Search This Blog

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Do We Need a "New Agnosticism"?

For some reason, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Victor Stenger, and Sam Harris have been dubbed the "New Atheists." The term was coined by Gary Wolf in a November 2006 article in Wired Magazine. According to Simon Hooper, What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises. In a recent article on Slate.com, Ron Rosenbaum argues: [I]t's time for a new agnosticism, one that takes on the New Atheists. He says that the "New Atheists" are too dogmatic and could use a good dose of humility. He continues:
Let's get one thing straight: Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism. Agnosticism is not atheism or theism. It is radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer.
He cites Thomas Huxley (who coined the term "agnostic") [I]t is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.

He quotes the blogger John Wilkins,
We are all atheist about some things: Christians are Vishnu-atheists, I am a Thor-atheist, and so on. But it is a long step from making existence claims about one thing (fairies, Thor) to a general denial of the existence of all possible deities. I do not think the god of, say John Paul II exists. But I cannot speak to the God of Leibniz. No evidence decides that.

I agree with Wilkins and that is why I call myself an "agnostic atheist." I don't believe any of the gods that have been described by religions exist, however, I cannot rule out once and for all the possiblity that some type of deity exists. I am not sure, though, that the "New Atheists" would disagree. I think their primary purpose is to argue against the belief in the god of the Abrahamic faiths (i.e., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

Rosenbaum argues that the "New Atheists" treat science the same way that believers treat divine revelation. He says that they believe that science will someday have all of the answers to man's existence. He says that they are exercising faith in science in the same way that a Christian exercises faith in the Bible. He writes:
Faith-based atheism? Yes, alas. Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.)

He says that he doubts that science will ever be able to answer the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
Faced with the fundamental question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually. Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing. But the question presents a fundamental mystery that has bedeviled (so to speak) philosophers and theologians from Aristotle to Aquinas. Recently scientists have tried to answer it with theories of "multiverses" and "vacuums filled with quantum potentialities," none of which strikes me as persuasive.

He goes on to say:
I challenge any atheist, New or old, to send me their answer to the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I can't wait for the evasions to pour forth. Or even the evidence that this question ever could be answered by science and logic.

Perhaps I am being simplistic, but it seems to me that the fact we can discuss this question acknowledges that there is something and not nothing. It is simply the way things are. Perhaps there will never be a scientifically provable explanation of how something can come from nothing but that is a different question than "why is there something rather than nothing." In addition, the idea that there originally was "nothing" begs the question. The simple fact is that we don't know what existed prior to the big bang. We may know one day but probably not in my lifetime.

Al Mohler, a fundamentalist evangelical, and the President of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky maintains that there are two problems with agnosticism as set forth by Rosenbaum. He writes:
This is one of the central problems with agnosticism as a worldview. In claiming to take a humble approach, it actually ends up in a posture that is rather lacking in humility. The agnostic argues that we, as human creatures, are capable of deciding the intellectual terms when it comes to the big questions such as, first and foremost, the existence and possible knowledge of God [emphasis mine].

A first principle of the Christian faith is the fact that special revelation is necessary in order to have any adequate certainty on these questions. Prior to this, the Christian worldview affirms that God has implanted the knowledge of himself in nature. In both forms of revelation, God sets the terms for his own knowability [emphasis mine].

The intellectual state of affairs that makes theism possible is the knowledge given by God himself in revelation. Atheism rejects the possibility or actuality of such revelation. Fair enough; at least we know where we stand. Agnosticism requires what divine revelation does not offer — certainty on our own arbitrary terms.

The second major problem with agnosticism is more practical. It just doesn’t work as a middle position or alternative to theism and atheism. Why? Because the question of God’s existence or non-existence is simply too important and fundamental to human life. Every human being acts either upon the assumption that God exists, or that He does not exist [emphasis mine]("A 'New Agnosticism'--Coming Soon"?).

I disagree with Mohler. With regard to his first criticism, he simply begs the question that there is divine revelation. He says that agnostics have a false humility because they believe that man "decid[es] the intellectual terms" of what he will and will not believe. But how else can it be? Mohler himself, I imagine, sets the intellectual terms by which he decides between Evangelical Christianity and Islam or Evangelical Christianity and Mormonism. We all have to use our intellect if we are come to any conclusions about anything.

Secondly, he says that it is not practical to leave the "God question" unanswered. It is too important. I would respond to this by saying that we can either pretend that we know (as apparently He does) or be honest and admit that we don't. I think at the end of the day that it really doesn't matter much what one says one believes about the subject anyway. Most theists live as practical atheists. God has little or no place in the decisions they make in their lives. I say this as one who was a Christian minister for 20 years and observed, up close and personal, how Christians live.

I think in the final analysis that there is enough evidence to conclude that the God of the Bible, as well as the god(s) of other religions do not exist. Can I prove it? No. Can I say for certain that no deity of any description exists anywhere? No, but I highly doubt it.

13 comments:

  1. http://xkcd.com/774/

    Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.

    That really sums it up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Faith-based atheism? Yes, alas. Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.)

    This, I believe, is a massive mis-statement of what most atheists would believe. Since it's directed at the "New Atheists," I can say with a large degree of certainty that Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers would reject it.

    There is a vast difference between having a "credulous and childlike faith" in science's ability to handle all questions and having a rigorously scientific view of the world. To the person with a rigorously scientific understanding of the world there is an explicit understanding of two things: one, that god is not a testable hypothesis and two, that formulating scientific theories and hypotheses with an eye towards supernatural intervention doesn't actually get you anywhere. So science formulates all of its hypotheses as if there is no supernatural element in place to interfere. And in all of our scientific testing we have never found evidence that the supernatural does interfere, but we have found plenty of evidence that the universe operates according a set of laws that can be explained.

    The conclusion then drawn by those like Dawkins and Myers is that we can use science to explore the universe and increase our understanding and that in all of our exploration we have never found compelling evidence for god. That doesn't mean we will ever find all of the answers or conclusively disprove god, but it does mean that we can say firmly that we live in a naturalistic universe that does not need a god to function and that does not appear to have an active supernatural power.

    That's really all there is to it. Any attempt to place the "New Atheists" as the equals and opposites of the religious fundamentalists is an exercise in creating straw men, as the sophist certainty of the religious fundamentalist is far different from the scientific extrapolation of the scientist.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Has there been any worse bet throughout history than "Science will never figure that out"?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Ken,

    Thanks for another excellent post. Do you ever get feedback from Al Mohler, et al.?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have become what I like to call myself a dogmatic agnostic. I know many, especially atheists, would say I'm spineless and I don't take a stand. I disagree. I'm adamant that it is impossible to know the answers to questions of the supernatural. While I think some kind of god likely exists, I strongly doubt it is the Christian God or the God of any revealed religion. If a god exists, it's impossible to know how he works, whether he is involved in every day life (I seriously doubt this) etc. It's also impossible to know what happens when we die. Anyone who claims to know the answer to this question is speaking by faith, not by empirical evidence. The c competing claims that when we die, we just cease to exists, or that when we die, we go to heaven or hell have one thing in common: they are statements of faith and not absolute knowledge from empirical evidence.

    To me agnosticism is not weak-kneed at all. It is the strong assertion that it is impossible to know for sure the answers to many to not all questions involving matters of the supernatural.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dear Ken,

    If you are considering banishing DM from commenting on your blog, you have one big positive vote here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You have to respect ken for allowing free speech...from everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism. Agnosticism is not atheism or theism. It is radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer."

    First of all, this guy doesn't even get his terminology correct so theres no point in reading the rest of his misguided B.S.. Atheism doesn't claim certainty at all. It is still open to any evidence that would show the factuality of a god existing but finds the evidence lacking. There is no dogma or creed linked to atheism. Agnosticism is simply the view of claims about a god existing or not existing are not known or that claims about a god are unknowable. Furthermore, atheism thrives on skepticism and a search for the truth utilizing the best evidence and whats most plausible when looking at a given phenomenon.

    "why is there something instead of nothing" Thats assuming that the default position is "nothing" which hasn't been proven. This guy throws way too many straw man arguments in there for my taste.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Faced with the fundamental question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually. Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing."

    Well, I'm no physicist, but I do like to read. I just finished "The LIghtness of Being" by Frank Willczek, which is about Quantum ChromoDynamics, a more robust and refined iteration of Quantum ElectroDynamics. Without trying to summarize the book, which itself summarizes decades of rigorous scientific and mathematical theory and research into the deep structure of matter and the origin of mass, I can say that contemporary physicists would likely answer the question of why-there-is-something-rather-than-nothing more or less as follows:

    Nothingness is unstable. There HAS to be something.

    The question I would pose in return is "Why should we assume that nothingness is a more 'natural' state than somethingness?"

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I don't believe any of the gods that have been described by religions exist, however, I cannot rule out once and for all the possiblity that some type of deity exists."

    It's easier to "rule out once and for all the possiblity that some type of deity exists" when you realize the magic god fairy idea is as childish and as ridiculous as the Easter Bunny idea.

    God is just another word for magic. There's no magic in the universe.

    Being an atheist equals accepting reality. If a person is only almost an atheist, he or she is not really accepting reality, because they are pretending magic might be real.

    http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  11. I did not read the whole blog post but something caught my eye -

    W/ regards to

    "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

    Is God considered a something? If so, how does theism answer this question? Seems to me it does not. Only shifted the goal post a bit.

    Maybe someone can point me to a place where I might better educate myself.

    Thanks -

    ReplyDelete
  12. [Paul, see my link below for my take on this question.]

    "I am not sure, though, that the "New Atheists" would disagree. I think their primary purpose is to argue against the belief in the god of the Abrahamic faiths (i.e., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam)."

    You're right about this. New Atheists have no major objections to Spinozan or classically deistic beliefs, and many actively incorporate `religious' concepts into their thought.

    And despite what Rosenbaum is implying, no New Atheist claims certainty on the nonexistence of gods generally, nor absolute certainty on the nonexistence of any particular god.

    "Rosenbaum argues that the "New Atheists" treat science the same way that believers treat divine revelation. He says that they believe that science will someday have all of the answers to man's existence. He says that they are exercising faith in science in the same way that a Christian exercises faith in the Bible."

    And Rosenbaum again misses the mark. Many New Atheists argue that science is the only reliable way in which we can hope to justify any measure of certainty about the truth of things within the realm of logical possibility, but I have not ever heard any serious defense of science as a perfect, complete method which will with time reveal all truths. They all agree that it is possible to make claims which are in principle beyond the reach of evidence.

    On the something rather than nothing question, my first substantive post explains why I consider the question to be self-defeating. Not only can science not provide a good answer, given certain restrictions, but even a God could not be a satisfactory answer for the same reasons. We can scientifically answer questions like these to a point, such as the "nothing is unstable" answer. But it is always possible to ask "why do the laws which govern vacuum instability exist?" and push the question back. This manner of questioning leads to a regress which by its nature denies any possible preference between logically possible universes satisfying the question, leaving the possible set of answers to such a question empty, and therefore, the question is contradictory.

    The biggest silliness on the part of Rosenbaum is his (at this point, willing and repetitive) mischaracterizations of New Atheists. He is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually incapable, and in either case, he is not worth listening to up to these topics.

    One last point which has already been caught by commenters here: `agnosticism' denotes some uncertainty, `atheism' (minimally) denotes some lack of belief. In the interests of clear communication, I label myself in the same way that Bertrand Russell chose to in Why I am not a Christian, explaining that in academic audiences, "agnostic atheist" might be preferable to "atheist", but that "atheist" is sufficient and requires less explanation for the general public.

    Even the term "atheist" can only be meaningful if a conventional meaning for "theist" is understood. Nobody can seriously claim to make statements of positive disbelief in everything that has ever been labeled as "god". I am not an atheist with respect to "god = the feeling of love" theism, though I would note an objection to the misleading language.

    Rosenbaum is a textbook example of what happens when one understands a position solely through the characterizations of its opponents.

    As for Mohler's `rebuttals' of agnosticism, nothing need be said, as of course he obviously could not expect his arguments to be persuasive to an agnostic.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's time to put the term "agnosticism" out to pasture. I think Mohler gets it right when he states:

    "Every human being acts either upon the assumption that God exists, or that He does not exist."

    I would modify that slightly to:

    "Every human being acts either upon the assumption that [a personal, self-revealing] God exists, or that He does not exist."

    The former human being is a theist and the latter is an atheist, pure and simple. There's no sense splitting hairs. This practical definition is what matters in real life anyway. Our attempts to persuade will only be further hampered by our convoluted and varied terminology, such as "agnostic atheist."

    ReplyDelete