In discussing an article by the now-quasi-in/famous Dr. Richard Dawkins:
[The article] is called "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God". Why the half-measures, Professor? Why "Almost"? He seems to be a pretty committed atheist—in fact, this is the subject of his latest book—but he seems to be waffling on the very last point:
We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.
Agnosticism is so uninteresting and unprovable, because you have eliminated the need to prove anything by saying "Oh well, we just don't know." Pascal's wager is a load of bull. Take a stand. Don't sit on the fence. Either be an atheist or a theist. Don't weasel your way out, sir.
I'm assuming at least part of the ire here is specifically directed at the good doctor for personally fence-sitting (particularly given his reputation, and the fact that he's written a whole book which seems to place him firmly in atheist-country), but I feel like I should stand up for "the other A" just a little here. Aside from the issue with choosing your belief system based on what's interesting (I'd go for a combo of the Norse and Greek pantheons, with the book of Judges tossed in for fun), which I suspect Anagrysis only means in quasi-seriousness, there's the fact that, for some people, agnosticism simply seems to be the most honest option.
Background: I was raised an atheist. Not even an ideological atheist; we were atheists by default. We had a mezuzah on the door, a menorah in the window, the occaisonal Passover seder (one year we had burritos instead), and no God whatsoever. I thought "Messiah" was a Christian idea until I was thirteen.
I find the idea of a diety rather far-fetched, but I also know that when it comes down to it, I don't have a damn clue how the universe "really" works. I barely know how we THINK it works. This stuff's pretty complicated, and there's no shame in admitting that I don't know, that I can't know.
Agnosticism, as I see it, isn't about hedging your bets in a game of cosmic craps, or cautiously fence-sitting and avoiding the debate- it's its own specific POV in relation to the debate- my agnosticism is more than "I don't know"- it's that the very question is unknowable. We can talk about odds and disprove Pascal's wager (and Dawkins does), and say that God is unlikely to exist- but I, for one, can't go farther. Because I don't believe I can know that.
That's what I believe.
2 comments:
See, what's so darn interesting is we do know how the world works, or at least how some large amounts of physics, chemistry, and biology work. Darwinian natural selection, as Dawkins demonstrates, is actually a quite elegant solution to this problem, and not, as creationists perpetually claim, nothing more than "design by pure chance". There are similar lines of reasoning for physics and chemistry too, which he sets forth in his book.
So yeah, we actually do know a great deal about how the world works, which is why he isn't inclined to give the "I don't know and you don't know either" argument much play.
So yeah, we actually do know a great deal about how the world works, which is why he isn't inclined to give the "I don't know and you don't know either" argument much play.
Except, of course, when he does.
And I'm not saying that scientific explanations of the universe are wrong by the very fact that humans came up with them- they sound perfectly reasonable to me (at least the ones I can understand). I guess I'm just nervous to categorically state that I, personally, have enough evidence to make a determination either way. If Dawkins or someone else (or Falwell) for that matter, thinks they do, they're welcome to do so. But I don't think I can.
I don't see it, personally, as waffling; I see it as being as truthful as I have the capacity to be. I honestly believe that I don't know. (The issue of likelihood is a whole different story.)
Post a Comment