Randall nails it on the head once again.
Obligatory XKCD
August 2, 2010 By 30 Comments
A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos
Atheist:
Subscribe through RSS
Follow Patheos on
Faith Channels
Religion Library
Topics
Resources
Copyright 2008-2012, Patheos. All rights reserved. Terms of Service | Patheos Privacy Policy
Well, as an Agnostic, I do find the cartoon humorous, however, don’t Atheists feel superior to both Agnostics and Theists, and don’t Theists feel superior to both Atheists and Agnostics? In other words, it’s hardly fair to single out Agnostics as somehow feeling the most superior. If you ask me, the ability to say I just don’t know is actually the most humble of the 3 positions. But hey, is that just me feeling superior? lol
Drawing attention to your humility is a sign that you’re not actually as humble as you think. It’s not really about humility anyway. You could straddle the line between god/no god if you think there’s really no way to know for sure and no sense asserting one view or the other, but it’s too easy to feel superior to that way of thinking. If you are asking a question of the universe: is there a supernatural deity overlooking the situation or not? and you examine what you do know, you ought to come up with the correct answer, a satisfactory “no, there isn’t.” How could there be? Where is the evidence for this being? It’s not as easy as “I don’t know, so I refuse to answer, lest I be seen as a blowhard.” It’s not humility or superiority, it’s challenging yourself to think about the answer to the question. If you don’t think it’s an important question, then of course you’re going to be put off by people who think about it more than you do.
But hey, is that just me feeling superior?
In the sense that the comic uses – in that you’re trumpeting the supposed humility of your position as a way of getting the rhetorical high ground – yes, that’s exactly what that is.
This isn’t necessarily targeted at agnostics.
The other big group that needs that particular message are the “liberal” religious types. They’re the ones who think the fundies are just too out of control but those dang New Atheists aren’t any better. They’re also the ones who are more likely to go along with some of the crazier ideas of the extremely religious folks and are a bit more likely than your average agnostic to get pulled in to the culture wars on the “ZOMG, they’re trying to take our religion away!” side.
Of course there’s also the fact that it’s a false equivalence. Saying that a science-minded atheist is just as closed-mindedly dogmatic as a rabid Creationist is problematic at best. We need to hold the line on the teaching of good science (and good history, which is my bugaboo) and we know what good science is. Creationism/Intelligent Design ain’t it. So if you’ve got a fundamentalist saying the universe popped in to being 6000 years ago and an atheist scientist saying that it’s been around for 13 billion years and explaining the Theory of Evolution, you can’t just say, “Well, both of these people seem unwilling to let the other side have their say, they must both be wrong.
It doesn’t work that way.
I agree with Geds.
I have a big problem when 1) Science and History are taught improperly – which happens often. I do not specialize in history, but I do specialize in physics and I am often upset at the average person’s understanding of ideas like “the Big Bang”. I have never heard the big bang taught properly in high school – not once, so it is no small wonder that many people think it’s an absurd theory or started with a god.
Issue 2) when someone claims an atheist is close minded because they are not willing to actually consider creationism as an alternative to evolution. I do not think the atheist is at all being close minded – they have just learned at least a tiny bit of science which easily renders the claims of creationism empty. If someone that you need to cure all mental disorders by releasing pressure in the skull via opening it with a metal chisel we would not consider their idea. Does this make us close minded? No, it makes us more educated than a 10 year-old (or someone from 2,000 years ago). The situation with creationism is analogous.
Well Randall believes the truth always lies halfway between the most extreme claims (xkcd.com/690/).
How is this about agnostics? I don’t see that.
Most atheists Maybe 99% probably have no clue that they are atheists and are not even confronted with creationists. They just have their daily normal stuff to worry on. They even do not care if you believe or not.
Atheists actively involved with creationists are actually in the minority.
Olaf – that is just apathy, not atheism.
Atheism is the default position. If you’re an apatheist, you are also an atheist.
Kinda.
Belief in god requires action. Non belief requires nothing.
Non-belief in the absence of awareness of the concept requires nothing. Non-belief after awareness requires consideration, even if of the most cursory sort.
Most people have been exposed to the idea of God.
Actually, apathy can take the place of consideration.
To choose not to care is to evaluate whether something matters to you (and choosing the position that it doesn’t).
To be clear, I’m not talking about anything rigorous. The guy that hears about God and says “Huh.” and then goes on with his day not thinking about it *again* has still considered it. This, I think, is different in kind than the guy who has never been exposed to the idea at all.
Ok. I agree to your semantic hair splitting.
:)
I think a lot of people just don’t feel the need to discuss it whatsoever. They know what they think and don’t enter discussions about it, and probably get tired of hearing anything about it. It’s apathetic to this particular topic, but I imagine I am apathetic about another bunch of topics people talk about too much. You can’t say they are atheists if they believe in god or are not atheists if they don’t believe in god but fail to discuss it or care. I’m not a fan of reality tv for example, I guess you could say I have strong opinions about it, which I keep to myself, lest anyone think I really care because I don’t. If “Jersey Shore” was theism, then I’m an atheist, and also refuse to discuss how much I probably hate anything that goes on on that show because I’ve never bothered to watch it. I know I hate it. I guess I could go on about how much if provoked, but like I said, I just don’t care to hear about it or have to say anything about it. When I’m an atheist about god, I discuss it because I voluntarily come here and choose to read and respond to topics. When I’m reading someone else’s blog and they say something about “Jersey Shore,” I become more aware of it than I would care to be, it might as well not exist as a topic, but as long as it does, I keep a negative opinion about it, and then again, don’t respond to those posts. There are atheists and theists like that, it’s not not atheism because apathy and atheism (or theism) are not mutually exclusive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2STDH14aJVk&feature=related I can’t… even.
I didn’t really assign a group to the initial speaker in the comic. To me it could be a almost anything (Christian, agnostic, or any one of a million ‘spiritual’ thingys). I know it may not be quite on topic, but this comic seemed to me to be saying more about how people like to group things and separate themselves in a way that makes them feel special (like how generally people seem to feel that they are not a part of the natural world, but separate and against it).
You could substitute a lot of things in for “Atheist” and “Christian Fundamentalist”.
Yeah, the speaker distances himself from “fundamentalist Christians.” In my experience, moderate Christians still hate atheists and think if we talk at all, it’s too much and we need to shut up — we’re being just like fundies, we’re extreme by the simple virtue of saying anything at all. I mean, if you take theism, there is a god, it can mean a lot of things, a lot of versions of gods and a lot of ways to express that. “There is no god” is then an extreme thing to assert. There are some who take it further than that, but I’ve never really encountered it, so when it does happen that one of us says something, it takes the air out of the room for a lot of people.
But the moderate Christians think they are so much wiser than the extreme fundamentalist. Not too many of them seem to own that they assume the right to say anything about god and it’s never too much, whereas atheism has some power of making them angry just to hear their beliefs challenged, that it always seems extreme. Anything moderate seems to win the “superiority” over either extreme, at least popular wisdom would define it that way. Getting carried away is seen as a flaw, but the cartoon seems to suggest atheists are extreme and never moderate, while fundamentalists are extreme and liberal Christians are striking the balance between reason and nonsense. I think agnostics are also a weird bunch, the speaker could be agnostic as well.
“Getting carried away is seen as a flaw, but the cartoon seems to suggest atheists are extreme and never moderate, while fundamentalists are extreme and liberal Christians are striking the balance between reason and nonsense”
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, and I get the main point about moderation’s superiority, but doesn’t the second speaker’s words insult the first? As if to say that the statement of the first is morally flawed?
And why do so many Atheists hate Agnostics? I really don’t understand it. I mean, would you rather have a bunch of people up-in-your-face about some great God, or a bunch of people who are essentially Atheist but have a difference of opinion on one thing?
In my opinion, my vastly superior opinion!, I feel like agnostics I have known would rather not decide, there’s really no way to know for sure and it’s just as likely there’s a god as not, and/or they are atheists who don’t like the connotations of atheism, presumably because all the atheists they know are too loud and extreme… or just came down off the fence. They are afraid to come out loud as atheists so they think agnosticism is more palatable and socially acceptable, they’re not confronting anyone who believes that there is not a god, they might agree there is not a god, but their position is not to sit on the other side of that line for the reasons I mentioned earlier. An inch or a mile over the line is the same extreme commitment to a “belief” no one can know for sure! That’s what they keep telling themselves. I personally don’t see that line as being so wide as to carry the non-committals, but I’ve known smug agnostics, pedantic how you cannot know for sure, so they refuse adamantly the superior position of noncommittal. It seems moderate on paper, and I’m sure there are some smart and modest agnostics, but it’s not a really moderate position. If you adhere to something that matters so much to you as refusing to commit, it’s just as extreme. Like Rush says, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Agnosticism may lie in the middle, but it’s still not moderate as far as I’ve seen.
I am both agnostic and an atheist. They are not mutually exclusive, you know.
I know they are not mutually exclusive, but I guess my problem is more how some people use the term than what it means. I don’t think I have a problem with agnosticism as much as I have some issue with people who use it to mean they refuse to decide on grounds that there’s no way to know either way (haven’t really given it a lot of thought or examination?) or as a softer, more friendly word for atheism when they mean atheism. I guess I’m in favor of people thinking there’s nothing wrong with atheism or atheists, and not in favor of people pulling semantic bullcrap to avoid the word itself. People who are atheists and describe themselves with other words are not helping the world get used to atheism. I almost find that “fear of words” religious. I know what people think when they hear “atheism,” and that’s not going to change if atheists prefer other words, I’m not just singling out agnostic here, and realize there are other words you like, such as “materialist” which happen to be more descriptive for you if somewhat obscure, or “secular humanist” that some others seem to feel more likely to use.
Maybe there isn’t as much wrong with “code-words” and longer, more accurate descriptions for a person to go by, but the motivations to use “agnostic” and other words can be weaselly or uncomfortable accepting that you are plainly described as something a lot of people fear and loathe. I like that there are a lot of refinements on the term so it’s not so monolithic, but I hate weak rationalizations for avoiding it. That in itself can seem “superior” in an immodest way, a conscious choice to prefer a word more to your flavor, or to act like your choice to avoid the word “atheism” has some superior reasoning than being ashamed of it. I think some people here give it a lot more thought and know the roots of (a)theism and (a)gnosticism well enough to realize you have two different terms, but out in the wild… well.
I wasn’t aiming that at you. It was more of an augmentation of your point than a criticism.
I can definitely see where you are going with your criticisms (and superior opinion =P), but I think you are making a lot of assumptions as to what a person who chooses to call them self agnostic, thinks.
I can also see that you have probably met more then your share of these kinds of people before (in real life), but there is no need to think ALL people who hold that view feel that way.
I say this, of course, because I feel I am of the agnostic point of view, but in no way do I feel this is superior to Atheism (a few theistic views maybe).
Fence sitter!
I have to say it’s not just agnostics in the position. I like when people use the language to be more specific and descriptive, and I dislike when people use the language to avoid saying what they really mean. In general, such as people waltzing around the word “died” like there is something wrong with it.
Some atheists find some reason not to use the word, a lot of them feel more comfortable with the word “agnostic” because people around them are more comfortable not knowing they are an atheist, an image thing, a not negative thing, or a resistance to admitting certainty when they are probably as certain as they need to be to use the word. Again I’m talking about some agnostics I have known in life, offline. Most consider it equally valid there is a god or not, which, I am rolling my eyes just thinking how.
I do, though, feel pretty much there’s nothing to be uncertain about. If you are agnostic because that fraction of a percent non-certainty can never be proven, that’s close enough for me to cross that word off the list of words I’d use for myself or anyone else. I think for others, it’s a way of dipping their toe into deconversion, I think Julia Sweeney said she felt more comfortable calling herself agnostic at first, again because atheism tends to be absolute and has negative connotations to people brought up in faith who don’t know any. That’s why I personally do use the word. Let people know some atheists who defy the bad reputation which I think has been grossly overstated.
Also, Kodie, chicks how know Rush lyrics are hawt.