Ask an Agnostic!
Dear Ask an Agnostic,
I love my boyfriend, and he tells me everyday that he loves me. We've been an item for over five years now, but he always shies away from conversations about marriage or engagement. I want to be with him forever, so I can't help wondering why he hasn't proposed. We almost never fight, and when we do we make up quickly. Still, my left hand is aching for a ring! I admit I've gained some weight over the last two years, and I don't always see eye to eye with his friends. Could he be expressing dissatisfaction with me or our relationship by not proposing? And how long should I wait before I press him for an answer?
Sincerely,
Miss Antsy in Atlanta
Dear M.A.i.A.,
How the hell should I know?
Your pal,
An Agnostic
-----
When you live in the Midwest and announce openly that you're agnostic, it's kind of like coming out: you tell a few friends, see how they handle it, then tell your family, and finally, announce it to the world. Some will be so opposed to your agnosticism that they'll never feel comfortable talking to you again. (Yes, that happened to me, more than once.) Others will shrug. Then there are those folks who see you as their token agnostic friend. It's kind of like being the only black kid in civics class. ("So Harold, what do African-Americans think about immigration reform?") In college, Bryan was my "gay friend." He was the only gay person I knew well at the time, so he suddenly represented and spoke for 10-20% of the population. Was that logical? No, but it's how things were in early 1990s small-town Oklahoma. We didn't have a better option.
So when any news story related in any way to atheism (or, for that matter, fundamentalism) arises, it's understandable that my friends and Facebook acquaintances inquire how I feel about the story. I've asked for that. I've written extensively about doctrinal matters here and elsewhere, and I am, as noted above, the "agnostic friend." So I'd like to use this hour of unexpected free time to catch up on a few of those stories.
The thing is, there's a reason why you've never seen an "Ask an Agnostic!" column in any newspaper--the answer to every question would be "I don't know." In the absence of hard data, I couldn't say whether there's a God or not. I simply have no idea. You don't, either, so you picked the option that sounded best to you. I consider myself a Christian from an ethical standpoint, but it's obvious to me that the Bible contains no supernatural knowledge of God. (Compare this story, coincidentally posted on CNN.com earlier today.)
I disbelieve in Yahweh, the Hebrew tribal war deity. Period. Having said that, I do not identify as an atheist, and I'm not just saying that to worm out of criticism. I'm sticking with what I can prove. I understand the compulsion to explain nature in purely naturalistic terms, but there's no more proof of the nonexistence of a First Cause than there is of Its existence. I consider the unqualified statement "there is no God" an expression of faith, and I reject the notion that acceptance without evidence is an automatic virtue, for atheists or theists. Faith is not always good. We have to take certain things on faith to get through the day, sure, but no matter what your authority figures may tell you, the presence or absence of God isn't one of those things. Life goes on even if you admit you're unsure.
So: the news stories. First, this one, in which evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins (author of The Selfish Gene, a classic) recommends making fun of theistic beliefs and believers. Now, I've read Dawkins extensively, and I've written about him before. The truth is, I prefer a "catch more flies with honey" approach to that of Dr. "Darwin's Rottweiler" Dawkins. But given the fact that he receives regular death threats from so-called Christians, I can understand why he might be a bit peevish about excessive religiosity after all these years.
(For an amusing insight into mail call at the Dawkins house, check out the following NSFW video:
So yeah, he's tired of meeting misspelled, vitriolic abuse with nonstop pleasantry. Wouldn't you be?)
I try very hard not to make fun of true believers, though I admit I've had a less than perfect record in that attempt. All I ask is that religious folks meet me halfway. See, I understand that as a member of civilized society, I have a responsibility to treat other people with kindness and compassion. I know life is rough, and I shouldn't begrudge anyone the comforts he or she needs to survive from day to day without going postal. On the other hand, we all have a responsibility as adults to make sure our beliefs arrive at some sort of logical sense. It's fun to believe in Santa Claus, sure--but at a certain point, society expects you to grow up, and it won't consider you a grown-up until you come to grips with the fact that an obese, anachronistically-outfitted elf cannot possibly squeeze down and up every chimney in the world in a single night. You can't sit around on Christmas Eve waiting for jolly Saint Nick to bring presents for your kids. There's no excuse for that. Eventually, a reasonable worldview must trump whatever kiddie story makes you the happiest. It sucks, Gentle Reader, but there it is.
For that reason, if you honestly believe one of the two creation stories in the first three chapters of Genesis, by which I mean you accept wholesale a fable that claims we derive from a hippie nudist couple in a garden with magic fruit trees and an evil talking lizard, then you can't be surprised when people like Dawkins treat you as childish. You just can't. That's how growing up works. Cultural taboos notwithstanding, other grown-ups don't have to be perpetual sweethearts about every ridiculous thing you insist on believing. When Mormons believe their loony golden tablet story or don special underwear, guess what, we're allowed to make fun of them. Same goes for Scientologists and their space opera theology. Making fun of guys like Pat Robertson doesn't make you a bad person--or a bad Christian. By the same token, while I agree ad hominem attacks are beneath me, I see no reason to go out of my way to avoid mocking fundamentalist doctrines. It's okay for sane adults to roll their eyes at self-evident nonsense.
Finally, there's this story, which says four out of ten Americans now believe (or rather, tell Gallup they believe) the Genesis story all the way. That number has fallen over the last few years, which is good. It means people feel comfortable actually thinking about the things they say they believe, which is the adult thing to do.
The Gallup poll includes a middle-ground opinion that yes, evolution occurs, but its effects are driven by God in fulfillment of His will. In my view, that notion is utterly valid, and I defy any evolutionist to disprove it. See, I don't think it's unreasonable to look at our world and decide, "There's no way this came about by pure accident." I just ask people to please try not to use that as an excuse to absolve themselves from further rational thinking.
Print This Post
Enjoy this article?
About
Name: Christian
Email:
Recent Posts
- Fiat Lux!
- Game of Sabers: A Star Wars Speculation
- REVIEW: Dune (2021)
- There Has Been an Awakening
- Problematic
C Is for Collection
Mr. Klein’s Wild Ride E-Book
Get help Rereading the Bible
Follow Carv on Twitter
- No public Twitter messages.
March 30th, 2012 - 15:12
Hey, Carv, yet once again a thought provoking insight. As you know, I do consider myself a Christian and personal experiences led me to my conclusion. However, I agree that without said “divine interventions”, I might still be a Doubting Thomas as well.
I continue studying and learning and wondering how everything came to be, as I believe everyone-agnostics and atheists included-stagnate when they cease seeking intellectual and psychological growth. I believe questioning my faith lends to a deeper understanding and the occasional epiphany that I’m on the right footpath-regardless of the numerous questions I still have.
All the while I respect the thoughts of non-believers just as much because, let’s face it, I’m not qualified to be judge and jury of anyone. Which is where I think religion fails humanity in various ways. Honestly, if someone came to me with fire and brimstone damning my soul because I did not live life to acknowledge certain worldly traditions or doctrines, I would turn tail and run. 🙂 (It actually happened in my young life and soured me on my faith for a very long time.)
Great blog, Carv
March 30th, 2012 - 15:44
Thank you! I’ll never be able to argue with someone’s “personal experiences,” and what’s tricky is, religion is always a personal experience. It’s tied up with family and childhood and peer groups and mom and dad and apple pie. It also eases our fears of death and inconsequentiality. So if I question any point of doctrine (no matter how patently ludicrous that doctrine may be), I’m making fun of a Christian’s whole life. It may be impossible to mock silly beliefs without somehow mocking people I care about.
I think it’s worth noting that when the original doubting Thomas scoffed at the idea of his friend and mentor coming back to life (and, don’t forget, resembling the gardener), Jesus gave him a hard time about it, but he also offered Thomas physical proof. It’s okay to demand logic from your own beliefs or those of anyone else. Faith is not always good, just as reason and proof are seldom bad.
I also think it’s important to remember that I don’t think every Christian belief is silly. If I did, I wouldn’t have invested so much time and energy into my Jesus series. What I do find ridiculous is the idea that the Bible is so obviously true it should trump any other consideration. It shouldn’t be our moral guide into sexism, racism, or homophobia. It shouldn’t halt investigations into the origins of humans or the cosmos. And it shouldn’t be the foundation of any legislative caprice. It’s just a book, riddled with errors and lapses in judgment, that was written by men who were desperately (and admirably) trying to hear the voice of God.
March 30th, 2012 - 16:17
Couple of things:
Most modern atheists/atheist books will identify atheism as “a lack of belief in a god or gods” rather than “a belief that there are no gods.” It’s also called “weak” or “soft” atheism — or even agnostic atheism (as knowledge and belief are on two separate axes). It’s what Dawkins himself means when he says that he’s an atheist. I agree that a positive claim of there being no gods is a faith statement, but I still refer to myself as an atheist rather than an agnostic because I don’t think the two propositions (god or no god) are equally likely. If you don’t actively believe in a god, then you are, by definition, an atheist. But you are, of course, allowed to label yourself whatever you’d like. But I just don’t like the spectre of that old trope, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist!” dragged out yet again. (Besides, doesn’t that imply that there’s a “Goldilocks Zone” of faith?)
In the last paragraph, you say that it’s equally valid and unfalsifiable that God is actively directing evolution. So he’s actively caused the extinction of 99% of the species that have ever lived on Earth? He created a planet and then futzed around with it for a few billion years before creating his “chosen” species? I guess it just begs the question — what is the distinction between a god-directed process of evolution and a nature-driven one? If there is no evidence of a supernatural influence or an evolutionary occurrence that couldn’t have happened without divine interference, then what justification does one have for insisting that there’s a divine influence behind it? You could just as easily say that Zeus is throwing lightning bolts to Earth, but he’s making it *look like* they’re just a product of static imbalance in the air. And although mutation is a random occurrence, natural selection isn’t. Whoever “looks at everything” and says “this can’t all be an accident” doesn’t really understand the process.
As always, great post, Carv.
March 30th, 2012 - 16:37
Excellent points, one and all. Here’s the definition of atheism on M-W.com (Merriam-Webster): “1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity.” Of course, every atheist has his or her pet definition, but both are included. When I’m in Oklahoma, I usually refer to myself as an atheist because I don’t believe in the Baptist God, the most relevant to that location, but it’s not how I see myself.
I do not, in fact, believe God is directing evolution. I’m just saying that, like the Deist God, the notion that He is directing evolution is unfalsifiable. Is it valid? I suppose that’s in the eye of the beholder. Some would say the advent of intelligence was worth the extinction of all other species. I’m not that anthropocentric, but I concede the morality and preferences of God are not obliged to be my own.
I think when I mentioned “god-directed” evolution I was really thinking about the earliest era of life on Earth. There’s as yet no valid naturalistic explanation for the inception of life. Of course, positing a God only delays the argument by begging the question of where God came from, but that hasn’t stopped many biologists from endorsing panspermia theory (which contends life somehow migrated here from outer space).
Of course, if we’d just taken ancient Hebrews’ word for it, we’d have never looked for the answers–but then, even without trying, I think someone would’ve noticed the reams of evidence for evolution by now. Personally, I think we’ll find life has a quality that makes it fall together under certain primordial circumstances, that evolution by mutation wasn’t random at all. But I’m basing that suspicion on my own naturalistic bias, and as a scientific thinker, it behooves me to watch for and counter my own biases.