Avedon had a comment about a post from a Steven Brust about agnosticism.
In comments, Duncan left a lengthy statement that was educational for me and I felt worth passing along today.
I'm not at home, so I can't check my books. But it seems to me that agnosticism is being misrepresented here. If you look at Thomas Huxley, the guy who minted the word, he was pretty damn sure about some things. He was sure, for example, that Genesis 1 and 2 are not history or science; he didn't think that Yahweh or any other god exists; he was a biologist and an early advocate of Darwin's theory of natural selection (though it seems he was also among the early advocates who fundamentally misunderstood it). He was not a wishy-washy person who was afraid of taking a stand.
He wrote in 1883, "Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word 'Agnostic' to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with utmost confidence...." I'm an atheist, and that seems quite a reasonable statement to me. Is there an afterlife? Danged if I know, though it seems unlikely, but I don't *know*, and I see no reason to believe that anyone else knows. I've always liked Antony Flew's style of atheism, which he called Stratonician, and which puts the burden of proof on the theist. Oh, you say there's a god? Give me some good reasons for thinking so. Flew did a very good job of showing that the reasons usually offered were not good ones. Does there exist a being (whatever that means) which might correspond to what most people mean (whatever that is) by "god"? I have no idea, but perhaps you could suggest what sort of being you have in mind, and how you know anything about it, or how a person might *come* to know anything about it. I'd say that "atheism" like this and "agnosticism" as Huxley put it are not really so different.
Now it's true that there seem to be a lot of people who use "agnostic" differently — e.g., as a euphemism for "atheist," a word they consider, like, so *harsh*. Judging by the comments to Brust's little tirade (which is all it is — it sure ain't an argument), some who call themselves agnostics are into rather poorly worked-out metaphysics and don't know much about philosophy *or* religion. They annoy me too, but then so do hardline atheists of the Dennett - Dawkins - Harris type, who don't know much about science, philosophy or religion either. A responsible atheist as I see it would have no trouble being agnostic about many things — indeed, I'd insist on it. "Agnostic" as a global term (I'm agnostic about everything) is ridiculous, but it's very far from what Huxley meant by it.
The Huxley quotation comes from by the way.
I really don't have much to add here except that I thought it was worth more visibility than being buried in Haloscan comments. I do think that one can be agnostic about God and still be "taking a stand" on the issue, although I think that's a pretty unappreciated viewpoint in general and many consider it a cop out. I don't agree, but that dismissal isn't really that important to me as I see myself - as agnostic. I appreciate beliefs about God as simply beliefs, and I recognize that's the personal filter people choose (and I believe this) to construct their life within. I don't get particularly upset about how others consider my beliefs, since I personally consider some religious/philosophical beliefs quite ridiculous myself, I'm sure there are many that feel the same about mine. I do get bothered when somebody expects me to believe the same thing they do - I have no problem allowing some polite time for consideration but please respect that I've chosen this belief structure. It wasn't a default "I can't make up my mind" determination. I have made up my mind, absent extraordinary evidence to the contrary. Your beliefs are yours, my beliefs are mine... and I'm good with that. As long as it isn't harming anyone, that's the way it should be.
