Margaret Atwood is wrong. So let me spell it out nice and clear for everyone to understand. Atheism, agnosticism and theism are all beliefs. Not religions. Beliefs. It is self-evident just what the word belief means and it implies. But more importantly, a belief is a stand. Now when beliefs are proven to be “true” they might be considered knowledge. In the case of gods/deities, you can neither prove nor disprove their existence. More often than not, the proof is personal, in which case it cannot be shared with other (making it a rather sad form of knowledge really). Anyways, theist believe in god(s). they may or may not know god exist, according to their own personal experience. Bottom line still remains, though, that they believe in god.
Atheist don’t believe in god. They don’t know whether or not god exists. It is impossible to prove after all. But they choose to not believe in god. This is a perfectly rational choice to make. If you are uncertain about something, there is no reason why we should give it the benefit of the doubt. We are not sure of the existence of mermaids and Santa Clause. But we don’t belief in their existence. Why? It is not necessary. Beliefs are after all stands. If your stand is, “mermaids exist”, and mine is “mermaids do not exist”, there is no way we may prove each other right, or wrong. Not empirically, no logically. If the mermaid-theist believes that he has seen a mermaid, there is no way the mermaid-theist can share that experience with the mermaid-atheist. And as long as the mermaid-atheist chooses to apply the null hypothesis, and discovers that no mermaids are being experienced, he may stand by his belief that mermaids don’t exist. So there we have it. Atheist and Theism. Two beliefs. Not religions. But what about agnosticism? What do they have to say about this whole set of affairs?
“We don’t know whether or not god exists.” Eh.. Right on. So what? Most atheists (and even some theists) also make that claim. But where is the stand? Do they or do they not believe that god exists? It’s a non-stand in other words; sitting on the fence. They neither declare whether or not they believe in god. So is it a belief? I don’t know. Is there even such a thing as an agnostic? In my personal opinion, no. there is no such thing as an agnostic. You either believe in god(s) or you don’t. Even if you say, “I’ll believe it when I see it”, that’s an atheistic statement. While it might be temporal, you’re an atheist in the mean time. Think of the colour Grue, to get an idea of what Im saying. There is no such thing as the colour grue. If its green at one point, and blue at another, its just green and blue at different times. Its not ‘grue’.
So what about those who believe in god, but don’t subscribe to any religion? Your a theist. Not an agnostic. Its really self-evident. There is no two ways about it. Honestly. Ive heard an agnostic once say that it’s smarter to be an agnostic than to be an atheists, because IF there really is a god, at least they are covered. Bullshit. Firstly Pascal’s wager is the dumbest most illogical fallacy in the world. Secondly, that statement implies faith. It belies that deep inside, that he was in fact a theist.
What im saying is neither profound nor new. Nor do I claim to some great deep intelligence, like CS Lewis’ “Trilemma” (which is in reality the second dumbest logical fallacy, after Pascal’s wager.) All im saying is this. Look at the dictionary. Understand the proper definition of the terms being used. And really, from there, its pretty hard to go wrong.
Dont hate me because im analytical.
Rishik.
=)
No comments:
Post a Comment