Hannah Cann tells us why she loves political correctness.
Do you have swine flu? No. Do you know anybody who does have swine flu? Probably not. So what's all the fuss about?
Can't afford ethical clothing but can afford a night out at Ziggy's? Jennifer Heyes discusses where students' priorities should really lie.
Three of The Yorker's blogs team have had a hard think about what general rules they live their lives by and written them down in the form of their own Personal Philosophies.
An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing can be known about the existence of God. And to me this has always been obvious. How can we know that God exists? We might have strong views one way or another, and I think about such views all the time – yes, agnostics do think about religion. Arguably they’ve thought about it more than anyone.
I was not encouraged to be religious from an early age, and neither was I encouraged not to be. But I’ve always taken an immense interest in religion and religious studies was one of my favourite subjects at school. My sister, having barely mentioned the idea, chose to be confirmed into the Anglican Church. I chose agnosticism. My parents, themselves fairly apathetic towards religion, are baffled by us both.
Agnosticism is not an apathetic stance. People who are apathetic on the subject of religion might say, "Well, I guess religion is a nice idea, but I haven’t really thought about it, so I don’t know if I have a faith or not." Whereas people who label themselves agnostics have simply had the courage to say, "I don’t know if God exists. No-one can know that. But I see many people with strong faith, and just because I personally don’t share it, that doesn’t make it less valid."
"Yes, that’s all very well," you might argue, "but you’re just sitting on the fence; you’re too cowardly to make up your mind." But I argue that agnosticism is the bravest stance that one can take in the religious debate. In a modern world plagued by doubts in both science and religion, and still wrestling with the immense problem of evil and suffering, to stand up and say, "the evidence doesn’t look promising, but ultimately I just don’t know," is surely a brave thing to do.
Many, not all, are driven to accept religion through fear – to them the alternative of living in a world without certainty, without the faith that there is something better to come, is simply too ghastly to contemplate. Similarly, others take refuge in science, with a capital ‘S’ – ‘Science’, they claim, has all the answers and if we don’t know them today we will do tomorrow.
In a modern world plagued by doubts in both science and religion, and still wrestling with the immense problem of evil and suffering, to stand up and say, "the evidence doesn’t look promising, but ultimately I just don’t know," is surely a brave thing to do.
But science doesn’t have all the answers: as philosopher David Hume argued, just because the sun rose yesterday and the day before that and the day before that, as far back as we can remember, makes it extremely likely that it will do the same tomorrow, but by no means certain.
I attended a talk earlier this term by the Reverend Lord Richard Harries. He began by stating that intolerance was arguably implicit in any serious world view, and while acknowledging the benefits of engaging in dialogue with people of other beliefs, he did not answer the question which was the title of his talk: "Can religions learn to be tolerant?" I think that religious individuals can be tolerant, and I have plenty of time for agnostic theists, but unfortunately I think that there will always be intolerant people in any society, whether religious or atheist. The reverend considered both religious and atheistic viewpoints, but not agnosticism, a serious world view that leaves most room for tolerance.
After this talk, a friend and confirmed atheist asked me whether I thought the tooth fairy might exist. I said no, I didn’t think so. So, he said, God doesn’t exist either – we have no more evidence than for the tooth fairy. Millions of people don’t believe in the tooth fairy, but there are millions of religious people in the world. I’m not saying that just because millions of people believe in something necessarily means that they are right (and the nature of their beliefs vary tremendously) but I am saying that we can’t just dismiss every religious faith outright, especially as some are so incredibly strong and even more have at least been seriously considered. If I’ve seriously considered something and so have you, but we’ve come to different conclusions, then we both must be prepared to discuss and defend our views. That’s tolerance. Bringing up the tooth fairy is funny, but irrelevant.
When people ask me about my religious views I tell them that I’m an agnostic. I’ll probably go on and waffle about the inherently flawed logic in arguments for the existence of God, or about the problem of evil, or about how incredibly fascinating I find Tibetan Buddhism. But they’ve probably shrugged their shoulders and walked away. After all, you can’t have a discussion with an agnostic, can you?
In a group debate somebody once asked me whether I held strong views about anything. Slightly taken aback and not much of a public speaker, my answer was probably incoherent. But I do believe in tolerance and I do think that agnosticism is itself a strong view - in my opinion, the strongest.
In '‘Why I’m not a Christian’', Bertrand Russell concludes:
"We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world — its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it."
This is what I try to do every day, and when I look fair and square at the world I see tremendous complexity. And I’m not afraid to admit, after spending much time in thought and discussion, that I just don’t know – I don’t have all the answers and neither do you.
A very interesting article.
I would disagree with any separation made between science and religion. Science boils down to foundational and unprovable beliefs about the universe just as religion does.
It was in christian Europe that science and empiricism developed. Empiricism assumes that the universe is rational and dependable (as you have touched on in your example of the sun rising and setting), this assumption is unprovable, and is founded in the belief in a rational and dependable God whose creation reflects his own nature.
Without this assumption science falls apart, and there is indeed no reason to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
"But I see many people with strong faith, and just because I personally don’t share it, that doesn’t make it less valid." Exactly - and just because THEY believe it, doesn't make it any MORE valid.
"that we can’t just dismiss every religious faith outright, especially as some are so incredibly strong and even more have at least been seriously considered" There are also a lot of people who believe crazy things due to mental disorders, and I don't see how the strength of their belief has any effect on truth or on whether I should respect their 'faith'. Seriously considered? You seemed to agree that there are no good arguments for those beliefs...
And I don't think the tooth fairy (or monster in your fridge, or ghost, or leprechaun or orbiting teapot*) 'argument' is irrelevant. If millions of people believed in the tooth fairy instead of an abrahamic god, you would find the 'god argument' irrelevant... And as we know, belief or faith has no effect on either's existence; the tooth fairy would not be any more 'real' in this scenario. Indeed, if we were all to believe very strongly that AIDS, or cancer, or anything else doesn't exist, it wouldn't make those illnesses disappear. People used to think the earth is flat, I don't think the earth's shape changed as people's beliefs changed...
And I will quote him myself, to illustrate why I said calling yourself an 'agnostic' might be misleading:
"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods." ... or tooth fairies...
Yes, neither side has all the answers. But very few atheists claim they can 'prove' that god doesn't exist, or are 100% certain that he doesn't, just live on the assumption that he doesn't. Religious people's claims are very different...
The "friend and confirmed atheist"
To reply to the above comment:
To make sense of the universe, you need science, it is very easy to take god out of the equation. You choose to call your "unprovable assumption" 'god'... Fair enough, but that's all your word 'god' now means: the initial assumption. There is absolutely no reason why you would add omnipotency, miracles, religion, faith, life after death or anything of that kind to it, which is very far from what most people understand 'god' to be.
Be a deist if you want, but that's as far as your argument gets...
The "friend and confirmed atheist"
I think that anyone who doesn't say that they're agnostic is lying, in a way. Nobody can know for certain, and prove 100%, that God does or doesn't exist. If you are an atheist, you're not. You think that a God makes no sense. You're adamant that miracles don't happen or whatever - but you can't prove it and you can't be adamant about your decision.
There is virtually nothing definite about science. If you want me to write a ridiculously long article outlining alternatives to basic science, I can do.. we've been studying it recently. Physics and theology aren't mutually exclusive. Charles Darwin was a strong theist after theorising and proving evolution.
If God is omnipotent, he can do anything he wants.. and because of quantum mechanics and the chaos theory (as humans call them) it is possible to do virtually anything without breaking the laws of physics.
So good one God, you've broken science 
Or good one science, you've broken yourself... 
I think (tentatively) that there's a fundamental error here, you move from:
1.God's existence cannot be proved either way
to
2. The sensible ("corageous") position regarding god's existence is agnosticism.
This move is problematic, there are plenty of things that can't (by their very nature) be proved either way, but that have a fairly clear, uniquely sensible position. The first example that comes to mind is the principle of non-contradiction (roughly: contradictory statements cannot be both true and not true); this principle is logically impossible to prove or disprove, since any proof would make use of the law itself. The only sensible position, though, is to hold that the principle is true.
In fact, there are examples of this phenomenon everywhere. The existence or non-existence of the external world; the theory that the universe was created 5 minutes ago (with memories embedded in peoples' minds), and the theory that I and I alone am the single human being endowed with a conscious mind are good ones. It just doesn't seem sensible (and certainly not corageous) to take agnosticism about these things seriously.
But the problem of god's existence is even less sensible to be agnostic about. While it is logically impossible to disprove the existence of god, it is certainly possible to prove that he does, in fact, exist.
Positive proof for god's existence is possible, but (itself) non-existent. Proof of his non-existence is logically impossible.
Generally, theories that cannot be disproved AND have no positive proof, despite being very much provable, are even less sensible to be agnostic about than theories that cannot be proved wither way. In all seriousness, a good example of such a theory is the question of the existence of the tooth fairy.
Where the reason for a theory's absence of (on the one hand) disproof is that disproof is a logical impossibility, but (on the other) the reason for the absence of positive proof is that there simply isn't any (even though there very much could (and probably should) be), the sensible position to hold moves very quickly away from agnosticism and towards scepticism.
It therefore seems more sensible to be agnostic about the existence of the external world than about the existence of god.
Amirite?
jason: fyi, charles darwin was not a theist - where did you hear that? and although he made conjectures of evolution, he never observed it in action and certainly did not prove it. He had no idea of the enormous complexity of the cell that we know about today, and made the incorrect assumption still clung to by many today that natural selection extends across the boundaries of species.
Natural selection only destroys genetic information that already exists, and mutations have never been observed to increase information, although they have been known to disable things which have allowed a species to survive better in some cases, but at the expense of something else. You can't get the number 10 (humans) from the number 1 (bacteria) when you're only allowed to subtract (select or mutate).
I'm Christian, but I'd argue that the Agnostic view is pretty sensible.
Both theists and atheists have FAITH, faith in the existence or inexistence of God. Faith, by definition is IRRATIONAL, hence, the only RATIONAL altrnative is to be honest and say "I don't know."
Henry: How would you prove your existence if you were God? you might come to earth as a man and live a sinless life, then allow yourself to be murdered by the very people you created, die in their place for their sin, and then of course being God, come back to life, allowing them to have a relationship with you untainted by sin. does that sound familiar?
There is significant evidence of this very thing happening about 2000 years ago.
James, if there is proof of god's existence, then agnosticism seems even less sensible.
Agnosticism relies of the absence of both positive and negative proof. If the reasons for the lack of positive proof are extremely unconvincing, and the reasons for the lack of negative proof are extremely convincing, then agnosticism isn't sensible any more; agnosticism only seems reasonable if the reasons for the lack of proof (on both sides) are similarly convincing.
In the case of god, the lack of positive proof would be down to circumstance. The lack of negative proof is down to the logical impossibility of it's existence. The same is true of a great many theses, for example, the existence of the tooth fairy.
The key point is the asymmetry of the justification for the lack of proofs.
The story of Jesus, though, doesn't seem to fit into the category of proof of god, it's just a slightly revamped version of the story of the pagan god mithras (or so i've been led to believe).
Thomas, it's rational to believe in the truth or falsity of lots of things that have no proof or disproof, for example the law of non-contradiction. There isn't really any faith involved in that belief, i think.
Hold on, significant evidence? surely the amount of evidence against blokes being able to walk on water counts as significant too? I have witnessed hundreds of occasions in which there has been downward pressure from a person onto a body of water, and not once has the water exerted enough upward force to enable walking. You nearly got away with that one!
But anyways, agnosticism.
isn't Mithras one of the Valar in Silmarillion?
Yes, James... God is really a great guy if he waits for (at least) 148.000 years of wars, misery, famines etc. before he realises it might be time to do something about it. Or do you dispute geology..?
And regardless of that, your god is seriously unimaginative if that's all he could come up with, dozens of other prophets performed the same miracles before him...
There is just -some- evidence that Jeebus even existed. Let's assume he did, nothing tells us he was the son of god. And as C. S. Lewis (who's on your side) points out, Jesus was not a great human teacher. If you doubt that he is the son of god, he's nothing more than a madman who maybe happened to do a few nice things...
The "friend and confirmed atheist"
Well done on a wonderfully written article.
I have a varied group of friends as far as religion is concerned, and always have had. A number of them find great strength in their respective faiths, while others just find the idea of religion completely irrational. Personally, I've always found myself stuck between the two viewpoints. I'm not fond of labels, but I believe 'agnostic' is probably the best way to describe me; because even after years of reasonable debates with intelligent people from both sides of the argument, I still don't know what to think.
Well done again on a well written piece. I'v never liked being considered indecisive or a coward by both religious people and atheists for thinking what I do. However, I think you're overlooking a very valid point:
ANYONE who can openly have an opinion on a religious belief, whether they believe, or not, or are not sure, is showing immense courage because ultimately there will be somebody out there who will mock them or try to shout them down or take what they've said in an incorrect manner. Everyone who openly speaks about their opinion in this area exhibits bravery, whatever the basis for that opinion.
Firstly I would also like to say well done Vicky on writing this article as you can see you have sparked off a nice open discussion. Saying your agnostic is a fair point, and I can understand where you come from, really, it’s hard to explain how a “lower form” of existence can understand a “higher being”, a nice analogy can be if you say man is a table, and “God” is the carpenter. The carpenter has used wood to make the table, and the table has four legs, but each table in some way is different in a small degree to each other, but the carpenter has obviously spent a lot of time, and put a lot of effort into making the tables. The carpenter though is unknown to the tables, because the tables cannot comprehend the carpenter, they cannot see him, touch him see the effect of him or even understand why the carpenter created it, but the table does have a purpose. This does not mean the carpenter does not existence, even though the table can in no wise proof the carpenter created it. So likewise how are we really supposed to know who created us, or how we were created, some could argue its due to our parents, which is true, to some extent just like the carpenter used different pieces of wood to create this beautiful table.
Basically I believe in God because I have faith in a higher being, that I cannot comprehend, and I cannot prove to you and anyone, just like the table could never proof the carpenter existence. But this does not mean I can try to at least try to know my “creator” even though it is impossible, you may say whats the point if you can never understand something? That is very true point but although we can’t ever know God as he is unknowable, as we’ve all agreed, it does not mean we can’t not get “closer” to him in some way, the way we live our lives for example, if we are all “God’s creature” then in theory we should not be fighting with each other and killing each other, or be even jealous of each other, as this is not conductive to anything. We may get a momentary satisfaction or enjoyment out of it but in the long run you kind of suffer, there are soooooo many examples of this in today’s society, as people have moved away from God, and you can slowly see the world worsening. But if we “listen” to God, as he does send down “messengers” or “prophets” like Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, we could get a better comprehension on how to live our lives and get “closer” to God, and maybe understand our purpose of being. I am a Baha’i basically and the Bahá’ís teachings stress the fundamental harmony of science and religion. Bahá'ís consider that it is the same unique God who is both the Author of revelation and the Creator of the reality which science investigates. If indeed there is only one truth (reality), it is not possible for something to be scientifically false and religiously true; contradictions are attributed to human fallibility and arrogance.
“Religion must agree with science, so that science shall sustain religion and religion explain science. The two must be brought together, indissolubly, in reality ... Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with Science is mere tradition, and that is not the essential. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life.”
Omeed: Thanks for your point of view. it was very interesting. We don't all agree that God is unknowable though, I believe Jesus existed so that we could know God (by removing our sin that he detests).
Achim: Biblically the age of the earth is around 6000 years old, at which time God called it "good", then Adam + Eve disobeyed God with their free will, bringing sin and death into the world. As for geology I dispute long-age geologist's assumptions on which they interpret the same facts. Radiometric dating methods for example are wildly unreliable. They also assume slow burial, but catastrophe (i.e. global flood) fits the facts better.
See also this interesting article which presents independently measured data of helium diffusion from zircon crystals which fits the predictions for a 6000 year old Earth (the 1.5 billion year predictions are out by a factor of 100,000)!
I'm sorry but any evidence that the earth is (circa) 6000 years old is most likely incorrect.
It's amazing how ANY evidence can be found/manipulated to meet someones view.
What is far more likely is that you have been brainwashed....if you were born in another (say, strongly religious) country at another period of time then you would be brought up to accept their God/religion.
That is almost certain.
Some people need faith, that's fine - but don't present pseudoscience to back it up or (I'm not referring to you here, James) tell people they may go to 'hell' for not believing.
James,
"Creationists involved in the R.A.T.E. Project point to experiments they have performed, which they claim demonstrate that 1.5 billion years of nuclear decay took place over a short period of time, from which they infer that "billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay" have occurred, a massive violation of the principle that radioisotope decay rates are constant, a CORE principle underlying nuclear physics generally, and radiometric dating in particular.
The scientific community points to numerous flaws in these experiments, to the fact that their results have not been accepted for publication by ANY peer-reviewed scientific journal, and to the fact that the creationist scientists conducting them were untrained in experimental geochronology."
#17 a reference would be nice! As for peer-reviewed journals, I have no doubt their work has been published in the Journal of Creation which is a peer reviewed scientific journal, which does not discriminate against the many scientists who hold young earth beliefs.
#16: do not insult my intelligence by telling me I have been brainwashed. Remember it is you who are refusing to even consider the evidence because you already hold the presupposition that the earth is old. Pseudo-science is a word used far too often to allow a person to dismiss evidence without even looking at it. Look at the evidence and tell me how it qualifies as pseudo-science instead of making unsubstantiated claims.
Dispute the evidence, don't just try and discredit the source!
James, apologies if I insulted you - that wasn't my intention.
What I mean is that the easiest way to be brain washed is to be born. A baby is a blank canvas (capable of learning any language as its first etc....) and for anyone to say they haven't been brainwashed in some way by their upbringing or world is naive.
Again, I say that if you had grown up in a strongly religious family in India (say, it could be ancient Greece thousands of years ago) then you would be Muslim. That is almost undeniable and is what happens to millions of people.
Re. pseudo-science....the terms generally refers to things that cannot get their results approved in peer reviewed science journals (being accepted by a journal which implicitly agrees with your point doesn't count).
I googled the source, it's wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid-decay_theory#Rapid-decay_theory
Technically you could get a human from bacteria. Unfortunately it would take several million years in the very least. Whoever told you that you can only subtract and mutate information is incorrect. Phages anyone? RNA polymerase T1 has an error rate that can include accidently adding an extra nucleotide leading to a disruption in the amino acid seq. This is an increase in information adding up to an extra amino acid every few growth cycles
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report