The Problems of Dualism

Why Atheist and not Agnostic?

I have been asked many times as a philosophy and political science student, why after all my training do I hold to atheism instead of remaining agnostic. In this article I attempt to explain why I feel Atheism is completely justified and is more practical than agnosticism.


Let's start by comparing the terms. A theist is making a claim that god exists, while an atheist makes the claim that god does not exist (or any variation that leads to the lack of belief in the existence of a deity). Both of these claims have truth-values, meaning that they are either true or false given an objective world that exists apart from our imagination. The Agnostic makes no claim at all, and is simply a term coined for the purposes of expressing skepticism and non-commitment to either argument. Most agnostics feel they are taking the more virtuous path because they feel that subscribing to the atheist claim is committing the same fallacious certainty as the theist. I will argue that subscribing to atheism is NOT the same fallacious certainty as the theist, and will demonstrate that making a negative claim about the existence of god is not only more virtuous than agnosticism, but just as scientifically ascertainable as our belief in such things as gravity or evolution.


The difference in the claims, and the importance of making one:


The main difference between the atheist and the theist is in how they arrived at their conclusion. The atheist is just as skeptical as the agnostic, but THEY are willing to make a claim and hold a belief that is backed by convincing argument, and compelling evidence. The theist is unwilling in most cases to entertain skepticism about their beliefs, at least when it comes to their "faith," and evidence which contradicts it. They generally (and I'm being blunt here) hold ignorance as a virtue and call it faith because faith is a leap from evidence and reason. It's as if they see doubt as a threat, and choose to believe something absurd in defiance of that doubt. Now they do have some arguments for god, be it ontological, cosmological, or fine-tuning, but they are unwilling to look at the evidence that points out the flaws in their premises or conclusions. While they are perfectly willing to look at evidence or argument that supports their convictions, they are not so willing to look at anything that contradicts them. This is the main difference. The atheist believes that it is perfectly okay to hold a belief or make a claim about the world, as long as they are convinced by proper argument and compelling evidence. There is not one atheist I know who wouldn't be perfectly willing to change their mind if they were to observe evidence or discover more convincing argument to the contrary of their claim.


To make some kind of claim on such an important matter though IS important. We are human, and we operate within the world based on beliefs about an objective reality concerning other objective beings, to deny this is to deny our own humanity because it reduces us to metaphysical relativism. There is nothing wrong with beliefs themselves, but merely the methodology in which we come to arrive at those beliefs. In fact, most agnostics DO have a belief one way or the other in which they operate on, but they are afraid to openly make a commitment to the argument they find most convincing. But that's all atheism is! When I say "I'm an atheist," all I am saying is that I find the arguments against god more convincing than the arguments for god. And thus I hold the belief that god does not exist and is nothing more than human mythology. That's it, plain and simple. There is a surprising lack of evidence in favor of a deity, and an alarming amount of evidence and argument to the contrary (see my earlier posts). If I ever do happen to find evidence to the contrary of my beliefs, well then I guess I'll have to change my mind. It's perfectly okay to change our minds in the face of reason, because as a human committed to discovering the truth we realize that we are in a constant struggle in attaining it.


Simone de Beauvoir once said "I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for truth - and truth rewarded me." What she meant was that, we can have beliefs about the world we find convincing, but we ought not to hold these beliefs as absolute certainties without understanding our fallibility in attaining the truth. "Certainty" is a tricky word often used carelessly in our convictions. But when an atheist says they are certain that god does not exist, they are not claiming "absolute" certainty, but rather that they are convinced by good argument and evidence.


Can we prove a negative?


Many theists and some agnostics argue against the atheist by saying that "we cannot prove that god does not exist because you cannot prove a negative." What they are really getting at is that our limited ability to experience and explore a world of infinite possibility means that we cannot have absolute certainty about any objective claim. For example, I cannot claim absolute certainty that fairies do not exist just because one has never been observed, or there being no documented evidence. Fairies might be really good at hiding. And we haven't looked everywhere in the world, much less the entire universe. I just don't have the ability to do so, and neither do you, and thus, for all we know fairies "might" exist.


The problem with this argument is that it applies to absolutely everything you currently believe, and reduces all claims about the world to epistemic absurdity. We already know at least via a priori logic that this is a problem in attaining knowledge, but we can make claims about the world that are fairly certain based on logical possibility and empirical adequacy as long as we accept that an objective and empirical world exists (which all three arguments grant for the sake of their own claims).


If something exists, it will leave evidence of its existence otherwise there is absolutely NO justification to make a positive existential claim (See the video in my previous post). If we are told that there is a box in a room somewhere and asked what's inside, we cannot make any positive claims about what might be inside without evidence, because an infinite amount of possible objects can be inside a box we have yet to open and yet to know the size of. We CAN make negative claims however that involve what's NOT inside, e.g. "There will be no planet inside," "there will be no married bachelors inside," etc.


David Ramsey Steel in his book Atheism Explained, notes that "we can indeed prove negatives, and we do so all the time. IN fact, if we couldn't prove a negative, we couldn't prove a positive either, since every positive statement implies negative statements (an infinite number of them, actually). If I prove that 'all the marbles in this box are white', I automatically also prove that 'none of the marbles in this box are blue', 'none of the marbles in this box are transparent', and so on [ad infinitum]." The confusion is in the word "prove". In science "proving" a claim is about demonstrating that it has been tested to satisfaction, beyond reasonable doubt, based on empirically adequate observation and sound reasoning. The theist generally does not meet any of these criteria.


So I will conclude this rather lengthy article by saying that the atheist claim (given arguments and evidence in previous posts, etc.) is not only provable, but scientifically justified by the nature of its argument, and the atheist commitment to holding such a belief is virtuous in its pragmatism within a human existence in a world that is defined by evidence and logic.


Phaedrus out..





The following is a dialog concerning the above post between a friend and I. His/her name has been changed to "Sophocles" to protect identity.


Phaedrus
So what's the question?


Sophocles

Ok, so you're against agnosticism


Phaedrus
NO


Sophocles

i mean you prefer making the claim to atheism over agnosticism


Phaedrus
Yes, but you understand that agnosticism is not making a claim


Sophocles

Yes, it's mainly remaining skeptical


Phaedrus
So is the atheist in a way. To show you why I prefer atheism, I attempt to demonstrate what agnosticism is hesitant of doing, and why atheism isn't doing that. The atheist is ALLOWING belief based on evidence and good argument, while the agnostic is not allowing a belief claim.


Sophocles
So he's middle of the road, neither atheist nor theist.


Phaedrus
Well, the agnostic isn't adding to the argument morally or epistemically in any way. That's my point. They don't make a claim. My argument poses the question, "why not make a claim? What's wrong with having a belief either way, as long as you have evidence and good argument?" Why not hold a belief one way or the other that shapes your values? You have the lack of evidence for god, the evidence against god, and many arguments you find convincing... and so, why agnostic? That's my point. It's like most agnostics already have an opinion, but they never say "atheist" because they're afraid of committing some fallacy.


Sophocles
hmmmm
haha


Phaedrus
I mean give me an argument for god, and I'll take it apart for you.
lol
You know what I mean.


Sophocles

It's NOT God that is making me agnostic. It's just nature, stuff that is too amazing to chalk up to science, you know? NOT GOD I'm past the God bs. But you know when you see something that just makes you go.... WHOA! That is literally "awesome."


Phaedrus
Well just because science currently can't explain something doesn't mean we need to insert god in the gaps. Science is based on stuff we previously couldn't explain, on mystery and wonder itself. It's an attempt to explain the truth about an objective world.


Sophocles
I'm not saying God is in the gaps. I'm saying it's just "miracle" or "magic" or something. This sounds so corny, [but] even stuff that is already explained


Phaedrus
If I look at a garden with a beautiful pond, why must I also believe there are fairies in the bottom to appreciate its beauty and wonder?


Sophocles
Like snow. Every single time I see snow fall its fascinating. Or a baby, or seeing someone die.


Phaedrus
"At first glance, science might seem to drain the world of its mystique, replacing the lovely unknown with mundane explanation. Peer deeper, though, and you will find that the appreciation of mystery is the foundation of science, and that science reveals to us a world far more profound and beautiful than common sense or superstition can behold." - Amanda Gefter, New Scientist


Sophocles

Or being with someone. It's a force, a flow of energy [perhaps beyond human understanding].


Phaedrus
Well I find snow, relationships, and the birth of a child to be a wonder of nature and beauty also. But I don't need to believe in a hypothetical god or force to have those feelings about it.


Sophocles
Yeah, maybe everything is chalked up to science, until I have a better understanding.


Phaedrus
Well science is just a system or method of explanation. What the atheist is getting at is that we shouldn't simply posit the existence of something at our whim or misunderstanding in the face of ignorance. We can however make justified belief-statements about the existence or non-existence of something when we have adequate evidence and convincing argument. When we don't have either, that's when we ought to remain in doubt.


Sophocles
I [suppose] I'll claim no God, but leave an open mind for a little something out there.


Phaedrus
If you're looking for something connecting us beyond the cold hard walls of reality, quantum physics implies that we are all part of the same energy vibrating at different levels, composed of various complexities. Now if that doesn't blow your mind, I don't know what does. I think dark matter, black hole theory, and string theory offers far more than religion or superstition of any kind can explain. All superstition and religion is, is an attempt by early and uneducated man to explain a world that they didn't understand.
Also, the atheist isn't "chalking everything up to 'science.' " We're chalking everything up to nature. Science is just a system of explanation, a way to accurately acquire knowledge about a fantastic universe that amazes us.

Logic and Faith don't mix

The only true thing about religion is that it's false...