I watched Bill Maher on The Daily Show today. He’s got a new movie about religion. In the interview, Bill says that he’s agnostic, because he finds the absolute certainty of atheism to be just as intellectually dishonest and distasteful as the absolute certainty of the religious (a paraphrase, not a direct quote).
As a scientifically-minded person, I get the argument that it’s impossible to disprove the existence of anything. That being said, some things are more likely to exist than other things, and we have no problem being relatively certain about them. Just because I can’t say for sure that Superman, Batman, Spiderman, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster don’t exist doesn’t stop me from saying that they probably don’t exist, and that I live my life based on that assumption, until evidence to the contrary presents itself.
But here’s the thing: nobody feels the need to explicitly claim agnosticism when it comes to Superman, Batman, Spiderman, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In as much as we acknowledge the possibility that they do exist, that acknowledgment is implicit in the understanding that all knowledge is subject to a degree of uncertainty. Given that understanding, we can say, “There’s no such thing as the Flying Spaghetti Monster,” and it can be understood that what we mean is, “The probability of the FSM existing is low enough that I am comfortable conducting myself as if it did not exist, although I am aware of the possibility that it does exist, and am open to evidence indicating so.”
So why does religion get special treatment? When I say, “I am atheist. I do not believe that there is a god,” why does the implicit understanding of uncertainty that underlies all other expressions of disbelief suddenly get tossed out the window, and the listener assumes that I am absolutely certain of my premise? Especially when all of the atheists that I have read are careful to say, “Here is why I think there is not likely to be a god, but I am open to evidence to the contrary.”
The more I think about it, the more agnosticism seems to me to be a sort of mealy-mouthed pandering to the religious. I think that agnostics’ hearts are in the right place: they want to acknowledge the impossibility of proving the negative, but unless they go to the same trouble for all the other things that they don’t believe in (would you say, “I’m agnostic as to whether Superman exists”?) then they’re giving religion a special treatment that I don’t think it deserves.
#1 by Byron at May 14th, 2009
Betcha didn’t expect me to show up here, particularly commenting on an old post!
I’ll take up for agnostics here: I think you’ve probably jumped to a conclusion that all agnostics would define their agnosticism as does Bill Maher, whereas the word “agnostic” simply means, “doesn’t know”, and I’m sure there are a decent percentage of folks in the middle somewhere: they see evidence that suggests that there is a God, and evidence that suggests there isn’t, and they’re just not sure what to believe. Maher may be a weenie–I can think of a lot of other things I think Maher is as well, but I’ll be nice–but I’m not sure that that’d be true of all agnostics. In fact, there are issues toward which I have used the term “agnostic” to describe myself, a chief one being origins. I believe that God created in six “yoms” (Hebrew word that is inspecific, in that it could mean “24-hour-day”, and can also mean “era”). How He did it, how long He took, etc., golly, I just don’t know, and hence I say, regarding creation, I’m an “agnostic”. And so I think there’s a place for this word–even though I agree with your contention that being an atheist ought not necessarily entail on a person’s part absolute certainty.
Interestingly enough, though, I’d counter Maher’s argument about the “absolute certainty of the religious” (granting it’s your paraphrase and not his quote) by saying that I, for one “religious” person (personally, I detest that term) claim no such “certainty”. In fact, one of my favorite books is “The Myth of Certainty”, by Daniel Taylor (think that’s his name), a Christian college professor.
The Bible doesn’t teach us that “certainty” is necessary; rather, faith is. I argue further that ultimately, every person on earth is a person of faith; the only question is what explanation of life, the universe, and everything we choose to believe (and no, the answer isn’t “42″; of that, I’m pretty sure!). I’d grant Maher’s assertion that there are a lot of religious folk who act with cocksure certainty, and I can’t speak for any other faith besides Christian faith, but for the record, let it be said that Christian faith never pretends to demand absolute certainty from its adherents.
#2 by Joshua Bardwell at May 14th, 2009
Byron : the word “agnostic” simply means, “doesn’t know”, and I’m sure there are a decent percentage of folks in the middle somewhere: they see evidence that suggests that there is a God, and evidence that suggests there isn’t, and they’re just not sure what to believe.
My point is that nobody feels the need to explicitly claim their agnosticism of other mythical beings, for which there is just as compelling and diverse a body of evidence as the Judeo-Christian god. Nobody says, “I’m agnostic towards the existence of Zeus. I think it’s likely that he doesn’t exist, but you can’t ever prove the negative.” I think this is a double-standard.
The type of agnosticism that you propose–where a person sees evidence both for and against, and can’t decide–is subtly different from the type that I’m addressing in this post, which is predicated on the inability to prove the absolute non-existence of anything. In his interview, Bill didn’t say, “I see evidence both for and against.” He said, “I see no evidence for the existence of god, but absolute certainty is distasteful to me, and so I call myself an agnostic.” Well, if absolute certainty is so arrogant and distasteful, I invite him to claim his agnosticism towards the existence of Batman, Superman, and Spiderman.
#3 by Byron at May 15th, 2009
No, no, I get your point, and it’s well-taken, it’s just that there are undoubtedly many people who truly ARE agnostics, who see evidence both ways, that’s all.
#4 by Joshua Bardwell at May 15th, 2009
Byron : there are undoubtedly many people who … see evidence both ways, that’s all.
What about Zeus, fairies, and dragons? I submit that, for each of these things, there is as large a body of evidence both for and against their existence as there is for Yahweh. I think it’s a pro-religious bias that leads people to “see evidence both ways” when they consider the existence of the Judeo-Christian god, but not when they consider these other mythical beings.
#5 by Byron at May 16th, 2009
I’ll confess that this argument is a new one on me. I’m not sure that anybody takes seriously the possibility that fairies and dragons actually exist, and while the Greeks did worship Zeus and the pantheon of gods, I doubt there are many Zeus-worshippers today. Now, one could argue, I suppose, that belief in the Judeo-Christian God is simply one that has persisted longer, but with no larger body of evidence for/against, but I don’t find it intellectually credible. I see more evidence for the concept of God as Creator, for instance, than I do for the idea of Darwinism. But I readily concede that it all comes down to faith when it comes to what we choose to believe. I’ll happily place the evidence for the existence of God alongside that of Zeus, fairies, dragons…or Darwin.
#6 by Joshua Bardwell at May 16th, 2009
Byron : I’ll confess that this argument is a new one on me. I’m not sure that anybody takes seriously the possibility that fairies and dragons actually exist,
It is with deep regret and chagrin that I must correct that assumption. For about five years, starting when I was about twenty years old, I was a practicing Neo-Pagan, and I can tell you that the diversity of beliefs that Neo-Pagans take seriously is absolutely staggering. If you can think of a mythical creature, there is a Neo-Pagan out there who believes in it whole-heartedly. It’s almost as if they have a taboo against expressing dis-belief. And I specifically picked fairies and dragons because those are two of Neo-Pagans’ favorites. I submit to you these books:
http://www.amazon.com/Enchantment-Faerie-Realm-Communicate-Elementals/dp/0875420028/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242486469&sr=1-4
http://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Dragon-Magick-Teachings-Inner/dp/0738710997/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242486568&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Sea-Land-Sky-Dragon-Grimoire/dp/0972516441/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242487018&sr=8-1
I assure you that these books are not intended to be taken at all ironically.
I’m looking forward to responding to the rest of your statement, but I’m running out the door and will have to get to it later.
#7 by Byron at May 16th, 2009
Wow…that’s a world to which I’m utterly a stranger. I have no doubt you know what you’re talking about, but I’m certainly oblivious to it. Although, I did find this line in the Wikipedia offering:
“The mythologies of the ancient traditions are not generally considered to be literally factual by Neopagans, in the sense that the Bible and other Abrahamic texts are often thought of by their followers.”
But I’d imagine that “generally” means just that, and that there are some folks who are convinced of literal factuality in this movement. I’ve heard of Wiccans, of course, and even the term “neo-pagan”, though my knowledge of both is limited. Interesting.
#8 by Joshua Bardwell at May 16th, 2009
Byron : “The mythologies of the ancient traditions are not generally considered to be literally factual by Neopagans, in the sense that the Bible and other Abrahamic texts are often thought of by their followers.”
My experience has been that few Neo-Pagans believe literally in ancient myths, and treat all religious texts as allegory and parable. But many pagans still believe in the literal existence of one or more (or all) of the ancient gods. Fairies and dragons are not seen as deities, but as magic(k)al, mystical beings, like humans or animals, but with paranormal abilities. (Pagans believe that they, themselves have paranormal abilities, so why wouldn’t they attribute them to animals as well.) For example, fairies might be seen as creatures from a parallel or “shadow” world.
#9 by Byron at May 16th, 2009
I’m getting an education…
#10 by Cameron at December 3rd, 2009
I know I’m coming to this late, but I had to jump in on this point. This statement indicates what’s called a confirmation bias, that you find what you’re looking for. If you went looking for evidence of evolution, natural selection, etc. you would find it in abundance, much more so than you would find evidence of god the creator. (Evidence in this case meaning sound, reasonable explanations corroborated by observations, rather than just-so stories made up to support a certain point with minimal observations to back them up.)
#11 by Joshua Bardwell at December 3rd, 2009
@Cameron: As an atheist, I probably agree with you ideologically, but I’m not sure your logic is completely sound. If I believe something that turns out to be correct, then I should find lots of evidence to support that belief. That I believed it, and then found evidence, doesn’t speak to whether or not confirmation bias came into play. Because you and I don’t believe in a god, we might attribute Byron’s perception of evidence to confirmation bias, but he probably attributes it to the belief that god exists. I men, WE know that WE’re really right, because we’re arrogant atheists, but the claim of confirmation bias is probably completely unconvincing to the true believers.
#12 by Cameron at December 3rd, 2009
You’ve got a point, but it falls flat on the same grounds as any “equal time” argument. The whole point of science is that it’s based on direct observations, and reasoning from there. Religion is a completely different paradigm, based on hearsay, revelation, and other non-observation-based sources of authority (and actually uses that as one of its selling points), and therefore is inherently on shakier ground. But you can make mountains out of molehills if you try hard enough.
As for the bit about “true believers”, there’s really nothing you can do about them, they’re unreasonable and proud of it (faith is defined as belief in the absence of evidence). It’s the people who are making an attempt to be open-minded and actually look for evidence that are actually reachable.
#13 by Joshua Bardwell at December 3rd, 2009
I’m not suggesting that confirmation bias isn’t at work, just that arguing confirmation bias is tricky, since you have to first agree that the conclusion is false. I’m definitely opposed to “equal time” arguments.
#14 by Cameron at December 3rd, 2009
Not necessarily. Confirmation bias is a Type I error, which can be controlled for in the experimental design, before anybody admits to anything. In this case, it’s all about what mindset you take into your search for evidence, and where you’re looking for it. On the other hand, I will grant that anybody saying “confirmation bias” as a statement, rather than a question, is calling bullshit on the conclusion reached.