![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
atheism versus agnosticism
Dec. 17th, 2012 06:08 pmBertrand Russell said:
"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one may prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."
While I understand and in many respects agree, in practice I find myself doing the opposite. The reason is that the typical American takes "atheist" to mean what philosophically would be called "strong atheism," i.e., the belief that there is no God. They may even assume atheists believe they have proof that God does not exist. Many Americans find this very threatening. "Agnostic" is a much a less emotionally fraught term, so I go with that as a default. However, with people who understand what an atheist really is, or at least how actual atheists define the term (which is lacking a specific belief in deity, i.e., not making a judgment), I'm not shy about calling myself an atheist.
But I do like the term "agnostic," as I think it captures me worldview very well. Thomas Huxley, who coined the term, said:
"...every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him."
That sounds pretty good to me.
"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one may prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."
While I understand and in many respects agree, in practice I find myself doing the opposite. The reason is that the typical American takes "atheist" to mean what philosophically would be called "strong atheism," i.e., the belief that there is no God. They may even assume atheists believe they have proof that God does not exist. Many Americans find this very threatening. "Agnostic" is a much a less emotionally fraught term, so I go with that as a default. However, with people who understand what an atheist really is, or at least how actual atheists define the term (which is lacking a specific belief in deity, i.e., not making a judgment), I'm not shy about calling myself an atheist.
But I do like the term "agnostic," as I think it captures me worldview very well. Thomas Huxley, who coined the term, said:
"...every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him."
That sounds pretty good to me.
