Is agnosticism intellectual cowardice?

[Libby]

I think the bigger issue is just not being an asshole to someone just because they think differently to you about something. This topic is hot because the insinuation of an agnostic as a coward is kind of unnecessary imho. Even if you are as sure as you could imagine being that you are correct, doesn't mean you have to be an asshole to someone else who doesn't agree. I'm an athiest and I think I'm about as certain that there is no God as I am certain that 2 and 2 makes 4. But so long as no-one is hurting/discriminating/dominating anyone, who the fuck cares if they can't be persuaded to agree. I don't care if someone believes a supreme teapot orbiting the earth is a devine being, or if they conclude that they simply have no opinion on the matter. The problem is only when certain groups can get away with hate crimes on the grounds of "freedom of religion" like blowing up "infidels" or raping a woman and displacing criminal blame from yourself on to her because she didn't hide her figure from view and therefore "asked for it". What the fuck problem does it cause anyone if person A concludes they are without an opinion one way or another, or if person B chooses to believe their loved ones are "at peace" or "in a better place" when dealing with grief/loss?

Religious ideas should be treated the same way we treat other ideas. If knowledge comes into light invalidating aspects of a scientific theory, then it is investigated and ideas/theories are updated/improved/debunked/proven. Multiple theories co-exist on aspects of quantum physics which we do not presently know for certain and although people may get passionate in debate of their hypothesis, no one feels the need to censor their viewpoints. Oh no you mustn't say this, question that, or disagree here, that causes "great offense" and we all must dwell in a fear of approaching own own conclusions lest they differ slightly/largely from commonly held views. So why does that happen with religion? Why is everyone afraid to disagree? Why do some resort to violence to impose their views on nay sayers? Why do muslims countries bomb christian countries? Why do athiests call agnostics cowards? Why is everyone so insecure in their own beliefs they need to seek validation of those beliefs from all other people in existence? Sometimes at any cost?

Sure I like it when I find people who share the same views as I do on any given topic, it rarely happens, and gives a nice sense of belonging/acceptance/understanding. But I also like having different ideas, my own opinions, because otherwise what value do my words hold if they've already been said before? Would there be any point in talking at all? Also, what's wrong with changing ones mind? with growing, and learning? Why are we expected to choose some idea and hold to it for the rest of our days? I find out shit I once thought I knew I now think is wrong all the fucking time! If I knew everything I was ever going to discover from the moment I was born there would be nothing left to do bar wait to die. What kind of life is that really? It's not the life I wan't, no matter how embarrassing it may be to eat crow or admit ignorance. Why is that even so embarrassing though when you think about it? Everyone's afraid to show they aren't perfect and yet no-one is.

Rambled off a bit there, on topic: Just say "I disagree" not "I disagree so you must just be a coward" and certainly don't say "I'm agnostic" if you're really only avoidant. Stand up, speak out, come together. I'm not a great intellectual person, this just seems so simple. But I guess other's disagree with me, and I'd be a hippocrit really if I actually tried to tell others what to say/think, lol.

 

[vegan]

I wonder if he views these people (Christian) cowards?

we apparently don't know the same definition of the word coward

should have no trouble at all in realizing just how fucking unlikely it is for life to exist in the first place

there's no doubt he does
however, he's also aware of the size of the known universe
and of the anthropic argument

I don't for atheists as they tend to be intellectually walled up behind some kind of scientific framework and refuse to admit a position of ignorance

have you considered that atheist overwhelmingly come to their conclusions as a conclusion of a thinking process?
that's the opposite of being "walled up... ignorance"

have you also considered that some atheists may have come to their conclusions as the result of personal experiences, which means "personal knowledge". that's pretty much the opposite of "position of ignorance"
I've had several spiritual epiphanies that made it very clear to me that there is no god. my atheism is based on knowledge, not ignorance
how many believers can pretend to knowledge through experience? have you met god recently?

on the other hand, the ratio of believers who don't share the same faith as their parents is rather low. there's not much thinking involved in repeating what you've been told

If everyone is god, god is worthless.

forget about the idea of an omnipotent creator being

the universe is everything
everything is much more than humans on earth
with that in mind, you totally have the right to consider that everything (=the universe) is worthless
but don't be mistaken, humans are just a detail, albeit an important one, in the history of the universe

Is agnosticism intellectual cowardice?

certainly not
it's honesty
it's not being a sheep while admitting that although you don't buy in the answers sold to you, you don't know the answers either

 

[Shrooms00087]

have you considered that atheist overwhelmingly come to their conclusions as a conclusion of a thinking process?
that's the opposite of being "walled up... ignorance"

Atheists come to their conclusion through the same process religious fanatics do. Translating symbolic metaphors as facts. "If God did not exist, there would be no atheists" Chesterton. The atheists movement of today is good for one reason, it allows space for reading of mythologies/religions in the attempt to invalidate them. Which leaves space for reading the texts correctly (Or at least more correctly). If the atheist is dogmatic and translates everything as literal then they themselves become "religious fanatics". One more awesome quote; "To reach the true abyss is not through atheism it is through Christianity" -Zizek

 

[DeathDomokun]

No, they're not.
People are born Atheist. You give children a fairytale and they might grow up to believe it.
An Atheist does not inherently attempt to invalidate such texts, it is simply one who finds no validation for such texts.
Theism is learnt. Atheism can only be learnt after one learns Theism.
Then there's the sweetness of apathy.
Here, have a quote.
"I think the low hanging fruit is to point out it's inconsistent to make a point of accounting for the possibility a god exists when most if not all of these agnostics have no restraint in behaving as though it's an absolute fact their food isn't poison or their light switch isn't wired up to an atom bomb. People walk with certainty constantly in all manner of contexts they take for granted as true. To make a special exception on the topic of gods just grants the religious a special privilege for a position that doesn't merit it."

 

[Shrooms00087]

Why would you waste time trying to disprove things like Sumerian fairy tales and rites? One can still be an atheist and read religious literature in a meaningful way. This is what Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins lack or portray to lack. They're dogmatic in their absolute rejection. Dawkins has gone so far as to say Philosophy itself is useless. 8(

 

[Jean-Paul]

i don't like agnosticism for a couple of reasons. firstly, it implies that religious nuts *could* be right. do i think they could? no. no, i do not. i think they are ridiculous and full of shit. secondly, i myself was ostracized as a kid for refusing to go to church and grew up in a catholic environment, so i do see the "maybe they could be right" as being too scared to admit you just do not believe it. i don't get this "atheists are arrogant" crap. i don't see realism as arrogant.

 

[P A]

Why would you waste time trying to disprove things like Sumerian fairy tales and rites? One can still be an atheist and read religious literature in a meaningful way. This is what Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins lack or portray to lack...Dawkins has gone so far as to say Philosophy itself is useless. 8(

Eh, this entire post reeks of straw. Hitchens was not above using Bible quotes that he liked, even in God is Not Great. Harris and Dawkins seem to be of the opinion that most (or all) of the material that one can obtain from religious texts - particularly Abrahamic religious texts - can be found elsewhere in abundance and with relative ease, without all the pixie dust and genital mutilation and child sacrifice.

Also, feel free to procure a link to a primary source citing Dawkin's anti-philosophic leanings. But I'm sure you just took it out of context anyway... 8)

They're dogmatic in their absolute rejection.

People who are, in part, defined by what they do not believe aren't dogmatists precisely because one must propound a positive doctrine in the first place to be accused of such. If Dawkins et al. were to proclaim that belief in god(s) was morally (as opposed to epistemologically) wrong, then I suppose they could be labeled accordingly - but, as yet, I don't think any of the 'New Atheists' have done so. This tired rhetorical trick is tantamount to slapping the label 'dogmatist' upon anyone whosoever has disagreed with anyone else, re. any issue, ever.

 

[Shrooms00087]

He's said it numerous times, ironically when introducing Daniel Dennett.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyyRAE7PDvw

You can find more if you wish.

I used to be a fan of these authors so needless to say I've read God is Not Great, God Delusion (etc). I have the Selfish Gene but don't have a Bible. But their rigid pursuit is rather boring after awhile. If they're not dogmatists (which they do produce countless material suggesting the Truth is God doesn't exist, without mentioning what God is or may be) then they're hyper-modernists. And their morality is far more tied to rabid Statism.

 

[vegan]

Atheists come to their conclusion through the same process religious fanatics do. Translating symbolic metaphors as facts

if you're going to post something like this, it would be a good idea to explain your point

without an explanation, your post makes zero sense
(the rest of your post too btw)

 

[Shrooms00087]

if you're going to post something like this, it would be a good idea to explain your point

without an explanation, your post makes zero sense
(the rest of your post too btw)

*shrug* that was pretty straight forward. What do you need explained? Metaphors? Symbolism? Literalism?

 

[P A]

He's said it numerous times, ironically when introducing Daniel Dennett.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyyRAE7PDvw

You can find more if you wish.

And, as predicted, you took his statement(s) completely out of context. Nothing could be less ironic than expressing a fault that you may happen to find within a particular institution in order to introduce a favorite member of said institution who conspicuously does not possess that unsavory quality. In the sense that Dawkins actually meant, I think he's absolutely correct - many epistemologists have never taken the time of day to seek out and actively engage real scientists (to say nothing of the actual work that said scientists are doing) before formulating their (often preposterous and tediously convolved) schools of thought.

I used to be a fan of these authors so needless to say I've read God is Not Great, God Delusion (etc). I have the Selfish Gene but don't have a Bible. But their rigid pursuit is rather boring after awhile. If they're not dogmatists (which they do produce countless material suggesting the Truth is God doesn't exist, without mentioning what God is or may be) then they're hyper-modernists. And their morality is far more tied to rabid Statism.

Then how could you have been unaware of the 'Hitchens used Bible quotes' thing above? How would you characterize their pursuit as 'rigid?' I mean, really, what unifies these disparate thinkers other than a vaguely neo-Liberal set of sociopolitical ideals (with the possible exception of Hitchens - but that's controversial) and a hatred of the authoritarian/misogynistic/archaic/brutal themes latent within many/most prominent world religions?

As for the whole 'Statism' bit - I'm at a loss. By your choice of avatar and the incongruous reasoning on display above, I'm led to suspect that you entertain a hyper-politicized worldview in which anyone who vaguely threatens your (libertarian?) ideals is ipso facto anathema and deserving of your disdain, no matter how oblique or off-base.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Some people equate agnosticism to be a weakness, or as Richard Dawkins puts it "fence-sitting,intellectual cowardice." I find this interesting considering he formulates himself to be a 6 out of his 7 point belief scale. : \

agreed. I always had trouble ("didn't care to find out" is more accurate) specifying whether i was agnostic or atheist. To (ROUGHLY) paraphrase how he describes himself in his main "god" book, he's as "agnostic as he is about faeries in the garden". I'm the same - i'm "atheist", for all practical purposes, but if we're gonna be super literal, i'm "agnostic", but only so far as I'm unsure about the tooth fairy ;PP

 

[paranoid android]

I always say man created god not the other way around. There is no set plan for a human being let alone the entire fucking universe. The idea of heaven, hell and the forces that may send us to either was man made god simply had nothing to do with it. Also to think that some kind of mystical god may be some how influencing the thoughts as well as over all actions of human beings not to mention the universe is equally as foolish. There is of now no evidence to the slightest to even suggest that.

God mainly serves as a comfort to people who have the ability to shut out critical thinking and can find little pleasure or comfort rooted in reality. A sort of adult parent who will always be there to both protect you and to also keep you in line. Also to make damn sure to make damn sure you feel guilty about not staying in line after you do whatever sin you happened to do. It's a way to keep people always trying to please a entity that all available evidence points to not existing at all and thus is very easy to manipulate to suit people who exploit this as well. Very large groups of people can be made to believe in anything as long as you can somehow fit it under the banner of gods will. It arguably is the most powerful method of control to ever exist.

Sometime in the future the thought of a god will be looked upon as a silly and outdated notion as the belief in witches and magical fairies is though of now.

I would call myself a outright atheist But i can see how someone could atleast hold out for the possibility of a god depending how you look at it.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I love Ayn Rand's ability to write, but her philosophy is close-minded and circular. It attacks a orthodox, strawman version of God.

It's 'close-minded' because it doesn't acknowledge god?
also, it doesn't "attack a strawman version", it broadly disapproves of anything that defies proof and relies on faith. That includes ALL mysticism, not some singular strawman.

Faith is not without reason. As soon as you realize that her entire philosophy crumbles.

Faith is not without reason? I notice you didn't elaborate on what that reason is... would love to hear anything approaching concrete (or does it all go back to "faith"? now it's getting circular..)

O and not only does disacknowledging mysticism NOT conflict/contradict ANY of her philosophy, but the truth is that religion/mysticism are really not even close to central tenets of objectivism. The general theme that "mysticism bad", and the idea that ppl who subscribe to mysticism tend to subscribe to other (according to her) "bad" values/principles, is prevalent; but this is fully consistent with her philosophy. So whether you agree with her or not, nothing "crumbles" upon realizing ayn/objectivism is atheist.

(apologies for spell/blab/context, super low on sleep)

 

[P A]

^Don't hold your breath. I have a feeling that KamMoye will not be responding to your posts in the near future.

 

[Jabberwocky]

god damnit.

 

[Shrooms00087]

Then how could you have been unaware of the 'Hitchens used Bible quotes' thing above? How would you characterize their pursuit as 'rigid?' I mean, really, what unifies these disparate thinkers other than a vaguely neo-Liberal set of sociopolitical ideals (with the possible exception of Hitchens - but that's controversial) and a hatred of the authoritarian/misogynistic/archaic/brutal themes latent within many/most prominent world religions?

As for the whole 'Statism' bit - I'm at a loss. By your choice of avatar and the incongruous reasoning on display above, I'm led to suspect that you entertain a hyper-politicized worldview in which anyone who vaguely threatens your (libertarian?) ideals is ipso facto anathema and deserving of your disdain, no matter how oblique or off-base.

Who said I was unaware? How does him using Bible quotes tie into his rejection of the Bible? Just by peppering in favorable quotes doesn't mean he isn't rejecting. By the way it isn't controversial, he said he was a Marxist at a point and time and still had his leanings. You got all that from my avatar did you? What's your schematic of people worthy of your disdain?

 

[P A]

You got all that from my avatar did you? What's your schematic of people worthy of your disdain?

No, not really, but I admit that it was a pretty pretentious analysis. I've just seen you around, is all.

Also, I typically reserve my disdain for sophists and aggressive fools. You don't appear to fall into either category, but I still have to wonder why you take such issue with these 'Horsemen'; one of which is dead, two of which are old guys, and the other one of which is approaching middle-age and seemingly decompensating into Islamophobic paranoia. Either way you slice it, I'm not sure that anyone still cares about their 'movement' outside of Barnes & Noble and the internet.

 

[Shrooms00087]

I think their approach is that of aggressive fools.

 

[dopaminedump]

atheism breeds rationalism