An Agnostic Manifesto (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Monday, August 09, 2010, 10:00 (5220 days ago) @ George Jelliss

I asked George how far he would endorse Ron Rosenbaum's Agnostic Manifesto, and he has posted an interesting critique, much of which I agree with. There are, though, a number of points that I would like to comment on.-Rosenbaum considers atheism to be "as much a faith-based creed as the most orthodox of the religious variety", but George doubts if such atheists "exist in any force worth bothering about." The word "faith" seems to be anathema to many atheists, but to utterly discount the design theory, you have to believe that the mechanisms of life and heredity fashioned themselves by chance, and that requires faith in the unconscious forces of Nature to create something that still defies the conscious intelligence of our most brilliant scientists. -In Rosenbaum's eyes, another form of faith is atheists' "certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence." I have criticized this claim myself, as I don't think atheism requires any such certainty, but to my surprise your response is quite different: "This assumes an enormous amount. That 'universe' has a clear meaning. That 'coming into existence' means something." We have been discussing the origin of the universe for months, under The Big Bang and other threads ...most recently in relation to the new Shu theory and the chameleon theory. You didn't seem to have any problem understanding the terms then. What's the problem now?-GEORGE: He accepts "most of the New Atheist's criticism of religious bad behavior over the centuries, and of theology itself". So that surely makes him an atheist.-Of course it doesn't. Even religious bodies have criticized their own bad behaviour over the centuries, and theological controversy rarely takes a break. At the moment the church itself is split over issues like homosexuality and the ordination of women. If the Archbishop of Canterbury criticizes religious crimes from the Inquisition through to modern fundamentalist terrorism, does that make him an atheist? -Rosenbaum maintains, quite rightly, that agnostics "aren't disguised creationists".
GEORGE: Well, it was because of the creationist tendencies that I noticed in dhw's tract that brought me here in the first place.
 
I'm delighted that your misunderstanding of my text brought you here, and even more delighted that you have stayed. However, it is a very common ploy among atheists to attack those who question their faith in Chance by tainting the questioner with creationism. That is a useful cover for the weakness of their own position.-Rosenbaum quotes Huxley on the subject of certainty.
GEORGE: [...] absolute certainty is impossible. However reasonable certainty can be obtained, and as Huxley says it depends on providing adequate evidence, and I would add clear definitions.-"Adequate" in whose eyes? How reasonable is "reasonable"? Who provides the criteria? I agree with you about clear definitions, but the very fact that there is absolutely no consensus on the existence or non-existence of God suggests to me that reasonable certainty cannot be obtained.-GEORGE: I would ask for humility in the face of lack of evidence.-So would I. Until the mysteries have been solved, why should anyone insist that there is/isn't a God, that other people's explanations are nonsense, and those who disagree with one's own subjective opinions are stupid/ ignorant/ to be ridiculed/ to be assassinated?-GEORGE: I consider this "problem of consciousness" to be overblown, but that is a question we have discussed elsewhere.-We have indeed, and you believe that consciousness can be attributed entirely to material sources within the brain. Despite the present lack of evidence, you have faith that science will eventually provide a complete explanation of how these materials work. You may be right. But until we have that evidence, you can hardly dispute Rosenbaum's claim that atheism is faith-based.