Frankly, I think Carl misuses the word agnostic. First, he seems to set
it apart from atheism as if agnosticism is not atheism. Like I said,
atheism is a very simple concept. It is simply a lack of a belief in a
deity. That means that there can even be atheistic religions. But
agnosticism fits very nicely within that simple concept of atheism and
so it is atheism. Second, agnosticism is the idea that if there is no
evidence one way or another that there either is or is not a god then
there might as well be a god as not be a god. This gives equal weight to
either proposition. That is a logical fallacy itself because one chance
in infinity is not equal to absolute certainty. Now, I have put this to
Carl before and he said that he is an agnostic because he just doesn't
care one way or another. That is not agnosticism. That is just an
apathetic way of avoiding deep thinking. It is a way of saying, I don't
even want to think about it. Nevertheless, as you have pointed out
yourself, every time he says something about his position on religion he
expresses an atheistic viewpoint. It is not even an agnostic kind of
atheistic view of religion. I am not a mind reader and I am skeptical of
psychology, so I can't be sure of why he persists in calling himself an
agnostic, but there was a time when I persisted in calling myself an
agnostic when I was not and I suppose my motivation could be the same as
Carl's. I have told about this before, but let me allude to it again. At
about the age of twelve I declared myself an agnostic. Before that I had
not even thought about what I was in relation to religious thought. I
was making that logical fallacy of equating the positive and negative
forms of a proposition to each other. I did not know I was making a
logical fallacy, but I was and so that made me a real agnostic. Then
about four years later at the age of sixteen I came to understand the
logical fallacy of agnosticism, but continued to call myself an agnostic
anyway for about two more years. So why did I falsely call myself an
agnostic for two more years? It was simply that from the time I first
heard the word atheist- and I don't remember when I first heard that
word - I had heard it with some very negative connotations attached to
it and I had absorbed those negative connotations. To call myself an
atheist would have been like calling myself evil. Also, at that age four
years was a pretty significant portion of my life, so I think part of it
had to do with momentum. That is, I had been calling myself an agnostic
for so long it was a bit difficult for me to just suddenly switch
labels. I got over that, though, and now the word atheist has mostly
positive connotations to me. So I wonder. Could Carl have been effected
by the same connotations all of his life so that it is hard for him to
admit to the word atheist applied to himself?
---
Carl Sagan
“ The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be
counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be
consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not
determine what's true. ”
― Carl Sagan
On 3/28/2019 5:48 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Carl,
I don't think I'm an Agnostic because I think that the definition of an
Agnostic is that he or she isn't sure whether or not there is a God and
therefore, is on the fence. I just think that there's no evidence of a God in
the sense that God has been described in anything I've ever read. All I know is
that right now I'm alive and from what I've learned there is a history and a
present and laws of nature or physics or whatever, and a universe and no human
being has or can have knowledge of the ultimate cause of all of this, if there
is an ultimate cause. I don't need to know what caused the big bang. Whatever
causes existence to exist, it isn't a spirit who has a plan for me or from whom
I can ask a personal favor when things get tough. From my point of view, that
makes me an Atheist.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 1:55 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Atheism, Labels, Faith
And all the Non Believers shouted, "Amen!"
And to those who believe thus, I would submit that they are really Agnostics.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/28/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There apparently are different kinds of Atheism. The kind that people
keep writing about on this list, seems to be a dominant thread in the
thoughts and speeches and writings of its proponents. And it seems to
be unrelated to any value system or philosophy of life. It is, in its
essence, a logical negation of a spiritual overlord. At least, that's
what I think it is.
But then there are the members of the Ethical Culture or Ethical
Humanist Movement, and the Secular Humanists. That's where I seem to
fit in. They don't spend time and concern on the existence of a God,
however that God might be defined. For them, what is important is how
people behave toward each other, toward other living things, and
toward the natural world in which they live. Why spend time and
energy arguing about the existence of God or which is the best way to
worship, when people are dying of famine and disease, when they are
fighting each other over resources that should be shared among us all,
when droughts and floods are threatening to put an end to life? Why
not focus on how to most efficiently and painlessly change our systems
of power and finance so that humankind will be better served, rather
than quibble about which one of us is more logical or more righteous?
Miriam
