Despite the interviewer’s obvious break with reality is his comment about believing in winged horses, perhaps tongue in cheek–we can only hope. If I personally knew this about and individual whom I was invited to debate ahead of time, I would decline the offer. Despite this, the fellow was otherwise quite reasonable. Only the very inexperienced or very foolish or both would willingly debate a creationist, I would sooner sit in the corner and chew my hair, considering the time spend put to better use.
http://www.synapses.co.za/ Jacques Rousseau
Here’s Medhi Hasan’s account of how the interview went, which if nothing else illustrates that he needs to attend a Philosophy 101 class: http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2012/12/god-best-answer-why-there-something-rather-nothing
Peter
Actually, in a recent debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury Dawkins stunned the audience by saying he never called himself and atheist and considers himself an agnostic.
Is Richard Dawkins an Atheist or Agnostic
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, most atheists are agnostic atheists, meaning they do not believe because they do not know, just like many people don’t believe in Bigfoot because they do not know if he does in fact exist. Of course, if we get specific we can say we are gnostic. I am a gnostic atheist about Thor, Unombote, or YHWH. The difference is having a definition and/or a set of characteristics that can be logically and empirically tested. If a god is characterized as being omnipotent and omnibenevolent, we can take a look at the universe around us and notice there is suffering, which cannot be squared away with the omnipotent and omnibenovelent god hypothesis.
Even theists are agnostic; and they have to be. They flat-out admit this when they say they have faith, which is, after all, believing in something without evidence, and if you don’t have evidence, you can’t even begin to actually say you know.
That was painful. I’m glad those commenting are taking this ignorant man to task.
StewedPrune
Thanks for this, and thanks to Jacques Rousseau for the New Statesman link. My respect for Richard Dawkins has gone up another notch.
Peter
Depends who I’m talking to but I mostly describe myself as an agnostic. If it’s a fundie I’ll say atheist just to see them sputter and get red in the face.
You’re absolutely free to describe yourself any way you want to. I usually say “I’m an atheist, but if we’re going to be technical, I’m an agnostic atheist.” I do that because for me it’s kind of pointless to say I’m an agnostic for the same reasons it’s kind of pointless for me to say I’m a human; it’s obvious, and I say that because we’re all agnostic, including theists, which I already talked about. And I do think that by just saying you’re agnostic, you’re not giving people the actual information they are looking for, which is whether or not you believe in a god, not whether or not you know there is or isn’t one. Obviously, what you know should decide what you believe, but that isn’t always the case here, as there are lots of people who don’t know and believe in spite the lack of, and even contradicting, evidence.
Peter
When I describe myself as an agnostic most don’t know what the term means and usually say “oh, so you don’t believe in god?” So I explain that there is no concrete evidence for god/gods or any undeniable evidence there isn’t. So, I’m agnostic, because I don’t know, and never will.
Ingemar Oseth
John,
Thank you for posting this interesting interview. In the future I hope you will bother yourself enough to write even a sentence of introduction when posting this sort of thing. That is to say; the basic “who,” “what,” “when,” and “where” would be very helpful, assuming you took the time to find them out beforehand.
I think that’s dodging the actual heart of the question, which is a frustration I have with people who only wish to go by agnostic, and that is do you believe? Yes, “there is no concrete evidence for god/gods or any undeniable evidence there isn’t” (well, for a god(s) in general; we do have undeniable evidence to demonstrate, either logically and/or empirically, some gods do not in fact exist), but do you believe in one? Because if your answer is no, you’re an atheist, even if you also simultaneously say “I don’t know” about the god(s) question. It’s not like you don’t know but decide to pray to the thing you don’t know exists or not. You don’t know, and live your life as if it doesn’t (by not praying, or going to church, or etc…).
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/ John W. Loftus
Sometimes I do and sometimes I don’t Ingemar. By not doing so I don’t poison the well, so to speak. It lets people come to their own conclusions. I think Dawkins did a great job! There.
Ingemar Oseth
Golly John,
Surely you know that an introduction can be neutral, and as such it will not poison the well.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/ John W. Loftus
I didn’t do it, okay? So? Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don’t.
Peter
Sorry you’re frustrated by people who want to use the term agnostic because even Russell couldn’t decide if he was an atheist or agnostic. But at least he was
intellectually honest: “The trouble with the world is the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent so full of doubt.” Do I believe in the OT God, no I don’t but there are many belief systems out there like Hinduism and Buddhism and am I arrogant enough to claim they’re all wrong? And, that is what I deplore about hard-core atheists is their dogmatic conceit that they have all the answers and everyone else is wrong. They don’t, and they never will but that’s just my personal opinion. The question of the existence or non-existence of God(s) has bedevilled mankind for millennia and we’ll never have a unqualified answer. Do I think there is a God? No, but there is still no undeniable evidence for or against so I still don’t know for certain thus I’m agnostic. I just thought posting that piece was interesting, but agnostism or atheism is not a question I dwell on to any great length because I have more interesting and intellectually challenging avenues to explore.
I share Bert’s frustration. Atheism is not about claiming god-beliefs wrong; it’s about lacking a belief in a god(s). Claiming a god-belief wrong would be gnostic atheism. Remember, or at least become aware of now, that claiming a god-belief wrong and declaring you do not have a god-belief are two different stances, just like how declaring you don’t believe in Bigfoot and claiming you don’t know whether or not Bigfoot exists are different (hopefully you understand the distinction to be found there).
It appears your beef is with gnostic atheism. That’s fine. But be aware that the overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic atheists to the overall god(s) hypothesis. Now, if you get specific, gnostic atheism can be taken on particular gods, even while maintaining agnostic atheism to the god(s) hypothesis overall. An example…do I know there is no god? No, I don’t. But I do know that some proposed gods do not exist, like Ahura Mazda, YHWH, or Quetzalcoatl.
Theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are not mutually exclusive propositions but actually necessarily complementary ones. The problem is because there has been this caricature of what atheism is, largely propagated by theists in their attempts to discredit atheism for theological reasons, and many atheists who go by solely agnostic have bought into it hook, line, and sinker.
You’re an atheist, Peter. You’re just also agnostic, and it is that agnosticism — that lack of knowledge — which is why you don’t believe; you do not believe exactly because you do not have knowledge justifying it.
Thank you. I was just going to post this following quotation and be done with it, because unfortunately these so-called sole agnostics tend to believe their so intellectually superior to us atheists because apparently we’re so arrogant for not believing in things we don’t know about:
“If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist… if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic… while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other…” – Robert Flint, Croall Lecture of 1887-1888
Peter
I really don’t have a beef with anyone other than the traits I see with many atheists and their cocksure attitudes. I find it interesting also that many are fundamentalist preachers. I’m glad you can tell me who I am but I’ve spent decades pondering these issues so what I believe or disbelieve is my business. End of conversation.
Time spent thinking on a subject does not ensure veracity, it just means you’ve spent a lot of time thinking about something. The fact is, as you have described yourself, you are an agnostic atheist, whether or not you want to own up to it. I could say, “No, I am not a human being. I am a duck.” I wouldn’t be. And that’s what you’re doing. Sticking your fingers in your ears, likely because you’ve internalized some theistic assumptions regarding atheism, which is rather unfortunate.
Welcome to the Site of the Only Atheist William Lane Craig Refuses to Debate
