Atheism v. Agnosticism?

Question

I'm an atheist, but I've been thinking lately whether or not the more rational route to take is agnosticism.

(Christians, before you start spewing out your dogma, please realize that any admittance of uncertainty as to the existence of the supernatural puts me NO closer to admitting the existence of your convenient, schizophrenic, outdated, man-made god. Shoo.)

Anyway, I don't believe in a god because I think science does, or can, explain it all. But if there WERE something in existence that was above and beyond the laws of science - then it's very possible that we could neither conceive of nor perceive of it. Science is a field of hypotheses and theories - I think it 99% likely that the "supernatural" doesn't exist, *but if it did*, could we even know?

So...what I'm trying to say is, if we for the moment take the word "atheism" to mean not only disbelief in a god but disbelief in the supernatural, is it not better to say, we don't, and could never know? Convince me!

Thank you for the great, thoughtful answers so far! There are several I wish I could award the best!

As for the couple of bad apples, the thanks does not apply.

Answer 1

Your question does not really have anything to do with atheism or agnosticism... it really has to do with intellectual honesty (the willingness to question and doubt one's own presumptions) and open-mindednes (the willingness to honestly consider alternative possibilities).

The way I see it, anything that can exist in the universe or, any event that occur in the universe is, by definition, 'natural'. There is plenty in the universe that we do not understand... and plenty that we are not even aware of. I see the word 'supernatural' as an intellectual cop-out, that is used to quell 'cognitive dissonance'; i.e., when you cannot find a convenient answer in nature, you make up an answer based on the supernatural, and accept it as a matter of 'faith'.

All religious belief is explained and accounted for in that one simple sentence.

That process may quell cognitive dissonence... but it does in in an 'intellectually dishonest' manner. It does not acknowledge ignorance of fact or intellect... it disavows that ignorance by creating the illusion that one DOES know... by way of adopting wilful ignorance... delusion.

The intellectually honest answer is "We don't know... yet; but we're working on it." The intellectually DIShonest answer is "That's too complicated; therefore, god did it."

You're much better off with the "I don't know" position... which is consistent with both atheism and agnosticism.

Answer 2

Ok, I spent all of my educational career and degree in the sciences and i can tell you that science does not have all the answers and it cannot explain it all. Take a watch for example, take off the back and see how intricate and precise it is, the design and inner workings show that it was made by an intelligent being who designed it. So how much more the human being that is far more intricate and finely tuned than a watch.
It takes so much more faith to believe that two atoms collided and resulted in an evolution that produced someting as amazing, detailed and finely balanced as a human being. If science is the final answer then how come they are always changing their minds on what is the best food for us to eat or what vaccinations we should or shouldn't have - because they are always pushing the envelope and finding new stuff out about the world we live in. Another intresting point is that if science says we came from a primordial soup, why can't they prove it and make the primordial soup and then make life from that pool of chemicals - after all those chemicals are still available to us now.
It is obvious that this world was made by a creator and the wonderful world of science proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt!

Answer 3

Keep in mind, the limits to our understanding of the universe are only the limits imposed by our scientific advancement. And while we've made great strides scientifically, it hasn't been a century since indoor plumbing became the norm for many countries, for Pete's sake. Gotta give it some time.

What we may think of as inexplicable (aka supernatural) today may be explained by science in the next 50 years, or even the next decade.

You're looking to make sense of things right now, for yourself. The term "a-theist" just means one is the opposite of a theist; they don't believe in the existence of a god or gods. If you feel the word "agnostic" is more appropriate as a self-descriptor, call yourself an agnostic.
In the long run, whichever term you use won't be anywhere near as important as the fact that you have an open mind.

Answer 4

Atheism is just a lack of belief in any gods. Period.

Agnosticism is the belief that the divine is inherently unknowable. That is, if there were a god, we would have no direct knowledge of it.

Christian who claims that you cannot know God by reason, but only through faith is really an agnostic. They are saying that you can't have direct knowledge of God. You can also have atheistic agnostics who don't have a belief in any gods, but think that if there were a god we wouldn't know about it.

The popular definition of agnostic as someone who is unsure whether any god exists is really a meaningless definition. There are hardly any people who really think that the chance of a god existing is exactly 50/50. They lean towards belief or non-belief, usually strongly so.

As an atheist, I still believe that there is a possiblility of a god existing (however defined). I just don't have any belief in any. To the extent that I know anything, I know there are no gods. Of course, I admit there is a really really remote possibility that I'm wrong. I also believe that if there were a god, we'd know about it. It would be too big to miss. Therefore, I'm not an agnostic.

Answer 5

Well, you are at least opening your mind to what over 6 billion people have already decided. If you think that there might be something to it, good for you! I am happy to hear it.

But as far as science being the only explanation to believe in, you really answered this yourself,

"Science is a field of hypotheses and theories".

God is not a theory, since His work and voice and Son were wtinessed and passed down through the generations. We do not have photos or audio recordings of these witnessings for the obvious reason, they weren't invented yet.

What we experience through scientific research can be extraordinary and can save us from some great disasters.

What we experience through faith in God is peace, serenity, love and can save us from great disasters, as well. If this sounds good to you, then give it a chance with an open heart and open mind.

Even computers didn't make a positive affect on all people for the first time, but they can't live without them either.

Answer 6

I doubt that I can convince you, but wanted you to know I agree with you. I'm an agnostic.

It's my personal belief that there's a higher power that created our universe. And that neither science nor religion can explain everything and convince me otherwise. I do not believe the Bible is anything more than a story that had founded different religions, much the same way the Odyssey was truth to the Greeks.

But that's as far as I ever get in my religion arguments with my raised-Baptist fiance, because he thinks my ideas are ridiculous and irrational.

But I hadn't ever gotten far enough in my own analysis to consider the supernatural aspect...You've definetly got a point I'll think about!

Answer 7

I was born and raised Catholic but after going through certain events and realizing some things I'm now an agnostic and have been for a few years. I don't necessarily believe in the Christian god per say, but I don't believe science can explain everything either. I don't know what is out there but I do feel there has to be something out there greater than us in order for everything that is to have come to pass. I don't assume to know nor understand what or who this superior force is, but I do think something is above us, I just can't say whether or not it is a God of some form. I don't know and may never know in my lifetime but that's fine with me so I think it is better to just say "I don't know" rather than say "I do and you will believe that my way of thinking is right or else".

Answer 8

Many ppl try to revise the definition of atheism. But atheism really is the belief that God doesn't exist. They say "God doesn't exist" it's not the lack of a belief, it's the active belief that God isn't there. This isn't rational unless you can prove God doesn't exist, since you can't without knowing all of time and space, then atheism is irrational. So, if you're not going to believe and follow God, then agnosticism is the rational choice, however, this means being open to the idea of God, which you don't seem to be yet, but I hope you'll work on that.

Answer 9

I am an atheist but at the same time i do believe that at this point in time not everything can be explained by science. So this creates a certain degree of uncertainty about how things were created etc. I suppose the more apt route is to be agnostic because then you say you believe in something but you just don't know what it is.

Answer 10

I believe that when you say "if there WERE something in existence that was above and beyond the laws of science - then it's very possible that we could neither conceive of nor perceive of it." - it is one of the main beliefs of agnostics. I believe that agnostics believe that there MAY be a greater power but, even if there were, we would not be able to comprehend it. I am personally exploring my religious beliefs and consider myself agnostic right now since I am not sure what I do believe, but I am sure what I don't believe. I am sure that I disagree with Christian beliefs but that there may be a greater power that we could not possibly understand. I think you may lean more to the atheist side since you're 99% sure that there is no greater power, though.

Answer 11

Agnosticism is a cognitive position, atheism is a pragmatic position. Agnosticism could lead you to atheism if you have decided (and can admit) that it's not worth to entertain the question due to the reasonable evidence. It seems most people do not have a problem stating that Zeus or Kukulkan doesn't exist with the known evidence, it's easy to take on the pragmatic position of atheism regarding those gods since (hardly) nobody will claim otherwise and you don't get into the "absolute truth" argument, all you need here is acceptable certainty about the statement. The problem with religions that are still active is the confrontation that comes up when you label yourself as an "atheist", here, the acceptable certainty formed with the know evidence will be not enough for those who believe whatever they claim to believe. In such cases, most believers will ask for “absolute truth” and claim that, to know the “absolute truth” you need to be omniscient, in other words, they simple forget that to claim something, all you need is to have a reasonable certainty based on evidences, so they decide to ask for the impossible (omniscience), even when most human knowledge is based on reasonable certainty about any issue and not omniscience. Even though, once you've made your mind that it's not worth to entertain the question, it's not a big deal to claim such judeo-christian-islamic gods do not exist and that all you need to reach such conclusion was a reasonable certainty based on evidence and not omniscience. If our development was based on the "absolute truth" of any issue the human kind have gone through, we would still be living in caves.

Isaac Asimov said the following regarding the subject:

"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." - Isaac Asimov, Free Inquiry, 1982.