Home > Religion & Spirituality > Atheism & Agnosticism
Atheism and Agnosticism: Which is more logical?
Results so far:
| Atheism | 41% | 238 votes | Total: 585 votes | |
| Agnosticism | 59% | 347 votes |
Atheism
by 'Rick Gray
Created on: August 14, 2010
On first considering the question of which is more logical – atheism or agnosticism – most people would almost certainly choose the latter. Agnosticism suggests open-mindedness, which is considered an attractive attribute in our culture. In a world of angry partisan politics, religious fanaticism, and a general excess of tumult and shouting, what could be seem more agreeably logical than a detached, thoughtful, even scientific agnosticism?
Atheism, on the contrary, suggests the active denial of the existence of any god, which feels unpleasant, if not actually dangerous. In logical terms, to assert that there is no god implies the ability to prove a negative, which is extremely difficult. Seen thus, atheism would appear to be more a matter of faith than of reason.
The problem is that this analysis considers the issue entirely from a personal perspective. In our rather narcissistic culture, that's an easy trap to fall into. After all, one's spiritual life, or lack thereof, would certainly seem to be an essentially personal matter.
But upon reflection, life involves more than finding one's own spiritual path. As the poet said – the poet, in this case, being John Donne – “No man is an island.” Belief, or unbelief, can have consequences far beyond the purely personal.
We live in a dangerous world, at a particularly dangerous time, and many of the great issues of our times are driven by – or expressed in terms of – religion.
In the United States, the religious right has added immeasurably to the strength of political conservatism. Millions of devout working-class Americans, motivated by a handful of social issues, have become faithful voters for a political party which represents powerful corporate interests which would seem to be diametrically opposed to the interests of workers. Moreover, a religiously-informed rejection of the findings of science continues to play a large role in America's inability to come to term with many issues, including global climate change.
In the Islamic world, fundamentalist and jihadist sects are the principal source of political unrest, civil war, and terrorism. In South Asia, nuclear-armed India and Pakistan – each influenced politically by fundamentalist religious movements (Hindu and Islamic, respectively) glare at each other across the world's most unstable border.
All in all, then, our dangerous world may well be seen as being made far more dangerous by the actions of extremist religious groups. From that perspective, it could be argued that agnosticism – when it represents a failure to make up one's mind about the existence or non-existence of a god – is an irresponsible position. If there is a god, a responsible adult should attempt to find out what that god wants, and conform to it.
But if there is no god, perhaps it is not sufficient to remain forever undecided. Perhaps it is necessary to say what you believe, and to join others in the fight against religious extremism from the intellectually respectable position of atheism.
This is, I readily admit, an unusual approach to the question. But if it is logical to take action in the world – to try to do something about the world's problems rather than simply sitting on the sidelines – then it is at least plausible that the great challenge of religious extremism can be more effectively combated by those willing to take a stand for the proposition that all religious beliefs are false, rather than the wishy-washy position of those who simply do not know.
Learn more about this author, 'Rick Gray.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Agnosticism
by John Blevins
Created on: February 16, 2011 Last Updated: February 17, 2011
There really is no debate between atheism and agnosticism. There is no such thing as a true atheist in the same sense as there is no such thing as a true theist. Both imply the act of knowing definitively the facts, existence, and nature of the God/s (for the sake of ease “God” will refer to any supernatural deity), and pending the secret knowledge of the Illuminati or some other underground reclusive group that hasn't come forth with ground-shattering information, there aren't any true atheists or theists out there. This would lead us to believe that everyone is an agnostic regardless of what they actually believe, or how strong their belief is. No one can be one hundred percent sure one way or the other about the existence of God, so the only thing that differentiates people is the conviction to which they hold their beliefs.
Many people tend to be atheists because they believe that science has completely taken God out the picture. Someone might say: “All of our scientific theories work completely fine without the inclusion of a supernatural deity working its magic behind the scenes, so there is no reason to add one in”. While our scientific methods do work without God to fuel them, this doesn't warrant the complete exclusion of the possibility of one. Occam's razor tells us that when deciding between two competing ideas, the idea that makes the fewest new assumptions is generally the best to select when deciding between two competing ideas. Though Occam's razor is a fine rule of thumb to follow, it is far from a way to prove definitively that one idea or theory is the correct choice. Just because the scientific theories are a simpler explanation, doesn't definitely prove that there couldn't be a God. Deism, for example, is completely consistent with scientific theories, but also there could be a completely different explanation that science can't possible explain. For example, ethereal beings from other dimensions may have created everything currently in the universe, including all of our memories, ten minutes ago. There is no way that we can confidently prove or disprove this theory, but just because it seems highly unlikely doesn't mean that it is actually impossible.
I am not by any means trying to promote the belief in or acceptance of “crazy” theories like the one I just mentioned. My point is that there is no way we can know for a fact the truth about God. This doesn't mean that we have to or should live our lives in constant doubt of everything because we can't prove that we aren't in the matrix, I believe that pragmatically we can lean towards one end of the spectrum over the other. The only difference between being a non-believing agnostic and claiming to be an atheist, is the level of acceptance of new information you're willing to have. If you live your life as though there is no God, but you are open to the possibility of one, then you are not a true atheist; you're an agnostic. Agnosticism actually follows the scientific method much better than true atheism in the sense that a scientist lives her life as though the acceleration due to gravity on earth is 9.81 meters per second squared, but she is always open to the possibility that better evidence could change her mind on the subject.
Like I mentioned previously, there are no true atheists. Everyone, theists, atheists, and agnostics, are actually just agnostics with a belief. The only thing differentiating us is our level of conviction in that belief and what that belief is in. If someone claims to be a true atheist or theist to the core, they are more than likely just being close minded about something that they do not like. We can live our lives as atheists by not believing in a God, but we can also be open to other possibilities at the same time. This is one thing I know for certain.
Learn more about this author, John Blevins.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley