imaginary "truths" have done to us. Learn to let go people. Ground yourself in reality or be lost in the fantasy of the clouds.
This is unique in depth understanding I have gained from analyzing and thinking about how consciousness functions, taking many years of time and thinking, which most people don't employ because their time, currency of what they spend it on and pay attention to, is tied up into pleasure seeking or busy aspects of life to keep the occupied away from depth thinking. It can be understood if one objectively detached from themselves, their sense of self built upon all their beliefs, and learn to let go. Anyone who attaches to beliefs and their constructed identity based on these beliefs will never be able to think clearly about how consciousness functions or how they have come to believe in these things. Beliefs are fine, but don't be calling them "truth" when they are not. Truth is demonstrable, veracious, veritas, verifiable, and is a synonym of existence and reality where truth can be found.
Upvoted. Peace.
One of the most thoughtful and well written posts I've read on STEEM.
Thank you for taking the time and writing something worth reading.
You're welcome. Not many people want to shatter their illusions and seek truth in reality. It's sad how self-deluded most are, especially religionists. Peace.
The existence of a thousand false beliefs says nothing about the zero or one beliefs that may be true.
There is no requirement that for one to be true they all must be true.
So that whole line of argument goes "poof".
You can dismiss most of the candidates quickly. A few will require you to do some work.
If there is a correct belief system, then you may eventually find enough evidence to convince you - assuming you want to be convinced. You might not find enough evidence to suit you. Even that proves nothing.
The existence of a large number of friends who cannot explain the reason for their beliefs is likewise not an indicator of anything. There are plenty of us who can. Find one of them.
So no, atheistic agnosticism is not the most reasonable stance to take.
Unless you have done the homework necessary to eliminate all other possibilities.
"There is no requirement that for one to be true they all must be true."
That doesn't make sense they literally can't all be true.
You seem to be confused about what agnostic atheism is. I lack a belief and claim not to know, you seem to think I hold a positive belief that there are no gods.
"Unless you have done the homework necessary to eliminate all other possibilities."
By that reasoning you should believe everything is true until you've proven it false. That is not a good way to determine truth.
No, only agnostics and atheists bear this burden.
Atheists are attempting to prove a negative as the default position.
Most agnostics claim they don't know, then make little effort to find out - thereby proving they have already concluded it is not worth looking. The only way it can be not worth looking is to have already concluded that there is nothing to look for.
If someone has throughly examined all the possibilities and concluded that they still don't know, then it would be reasonable to claim to be agnostic.
It is never reasonable to be atheistic because there is zero evidence for the non-existence of anything.
This is the non-sequitur I was referring to. You claim that the fact that there are thousands of false religions is proof that none of them are true. No. If one is true, I would naturally expect the other 1000 to be false.
There is no non-sequitur since I make no claim and offer no proof. What do you think I'm trying to prove?
All I'm doing is pointing out that mutually exclusive religions exist. I didn't say which is false but only point out that if some are true it would make the others false, meaning one has to be false at the very least.
Religion A says the earth was created by a cosmic turtle 1 thousand years ago.
Religion B says the earth was created by a pixie 5 thousand years ago.
Both A & B cannot both be true. At least one has to be false and possibly both can be false.
"It is never reasonable to be atheistic because there is zero evidence for the non-existence of anything."
That doesn't make any sense. What does evidence for non-existence have to do with this? Where did I claim anything about non-existence. You are shifting the burden.
Again you seem to not understand what atheism or agnosticism is. Please do a little research. I have no burden of proof since I don't hold a positive belief. I sit on a fence claiming not to know the answers while pointing out why the answers of others aren't convincing.
That is the only reasonable position to take.
Perhaps I misunderstood. I was reacting to your quote above that seemed to say that the existence of many conflicting religions implies a godless universe.
I agree that the argument that some try to make that all beliefs are somehow morally equivalent and "why can't we just agree that everybody is right?" makes no sense at all.
I'm OK with true agnosticism - if you are still seeking to gain more knowledge. If you are not seeking, then you are secretly an atheist who merely claims to be agnostic. Clearly, if there is any chance that there is really a Creator who takes interest in His Creation then it would be be the ultimate in foolishness to not bother to find out everything we can about Him.
This is the position atheists place themselves in. They declare without proof there is no God and then run around to forums like this seeking validation from other atheists that they are not making the Biggest Mistake of their Lives. Else why waste their time arguing about it?
Atheism is akin to asserting that there are no Lions in the Serengeti and setting off on a long hike across it with a picnic basket while whistling in the dark. You can't prove there are no lions. Others are telling you that there surely are lions. The burden of proof lies on the person who wants to set out without a rifle.
:o)
Okay I can see why you thought that. From the quote you provided of me. I'm not trying to assert that as an argument or proof for anything. It was more a musing and observation.
"I'm OK with true agnosticism - if you are still seeking to gain more knowledge. "
I add atheism to agnosticism for the reason that I don't positively believe in any of the theistic claims currently being made. I just haven't been presented with an argument or evidence that was compelling enough for me to form a postive belief.
I'm not foolish enough to think I can prove them all wrong and so agnosticism pairs with the atheism in a state of not knowing.
You inspired me to write this amusing little story for you.
Agnostic Nudists on the Serengeti
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?
Funny
The joke is probably cringe-worthy lol. I heard it years ago. Gotta force it in any where I can. It doesn't present an opportunity to be used very often.
I fully agree
The early Greeks logically deduced that the universe needed to have what they called an "uncaused cause," meaning a creator. They came up with the idea that there had to be a God to start it all, and there could only be one God. You might enjoy reading some of their articles. I believe Socrates and Plato and Aristotle all contributed.
What the Greek philosophers were not able to accomplish was to actually get to know this One God in a personal way. God would need to reveal Himself personally, and He did... to the ancient Hebrew people. In a similar way, He has to reveal Himself to people today, but He has made it easier. We can get to know Him through His Church and through His Word.
People who become believers in God after being atheists or agnostics do not usually get there because they one day encountered the ironclad logical argument that laid their questions and doubts to rest. It usually happens because they had a real encounter with the real God; that encounter can be subtle and progressive, or very dramatic. At that point no one can talk them out of what they know experientially to be true.
Here's an example of a formerly atheist blogger who recently converted to Catholicism. She is extremely articulate: http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/my-journey-atheist-catholic-11-questions-leah-libresco
An uncaused cause has not been reasoned though. It is nothing more than special pleading. A formal logical fallacy plain and simple. If there is such a thing as an uncaused cause then your premise of cause and effect is destroyed. Now if for a second we say that an uncaused cause is logical and justified. That doesn't get us to conscious deity that intervenes in human affairs.
There are clergy that become atheists too. The sword swings both ways. It doesn't validate either point. Personal experience isn't reasonable evidence either. So again we are back at agnostic atheism as being the only reasonable stance.
"Now if for a second we say that an uncaused cause is logical and justified. That doesn't get us to conscious deity that intervenes in human affairs."
You're right; it doesn't. For that, you need revelation--the Deity to condescend to reveal Himself personally to you.
Like I said above, you won't come to faith in God through logical arguments. However, I do hope and pray that you do come to faith in Him. You may not believe in Him yet, but be assured that He believes in you and loves you.
"Like I said above, you won't come to faith in God through logical arguments."
Yea, that pretty much sums up the topic. I just don't see a logical road to god. I also recognize that god hasn't been and quite possibly can't be disproved. I dunno!
I'm loving the South Park line up!
"Atheistic Agnosticism" is an oxymoron. The term has grown popular over the last ten years, but it's a cowardly way to not actually take either position. The goal seems to be to avoid being held to account for specific positions by having a foot in both worldviews.
Classic atheism proved to be an unsupportable claim, so they backpeddle toward the agnostic position, but still desiring the comfort of atheism.
"not actually take either position"
That's the point. Given the evidence it's unreasonable to take either position. Why is it cowardly to admit you don't know? That is bravery not cowardice.
I have no problem with someone who "doesn't know" but that's not the claim with an "Atheistic Agnostic". One term says, " I don't know" the other says "I do know". This is a logical fallacy. One cannot both know and not know. Right? Much like a square circle it's a logical paradox. Have the courage to take a solid position on the issue then we can chat about it.
What you provided aligns perfectly with what I've said. You don't get to define atheism so that it makes it easier for you to argue against. That's just petty.
If the people that identify with and label themselves atheists have made an effort to have a more nuanced definition published that does nothing to strengthen an argument against it.
Do you know how the English language works? If people start using a word the way that it is used is what the word becomes in a dictionary. Dictionaries respond to popular usage of words not the other way around. Language evolves get over it. You are just distracting with semantics at this point.
Let's forget about the word and focus on the concepts. An agnostic lack of a belief in gods is seemingly the only reasonable stance to take.
Agnostic = I don't know.
Atheist = I lack a positive belief.
These are completely logical to pair.
Only if you alter the definitions the way you have here.
Atheist have recently been trying to change to this new definition precisely because it is a positive belief that there is no God. The definition you have offered is actually closer to the definition of agnostic. Maybe that's why you see the compatibility between the two.
I don't think "Atheistic Agnosticism" is coward. The person must be courageous enough to say that he doesn't know the truth and sincere enough to say that he doesn't believe simply because it's his opinion.
Great post! I agree. Many of us live in a humanistic society where everything has to be relatable to humans. The concepts of "good" and "evil" are completely humanistic. A hurricane is bad because it destroys property and threatens our lives but nature would not see a hurricane as bad. Many present day religions are extremely humanistic. They paint a world where humans are the center and everything revolves around them. When someone hurts us they are bad and when someone helps us they are good. But these concepts mean nothing outside of our warped sense of importance. Now that isn't to say I don't see good and bad in the world but I understand that it is relative to only myself and others for which I can share that with. When you truly understand this concept you see that religion just doesn't make much sense in explaining any of our true exsistence and the universe in which we live.
I'm more oriented towards plain Agnosticism without Atheism.
I've been a theist for a long time, until I discovered it was not the best approach for me.
I mean, we can't define or imagine what God may be, our minds are not even able to conceive it, and after all, we really don't need it to be good, genuine persons.
Also take note that Buddhism (or at least part of it) is agnostic, saying that the "problem" or God's existence is irrelevant for the spiritual progress.
Of course, Jesus said that it is possible to know God and depending on whether you accept this your eternal fate hangs in the balance.
So, at the very least you can't stay on the fence. You need to decide Who is right.
Being on the fence means deciding not to believe what Jesus said. That in itself is an eternal decision.