The question, "Is an agnostic just a cowardly atheist?" was prompted by the late Studs Terkel, who made this joke about his own agnosticism. Although he was joking, I have to admit that I have wondered at times whether my agnosticism is a wishy-washy position--not wanting to take a more "committed" stance--or has somethng solid behind it. We don't see much exploration of agnosticism on this site.

I recommend a little known spiritual classic "The Cloud of Unknowing" in which the author freely admits he doesn't know for sure anything he professes to believe about God and is searching for those answers. I love how Mother Teresa, in her last days admitted she didn't know either. I think a deeply seeded "agnosticism" or an admission you just don't know for sure, is stronger and healthier than either of the other options.

I think the question has to be dealt with first on a semantic level. Most self-proclaimed "atheists" would probably admit that they don't know that God absolutely doesn't exist. It's just that there's no evidence for his existence. Of course, at some point you also have to address the definition of "God" because the word means different things to different people.

Richard Dawkins created a belief scale in his book, The God Delusion. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is certitude that God exists and 7 is certitude that God does not exist, Dawkins rates himself a 6. I think this technically means Dawkins is an agnostic, although he considers himself to be an atheist.

It's a fine, fine line, but I think most people who declare themselves to be agnostic are probably equivocating to some degree. Maybe they're afraid to admit that they don't believe in God. Maybe the idea scares them.

I think the long and complex history of Christian theology carries a prominent thread of agnostic uncertainty: that there is no final, complete, full and total knowledge of God...that at root is a mystery that baffles categories of thought and exceeds our faculties of reason...even if this mystery is the root of all thought and reason. God proves to be an elusive but alluring attraction, pulling us towards something we simply can't quite pin down, break apart, unfold, or unpackage...but it pulls nonetheless, agitating and instigating a quest for, well, it's objective and goal are not exactly clear: words like Heaven, the Kingdom, Eternity...and God, all stumble under the weight of some sort of event that no name or location is able to contain. An event is provoking our hearts with a longing that our faculties of intellect and imagination prove unable to quench or satistify: this event evokes a dissatisfied restlessness and inconsolable curiosity... this , I think, is theistic agnosticism.

Dissident Heart wrote: An event is provoking our hearts with a longing that our faculties of intellect and imagination prove unable to quench or satistify: this event evokes a dissatisfied restlessness and inconsolable curiosity...

Perhaps it's a fear and dread of our own mortality

geo: Perhaps it's a fear and dread of our own mortality

I was agnostic for a while in my transition from believer to atheist. I think it's a natural stepping stone on the path to releasing your mind from the belief trap of religion.

DH: "God proves to be an elusive but alluring attraction, pulling us towards something we simply can't quite pin down, break apart, unfold, or unpackage...but it pulls nonetheless, agitating and instigating a quest for, well, it's objective and goal are not exactly clear..."

That is inevitable if you follow critical thinking to a certain point as a believer in God. The purpose of a god in the first place is to answer such questions, the questions whose answers are impossible to pin down. God is the answer to those questions for many people, taken either through indoctrination or to sate curiosity that can't otherwise be sated. Regardless of the question of god's existence, people will find him as an answer. That is a compelling reason as to why there is no such thing as a god.

Agnostics, not being sure whether something is true or not, may or may not be cowardly depending on why a person is agnostic.

Case in point: A person, during time of war, chooses to be a "conscientious objector" only because they know the possibility of death awaits them on the battle field. This person should be considered a coward.

However, if that person objects for a different reason, maybe because they feel the war is immoral, then that person is not a coward.

Agnostics should be judged the same. If the man who wishes not to go to hell, even though he's sure god doesn't exist, chooses to be on the fence regarding his existence - he's a coward.

What is behind the choice should ultimately determine whether someone's intentions are commendable or shameful. Why the choice was made is important.

That being said, the label "agnostic" shouldn't carry with it a stigma of bravery or cowardice. If anything may be attached to agnosticism it should be ignorance. I don't think anyone would mind being ignorant of the unknown.... that's why it's the unknown.

Just as if someone throws up their hands, smiles, and says that they don't know - then that person isn't brave or cowardly, just ignorant. Which, everyone must be regarding the unknown.

But, as anything in life, there are degrees of magnitude - much like what Dawkins was talking about. There are no absolutes, just magnitudes. How much someone believes in god is better based on a system such as Dawkins' has created. Unfortunately, one's 7 doesn't equal every other person's 7.

Still, it's the closest we can get to truly knowing where people stand regarding superstitions. Maybe if the question is asked enough and mingled in with questions regarding other superstitions such as the boogie man and santa clause the belief in god will diminish.

What is to be attacked then?


On a personal note:

I'm comfortable with god. I appreciate that his belief is out there and thriving on the superstitious and feeble minded. If these people are crazy enough to believe in that shit, then they're crazy enough to believe in other things - and god ain't half bad. So, I say let all these crazies believe in him if they need to. The separation of government and these lunatics needs to be made, though.

I was agnostic for a while in my transition from believer to atheist. I think it's a natural stepping stone on the path to releasing your mind from the belief trap of religion.

I feel like I have stepped on and off this stepping stone a few times.

I remember when I was young, my mom telling me that the bible contained stories written by people who believed in God. It was about their lives and how they believed and saw the world and stories that had been told to them. Some of it was true, she told me, and some of it obvisouly wasn't. We attended a fairly liberal church. I believed in God, as a child, but thought that Jesus was only figuratively the son of god. I thought of God as the good force of the world. I also believed that all religions (or most) honoured the same one God, but just in different ways through different customs. I knew that many mistakes, horrors, abominable behaviors had been done in the name of God, but I believed that this was just people, twisting good ideas into bad for their own misuse. This was not God, God was good.

As a teen when I began to learn that Christians were supposed to actually believe in the bible itself, not just as a story, but as reality, I backed away. But was unable to give up the belief in a god, or God.

After a while I tried to take another look at the bible and read some and study. The more I did this the more confused I became. Where was my God in there? This wasn't the nice bible stories I had learned as a child and I struggled to understand how people could believe that this was pure 'truth' or fact. Over the years I gradually settled back on the belief that God was real, but the bible was not and I went back to the church I had been raised in that allows you to believe what you want to. Perhaps it was the comfort of attending church, of taking my children there, being part of a community that believed in positive things.

But, perhaps the truth is, I am a coward. A fence-sitting coward who sees everything in shades of grey. One who is not brave enough to erase those comforting emotions of early childhood, so finds a way to live in both worlds.

coward!!!! :ninjafist: