Agnosticism's Irritation
"Faggot" is defined by dictionary.com as "1. A bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together, 2. A bundle of pieces of iron or steel to be welded or hammered into bars. "
This word was morphed into a slang term for a homosexual man. Faggot's most common use as a word is to insult gay men, despite the origin of the word meaning a bundle of rod-like things. What does this have to do with agnosticism, you ask? Plenty. The word agnostic was invented by T.H. Huxley and he defined it as "someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble." (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms). Since Huxley coined the term, it's difficult to argue with his given definition....but I am arguing it.
Most agnostics piss me off, because they think they hold a nice, rational middle ground where they do not make any extreme claim for or against god/s. Many feel they are intellectually superior since they recognize that actually knowing if there is a deity of some kind is difficult, or impossible to discover, and that there may or may not be a god. This neuralistic position really irritates me. Here's why:
Gnosticism is a term for people who have knowledge of a supernatural power. Note the definition of gnostic and agnostic involves "knowledge".
Theism is a term for having a belief in a supernatural power, namely a diety. Note that atheism is the lack of belief in that power (the prefix a- meaning "without", so "without theism").
Now, I argue that, despite the popular consensus that agnosticism is in between atheism and theism and that the three terms are mutually exclusive, that agnosticism is in a different category when describing belief in a diety; a/gnosticism is not about belief, but knowledge.
A theist can believe in God, yet not know if God really exists. Agnostic Theist.
An atheist can lacks a belief in God and not know if a god exists. Agnostic Atheist.
An atheist who lacks a belief in God and claims to know no god exists, Gnostic Atheist.
A theist who both believes in God and claims to know God exists, Gnostic Theist.
The default position regarding deities is agnostic atheism. You neither know nor believe. When introduced with the concept of deities (or other supernatural beings), you automatically pick a side regarding belief or disbelief. If someone presents to you a biblical God story and you're not sure if you believe it, you're an atheist. There's no nice, cushy middle ground to avoid a title. Atheism is not a belief that agnostics feel they are above, and agnostics are not avoiding the stigma of nonbelief by saying they aren't sure. They've invented what they feel is a safezone between two extremes, and will avoid an extremist title at any cost, often utilizing the same fallacious arguments findamentalists do, making them seem silly.
Atheism is not an extreme view. Agnostics like to think that because atheists have arrived at a conclusion, that they are closeminded to any contrary evidence (and even as closeminded as theists!). This simply isn't true. If anything, atheists have accpeted the lack of evidence as lack of evidence for God and nothing more. It appears that many agnostics cannot grasp this, and see it as atheists claiming that this lack of evidence absolutely proves there is no God. While some atheists do claim this, the agnostic titles should apply, and not the agnostic psuedo-category.
Sorry to dissapoint, but you're one or the other.
/rant
This word was morphed into a slang term for a homosexual man. Faggot's most common use as a word is to insult gay men, despite the origin of the word meaning a bundle of rod-like things. What does this have to do with agnosticism, you ask? Plenty. The word agnostic was invented by T.H. Huxley and he defined it as "someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble." (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms). Since Huxley coined the term, it's difficult to argue with his given definition....but I am arguing it.
Most agnostics piss me off, because they think they hold a nice, rational middle ground where they do not make any extreme claim for or against god/s. Many feel they are intellectually superior since they recognize that actually knowing if there is a deity of some kind is difficult, or impossible to discover, and that there may or may not be a god. This neuralistic position really irritates me. Here's why:
Gnosticism is a term for people who have knowledge of a supernatural power. Note the definition of gnostic and agnostic involves "knowledge".
Theism is a term for having a belief in a supernatural power, namely a diety. Note that atheism is the lack of belief in that power (the prefix a- meaning "without", so "without theism").
Now, I argue that, despite the popular consensus that agnosticism is in between atheism and theism and that the three terms are mutually exclusive, that agnosticism is in a different category when describing belief in a diety; a/gnosticism is not about belief, but knowledge.
A theist can believe in God, yet not know if God really exists. Agnostic Theist.
An atheist can lacks a belief in God and not know if a god exists. Agnostic Atheist.
An atheist who lacks a belief in God and claims to know no god exists, Gnostic Atheist.
A theist who both believes in God and claims to know God exists, Gnostic Theist.
The default position regarding deities is agnostic atheism. You neither know nor believe. When introduced with the concept of deities (or other supernatural beings), you automatically pick a side regarding belief or disbelief. If someone presents to you a biblical God story and you're not sure if you believe it, you're an atheist. There's no nice, cushy middle ground to avoid a title. Atheism is not a belief that agnostics feel they are above, and agnostics are not avoiding the stigma of nonbelief by saying they aren't sure. They've invented what they feel is a safezone between two extremes, and will avoid an extremist title at any cost, often utilizing the same fallacious arguments findamentalists do, making them seem silly.
Atheism is not an extreme view. Agnostics like to think that because atheists have arrived at a conclusion, that they are closeminded to any contrary evidence (and even as closeminded as theists!). This simply isn't true. If anything, atheists have accpeted the lack of evidence as lack of evidence for God and nothing more. It appears that many agnostics cannot grasp this, and see it as atheists claiming that this lack of evidence absolutely proves there is no God. While some atheists do claim this, the agnostic titles should apply, and not the agnostic psuedo-category.
Sorry to dissapoint, but you're one or the other.
/rant
posted by Protagonist at 12:29 PM
1 Comments:
Hey, a hit is a hit, even if it's a hit from a bot.
Post a Comment
<< Home