I read an article recently in Russ Kick’s latest Disinformation anthology “Everything You Know About God Is Wrong” by Dianna Narciso entitled “The Honesty of Atheism”. In the article Narciso speaks against alternate terminology as a cop-out in people claiming to be something other than what they really are…an atheist. Narciso also claims Agnosticism in this regard albeit with a sense of respect to adopters of the term. Most notably with T.H. Huxley, the 19th century british scientist who coined the term and saw it printed for the first time in 1870. Narciso respectfully disagrees with Huxley. She states that his frame of thought is atheistic because, despite claiming to not have the knowledge of any god(s) existence, Huxley still disavowed the existence of any.
Narciso’s article comes recommended by this blogger in regard to the fact that atheists truly need to adopt the term more wholeheartedly if it is a term they secretly support. If we are to bear popular religious speak in this country, then atheists must recognize that they must be as unwavering with their own stances as religionists are with theirs. Political correctness only maintains a sense of repression. In a country where it is impossible to be president without believing in god, Atheists and Agnostics more than ever must understand their terms and what they mean. With roughly 16% of the american population claiming no religious belief, we are a free thinking minority who can’t afford to represent our ideals with kid-gloves.
The main point of this blog is my disagreement of Narciso’s view of agnostic relevance as nothing more than a P.C. atheism. Based upon my own notions of Agnosticism, it feels a bit beyond the mere “fence sitting” definition. Dictionary.com defines Agnostics as:
ag-nos-tic (a-g-no(s’ti(k) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
The first definition seems alot more respectful to the school of thought than the other two. The second seems to verify Narciso’s opinions, while the third comes off as wishy-washy. A personality trait most people find annoying. Dictionary.com’s definition of Atheism is alot more straightforward.
a-the-ist (a-’the–i(st) Pronunciation Key
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
I understand where Narciso’s school of thought is coming from in her article. In regards to all other Atheistic synonyms, they truly are annoying. Humanist, Freethinker, Secularist, and Rationalist are all cop-outs when being used as a personal defense in religious topics. They are words that people mutter to avoid drawn out preaching sessions, because the word “Atheist” is heavily vilified by much of our population. Agnosticism, I believe, isn’t a cop out. It’s a perfectly acceptable alternative to its brother term “Atheism”. To me Agnosticism can be alot more philosophical, than its very literal sibling. Narciso points out that Agnostics often define the term in different subtle ways, not entirely untrue if you regard it philisophically. But like many forms of philosophy, Agnosticism should be defined much more strongly so as not to confuse it with other trains of thought.
Narciso says of Agnostics in her article “Agnostics are better tolerated because they seem to be saying they aren’t sure”. I don’t entirely agree. I actually think Agnostics are better tolerated because a great many people aren’t all that sure what Agnosticism means, including many who claim Agnostic thought as their own. Those that do know what its definition means, and oppose it, often view it as a fence-sitting answer wide open for re-convincing. This is why Agnosticism needs to be more strongly defined. It should be as straightforward and audacious as the word Atheism. To do this I will show my own audaciousness by actually redefining the term. Granted my definition of Agnosticism wont be making it into Webster’s abundant book, but I believe my terminology will help Agnostics not to be seen as “undeciders” but as philosophers who find humility in the admittance of not knowing, while also being straightforward without Atheism’s dry logic.
So lets take the basic Agnostic definiton, as a person who claims no knowledge towards the existence or lack of gods, as a basic foundation. As I stated before this basic term makes Agnostics seem much too vulnerable. So lets simplify the term and add an element to it that maintains its original message, but makes it even more blunt.
“Agnosticism is the belief that one holds no true knowledge of the existence of god(s), and that more importantly, nobody else does either.” The latter part of the sentence is my addition. For many Agnostics that may go without saying, but for me it is the most important part of a defined agnostic. It is straightforward in implying that while one may admit he doesn’t know, it hammers home the point that nobody else truly knows either whether they think they know or not. Driving that specific point makes Agnosticism more incendiary, which people seem to want to avoid. I welcome the audacity. The religious make no apologies to their own beliefs, and Agnostics need to take a cue from Atheists by moving beyond fence-sitting and drive home their own brutal point: that we all lack knowledge and control to the mysteries of all that we cannot explain. My term points out more specifically that those who claim religious knowledge are pompous in assuming they actually have insight into the universe. That the specifics of their religious text are literal and true, is the polar opposite of the sense of humility that many religious groups claim to find.
This terminology can also be used against Atheists who claim unwavering beliefs in scientific viewpoints, sometimes being so pompous and enclosed it seems rather “religious”. The scientific theory of evolution is a prime example. No real scientist can say that Darwin’s theory is foolproof logic. The theory is merely that, a “theory”. Granted, it is a tested theory that we have more evidence of than we probably ever will for the concept of “Intelligent Design”. Also let me be clear that I’m not saying that evolution absolutely doesn’t exist, because rest assured it does. When you find fish in underground caves that have eye-sockets, but no eyes…that is the process of evolution. The theory that it all went from amoeba to where we are now, on the other, is an educated theory but not a foolproof answer. A real scientist wouldn’t claim evolution as 100% true, they would merely defend it as the best theory we have at this point in human understanding. Evolutionists often have differing viewpoints as to how some creatures seem to remain the same after 4 million years, and others don’t. Many answers seem educated and sensible, but when all evolutionary theory is placed upon the table, then it is realized that many small elements within aren’t known, or are merely speculated. Agnostics can easily respect the theory, but the fact that it can only ever truly be a “theory”, seems to compound the point of “I don’t really know, and neither do you.”
Another addition to the definition of agnosticism is certaintly one that people rarely claim in regards to religion. It’s the perspective of “I don’t know, and frankly I don’t give a shit.” In regards to the topic don’t mistake this as apathy, this is merely a crude way of saying “God or no gods, I don’t care, life remains unchanged either way”. If you’re like me, and you actually have the imagination to play with the notion of god…further thought on such a being seems to send its notion even farther away from human understanding. After all if we are talking about something that can create an infinite universe, terms like god seem petty and small. Also the notion that such a being, whom would see star life cycles in eyeblinks, really couldn’t give a damn about people on our muddy sphere seems to make more sense if you think of the notion of such a creature. Our entire perspectives and traditions towards such a thing could be no where near the ballpark in the thinking of a being that would be beyond thought. Even thinking of it as a specific being could be way off base, it could be no one specific thing but the fundamentals of everything. But before I accidently create a new religion, let me reiterate once again by saying “I don’t know, and neither do you.”
If Atheism represents disbelief through reason based upon the love of science, Agnosticism represents disbelief through philosophy based upon the love of mystery. It is important that they are apart, and also important that they help each other when the world vilifies one or the other. To hell with politeness, when someone asks you what you are…be direct and be bold. Accept no less from anyone including yourself.
ag-nos-tic (a-g-no(s’ti(k) Pronunciation Key
n. 1. The belief that one cannot know the existence of god(s), and more importantly, that no one else does either.
2. The process of not giving a shit about the existence of god.
