Mano Singham's Web Journal

The Professor defines an atheist - “One for whom God is unnecessary as an explanatory concept”.

But even a religious person could fit that definition, if the religious person finds God to be a possible explanatory concept. Not necessary, but possible (and would likely choose to believe the best explanation).

Then we would have religious atheists and non-religious atheists.

I would be perfectly satisfied if religious people agreed that god is unnecessary. What more could one possibly want? Once you have said that god is unnecessary, it would not make sense to claim that it is the 'best' explanation for anything.

The fact that god is possible is irrelevant since anything is possible.

Of the religious people I've spoken with, a vast majority have chosen to believe in God, though they acknowledge there may be other explanations. In their minds, God is the best explanation. They don't think that possibly anything led to this reality. A worm didn't lead to it, nor a rose, nor millions of other things. They would acknowledge there are a limited number of possible mechanisms, maybe even some not yet thought of.

The issue is...what is the correct answer? Since no one knows, they have chosen God. And since many others have chosen God as the answer, there is comfort in that answer.

P.S. Those things prohibited by the laws of physics are not possible.

So if the topic of religion comes up at a party and someone says they are an agnostic I can ask, 'Yes, but do you think god is necessary to explain the universe?'

If they answer no then they live their day to day life as an atheist.

If they answer yes then what is the next question? What 'things' require god as an explanation?

Also, this seems to be a way to get at the issue you wrote about before how most agnostics live their life as if they are atheists.

http://blog.case.edu/singham/2009/02/10/the_puzzle_of_agnosticism

Henry,

You got it exactly right. What things require god as an explanation becomes the obvious question if people say god is necessary.

The problem (as I see it) is that people are not clear about what atheists stand for. When that is made clear, a lot of the confusion disappears.

You may have hit the head right on the nail.

However,as far as I am concerned, I still remain atheist. I am also clear in my mind what I mean when I say it. In fact I can say it no better than; "Since there is nothing useful about the God hypothesis, we can happily discard it"

However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Agnostics have been 'termed' fence sitters. Many articles regarding Atheism seems to be saying that there is no god. I don't believe you can have private (your own)definitions and public ones. We must therefore use the public one or any article must first define Atheism and then proceed with his article. After Mano's clarification I have no problem calling myself an atheist. However, I am sure I will be misunderstood by many. I don't think one can go and change definitions to suit ones convenience. Therefore I am an atheist and I know and I guess most people know what I mean. I don't know if there is a god or no god, but then who cares? It is irrelevant. The other point I would like to make here is that if there is a god, what is she/he/it like. Benevolent, merciful, omniscient, omnipresent etc., or cruel, ruthless, merciless, cynical, has a macabre sense of humour etc. If it's the latter, I guess he is looking down at us and having a hearty laugh.

'therefore I am an Atheist' should read 'therefore I am an Agnostic' above.

One thing that has bothered me is that many atheists seem to look down upon 'believers' and agnostics. They look at them with an air of superiority. In fact in some of the articles I have read they have either very rude or ridiculing. I have pointed this out to Mano. After all he was a lay preacher at one time. His view was that these articles were intended to bring closet 'Atheists' out into the open, by telling them that it was quite ok to be an atheist. While the intention may have been noble, I do not feel comfortable ridiculing anyone just to bring a point across. It must be done with more sensitivity.

Manik,

This 'looking down' or 'ridiculing' point is one that puzzles me. Atheists think that god does not exist and that people who think so are wrong. I don't see any way of saying that any more 'sensitively'.

When it comes to differences in political or social or economic or sports, we have no trouble in telling someone that we think they are wrong and people respond by defending their beliefs. It seems like it is only with religious beliefs that such delicate feelings come into play. I think it is because they cannot defend religious beliefs in a rational way and so use their hurt feelings as a shield..

This 'looking down' or 'ridiculing' point is one that puzzles me. Atheists think that god does not exist and that people who think so are wrong. I don't see any way of saying that any more 'sensitively'.

But it is easy to find cases where the same statement is made less sensitively. Manik hasn't identified any particular cases; the indefinite statement about “many atheists” doesn't give us any information that would help narrow down the bounds of where a satisfactory threshold for sensitivity is supposed to be.

When it comes to differences in political or social or economic or sports, we have no trouble in telling someone that we think they are wrong and people respond by defending their beliefs. It seems like it is only with religious beliefs that such delicate feelings come into play. I think it is because they cannot defend religious beliefs in a rational way and so use their hurt feelings as a shield.

If the lack of a rational defense were the key factor, then we should expect similar reactions when it comes to sports team loyalties (and often political topics—people may hold a political opinion without having a rational basis for it themselves, even though a rational argument could be made by someone else). I think it's more likely, as this essay suggests, that the problematic cases are those where the topic under discussion is one that people consider to be part of their identity. So a criticism of their opinion is taken as a criticism of themselves.

You guys are missing the point completely. I am not for a moment saying that one should not state point out that god does not exist. What I have a problem with, is ridiculing or making fun of 'believers'. This is because I think that 'believers' are deluded. They have been brought up being constantly indoctrinated, to the extent that they cannot easily shake off the effects of this indocrination or brainwashing. Hence I believe that believers are in a sense deluded. Mocking, ridiculing or insulting such a person/s is being cruel as they cannot in most instances do anything about this delusion. These persons require empathy and understanding. On the other hand I see nothing wrong with trying to propagate atheism. It is the cruelty that I object to.

Manik,

It is hard to respond to such criticisms of ridicule or making fun when they are not accompanied by specific examples. Can you provide actual examples of the kind of thing you are talking about?

Also, are you referring to comments made in the private sphere (direct conversations with people) or to the public sphere (where one is addressing the world at large)?

Mano,

You've got a point. I will try to locate some specifics. I have definitely come across them. Can't seem to remember them off-hand.

Mano,

I started my search. Refer your March 12 & 15th posts. Then I stopped because we seem to be arguing on something we both agree on. i.e. It's cruel to ridicule or insult non believers.