bookmark_borderDown with Agnosticism

Dear Bleaders,

I’m against Agnosticism. I think it is hooey. Ancient Skepticism made the beautiful point that we are such imperfect sensing and thinking beings that we cannot really know anything; that everything true has an opposite that can also be argued; that true contradictions can be shown; and that irrational states of mind teach us that all states of mind are somewhat irrational– it’s always only one version of the truth. (This critique is true and solid. Science gets around it by dealing with what seems true to humans, just like common sense does. But it is still a beautiful truth.)
But Agnosticism isn’t pretty like that. Agnositicsm points this excellent truth about all epistomology, at one single target, the supernatural invention of one particular hairless ape, at one particular moment in its culture. We don’t know if Zeus exists? Uh, yeah we do. He doesn’t.
I have to give the Jewish Christian Muslim Father God the same respect I give Superman. Does this character exist? Um. No. I know when Superman was made up. Because I’m a historian, I know when God was made up too.
This thing about ‘I can’t prove there’s no God’ is not persuasive. Either you espouse true and full Skepticism, which is a robust philosophical position denying all knowledge, or you embrace Rationalism in which you are free to decipher the world based on evidence, evaluation of bias, vigilant sniffing against desire-driven delusions. True Skeptics cannot know anything, can barely trust the ground beneath our feet.
Rationalists do not need some special holding pen called “maybe despite all common sense” for every last un-evidenced thing someone reports. Rationalism bases conclusions on evidence, examines opposing proposals, tries to acquire a big perspective, and then takes a step toward knowledge. “I doubt, therefore I am,” is the first step, you don’t get to leap all the way to nonsense from there, but you do get to walk towards knowledge and take careful steps. The proposal that we can speak plainly about the existence of fairies and vampires but not God is absurd. There is no call to prove a negative. In rationalism you can dismiss a claim if there is no evidence for it, especially if it seems to be a very historically-specific claim, located in a particular culture, argued by people who admit they are frightened by the opposing conclusion, and no one can even agree on the claimed item’s attributes anyway.
The fact that life feels weird to humans proves exactly and only that life feels weird to humans. There is no reason to dismiss that weirdness (indeed I devote my life to the weirdness), but there is no reason to take it as evidence of something else, some tertiary being or force, called in to hold the weirdness and give it more meaning.
The notion of Agnosticism has no intellectual pedigree. Huxley made it up a hundred years ago, stating plainly that he was taking the idea from Catholic Fideism which was itself a crazy (I’d say mis)use of Ancient Skepticism to fight Protestantism, holding that since we cannot know anything, even whether God exists, let us choose to believe not only that he does, but that so must the Pope.
It is time we stopped using the term agnostic. If people want to retain it with the meaning “I personally have not yet made up my mind” that seems okay, but we have to stop parroting the notion that you “can’t prove a negative,” so you can’t be an atheist. It is not so. The argument is historical, not rational, indeed, not philosophically tenable.
What is more, I cannot say there are no unicorns because it is at least possible to have a horse with a horn or a one horned goat that happens to look like a horse, but I can say that a Pegasus does not exist because you would need wings the size of a football field to lift a horse. God is defined in negative theology as a being so unknowable to us that he “doesn’t exist” and when theologians become as subtle as this we know we are at least in interesting company, but if I go with all powerful, all good, and all knowing, and also ruler of a world like ours, with the cruelty, betrayal, torture, and heartache we have seen around here, well, that’s more of a Pegasus than a unicorn and it is reasonable to say, that Pegasus there, that does not exist.
Anyway that’s what I think. What do you think?
Love,
Jennifer

bookmark_borderMilitant Agnosticism

I recently received an email from an agnostic named Dan who was, ironically enough, quite militant about his agnosticism! According to Dan, “one cannot logically be an atheist” because “a negative can never be proven.” Notice, however, the statement “a negative can never be proven” is itself a negative statement. Either the statement “a negative can never be proven” can itself be proven, in which case the argument is self-refuting, or it can’t be proven, in which case it doesn’t provide a reason to reject atheism. I make this and other points in my essay, “Is a Sound Argument for the Non-Existence of a God Even Possible?

When I referred Dan to the article, I explained that there are actually two ways to prove the nonexistence of something. One way is to prove that it cannot exist because its very concept is self-contradictory (e.g., square circles, married bachelors, etc.). The other way is by carefully looking and seeing. Both of these methods can and have been used to disprove various conceptions of God.

Dan took issue with the second method because it “presumes your senses and abilities are w/o bound.” Not really; the fact that we are finite beings does not prevent us from legitimately concluding that, given some body of evidence, a particular hypothesis is more probable than another hypothesis. This goes for conclusions about God’s existence just as it does for other areas where inductive logic is used, such as weather forecasting and criminal forensic investigations.

I suspect that Dan is holding both theism and atheism to a much higher evidential standard than we apply to other empirical questions. The fact that we might discover some new item of evidence in the future that supports a contradictory conclusion in no way undermines the fact that the evidence we have today supports an explanatory hypothesis. For example, the probability that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776 is extremely high, but it is not 100%. I suppose it is logically possible that in the future someone might discover historical evidence demonstrating the Declaration of Independence was signed on February 2, 1775. But the fact that such a thing is logically possible is irrelevant to the inductive (probabilistic) conclusion that the Declaration was indeed signed on July 4, 1776. In other words, a conclusion can be highly probable even if it is possible that the conclusion is false.

As a nontheist, I don’t demand that someone prove to me that the existence of God is absolutely certain (i.e., has a 100% probability). I would settle for an argument showing that the total relevant evidence merely makes the existence of God highly probable. Similarly, we don’t need absolutely certainty (i.e., 100% probability) in order to know that there is no God. We can use inductive arguments to show that God’s nonexistence is more likely, even much more likely, than God’s existence. And, indeed, I think there are inductively correct arguments that show religiously significant conceptions of God–such as the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam–do not exist.

After corresponding with presuppositionalists who make the ridiculous claim that there are no atheists, I thought I had heard everything. I was wrong. After reading my defense of the second method of proving the nonexistence of something, Dan then proceeded to tell me that I am “really” an agnostic but I just refuse to admit it. This remarkable conclusion is supposed to follow from the fact that I don’t claim to be able to prove with absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist. The fact of the matter, however, is that ordinary usage of the word “atheist” does not support that conclusion. There is no requirement that one has to be absolutely certain that there is no God in order to qualify as an atheist. I have never claimed to be absolutely certain that atheism is true, but it doesn’t follow that I merely lack belief in God or that I am not an atheist. Rather, I believe God’s existence is very improbable.

To make an analogy, I don’t know with absolute certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I am highly confident that it will (i.e., it has an epistemic probability for me of >99.999%). That hardly means I am “agnostic” about whether the sun will rise. (In other words, one can hold a belief without assigning an epistemic probability of 100%.)

I’m reminded of Taner Edis’s recent discussion about individuals who claim that everyone is born ‘my’ way (i.e., theists who claim that everyone is born theist, atheists who claim that everyone is born atheist). Granted, Dan’s claim (that I and at least some other atheists are really agnostics) is not quite in the same category as the claims that Taner was discussing. But it is interesting to me that so many people’s argumentative strategy includes defining one’s ‘opposition’ out of existence!