Against Agnosticism

I don't know if Gordon Brown is really a lesser spotted horn-toad from the far off planet ZzzzOilipants but, whilst it seems plausible, until there is evidence of the fact I'm in the "No, he's from Scotland" camp.

Perhaps my neighbours are plotting to murder me, or perhaps they aren't, but I don't lie awake wondering about it because I have no reason to suppose that they are, although I did accidentally try to steal their bin yesterday. Sorry.

But suppose I started to believe they *might* want to kill me, based on a feeling in my water. My friends might be kind enough to calm me down and give me herbal tea. Unless of course they were in on it too... so the tea might be poisoned! No, this way lies madness. My neighbours are far too polite to plot murder, especially over one misplaced bin.

It seems to me that people often believe that an agnostic is someone who has any doubts at all about the existence of God/Gods/Souls/Whatever. I don't think this is a meaningful way to look at it. An atheist who has an open mind, accepts the "possibility" of God and is willing to examine evidence presented to them is still an atheist, just a more interesting one. Likewise a Christian going through a crisis of faith is just that, a Christian with issues not an agnostic.

It is my contention that most self proclaimed agnostics actually know what they think but are just too embarrassed to admit it. Some are atheists who think that the term makes them sound dogmatic or that to accept the label "atheism" automatically makes them nihilists of the most black hearted order. Obviously that is not the case. Morality is socially conditioned not supernaturally implanted and, to my mind, it's perfectly feasible to regard atheism as a moderate position rather than a hard line, extremist one.

Atheists are not claiming that an all powerful being created mountains, seas, and plant life then a guy called Adam and after that made animals so that Adam did not get lonely - that is quite a specific set of beliefs, don't you think? If I say that I believe God's name is Allah and he gets annoyed if I have red wine with my dinner I'm making a very specific truth claim. To suppose these claims are not true until some evidence comes to light would seem a reasonable fall back position.

Other self proclaimed agnostics are, in fact, people who are certain that there is a world beyond the physical, scientifically examinable realm but are, perhaps understandably, disillusioned with organised religion and have no proper way of articulating where they're coming from spiritually. I have great sympathy for these people - not only are they trying to work out what the universe is "all about" on their own using just the power of their imagination they don't even have a word to describe what they are, despite the fact that there are a significant number of these people sloshing about.

After all, who'd want to associate themselves with the author of this piece on Comment is Free who's belligerent refusal to discuss honestly and openly the ideas of Richard Dawkins ends up undermining her own argument for a supposedly loving and forgiving God. Cristina Odone's odious approach, which includes pretending Dawkins believes in God really(!), is rivalled only by some of her supporters in the comments box who attack Dawkins for being ignorant whilst clearly being completely unfamiliar with the arguments he puts forward in "The God Delusion" (there's an interesting review of the book on the blogosphere by Liam).

Not that there aren't interesting critics of Dawkins, there are. It's just that lots of people don't even try to look beyond scandalicious titles like "The Selfish Gene" to read the often nuanced and thoughtful ideas within. I have to say I've not been Dawkins greatest fan, he can come across like a bit of a thug sometimes - but he's an excellent and interesting writer whose ideas can't simply be dismissed - but actually have to be engaged with.

It would be useful to have a proper term for these people who want spirituality without institutions. "I have a personal relationship with the universe" sounds a little wanky - perhaps it should - but if there is a technical term for those who know there's something - just not what it is - it is not in common usage.

Scratch most "agnostics" and you'll find someone without the courage to tell you, or themselves, what they really think. By refusing to come down, even tentatively, one way or the other they end up preventing a discussion that explores an interesting area of human experience, one that is, if you'll excuse the expression, ultimately ultimate.

There aren't many people who don't have an opinion on whether Thor is a living breathing force in the world or not, likewise those who don't know whether they think there is one God who is split into three named parts, are few and far between.

Take Agnostic Dog - he's clearly an unwilling atheist. He doesn't believe there is a God, but thinks that *fact* makes the world a less happy place. That doesn't make him an agnostic, that makes him a misery guts, and an atheist.

After all there is a difference between thinking it would be beneficial if there was a good God who likes us all and watches each and everyone of us as we tie our shoelaces and actually thinking that makes it true. I like to think I'm one of the wittiest and ground breaking bloggers around but that doesn't make it... scratch that... bad example.

Anyway, I'm calling on you agnostics out there, tall and short, black and white, thick and thin - come out of the closet - go the whole hog, have the courage to believe what you believe... after all you can always change your mind later.