Why there are so few true agnostics, most of them being actually atheists?

Question

Agnostic: Someone who considers that there is no evidence for the existence of God, but also no evidence for its non existence. This is a neutral position.
Atheist: Someone who is in denial of the existence of God. This is not a neutral position.

This is the same question as in http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070618153556AA9ianm
but better formulated, I hope.

It is my personal experience that many people claim to follow the valid principle behind agnosticism, which is that we should only believe what is supported by evidence, but in fact have the atheistic position, which is not supported by evidence and is actually a belief system..

It is as if there is a war with those who says God exists on one side and those who say He does not exist on the other side. Very few remain neutral.. Those who have not experienced or comprehended evidences of God, tend to move on the denial side instead of just remaining neutral. Why is it so hard to remain neutral?

To the answerer named "more than a hat rack": I think the answer to your question would be obvious. It is much simpler to live as an atheist -- no need to go to any church, etc! Moreover, I think these false agnostics do more than just acting as atheists. They actually take the atheistic position with no supporting evidence.

Answer 1

The problem with using words like 'agnostic' and 'atheist' is that they try and boil down what is actually a wide spectrum of ideas into just two viewpoints. So by oversimplifying you're doomed to get some inaccuracy.

I've met atheists, for example, who assert that even if they were presented with indisputable evidence of the existance of a god, they would not respect or acknowledge such an entity and wouldn't even brake if they saw a god crossing the street. An extreme view.

Likewise, I've met agnostics who are POSITIVE that there is some sort of divinity, but they just cannot determine which, if any, group of believers the Divine associates with. And this, too, is a kind of extreme view.

Most people I know who claim the title of 'agnostic' are not what I would call 'scientifically agnostic' (and perhaps I'm the only one to call it this). According to the scientific method, if you do not know something it is inappropriate to assume that you do... so until very strong evidence is presented (something with a certainty of 95% or better would be nice), it would be inappropriate to say - or act as if - any god did or did not exist. This would seem to be like what you're referring to under the general label of 'agnostic' as well.

Most 'agnostics' I know are people who say they are keeping an 'open mind', but who refuse to believe in a god UNTIL they get the evidence. In that sense that makes them just a prejudiced as any theist who chooses to believe in a god until massive counter-evidence is provided.

I suppose so few are neutral because neutrality really is a difficult position to maintain. Even scientists are often prejudiced and WANT their experiements to turn out one way or another... sometimes to their discredit and ruin.

So it goes.

Answer 2

There are a ton of agnostics. At this point in time there's probably more than there ever have been. The point is, it's almost impossible to know about the existence or nonexistence of God for certain, so agnosticism is the natural choice for healthy skepticism.

And I don't find it hard to remain neutral. Anyone who is certain there is or isn't is delusional, in my opinion. There is no proof either way. Only evidence on both sides.

The randomness of things on the atheists side - ie children dying of disease, starvation, floods, fires. The good an bad suffering alongside each other with no apparent reward for good behavior. The scientific evidence demonstrates how life could have evolved, from the Big Bang, to eveolution and modern times.

On the other hand, one would have to deny practically any and every claim of metaphysical or paranormal occurence. And they have yet to show any real morphing going on with the remains of species, bone samples showing a steady progression from one creature to another over time.

And the Big Bang is no less absurd than Let there be light. Both suggest something from nothing. A chicken or egg problem. Who created god? How did the matter that exploded in the Big Bang come into being? Why did it explode? How can there be a beginning of time? How can space be finite and not infinite?

Answer 3

I'm neither Agnostic, nor Atheist, so I don't know if this answer is going to satisfy...
I think it is truly more difficult to take a neutral position, especially when it comes to matters of religious belief, than to be either a believer or an Atheist. The very position of an Agnostic is so ambiguous, so truly impossible, that most journey, and search for an answer, and cannot, will not make a decision either way. I can't, for the life of me, take sides on a couple of issues, for the very reason that it is so difficult to support a decision either way! (not religious, sorry, but still a neutral stance consideration) Philosophically, agnosticism is aligned with metaphysics, a philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value. At least, that's how I see it. This being said, its deucedly difficult to either prove, beyond a doubt, or disprove beyond a doubt, certain things...the existence of God being at the top of the list!

Answer 4

Not to get to etymological, but I think, given the terms used and their roots, I have notice the opposite. It seems like many atheists are actual agnostic. Let us take a quick look at things.

Theist/Agnostic/Atheist

"Theos" in Greek (from what I recall) actually denotes "that which is greater, more powerful than Man." It could be a thunderstorm, a hurricane, a drought, maybe even love, but it has been construct into deification. Thus, a "theist" is one who believes in a higher being (whether singular or plural--monotheistic, pantheistic, polytheistic, etc.).

Its contrast is the "atheist", who argues that there is no higher power. Oddly, if we do not deify these claims, most "atheists" would accept that Man is not the highest power and accept that weather, emotion, whatever often "control"/"create" Man.

The term "agnostic" comes from the Greek term "gnosis," which means "knowledge." In short, it says I have "no knowledge" of whether there is or is not this being. Interestingly, this suggests that EVERYONE is agnostic (unless they have been visited by some deity) because knowing and knowledge do not seem the paths of religion--which accepts really only faith (or some would say "blind trust"). Faith is not a way of knowing but rather a way of being, so the question shift from epistemological to ontological.

In short, since NO ONE can PROVE that God does or does not exist because proof itself is knowledge-dependent, we are all agnostics (technically); however, many claim to be atheists (as well as theists). Thus, in my opinion, it is nearly impossible to be a TRUE atheist or a TRUE theist.

Answer 5

So I'm not an agnostic. Shoot.

What do we call a belief of some form of higher power or existence without specific beliefs regarding exactly what and no organized rituals, texts, etc?

More on the subject I totally support neutrality. I've seen people toting around the phrase, "Atheism=the logical choice". However, I find atheism to be rather illogical. Although, my /true/ stance is that the whole religion thing is a moot point. Live and let other people do their own crazy crap so long as it doesn't hurt anyone. (That's not how the saying goes, huh?)

Answer 6

If a person is willing to question a concept most of us were taught from birth was absolute truth, they're not satisfied in some way and the dissatisfied are the ones to change. A thinking person's beliefs are never stagnant. Religion or lack thereof is all on a spectrum and some of those who are agnostics now are growing into atheists and some atheists back into agnosticism.

Answer 7

Both the theist and "hard atheist" positions are essentially guesses, as you indicated. There is such a thing as "soft atheism:" "I have no god beliefs." This overlaps considerably with agnosticism.

I call myself a philosophical agnosticist. It means I've thought it through and base my opinions, not on claims about the nature of the universe or on theist and atheist arguments, but on my knowledge of severe human limitations on such subjects. We are embedded in our space-time universe. The only way to prove a god or gods do exist or don't would be to somehow get outside our universe and see. Clearly we can't do that.

Why are there so few declared agnostics? Partially, because many people have never heard of agnosticism. Partially, because many of those who've heard about it simply consider it lazy fence-sitting (It's not). Partially, because some people are convinced that atheism or theism is the way to go.

Answer 8

I am an agnostic, I am undecided whether I believe or not.
I was brought up catholic but spoke to people of other religions and realized their point of view was valid also. Who could say which view was right?
Then I met atheists when I started university, and I recognised that everyone's view is valid. I personally feel uncomfortable with the hatred of women deep in a lot of religions.
You can disagree, but I think religion has caused a lot of hate, and people who concentrate on helping people on this earth are kinder.
I'm agnostic now.

Answer 9

i think your question may have been better asked, "Why do most agnostics act like Athiests?"

Most agnostics tend to live life as if there was no God. They don't pray, they don't join organized religion, don't seek a higher power, etc. Most, not all. In all practicality, they act like Atheist.

Rarely, do I meet an agnostic that lives like and acts like there might be a God.

So, why the predisposition of Agnostics to live like Atheists?

Answer 10

If you say you do not believe in God because there is no evidence of God then you are basically an atheist until you see proof. There is no neutrality on the God issue. It is all about faith. You can't wait to see proof before you jump on the bandwagon.