Loading...Bart Ehrman on Being an Agnostic. One question I regularly get asked is about where I stand on the agnostic-atheist divide — that is, which am I. I usually confuse people when I tell them I’m both. I’ve posted about this on the blog before, but it’s been a while, so I thought I should give it another airing here.
When I became an agnostic – 25 years ago? I’m not even sure anymore – I thought that “agnosticism” and “atheism” were two *degrees* of basically the same thing. My sense is that this is what most people think. According to this idea, an agnostic is someone who says that s/he does not *know* whether God exists, and an atheist is someone who makes a definitive statement that God does *not* exist. Agnostics don’t know and atheists are sure.
At the time I was rather surprised that so many agnostics and atheists (most of whom had this view I’ve just described) were so militaristic about their own positions. As I found, to my chagrin (having thought naively that agnostics and atheists were “all in this together”), many atheists think of agnostics as simply wimpy atheists — that is, they don’t have the courage to admit that they don’t think God exists — and many agnostics think of atheists simply as arrogant agnostics: how the hell would *they* know whether there was a superior being in the universe?
My view on all this changed radically, not too long after I had started calling myself agnostic. I now think that in fact agnosticism and atheism are not two degrees of the same thing, but two different kinds of things. And because of this new view, I think it is possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist. And that’s how I understand myself.
So, in this newer view of mine, agnosticism is a statement about epistemology – that is, about what a person *knows*. Do I know whether there is a God in the multiverse? Nope. I really don’t. How could I know? I’m just a peon on a very big planet, circling around a very big star, which is one of some 100 billion stars in this galaxy, which is only one of anywhere from 100 billion to 2 trillion galaxies in this universe, which may be only one of trillions (infinite number?) of universes. So, well, I don’t have a broad perspective on the question. So I don’t know. I’m agnostic.
Atheism, on the other hand, (in my way of thinking) is not about knowledge but about belief. Do I *believe* that there is a God? No, I don’t. I especially do not believe in the biblical God, or in the traditional God of Jews and Christians (and Muslims and so on). I simply do not believe that there is a God who created this world (it is the result of forces beyond my comprehension, but it goes back to the Big Bang, and we are here because of evolution, and I exist only because of some pretty amazingly remote chances/circumstances…); I don’t think there is a divine being who is sovereign over this world who interacts with it and the people in it, who answers prayer, who brings good out of evil. I don’t believe it. So I’m an atheist.
So I’m an agnostic atheist. Or an atheistic agnostic. Take your pick! I don’t know if there’s one (or very, very many) greater, superhuman intelligence in the multiverse; but I really, really doubt it and simply don’t believe it.
For what it’s worth, I sometimes call myself a “Christian atheist.” That’s because I try to implement what I see to be the best moral teachings of the Christian religion in my life. But usually, I just call myself that to myself and to close friends, since most people get confused enough when I say that I’m an agnostic atheist, and throwing “Christian” in there does not do much to unmuddy the waters…
Excellent descriptions. I have frequently explained to my readers, that’s I am an agnostic AND an atheist. Some atheists adamantly insist I’m an atheist alone. Some Christians, of the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) strain, often insists I’m still a Christian, I’m still a God-called preacher. Once saved, always saved. 😂😂 I generally advice people to let me self-define. I know what I am, 😂
I quit a 25 year ministry and now work at Lowe’s. I told a coworker, and she insists on calling me reverend. She means it with respect, but I’ve corrected her for 6 years. She just got licensed to preach and I congratulated her. It’s like someone has an ugly baby. You just bite your tongue.
In the Catholic Vs Protestant troubles in Northern Ireland the story (very likely true) is of a guy challenged menacingly “Are you Catholic or Protestant” – Reply – “I’m Jewish” – “Then are you a Catholic or a Protestant Jew”
Do you often get questions on why you study the Bible if you’re an atheist? I read a military historian’s blog and he was mystified by how many people thought he loved war because he studied the history of war.
All the time. I’ve devote some posts to the issue over time.
Mr. Ehrman, what’s the biggest challenge to your atheism?
Mine (I’m also an agnostic atheist), for example, is certain miracles – there are specific ones that I find really hard to explain them rationally.
Is there something truly challenging of that sort for your mind?
Miracles don’t trouble me a bit. Not at all. You don’t need natural explanations of them. THere are lots of reasons they get “reported.” For me the big problem is how to explain consciousness.
It’s also possible to be agnostic christian. Probably the most famous was Blaise Pascal, who admitted that evidence for god is very weak, and came up with his wager which is not based on knowledge in any way.
Christianity has no monopoly on moral teachings. The golden rule predates Christianity and was found in cultures that had no contact with the western world. It sort of follows from having empathy. If you can feel what others are feeling, if you can put yourself in their shoes, the golden rule is inevitable. What makes non-Christian cultures vastly superior to Christianity? They aren’t telling anyone they’re going to hell. Another epistemological problem: I hear a voice in my head that does not seem to be mine but how can I know the origin? It says: “Behold, I am GOD!” Oh yeah? How do I know? How can one know such a thing? Even worse, you’ve got some nut saying they’ve had a vision of a divine being, and as the listener you’re somehow supposed to accept that? Get real. Christianity has no viable epistemology, period. The only possible rational response to a religious claim is skepticism. But if you want to make a virtue of the irrational, you’ve really gone down the rabbit hole.
And what if that voice you think is God tells you to kill the evil doers!!! I sometimes get interesting discussions with people that claim God talks to them since I used to do counter terrorism. Religious extremist terrorists think they are doing God’s will too. So by the same standard Christian friends have to claim receiving God’s words there are others claiming God is saying to kill them! So you would think it is obvious you can’t trust voices you hear. I always remember the line in “braveheart” where the guy says, “I hear voices and they don’t like you!”
Good explanation. I still see much confusion about the term “atheist:” it simply means a lack of belief in a god, it is not a statement that there is no god. I used to call myself an agnostic Christian, but like you found that to be confusing and even misleading, so I dropped the “Christian” part even though I still read and study the Bible and acknowledge there are good ideas to learn from it.
Prof. Ehrman, can your research lead to anything else than forfeiture of faith? Is it reasonable to keep faith after all the core tenets that you and your colleagues in the field have shattered (no heaven or hell, Jesus being a failed apocalyptysist, who probably didn´t see his crucifixion coming, and whose predicitions, as well as Paul´s, never materialised and are way way past their due date etc.)? I am pondering about it ever since the I´ve read the first book of yours, even though you explain your departure from faith on different grounds in your book God´s Problem. How could a regular church going Christian (not me, I´ve always been an atheist) maintain their faith, if they knew, what you do?
Actually, most of my closest friends in the field agree with just about all my historical views of the New Testament AND continue to be committed Christians (not evangelicals, obvioulsy). I had dinner with three of them last night (two are ordained ministers still active in the church). Christianity is NOT believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible. It’s belief that Christ is the Son of God who reveals God to all who will look.
Thank you for your kind response, professor. You´re my favourite horseman, if you can take it as a compliment.
Your historical views of the New Testament help me to understand the evolution of Christianity from its earliest beginnings. Much of the fundaments and practice of the Christian religion today is a product of church dogma rather than the philosophy and principles of Jesus, as best we can know them. In that sense, it seems to me that your knowledgable friends are either in denial or disingenuous. Is their religion really based upon the will of an immortal god, or the illusions of mortal (and mostly male) humans?
However, giving them the benefit of doubt, the next time you see them please ask them to ponder and answer the following question:
“Has religion as a whole, and Christianity in particular, resulted in more tangible benefits to humankind, or has it resulted in more pain, suffering, and death?”
I’d like to know their considered responses.
Oh, they deal with that question all the time. The problem is that the relative benefits and harms cannot be quantified. THere’s a lot of both, as everyone agrees. My view — and I suppose most of theirs — is that the reason it can’t really be answered is because religion is not the problem. People are the problem. Religion is just the excuse. If it weren’t religion, it would be something else….
“Christianity is [the] belief that Christ is the Son of God who reveals God to all who will look.”
And that teaches that his death was a sacrifice for the sins of humankind?
No, I’d say there are lots of Christians who do not see Jesus’ death as a sacrifice.
I guess my question is whether you are agnostic about fairies. Do you really feel in equipoise regarding the likelihood of fairies existing? Do you think about fairies possibly participating in your everyday life? If you have kids, did you regularly inspect them when they were babies to make sure that fairies hadn’t replaced one of them with a fairy child? Do you ever leave out offerings just in case there are fairies, to make sure you don’t get on their bad side?
My suspicion is that you never have for a moment realistically believed that fairies might exist, nor have you ever acted as if they could exist. Nor any other of a myriad of mythical beings or creatures. And that’s fine — you’ve never seen any evidence they exist, so you act as if they don’t. I doubt you’d hesitate to admit that. But why does God not fall into that category? Why is your epistemological uncertainty any greater in that case?
If you hear a strange noise in the night, it _could_ be an animal that got into the house, or it _could_ be a burglar. Or a family member. And you respond accordingly. That’s actual epistemological uncertainty.
No, I’m not agnostic about fairies. THat’s becuase there is nothing in the universe I experience that would make me wonder about fairies. THere are things in the universe that make me question my otherwise strongly held materialistic views, including especially the phenomenon of consciousness, which I do not understand. (Lots of philosophers and others claim they do understand it, but none of the explanations makes sense to me. Either does quantum physics, even though I’m sure it’s true.)
Reading lots of Douglas Hofstadter (particularly Metamagical Themas, but also parts of Gödel, Escher, Bach), made me realize my questions about the materialism of consciousness were not well-founded.
With all that we don’t know about the universe (s) and life itself, I’m amazed that some people can profess to be sure–have conviction–that there is not God, or that there is God. And furthermore, that Jesus was just a human, or alternatively, an expression of God on earth.
Let me put it this way:
I am convinced I am the only person in this apartment. I haven’t seen anyone come in, I have the only key, and it’s not that big a place. I also have zero evidence anyone else is in here.
That doesn’t mean that I would never change my mind, should actual evidence come to light, although it would need to be pretty convincing evidence. An odd noise would be much much more likely to be an animal or coming from a neighboring apartment than some unknown person hiding in a closet.
So I’m happy to state I am sure that I am the only one here. Similarly, I am happy to state there is no God.
Somewhat unrelated, but do you think the United Monarchy existed? Do you think there’s any consensus on this in biblical archeology?
I think there was a kind over a chunk of that territory, yes. But I don’t think the stories about Saul, DAvid, and Solomon are historical representations of what it was like or what was happening at the time.
“I think there was a kind over a chunk of that territory”
Not sure what this means. Can you clarify this a little?
Let’s call it a scribal alteration of the text….
For “kind” read “king”
I don’t think of agnostics as “wimpy atheists,” but I do think many (not all!) of them are intellectually inconsistent. I’ve rarely met any intelligent adult who is agnostic about the Tooth Fairy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, etc.. They’re perfectly happy to take the “atheistic” position with respect to these obviously fictitious entities, but when it comes to God, they won’t follow the same reasoning.
Usually what’s offered as justification is something like: “the universe is vast and complex, and I’m in no position to understand its origins.” They might not entertain the possibility that Poseidon is part of the equation, but they keep a place-holder for some sort of abstract possibility of a “greater intelligence” in the universe.
But explaining mysteries by postulating super-human intelligences is something people have done since the dawn of time (think: the weather, earthquakes, planetary movement). The tendency to explain the unexplained by postulating humanlike intelligences is a deep cognitive bias—one that’s probably adaptive in human social life, but it has an abysmal track-record of explaining the natural world.
I do see atheists and agnostics as being basically “on the same side,” but these are my reasons for thinking atheism may be more consistent.
My view is that if you are not agnostic about *one* thing (a tooth fairy) that does not require you not to be agnostic about another. There may be reasons for agnosticism. In my case, I’m a firm believer in a completely materialist understanding of the universe. Is there something behind it all? How could I possibly know? I really don’t think so. But I don’t know at the same level of “certainty” that I know about the tooth fairy (since every reason I may once have had for thinking there was a tooth fairy no longer exists).
When I lost belief in God, many years ago, I thought I was the only person in the world that didn’t believe in a god of some sort. Everyone I knew believed. I didn’t even know there was a name for it (much less two names!).
Then came the BBS and internet. I discover I wasn’t alone, it had a name and I wasn’t the most pathetic being alive! 😂. I learned of books to read and had many a long discussion. For a while after, I called myself a Jewish agnostic…but, then learned how many Jews were agnostic/atheists as well…and that didn’t match me. I didn’t keep my heritage and culture. I walked away from all of it in order to not feel like a hypocrite. I’m not saying others are, I’m saying I would feel like one if I continued keeping some Jewish label. I’m not culturally Jewish. It’s merely part of my history, no more. I’m very comfortable and happy with where I landed. At 68yo, I’m completely at peace with atheism and agnosticism…it’s just what I am.
I agree that agnosticism and atheism are quite different. One reason is that atheism is likely (though not necessarily) inclined toward dogmatism as much as theologies are. They are convinced – and want to convince others – that there is no God.
Agnosticism is a more a continuum than a point, and is based on the impossibility of certainty.
Personally, I prefer secularism, which I define as being pretty sure there’s no God, but not caring much so long as those who do believe leave the rest of us alone.
If I may please: I read this often enough: “[Atheists] are convinced – and want to convince others – that there is no God.”
I must ask, how many atheists do you meet/know that want to convince others that “there is no God”?
I know several atheists–as defined by our illustrious blogger–none of whom, like me, even care about whether or not gods exist. If they do, good for them.
Now, Blue Devils or Tar Heels, Tide or Tigers, Kirk or Picard: well, we argue these quite often.
Well, I did say “not necessarily.” There are atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hutchins who have become famous for making nuisances of themselves in being as dogmatic as some fundamentalist Christians. They by no means speak for all atheists, but I feel they and those like them have given atheism such a bad name that I prefer secularism.
Picard, definitely Picard. (Among other things, Patrick Stewart is a so much better actor!)
Please, re-read Dr. Ehrman’s post. On one hand, you claim that you “agree that agnosticism and atheism are quite different,” and on the other, you go on to diametrically disagree with his point.
Atheism is not about being “convinced,” it is the opposite of that: It is about not being convinced (not believing). Agnosticism is not a “continuum” it is about lacking knowledge. You either know or don’t know. If you don’t know, you’re agnostic.
Belief is untethered from the truth of a proposition (one can believe false things) but knowledge is tied to truth (one cannot claim to know something is true when it isn’t–that wouldn’t be knowledge). One can be an atheist (not be convinced) and yet be agnostic (not claim to know). On the other hand, one cannot be a gnostic (claiming to know) and be an atheist, because presumably, a rational reasoner should believe what they claim to know.
So, no, atheism, by itself, is in no way “inclined to dogmatism.” What is inclined towards dogmatism is gnosticism (certainty in claimed knowledge of one position or the other). Not all atheists claim to be gnostics.
Capt. Kirk all the way.
Sounds very much like Spinoza’s god, to me. I’ve recently read an insightful book by Rebecca Goldstein, BETRAYING SPINOZA, (nonfiction), which has had the beneficial result of moving me along to reading Spinoza’s Theologico-Political Treatise, available for free at Gutenberg dot org. (Einstein was a big fan of Spinoza.) And Spinoza was certainly a Judeo-Christian atheist who practiced ethical living according to biblical teachings, who also did his own thinking. His writing is clear and accessible, but it really helps to understand his context, which Goldstein has facilitated. I hereby nominate Bart for pope of the church of Spinoza. Can we get a Second? [editor: happy to delete the nomination if I’ve offended.]
I think this epistemological definition of agnosticism would mean believing christians could call themselves agnostic – ie there’d be no need for “faith” if all christians “know” god exists.
Better to say instead that all christians believe god exists, all atheists do not believe god exists, and all agnostics are unsure whether or not they believe god exists.
I know some believing Christians who very much do call themselves agnostic. In my case, I’m not unsure whether I believe God exists. I certainly do *not* believe God exists. But I don’t “know” with the same level of certainty that I “know” other things (e.g., that grass is green and that there is no tooth fairy)
A great topic for Pentecost Sunday. I am absolutely a Christian because I have had many dreams and supernatural experiences that have led me to this place. Without these I probably would have been agnostic at least and perhaps even an atheist.
I prefer to call myself “non-theist” since the word “atheist” carries such stigma in a culture of believers. It allows accuracy without so much baggage.
I actually prefer “humanist” since it is positive and not negative; but I’m flexible with terms.
Our egos have taken a massive hit over the last 400 years. Back then, prevailing thought was that we were the special creations of a special God, who created a special place for us to fulfill a special purpose. However, now we have had to accept that we are descended from apes, flying around a mediocre star in a Cosmos that probably doesn’t care about our presence. I admire the optimistic view of scientists such as Professor Brian Cox, who, as Scientific discoveries progressively diminish our place in the Cosmos, say “but isn’t it amazing that we can know that… and that’s what makes us special.”
I actually prefer “humanist” since it is positive and not negative; but I’m flexible with terms.
Although I heard Prof Brian Cox use it, the statement is officially attributed to Prof Stephen Hawking, and is as close to the definite position on Science-based Atheism as one could get. However, despite all the effort he put into proving that this Universe did NOT need an ‘Uncaused causer’ to come into existence, surprisingly, in his last book, Hawking did possibly leave one door open to Theism…… as did Einstein in his final days.
For me, belief in a God is easy and is where hope resides. It’s the purest form of spirituality that exists, and humans have a yearning for it.
However, I firmly reject the human interpretations of God along with the rituals involved. It’s non-sensical to believe any single religion to be correct as there are too many that claim special access to Him.
I think Jesus summed it up perfectly with the 2 greatest commandments – love God and love thy neighbour. Nothing else is needed. However the hope for a better world is still retained, both on a Divine and human level.
Speaking of Big Bang, some Cosmologists say that there could be life forms 6 Billion years ahead of us. Something to think about? Regarding the Texts attributed to the supernatural, its hard to see anything more than the development of Civilization. Of course making it God’s word reduces debate and belief in gods goes back to earliest times. I find the Code of Hammurabi interesting as it invokes the wrath of the king, rather that of god, only mentioned in the preamble.
Hey Bart, I have a question pertaining to Mark 9:1. Of course, Jesus there states that some of his listeners wouldn’t taste death until they saw the kingdom of God having come in power. My question relates to that word “until.” I assume that the kingdom spoken of in this verse is the anticipated earthly kingdom in which there was to be no more death. But in using the word “until” when speaking of the Death of his listeners and this kingdom, Jesus seems (at the moment to me at least) to imply that they will taste death, but only after seeing this kingdom. But if in the coming earthly kingdom there would be no more death, how could Jesus imply that some of his followers would see its establishment but die thereafter? Is he implying that they could die after? Did some believe that death would exist even in that kingdom? Or is Jesus not referring to that specific kingdom? Thanks.
YEah, it’s a sticky one. Sometimes translators render it “before” instead of “until,” but it does normally mean “until.” The sense may be that everyone WILL experience death (since everyone is human); that would mean their life on this earth expires. But some will not have their life expire until the Kingdom comes. Then, like everyone else, they will be given restored, immortal bodies, so the old will pass away. That’s certainly the belief of the apostle Paul, and possibly it’s what Mark has in mind as well.
I will eventually buy and read your New Testament survey so I can get more up-to-date on some basics of New Testament authorship, but until then I will ask you some questions that are easily covered in your book. In this case, when do you think Mark was written? For example, if most or all the first Christians had already passed, then it looks odd to me that Mark still quotes Jesus in saying that some will not taste death until the fulfillment of God’s kingdom.
I agree with the strong scholarly consensus that it was written around 70 CE.
In my case, I believe in God and reject that God can meticulously control the universe, which coheres with theodicy and dodges the problem of evil. I understand that many Bible scholars do not delve into philosophy, but do you consider any philosophical arguments for a theodicy?
Yes, I’ve considered them for a long time — going back to the ancient Greeks and up through the English deists and … onto today.
@jimgoetz316: This raises the question of how you define god. Mortimer Adler’s definition (clearly reflecting modern sensibilities, rather than the ancients with their various levels of gods) held that god is a being for which one cannot image any being more powerful. If you can imagine something more powerful, then what you imagined was not really god. Hence, a god that cannot control the universe is not god.
Adler’s definition is a way of rationalizing some of the claims about god that don’t make sense, such as: How can god hear the prayers of billions all at the same time, how can god know all our thoughts, etc etc.
Note, this definition, methinks, does not necessarily address Bart’s issue with god re: suffering.
I did not read all of Adler, but his definition that you cite does not address various omnipotent paradoxes, such as mine in my (2021) “Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism.” For example, does God have enough power and knowledge to create a universe that God cannot completely control? And I propose that God created mechanics that God cannot completely control while divine love, perception, and power are inexhaustible.
Interesting discussion. Though I think that many people (not all, by any means) who choose to call themselves athiest do so because, to them, it’s sort of, well, “cool”. They like feeling that they are part of an “elite”, intellectually contrarian cadre of like-minded folks. Apologies in advance, but to me, it’s quite simply a stupid statement for anyone to say they don’t believe in God. On what evidence? I can fully understand the agnostic viewpoint – how could anyone truly know for certain one way or the other? But if someone states flat out that they don’t believe in God, my reaction is – who cares? Whatever the truth of the matter, it’s beyond our reasoning ability to know for certain. The truth, whatever that is, doesn’t care what we believe or don’t believe, or who has the burden of proof – it’s quite simply irrelevant.
Maybe for “political” reasons. I sense that the main message of the Four Horsemen is that faith, or religion, still has a huge sway over our daily lives, and how the separation of church and state is getting blurred. Take the invasion of Iraq, ordered by highly spiritual president (you´re either with me or against me), or debate over abortion or gay rights and marriage, whether children should be allowed to be taught evolution, recent change in the Pledge of Allegiance, impossibility to be elected for non-theists, the agenda of conservative Christian right wing. Some atheists therefore ask whether this influence have any merit, any justification, given how laughable other myths from around the same time as the Old Testament (or much younger, such as Nordic) are, and how outlandishly sounds claims and tenets from other religions (Mohammed split the Moon? You seriously believe THAT?!), so why the special pleading for Abrahamic (mostly Christian of course) God or religions? I live in a rather atheistic country in Europe, but even here one can see that the main opponents of “open society” often comes from Christian circles, sometimes from the very heads of local churches, albeit with exceptions.
I call myself an atheist because this word accurately describes my conclusion as to deities.
I have enough evidence to conclude that the 4000+ deities created and named by humans over the millennia are make believe. Regarding all deities worshipped by humans, past and present, and all other supernatural beings proposed by humans, I’m an atheist. I’m confident that there is no evidentiary basis for concluding their existence.
This applies to Yahweh, leprechauns, Oden, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, fairies, unicorns, and the Tooth Fairy.
Likewise, I assume you are not an agnostic but an atheist about leprechauns and the EasterBunny, and are quite confident that these supernatural beings do not exist.
Sometimes, in conversations with theists one has to deal with magic moving goalposts. If someone says “I am confident that the deities worshipped by humans do not exist,” someone else will counter with “But how can you be certain about the unknown?”
The unknown is a completely different question. I am agnostic about potential supernatural beings that have never interacted in anyway at any time with earth or any being on it. But any such being, however unlikely, is by definition is irrelevant.
If you could live your life again, what would you have chosen to study? Would you still have chosen to become an expert in New Testament and Early Christianity, or perhaps become a scientist (as I read you’ve become more interested in physics over time!), or anything else?
I”m afraid I don’t have the mind for science; I’m definitely a humanities guy. I always regret not being trained as a classicist. But on the whole, I think I chose well for myself…
But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
The gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
Whence all creation had its origin,
He, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
He, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
He knows – or maybe even he does not know.
-Creation Hymn from Rig Veda, Chapter 10
I usually try not to use these words. I particularly don’t like ‘atheist’ because it seems irrational to pick one type of thing I don’t believe int to define or name me. I’m also an ‘apixie’ and an ‘aunicorn’ and an ‘ayeti’. Why pick God. I usually say I am ‘not a believer’ and that against my instincts I try not to ‘believe’ in anything but instead to draw conclusions. Except that coriander (cilantro) is evil. That I believe.
I guess “not a believer” leads to the same question “not a believer in what”? Unicorns? If you say “not a believe in God,” that is what “atheist” means. I wish there were an easy answer to the nomenclature.
It think that it all comes down to evidence. Can god be subject to experimentation and data gathering? Are statements made about god falsifiable? If not, what can we really know about god if god even exists? Faith is a way of saying I want to believe in something – evidence be damned.
OK, so you don’t believe there is a God. So does it follow that you don’t believe there is not a God?
I believe there is not a God. But I don’t know there is not a God.
My atheism says simply, “I am without theism. I have no belief in a god or in God.”
Your “I believe there is not a God” is too strong for me.
As you know, there are atheists and then there are atheists. I suppose I *REALLY* don’t believe there is a God and I *PRETTY MUCH* believe there is not one.
But do you know *what* a God is?
If not, consider calling yourself an ignostic as well.
A side benefit is the discernment of erudition in your conversational partner based on whether they just assumed you’ve mispronounced “agnostic” 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
I know what kind of God I believe does not exist, yes.
On consciousness:
It’s certainly true that we have little to no understanding of how it arises, but the last century or so has given us some strong hints as to *where* it arises: the brain. Extensive clinical and laboratory studies since Ramón y Cajal establish the connection between the brain and behavior far beyond a reasonable doubt. Recent attempts to imitate the function of interconnected neurons in the form of artificial neural networks have been at least encouraging, and progress continues to be made.
Many decades from now, after far more research into brain functioning has been done, it may turn out that it’s has been a red herring in terms of understanding the phenomenon of consciousness — but that’s not the way I’d bet at the moment.
I’m new to your blog, but have read your books and watched some youtube debates. You do a great job explaining all this. I’m 32 and live in a rural bible belt area. The thought of maybe not believing this is on sense liberating and in many others terrifying. Did you go through any periods of panic when you quite believing? Also, are there any resources you have found helpful on how we have morality and consciousness? I can’t wrap my brain around that, and while also being a believer of science even while being a christian, I also can’t comprehend how the big bang wasnt initiated. I know that still leaves us with the question of who created the creator, but maybe because I have consciousness I can’t wrap my mind around something with no consciousness instigating all this. Sorry, this might be rambly. I’m very much in the early stages of trying to sort all this out. Again, thankful for your work.
Oh yes, I did have my panics… I talk about my experience most fully in my book God’s Problem. Throughout the turmoil I just kept assuring myself that if something is true, it’s true. And no one needs to fear the truth. On consciousness, there’s a huge literature and lots of controversy, especially among materialists like you and me. Some of the literature is over my head; but good places to start would be Thomas Hagel (“What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” (!!)), David Chalmers, and David Dennett — who have different perspectives.
I love your honesty Bart. I have a similar background as you do and almost through the door myself these days.
https://youtu.be/fwASABbCRVYwhy
Why can’t Christians understand the word atheist
Denial is not a position in itself, it depends on what it denies, it is not independent, it is not a belief. Not believing in something is not the same as strongly believing that for example something does not exist. You don’t really sound like an atheist, you simply question a possibility, you are skeptical, but the verbs you use are so weak and indefinite, it has nothing to do with a firm belief… It’s just an indecisive combination of possible excuses 🙂
As a friend of mine says, DeNial ain’t just a river in Egypt….
i recognize what you write and i would call myself a Buddhist agnostic.. 😉
When the Buddha was asked what happens after death, he answered:
“It’s just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know… the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me… until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short… until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored…’ The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.
It seems to me that many Christians I know could be called “Christian agnostics” by this definition (though they probably wouldn’t use the term). My mother, for instance, used to tell me that she didn’t know for certain that God existed. How could she? But she _believed_ he existed, even though she could never prove it to herself. Taking a stand in the midst of uncertainty — being willing to look foolish if wrong — for her, that was the essence of faith. Do you think most of your Christian friends would fall into this category?
Probably — but in their daily lives they emphasize “Christian” more than “agnostic.” Over drinks, it may be a different story.
Interesting view/views. I see also the big bang , as you say , beyond my comprehension, but that also, even though more credible/believable for you and many others, it connotes a kind of agnosticism as well, for we don’t * know*, they are theories. I always said, when in conversation with others, that maybe, belief in a God is easier to accept than a belief in science because of the complexities of science explanations. For most of us, they do go well beyond our comprehension and unless you are in those circles, it sounds impossible to believe something that could of occurred eons ago and we have no evidence for. They become possibilities. Prof. you are concerned with, ” consciousness ” as I am. Here something that makes me think deeply. Where do you think, the intelligence come from to create us, and other animals, in a way as we know today, to reproduce and sustain our existence? How did these molecules,organism and whatever else happened, get it right ? I find, our existence/universe extraordinary and in awe of it all.
Me too. I’m made up of 3.7 trillion cells and not one of them knows I exist….
WOW, one of the most interesting posts and comments i have read for awhile, most of which i totally agree with. i particularly believe that it is unknowable and unprovable that a god or gods do or do not exist, although i do not believe one does any more than fairies or unicorns(but really hated to give up on santa,lol). however if the god of the old testament existed i’m pretty sure humanity would have been pretty well destroyed before now as i see him as a pretty cruel and sadistic being. if it is not too late and a bit off topic i have a question that i have never seen addressed anywhere so far. the ages of biblical characters(adam, abraham,etc,etc) are very long lived(have read theology of why) but very curious how a year was defined(did god invent a calendar of which i’m unaware?) i realize they could perhaps count days or “moons” but calendars? i believe i have read where they have found a calendar older than the roman’s but back to the beginning?? historians??
They had the same years we do (since it was governed by the seasons/sun/moon). But they also didn’t mind exaggerating hugely about the age of the ancestors. That’s true with lots of cultures.
Consciousness, or self-awareness at least, is not limited to humans. It is usually cited as a marker of intelligence in animals as well. The most intelligent animals are able to recognize their own reflection in mirrors by some mark or identifying feature. In that sense, consciousness just seems to be a byproduct of intelligence. Higher levels of intelligence seemly equate to higher degrees of consciousness.
Human consciousness goes beyond self-awareness to the perception of external, invisible, omnipotent gods, many of whom have been the basis for countless atrocities of humans against their fellow humans. On the other hand intelligent animals do not kill, fight wars, or build temples and statues to gods. Ironically, we wouldn’t care about consciousness if we didn’t have it. Perhaps human consciousness is more a curse than a miracle?
Or an occasionally accursed miracle. But I’m glad I have it myself. ANd when I don’t have it, I won’t care!
I simplify by combining the terms “agnosticism” and “atheism” into the term “nontheism.” I tend to think that biblical interpreters’ views of theism or nontheism influence their interpretation of the Bible. Also, an interpreter’s view of science can influence their interpretation. In the context of interpreters who take biblical scholarship, history, and science seriously, do you think that belief in some type of theism versus some type of nontheism has much of a difference in their biblical interpretation?
Not among those who take scholarship, history, and science truly seriously, no. Most of my scholar friends are theists but they pretty much agree with me on most matters of interpretation.
In saying that you don’t believe in God, why do you so readily accept that “God” means the traditional Christian-Jewish-Muslim concept of God? I mean, there are alternatives. For example, you could regard God as being a principle rather than a personality, as can be found in some varieties of Hinduism. Why do you prefer to be atheist rather than just identifying your own highest ideal, calling it God, and believing in that?
I don’t accept that “God” has to mean that. It’s just what I myself mean when I’m talking in my own context, since that’s what 99% of the peole I encounter in my world mean that, and they are the ones I’m communicating with. I have other things I call my “principle.”
In order to be a believer in a god, or a non-believer, or one who simply does not know if there is a god we must first know what god is.
In reading the comments here, I read nothing by anyone who tried to define who or what god is.
For me, I am not concerned if there is or is not a god. We have no way of knowing who or what god is. I am more interested about how we humans treat our planet and how we treat the others living here with us.
Religion has not helped much with that aspect of life and I think it is time that we love our neighbors fully. Forget about God’s existence and be compassionate to all that shares this planet with us.
Todd you have the same problem defining love, as you point out that others have defining God.
Though do check out the Sustainable Development Goals for 2030 if you are interested in putting some teeth into the banal platitudes of ‘love your neighbors’ and ‘be compassionate to all’.
So if 9 years from now you’re still not offering any concrete plan to ‘leave no one behind, not even the most vulnerable’ (which by the way is the moral imperative of the 2030 SDGs), then it is because you prefer to offer empty bromides than to roll up your sleeves – intellectually and in practice – to really make a difference in the world.
Write back to me here by replying to this comment if you can find a better agenda to eliminate extreme poverty and end hunger in the next decade – sustainably and people and planet friendly.
Incidentally these are just the first 2 of the 17 goals that give substance to the golden rule ‘treat others as you wish to be treated’. https://sdgs.un.org/goals
To close, if you’re into the big ideas that transform human society, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 provides the conceptual framework for the Agenda 2030.
Neither has any faith in God. In that sense agnostics are a variety of atheists.
Mr. Ehrman, in your spiritual journey from Christian theism to Christian atheism, did you ever consider embracing deism (the belief in the existence of a creator god who does not intervene in the universe) and/or becoming a Unitarian Universalist?
Not really. A God who has no interest or involvement in this world is not of much interest to me either, so I don’t see the point. Of coruse I’ve considered it, and have long been drawn to the Epicureans, who had this view in antiquity. ANd yes, I did consider becoming a Unitarian. I strongly resonate with the Unitarian communities I’ve been at all involved with.
To me, the “Atheist” v. “Agnostic” debate leaves out a very important element. Specifically, agnostic or atheistic about ~what~.
In other words, what topic are we considering and do we have enough information to reach a conclusion on that topic?
Regarding Yahweh, Zeus, Thor, Quetzalcoatl and every other deity ever named and worshipped by mankind, there is more than enough information to conclude that those are all products of human imagination. Conclusion: atheist.
Regarding the existence of a wandering preacher named something like “Jesus” circa 33CE. Plausible but insufficient evidence. Conclusion: agnostic.
Regarding whether the wandering preacher circa 33CE was born to a virgin knocked up by a deity and later performed miracles and rose from the dead. There is more than enough evidence that humans made it up. Conclusion: atheist.
Regarding a “deity” outside the bounds of natural law that has never interacted with anything on planet Earth or been seen, felt or experienced by any human. Implausible but insufficient evidence. Conclusion: agnostic. But who cares, since this potential deity has never interacted with any human and is completely irrelevant.
I agree, one has to define terms. For me, I simply mean agnostic/atheist about a superior spiritual force in the universe that is involved with the material world as one not controlled by it.
Interesting post! I suppose my problem with adopting this naming scheme is that I’m not sure the definition of atheism quite works. It seems to me that people argue that theism is true, or that it’s negation, atheism, is false. If we define atheism as “non-belief in God”, though, how could that ever be false? That seems to describe a mental state, which doesn’t make sense to argue for or against. It seems odd to define atheism in such a way that it doesn’t make sense to say “atheism is false”, though maybe I’m missing something.
So interesting. I’ve always wondered why in the (non-existant) hell people thought they had to argue about this. As a non-binary human, who is also a life-long atheist and agnostic, maybe it’s just an extra way for me to be non-binary?
I usually avoid the label controversy by saying, (if asked), that I don’t believe in anything supernatural and don’t know of any reason why I should. People can label that however they want:).
Yes, I think that’s a good way to put it; when I have time for more than one word, I say pretty much the same thing.
It reminds me of an intellectual joke. “I am a Christian Socialist Anarchist, but I still get angry when the bus is late.” Sadly, I was the only person in the audience who laughed. Thus comedian Henry Normal, dipped his fingers in his pint of beer and made the sign of the cross over me. A deeply religious experience, yet I remain agnostic as to the existence of said God and an atheist as is I am “without gods”.
Thank you! I am pretty good with the Agnostic label defining my current status… (as much as I dislike labels, this one seems accurate)… but the Atheist label?… It may describe a lot of beliefs I can’t get on board with anymore… So maybe I would have to allocate a percentage to Atheist conclusion… but I like to leave something up to my imagination.
My husband and I don’t use “God” as a label for what/who is responsible for life… we use “Creator”. It is vague enough and allows for a wider berth for both of us. It allows my husband to have a frame work for his personal connection that he still has… and allows me to have a descriptor for whoever or whatever is responsible for my life and the life of the cosmos, even though it is void of the personal connection that my husband still has. I still want to believe that I am worth more than “something that came out of nothing”. Everything manmade that has value has a creator that invested time in a design. I guess I just want to be worth more than my computer.
There are degrees of atheism. Richard Dawkins, a famous atheist, once said that on a scale of 1 – 7, where 1 is absolute certainty there is a God and 7 is absolute certainty there is no God, he was a 6.
I believe there is a God, based on the Kalam argument:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
The universe has a cause.
God is transcendent and immaterial therefore it is impossible to find direct, physical, scientific evidence for His existence within space and time.
Bart, have you considered molinism as a way to solve the problem of evil?
• If a Maximally Great Being (God) exists, he is perfectly good and all loving
• If God is all-loving, he desires a true love relationship with all mankind.
• If true love is to be attained with all mankind, all mankind must possess libertarian freedom.
• If mankind possesses libertarian freedom, then mankind can freely choose to do evil.
• If a Maximally Great Being (God) exists, he is all-powerful (this is the property of omnipotence).
• Therefore, God could prevent the possibility of evil actions by eradicating human libertarian freedom .
• If God eradicates libertarian freedom, then he eradicates the possibility of true love with humanity.
• Eternal love with God is the ultimate good humans can experience and humans freely choosing to respond to God’s love brings him ultimate glory.
• Therefore, preventing love would be evil.
• Therefore, it would be evil to eradicate libertarian freedom
No, I don’t buy it I’m afraid. Let me ask you this: do you believe in heaven? Do you believe people will have free will in heaven? Do you believe there will be suffering in heaven? If there is free will in heaven but no suffering, then free will does not require suffering.
Interesting but I don’t buy your conclusion. I will offer this as a response to your statement, a quote by Dr. Braxton Hunter about free will in heaven:
“Thus, I believe that the situation in heaven will be the exact alternate of the current situation on earth. Here and now one could theoretically choose not to sin in every particular circumstance, we just see that no man is ever completely successful at this in practice. In heaven, even if it is theoretically possible for one to sin we will see that no man ever will in practice. It would be like eating sand. Why would anyone want to sin? Why would anyone want to eat sand? In eternity, both will seem absurd.”
Right. So why doesn’t it seem absurd now? I think the quotation proves my point: Free will does not require suffering. But beyond that, most suffering in the world has nothing to do with free will, in the sense that people suffer because *others* choose freely to harm them.
Lots of people are functional atheists or hard agnostics. They don’t say they are absolutely certain that God does not exist, but regard the existence of a deity as wildly improbable.
Your definitions a similar of a stance that one can be a strong supporter/believer in the historical Jesus and his teachings, but uncertain with an almighty God. One that is not able to fully accept a Jesus==God formula because of the impossibility of fully knowing a God that is perceived to seemingly be able to extend His powers/influence beyond our current knowledge or science. We know more about the actual Jesus from his short time on this planet than we do about an actual God that had existed forever and there are many things that we attribute to God’s works that do not seem to align well with the teachings of Jesus. From that logic and broader metaphorical perspective on the NT, one can be a strong follower of Jesus, the teacher/prophet, while still being uncomfortable with any understanding of an almighty God. Whether or not Jesus was actually God or was/became some type of a divine being can be seen as largely irrelevant to his sacrifice and the goodness of his teachings. The frequent attempts to use the formula of Holy==Good has been broken too many times, but there should be few few problems accepting a Jesus==Good formula.
This sounds a bit like what I believe Thomas Jefferson was. I truly doubt he was a Deist. He probably did say he was but I just think that he lacked true conviction. He was likely a Christian atheist…like Dr. Ehrman and myself.
Dr. Ehrman, as a physicist I caution you about contaminating yourself too much in the so-called ‘multiverse’ theory. It makes for interesting conversation and science fiction writing, but it’s really untestable in a scientific sense and there is no, or maybe I should say there can be no, way to differentiate one such universe from another to a being residing within.
My question is this: do you have any blog posts more directed toward the discussion of consciousness? I find this a fascinating topic as well and I’d like some forum in which to explore it with your input, if you have the time and inclination to do so.
I”m not particularly embedded in the view of a multiverse. Lots of reputable scientists subscribe to it, and I don’t have a clue myself. The immensity of the universe itself is so unbelievalby mindblowing that it leads to the same conclusions for me. The unbelievable immensity of just this galaxy would. Ha! JUST this galaxy!
I don’t discuss consciousness directly on the blog but just mention it on occasion, for same reason I don’t discuss physics. I’m interested in it and intrigued by it and wish I had some answers for it. But we didn’t delve into it in my degree program in New Testament studies. 🙂 I’d be happy to hear your reflections though, if you have some, esp. in relation to the questions of life, faith, and, say, God.
So, the dirty little secret of advanced physics, which I learned in my graduate advanced particle physics class, is that sometimes physicists choose to believe in something not because it makes any particular sense, but because they simply just don’t have any better ideas. The multiverse is one of those things.
I have many thoughts on consciousness and God, life, faith, but 200 words are simply not enough to scratch the surface. But here is a starting point: Neuroscientists are beginning to believe that consciousness is a result of how our brain works. So then, presumably there is no possibility of continuation of consciousness, or ‘being’ after death (assuming ‘consciousness’ and ‘being’ are the same thing). I think this is what you say was the earliest belief of the Jewish culture prior to Plato. Since there is no afterlife, religion is about making this life better. But bad things still happen to good people. Not looking good for God in this scenario, is it?
How can we expand our discussion more deeply?
I thought that some of Hawkins equations led him to believe in a multiverse. But what do I know. I’m not even a novice….
But yes, both neuroscientists and philosophers maintain this, and are more or less constrained to since they are (the ones who hold this) almost invariably materialists. There is no “mind” outside the “brain.” I agree with that. Best way to expand is to keep making comments. If you have reading suggestions, let other blog members know. I’ve already recommended David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel, and Daniel Dennett ; I’m afraid the only neuroscientist I”ve read much on the topic is Oliver Sacks.
Ever since the introduction of relativity and quantum mechanics, physicists have been trying to interpret their equations as physical phenomena. But the fact is that math is a tool to solve problems, and the equations don’t *necessarily* represent any physicality in the world.
With that in mind, note that everything that you can interact with directly is mostly empty space, and the only reason you can’t walk through a steel door is that the atoms in you and the door exert force against each other. In our conscious existence we build a model in our brains that tells us the steel door is solid. But in reality it is not. The implication is that nothing in our existence is truly what we think it is.
Donald Hoffman offers a counter to the materialist approach to consciousness that he discusses here (https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/) and in a short video clip here (https://www.closertotruth.com/series/consciousness-ultimate-reality#video-2414). Apologies for the physics-oriented discussion. Hoffman thinks consciousness is the fundamental reality, and what we experience of the world is constructed from that consciousness.
The two approaches would seem to be that (1) reality creates consciousness, or (2) consciousness creates reality.
I would say Hoffman is in a decided minority among physicists, no? I’ve only read a few books, but they all quote lots of others written by leading names in the field for the past more than a century or so and all of the ones writing and quoted assume a material basis to all reality. Or am I just readin’ the wrong books?
Replying at the top because the blog won’t let me reply directly to your last comment.
Yes, Hoffman says he intentionally takes an unorthodox approach because everybody else was ‘fishing in the same pond’ and he jokes that he waited to get tenure before publishing on his views. His idea is that that consciousness creates the ‘reality’ out of sensory inputs to our brain, and it is consciousness that provides us with an evolutionary advantage, implying consciousness is something external. Sort of. I don’t think he can come up with an actual universal answer to the problem, but his arguments compel an alternate line of thinking, which is good.
I find Daniel Dennett’s idea of multiple conscious actors competing in the brain until one of them dominates to be fascinating as well. I’m not sure where he gets that idea but it also compels thoughtful examination.
There was a PBS program a couple of years ago, probably NOVA, that discussed how the brain creates a model of the world that gets updated regularly by sensory inputs. We believe the model, even if it is not ‘true’. That’s also where Hoffman lands, I think.
Interesting. But if Hoffman lands there, it sounds like the brain as hardwired is what starts the process, not something else (consciousness). That is, it’s still a materialist answer, no?
His critics say that he preaches a sort of cosmic consciousness approach, but I have yet to find anything he has written or stated in video interviews that actually goes there. Rather, he asserts that consciousness is fundamental to how we perceive ‘reality’. Or, rather, that our consciousness creates our individual realities, which are different for each person.
Here’s a question: To what degree do you think that the materialist approach to consciousness is a result of the development of western culture? By that I mean the increasing reliance on the principles of the Enlightenment that pushed western culture to see everything as a collection of parts that can be taken apart and studied to see how they work.
This materialist approach seems to have worked well in physics, up to the point where our models of reality are challenged by the apparently nonphysicality of their implications. But it hasn’t worked at all in understanding the behavior of groups of ‘conscious’ beings.
My view is that virtually all our understandings of the world around us are a direct result of the development of western culture. Including our understandings (and his) of consciousness.
Does that mean you think that any understanding of consciousness that is not materialist in nature is incorrect?
Yes, I don’t think anything exists in the universe that is not material. As Madonna says, We are living in a material world.
OK, so materialist it is.
Do you think all animals have some degree of consciousness? I believe that is also the materialist viewpoint; that each animal or insect or whatever has a degree of consciousness appropriate to its level of complexity.
So then, how do we explain colonial creatures, such as siphenophores, where the colony acts as a single entity but consists of multiple creatures who depend on each other for existence? The colony consists of zooids that can swim but not eat, and other zooids that can eat but not swim, etc. But the colony is carefully ordered and acts as a single animal. Where does the consciousness, such as it is, reside?
I think my dog does. I don’t think a slug does. But what do I know?
Sorry, I think my physicist genes kicked in and have taken us down a path that doesn’t really relate to your field of study/interest specifically, meaning how it relates to God and religion.
I think an inevitable conclusion of the materialist viewpoint is that consciousness is what defines our internal identity, meaning it is my consciousness that creates me and yours, you. I would say that the most obvious conclusion then is that soul=consciousness, and therefore that soul is not perpetual after death. That would render any religion that requires such post mortem perpetuation of identity invalid.
You have said that in at least some of the ancient world, including the Jewish world, religion was about how to live so that our current existence is better, with no expectation of afterlife, including reward and punishment. I think a materialist could live in that world, but there remains the question of whether or not life has any meaning beyond simple existence. I think religion in general, of whatever type, tries to provide a hope of an answer to that question that suggests this is all not just an accident, or just a natural result of the way the universe works.
Yup, I agree with almost all of that.
Can a Creator exist… without the end result of eternity (as painted in the portrait called Heaven)? The Christian portrait of the after life makes no sense for the very reason Bart mentioned. But for me I say it this way…”Love has grown in the manure of my life”… how can Love be real in Utopia ? What are people looking for when they hope for Heaven… an end to pain. It is through pain that I have experienced the greatest kind of Love. So if I can believe anything… I would like to believe that a Creator gave us this life and that’s it. What ever that Creator is… I think this life is the gift… not something we have to wait for. But that is believing… not something I have any proof of. So maybe I can call it wishful thinking. Again… hoping I have more worth than my computer.
I’m pretty sure that the Universe is dynamic, not static. From sub-atomic particles to galaxies, and from mici-seconds to eons, change infuses everything. This change has made the universe what it is, and there is no place or time when it is not present. Surely this change qualifies to be called God. I stand in awe of the complexities of nature and grateful that I can experience life as a living creature capable of appreciating my good fortune. This gift of human experience is unearned and shared with all other humans, so my morality is based on how I honor this gift in myself and others. Does this make me an atheist or agnostic or something else?
In a similar vein:
Christians mostly follow the teachings of Paul rather than Jesus. ‘Christ’ is a title rather than a name. When there is a conflict between the teachings of Jesus and those of Paul I try to follow Jesus. I don’t consider myself a Christian but rather a follower of Jesus.
When you describe yourself as Christian, what exactly do you mean?
I mean that I try to follow what I take to be the most important teachings recorded on the lips of Jesus, even trying to model my life on them.
“the most important teachings recorded on the lips of Jesus”
That would make a good book!
Yup! And many have tried to write it. For me it comes down to Love your neighbor as yourself and the Golden Rule. The other 300 pages are explication.
I haven’t heard or read your comments on the implication of “love your neighbor,” which is equality of value of both you and your neighbors. I have always thought that that basic equality among (Jewish?) humans was a fundamental appeal of Jesus’s ministry, and perhaps of the later success of the emerging church. If Jesus is saying, “You may be a slave, or a peasant, or a sinner, but my message is that you are just as valuable to God as the rich man or Roman or Sadducee.” Was that not Jesus’s message? Did it not play a role in the success of the early church?
I don’t know if it’s why Xty succeeded, but it does appear to be Jesus’ message and it’s easy to see its appeal!
Agnosticism, as coined by T.H. Huxley, is a more positive position than “I don’t know.” Huxley said “it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.” One can believe in God, but cannot be certain, since there is no evidence. One can believe there is no God, but absence of evidence is not evidence, so one cannot be certain.
But absence of evidence puts the responsibility of providing evidence and proof of the objective proof on the one making the proposition.
One can’t see gravity, but one can produce evidence so I can be certain of the objective truth that bodies attract.
I can’t see a deity, but I don’t have to consider the truth of the proposition unless someone else provides the proof, which is not old fragments of parchment. By that token, I should believe in the evidence of cuneiform tablets which preceded the Torah and the Gospels and are at least permanent and can’t be forged. What gives parchment or paper authority over clay or stone? Sumerians got there first!
I would thus have to acknowledge the objective truth of the major deities in the Sumerian pantheon which included An, the god of the heavens, Enlil, the god of wind and storm, Enki, the god of water and human culture, Ninhursag, the goddess of fertility and the earth, Utu, the god of the sun and justice, and his father Nanna, the god of the moon.
In my opinion, there’s a basic fallacy in debates about belief, including debates about agnosticism and atheism. There are objective facts, that an be tested and objectively verified or disproved. But there is no test regarding the objective validity of spiritual matters. Beliefs are verified by personal experience. Since everyone’s experience is different, there is no way to objectively test the validity of a spiritual belief. One can, however, report what and how one’s own beliefs have been verified to oneself. This is the great error religion makes, because adherents tend to be asserting when they should be testifying — not testifying to universal truths, but to personal experiences.
I reject the designations. I can’t describe myself as atheist or agnostic. Why must I even consider the concept of God in the first place? There is no evidence. Why is this even a question? Because when we were young children we imagined our parents were giants with unimaginable strength and powers who create our world and teach us, so as adults they created “Scary-guy” and/or “Santa Claus” for tribal cohesion?
The late Rev. Forrest Church (Unitarian Universalist):
“Religion is our human response to the dual reality of being alive and having to die. We are not the animal with advanced language or tools as much as we are the religious animal. Knowing that we must die, we question what life means. The answers we arrive at may not be religious answers, but the questions death forces us to ask are, at heart, religious questions. Where did I come from? Who am I? Where am I going? What is life’s purpose? What does all this mean?”
These questions may be answered without entertaining the idea of a deity.
A deity does not even enter into this elegant definition. I don’t need theology if there is no reason to consider the concept of God.
There is a way Bart Ehrman could comfortably accept atheism and move past agnosticism — a concept of God that can be scientifically validated. It is possible to imagine a static universe, infinitely and eternally unchanging. We know, however, that our universe is infused with change; nothing is permanent, from the tiniest sub-atomic particle to vast galaxies. This power of change that infuses everything inspires awe with its evolving complexity, hope with the continual possibility of unexpected outcomes, and morality based on the unearned gift of life we each experience. This change-power can properly be called “God.” It does not require the supernatural concepts of fundamentalism. It does not require the anti-reality humanist claim of a loving God. It does not require inconclusive and continuing arguments over doctrine. It requires only appreciation of the great gift each of us enjoys in the experience being human and not a porcupine or linden tree or granite boulder.
Good points. I can buy the idea of God as a convenient word — I do an internal translation.
Rev. Forrest Church:
“God is not God’s name. It’s our name for that which is greater than all, and yet present in each. It’s our construct. It’s our symbol. But it’s an arrow pointing toward a reality that is invested in us.
Q: Is God, for you, a person?
A: I am a person, so I relate to the personal part of God’s amplitude. God is so much more than a person. Otherwise, God becomes an idol. Sometimes I believe that we’re divided between fundamentalists of the left and the fundamentalists of the right, and the fundamentalists of the left or the right set up a tiny, little God on their altar and worship it. And the fundamentalists of the left torch that God and throw it down and say there is no God. I ask people to tell me a little about the God they believe in, because I probably don’t believe in him, either. I believe in something that’s much more capacious, much more mysterious, something like Rudolph Otto’s mysterium tremendum et fascinans — the tremendous and fearful, powerful, fascinating mystery.”
If I apply the name “God” to the change force that infuses the universe, I clearly have a relationship with the universe in which I exist. But I see no reason that I should think of this relationship in terms of human relationships with each other. That the change force exists and is awesome in its sweep and complexity, doesn’t suggest a plan or intention or love or response to interventional prayer. So I don’t see a “personal part of God’s amplitude.”
Most atheists I meet are agnostic atheists.
How I would describe it is this : I don’t see evidence for the existence of a god. So I’m not convinced by the claim that god exists. That’s all that is needed to be an atheist.
As for the usefulness of religion, I do believe there are certain aspects of religion that can be useful ( rituals, feeling of togetherness, helping others) but that those don’t require any supernatural/god beliefs.
On the other side of that, there are also many horrible things about religion that are not exclusive to it, such as dogmatism and tribalism. Being an atheist doesn’t make one immune to that.
And then there’s the term supernatural. That doesn’t makes any sense to me because it describes something that cannot be : as I see it, the ‘natural’ world already describes everything that is. If a god exists it would be part of the natural world.
Is my understanding of natural correct there ? How do you see this ?
In Greek and Roman antiquity that was the view: everything, including the gods, was part of the natural world. There ws nothing else. In Jeiwish and Christian, the idea developed that there are things beyond the “natural” world, and so the “super” natural became a different way of thinking about it. It is rooted in the idea that God is not *part* of the world but is the *creator* of the world.