A point of order - isn't Algo an Agnostic?

Well, as the "chair" of this debate one sided as it is, I was watching the rather spiffing free video of "The Four Horsemen" over at the Richard Dawkins Foundation discussing their atheism over what looks like lots of lovely coffee. One of the points they didn't address specifically, but which interests me is the question of where the barrier lies between agnosticism and atheism.

All of the participants in said discussion descibe themselves as atheists, and yet as scientists during this discussion they have to admit the uncertainty principle - that they cannot be 100% sure of anything and must admit that they MAY be wrong.

This miniscule level of uncertainty is used frequently by the other side of the argument to batter atheists (or agnostics if you prefer) as not being able to prove anything and just guessing.

Well... I have always described myself as an Atheist (i.e. I don't believe in God) and yet I too must share the position that, believing in the scientific principles that I do I must admit to the same minute chance that I am wrong.

Even the arch Atheist, Richard Dawkins, is prepared to admit that all it would take to severely wound the conventional wisdom on evolution would be proven human (as in Homo Sapiens) remains dated to the Jurassic period. However, while the current evolutionary thinking would be proven wrong by such an unlkely find, such a finding does not destroy the scientific method.

The scientific method, in stark contrast to this thinking, REQUIRES contradictory evidence to develop new ideas and findings. It is beyond reasonable doubt that while conventional wisdom would be rewritten, a new scientific theory would emerge and explain the data far better than the holy book of any religion would. I would also add that the mechanisms of evolution would not be destroyed by such a finding, only the course of events.

What I would clarify though is that the chances (of humans playing catch with the T Rex, of a God) we are talking about are so absurdly small by any conceivable measures that to treat them as anything other than an infinitesimal dust speck of a fraction of a millionth of a percent would be stupid.

Here are things I consider more likely than the existence of a god:

• A brick gaining sentience and establishing its own version of Pythagorian mathematical theories.
• An invasion of Earth by aliens who by an obscure chance look exactly like us.
• Gravity suddenly reversing
• A sudden confluence of atoms creates an exact sphere out of thin air

The above happening do not, of course, render the scientific method incorrect - all have scientific (if unlikely) causations - a silicon based learning neural network is not inconceivable, neither is convergent evolution or a bizarre trick of fortune causing atoms to rearrange impossible - the sudden reversal of gravity is actually the least likely of these ideas since it represents the total change in one of the fundamental forces in our universe (and would destroy everything under its forces that currently exists) but I STILL consider it more probable than the God described by any monotheistic religion you care to choose.

Needless to say, I view the likelihood of there being an almighty creator who rewards us when we are good and tortures us forever when we are bad as ridiculously unlikely. I regard it as millions of times more likely a creator would be some kind of hyper evolved Alien than a benign supernatural deity and the old Athur C Clarke saying goes -

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

of course, he also said

"Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the non-existence of Zeus or Thor — but they have few followers now. "

But! If I accept the possibilty that God may exist (however unlikely) surely that makes me an Agnostic? If I accept that no-one can be "certain" of anything surely that makes me an agnostic? Well, no.

Think of a line... we're going to call it a continuum.

In the following (rubbish) figures, Belief is blue, Agnosticism is Red and Atheism is green.

Rather than thinking of belief as a three option questionairre (belief, agnostic, atheism) think of it as a continuum where absolute 100% belief is at one end and 100% atheism is at the other. Where is Agnosticism on this scale? Surely, somewhere in the middle? Think of several different possibilities... if agnosticism is not being certain of anything, and noone can be sure of anything then EVERYONE is agnostic. Even the current Archbishop of Canterbury probably.

Here it is (fig 1):





Now, think about the difference between someone at a point half an inch in from belief and someone half and inch in from atheism. How do they differ? They certainly do, but both are Agnostics, they don;t know, but they differ in what their opinion is. There are on amy continuum an infinite number of points mathematically, and any number practically you care to divide it into. The main thing I want to get across is that there is a a long corridor, not three rooms divided by locked doors.


In another version it is divided into thirds - one third belief, one third agnosticism and one third atheism. Is that more like it? (fig 2)




Now agnostics are defined as the middle ground, the Goldilocks porridge of religious debate... I am not happy with this though, since we still have the mushy bit in the boundaries between each word...

The version I have been introduced to frequently (not in these terms) is one where belief is 90 percent of the continuum - anyone who "sort of believes" is counted as a "believer" and counted as religious by those who measure such things (fig 3).




In this continuum the Atheists are only those who absolutely 100% do not believe in God, some are Agnostic but most folks believe to some degree.

Which version is right? In the most simple sense it is entirely fatuous to argue the point and you may feel it's irrelevant semantics.

That is of course your right, but I riff on this subject here just to explain my use of the term.

I don't believe in god or the teachings of those who do - therefore I call myself an Atheist. Ignoring the tiny % possiblity that I am wrong is the same as not referring to myself as believing in talking trees or fairies at the bottom of the garden- hey may be true, but it's not easily conceivable. I'm a bit hazy on the agnostic term, and think it's used either as being pretty much synonymous with the Atheism I describe, or to describe someone for whom the chances are more or less even either way - a fence sitter (or less kindly, as Dawkins feels, a self deluding atheist coward). Consider this alternative (fig 4), where the agnostic represent ONLY the exact 50/50 position. Is that better? Why am I still persisting with these terrible figures?




As you may have guessed this is not my world view, mine is represented as the exact opposite of figure 3, an atheist dominated world, with only the very few actually believing (remember, observing ritual does not make you a believer - belief is very hard to fake) with the agnostics just not letting go of their fence position. This is how I think the world IS, not how I want to make it.

Important note: That's not to say that if you describe yourself as an agnostic then you are nearer the belief side, I say merely that in my world and in the terminology I use on this blog, you're not an agnostic, you're an Atheist.

I am saying that many who believe themselves religious are agnostic, and many who believe themselves agnostic are in fact atheists. Ick.. that sounds controversial...

These continuums also do not include the people (millions of them must exist) for whom the question is irrelevant, who simply don't care. My solution to this? I would claim anyone who doesn't care if there's a God or not as an Atheist in all but name. This is because if you thought there was a God and an afterlife you would care deeply about it - that's part of being a believer!

With those shocking depictions of my inability to use even basic CAD programmes, I bid you goodnight.

Now then... what's your opinion where the boundaries lie? Are we all agnostics? Or is that just a way of avoiding the Jesus Army?

Over to you folks.

A