Over the past several years I have been encouraged by the growing interest in, and volume of atheist literature. But as the opportunity for the atheist side to be heard increases, so too does its ability to be misunderstood. Not only do many theists fail to grasp what atheism is, but many atheists seem not to understand the dynamics of their own position. We are long past due for a clarification, lest our discourse stall owing to a poverty of understanding.
Let us consider the following classic complaint about atheism, articulated by a Randal Rauser from www.christianpost.com. I have chosen this paragraph because it encapsulates precisely the misconceptions I would like to dispose of. Rauser says,
“Problems begin when atheists confuse atheism with agnosticism (a confusion which in my experience happens quite often). Atheism is the affirmation of the proposition (1) ‘there is no God’. Agnosticism is the stance where one affirms neither (1) ‘there is no God’ or its negation, (2) ‘there is a God’. Agnosticism is a respectable position. One may very well believe there is inadequate evidence either way to settle the question. But I have encountered a number of people who took the agnostic position, and yet persisted in calling themselves atheists. And this is confused, if not disingenous. [sic]”
As any intellectually honest atheist will tell you, there is no way to disprove theism (i.e., the existence of god/s). However, there is no way to disprove the existence of unicorns either. Does this fact make the proposition, “Unicorns exist” any more tenable? Of course not. Nonetheless, we cannot say with total certainty that horned horses do not exist, no matter how ridiculous the prospect may seem. So technically, one might say that I’m agnostic about the existence of unicorns. However, calling myself agnostic on this issue (or any other issue, for that matter) isn’t saying much at all. To say one is agnostic about a proposition is simply to say one can’t be certain whether the proposition is true or not. Essentially, declaring oneself agnostic is simply to declare one’s inability to know for sure either way; it does nothing to convey what the agnostic thinks is the likelihood of the proposition being true.
Rauser says he “has encountered a number of people who took the agnostic position, and yet persisted in calling themselves atheists. And this is confused, if not disingenous. [sic]” It isn’t disingenuous. It’s actually the opposite of disingenuous because the candid atheist realizes the limitations of human understanding, as well as our inability to disprove certain propositions. Personally, I believe that the chances of god existing are infinitesimal, but I cannot know for sure. Thus, technically I’m an agnostic, but again, this word is virtually useless here. Here’s why.
Rauser, like most people, begins with a false assumption: “Atheism is the affirmation of the proposition (1) ‘there is no God’.” My contention that Rauser’s claim here is false will no doubt surprise many. After all, if theism asserts the existence of god, it’s only logical that a-theism asserts the opposite, right? Not quite. It is my supposition that atheism can exist only in relation to theism. Let’s consider: theism is a proposition which we’ll call X. Now consider this scenario in which I use a couple of Humean characters. A theist (that is, a believer in X) whom we’ll call Cleanthes, happens upon a person who has never heard of X, whom we’ll call Philo. The two begin talking with each other about the weather and the theist Cleanthes mentions something about X to Philo, but it is quite clear that Philo does not know what Cleanthes is talking about. Philo has never heard of X, and asks his interlocutor to educate him about the subject. Cleanthes obliges and once he is finished explaining what X is and the reasons he believes X is true, Philo is unimpressed, either by what Philo perceives as a lack of logic in Cleanthes’ argument, or a lack of empirical evidence, or both. As such, while Philo concedes to Cleanthes that he cannot prove X wrong, he finds Cleanthes’ case unconvincing, and also he finds X so unlikely as to warrant no belief in it whatsoever.
Is Philo agnostic? Sure, but only in the sense that he recognizes that human reason is unable to determine the truth or falsity of X. Therefore, Philo is agnostic in that he says he cannot know for sure the truth status of X, but he is also an a-Xist—that is to say, he is an a-theist: he sees no good reason to believe that X is true. In this way, Philo is not affirming a proposition (atheism); he is affirming reasons for believing some other proposition (theism, or X) to be false (or at least, unlikely). One does not argue “for” atheism as one argues “for” theism. Atheism is a negative. One can only argue “for” atheism by arguing against theism—or more precisely, by arguing against the arguments for theism.
Hence, atheism is not a “position” in the same way theism is. Atheism exists only in relation to theism. Theism initiates the debate by claiming something, X. Those who do not ascribe to X, for whatever reasons, are by default a-Xists, even though they may not be able to disprove X and admit as much, and in this way are also agnostic.
Let’s take a quick look at Richard Dawkins’ belief scale to see why “agnostic” is a very unhelpful term in these metaphysical debates.
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung,‘I do not believe, I know.’
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that is there.’
3. Higher than 50 per cent, but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non- existence are exactly equiprobable.’
5. Lower than 50 per cent, but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical.’
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’
7. Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.’
From The God Delusion, p. 73
As we can see, “agnostic” could conceivably describe anyone from a 2 to a 6, and definitely anyone from a 3 to a 5. It does nothing to illuminate the agnostic’s actual position, other than to say that she admits that she can’t be certain either way. For the record, like Dawkins, I describe myself as a 6.9.
So then, what is an a-theist, or atheist?
An (intellectually honest) atheist is a person who says, “While the existence of god cannot be disproven, I think the prospect is so unlikely as to warrant my not believing it. While you could say I am an agnostic in that I cannot be certain either way, I am an atheist in the sense that I see no good reasons for believing theism to be so.”
Hopefully this clears up some of the confusion surrounding atheism and the corrupting influence the term ‘agnosticism’ has had on the theism/atheism debate. If you’re a nonbeliever who still isn’t sure what to call yourself, ask yourself this question: Just because I cannot disprove the existence of Santa Claus, would I say that I’m an agnostic on the matter? It would far more practical to call yourself an a-Santa Clausist, wouldn’t you say? Not only that, you’d be much less likely to be institutionalized.
-Max
No comments:
Post a Comment