Paul | September 17, 2006 01:55 PM

John, perhaps this is a semantic thing - though it's hard to see how in a piece in which you use both of the words 'atheist' and 'agnostic' separately and together - but to even loosely describe Dawkins as 'agnostic' on the existence of a god is about as far from his espoused position as you can get. I'm interested in why you used that word.

Ginny | September 17, 2006 01:58 PM

I believe that God (as most world religions know it) was originally created to explain what was, at the time, unexplainable: the sun shining, the rain falling, the stars in the sky. Being absorbed in Self as most humans are, we believed that while we were creations of God, we could control God and how he reacts to us through pleasing him--sacrifices, prayer, etc.--just as we thought the Earth was the center of the universe, we created a God that was in turn both our master and our servant.

Being petrified of death, we also constructed an elaborate afterlife, to explain what happens to us when our bodies cease; and this is also controlled by God; but once again we put ourselves in charge by putting forth the notion that we can control our destiny and how God treats us in the afterlife by pleasing him--once again, putting ourselves in charge of our "master."

The very idea that we can control a supernatural being by dancing as fast as we can is curious and child-like in its basis and reflective of the ancient peoples who created God.

I, personally, was raised Roman Catholic and after decades of not attending church, became a Quaker. To me, "God" is what Quakers call "that of God within;" which to me, personally, means my self--there are no prayers in this particular religion, and for most sects of it no priests--"worship" consists of an hour and a half of complete silence and meditation. It allows for inward reflection as a way to better oneself. The best part is, there's absolutely no reason nor call to convert other people--rather, my particular Meeting spends an inordinate amount of time learning about other faiths and what they do & why they do it. Mostly we just repsect the people around us, and that's what (in my opinion) 'religion' should be for.

fishbane | September 17, 2006 02:00 PM

This is the first time I've seen someone express something close to my feelings about the religion issue. I really don't care that much about others' choice in invisible beings, and I'm normally very respectful about it. Other than being bored, I don't even mind going to religious ceremonies if it matters to a friend that I do so. I mention this only to draw the distinction between agnostics like me, and apparently you, although I don't wish to place words in your mouth, and people like my girlfriend who are rather more hostile towards religion.

In any case, my tolerance dies at the point where someone else's god(s) tells them to legislate my morality. This does take us down the path of tricky issues, like school. In an ideal world, a faithful creationist shouldn't have to pay have the kid led to a life of sinfullness any more than my kid should be spoonfed creationist crap on my dime. Unfortunately, we do happen to inhabit a slightly less than ideal vector involving little things like democracy and scarce resources, so compromise is required. Another problem is even admitting that, as people of my frame of mind tend to think "compromise" means "lets teach factual science and leave out all the invisible pal stuff", whereas others take it for an opening to abstract god one step away, wink, and call it science while rattling on about eyeball construction and misconstruing information theory.

Gah. I started to ramble rather heavily there. Sorry about that.

John Scalzi | September 17, 2006 02:02 PM

Paul:

Because Dawkins calls himself an agnostic on pages 50 - 51 in the book, noting, of course, that "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." This is to say he's intellectually honest about it: He deeply doubts the existence of god, and thinks the evidence is rather overwhelmingly against one existing -- he's not one of those people who thinks it's a 50/50 chance of God existing. He's a de facto atheist, but admits one cannot know for certain. That's about where I fit in, too.

Steve Brady | September 17, 2006 02:05 PM

Have you read Douglas Adams's "Is There An Artificial God?" (link)?

In it, he talks about Bali and how their religion is tied in to their agriculture and therefore has a practical function.

"In God We Trust"

My problem is the inaccuracy. If it said "In God Many Of Us Trust" I'd be fine with it.

I'd rather have our actual motto on the money, though - and in the pledge ("one nation, from many, indivisible...").

fishbane | September 17, 2006 02:19 PM

"I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."

That's where I fit in, too - I believe there is no god, but I have no way of proving that is so, so the best word for my belief state is agnostic.

Steve Buchheit | September 17, 2006 02:20 PM

John, it's a by-product of our genetic predispotion to pattern recognition. We see patterns, connect the dots, because we survive better that way. This is what camoflague intentionally disrupts.

We look for patterns everywhere, and so when we look outside into the world we begin to see patterns both where they exist and where they don't exist, because we're preprogramed to see patterns. God, as in Yahweh, started from such a pattern recognition. Then, through intermitten/random reward behaviors (most prayers aren't answered but occasionally they are, or appear to be) the pattern is reinforced.

When religions give comfort and cause for the religious I certainly support them. Once they cross the lines and start the "we must convert the infidels/pagans/heathens even if we have to kill them to do it" I start having problems with them.

In general, about this thread, I quote from "Friends"
"Can, open, worms, everywhere," - Chandler.

Laurie Mann | September 17, 2006 02:21 PM

I pretty much quit two jobs because religious fanatics had taken over and made not being a believer difficult. They didn't do anything I could sue over, they just made things tough.

How tough?

Well, remember the Promise Keepers? One of my co-workers got really into being a Promise Keeper. He was also a Scout leader, so we had a lot of homophobic, anti-feminist rhetoric out of him. When I asked him if he understood that the Taliban had certain similarities to the Promise Keepers, he just didn't get it.

When you're a feminist, and when you have friends who are gay, hearing this shit just gets to be too much after a while.

However, it is a great example of religion (and Republicanism) being the opiate of the masses. Just turn off your mind and go with God. *BAH!*

Rachel | September 17, 2006 02:29 PM

I think it's okay to make common cause with religious people in some cases, and also to speak against religion as a phenomenon...

Marc | September 17, 2006 02:47 PM

Scalzi wrote, "[p]ersonally speaking I have yet to feel marginalized or discriminated against because I am an agnostic." I am in the same boat, though I wonder how much of it might have to do with his (or my) lack of belief in god simply not coming up. If there were a generally recognized agnostic/athiest symbol that I could wear on a chain around my neck - akin to the ubiquitous cross - that announced my disbelief to the world, I wonder how many dirty looks and how much outright hostility I would have to deal with.

Polls seem to indicate that hostility to athiests is widespread and accepted in this country -- see discussions here, here, and here, for instance. (Yes, I realize that the VC posts used the term "athiest" while Scalzi and Dawkins used "agnostic," but look at the wording of the polls - they seem to mean about the same thing). There have been very successful campaigns to teach people that hating others because of their race or religion is socially unacceptable, but no corresponding program to stamp out (or at least repress) hatred of people based on their lack of religion.

Annalee Flower Horne | September 17, 2006 03:20 PM

The reason I have difficulty with books like that one is because the "you're an idiot if you believe in God" rhetoric makes it impossible for me to pay attention to the book's actual point.

I don't have a problem with atheists and agnostics. Really, I don't. It's not my business if you don't believe in God, and it would be arrogance of the worst kind for me to assume that you haven't thought about an issue simply because you didn't reach the same conclusions that I have about it. I, unlike a lot of the Religious Right, am secure enough about my beliefs that I do not see the existance of those who do not share them as a threat. I'm a first ammendment fangirl who thinks everyone should be entitled to their own beliefs and a government that upholds their right to same.

But I find it rather ironic how some people will screach about how no one respects their position on God's existance with the same breath that they'll call me and mine idiots for not sharing said position. Prosletyzers annoy me. I don't particularly care whose side they're on.
----

A side note to Ginny: I'm a Quaker as well. For the record, though, the vast majority of Quakers today are in fact Programmed Friends (IE, they have pastors and attend churches instead of meetings), so saying 'for most sects' is technically inaccurate. Most sects of American Friends are unprogrammed, but on the world stage, we're very much a minority.

David Moles | September 17, 2006 03:24 PM

The problem I have with the "credulous dolts" line of thinking is that it requires me to believe that folks like Will Shetterly, the Nielsen Haydens, and Benjamin Rosenbaum are credulous dolts.

The same Occam's Razor that leads me not to believe in God also leads me to think that line of thinking just isn't going to be profitable....

Tim Walters | September 17, 2006 03:26 PM

My belief is, as far as I can tell, exactly the same as yours, but I call it atheism, and am a bit perplexed that anyone would consider it agnosticism. To do so requires either putting the existence of God in a special epistemological category where absolute proof of nonexistence is required for disbelief, or professing agnosticism in all matters, since certainty is nowhere to be found.

John Scalzi | September 17, 2006 03:29 PM

Well, and of course you may call it atheism if you wish, Tim. I'm not going to be hairsplitter about what other people call themselves when they're not believing in a God.

Gwen | September 17, 2006 03:32 PM

I'm taking a class in comparative religions right now for college, to understand more about religions. Very interesting stuff so far.
Most interesting yet was a paper by Robert N. Bellah called "Civil Religion in America." (You can find it at http://hirr.hartsem.edu/Bellah/articles_5.htm .) Basically it's about the American religion, why every inaugural address has had a reference to God but none to, say, "Jesus Christ," the Israel mythology of the American Revolution and then the Jesus myth for Lincoln, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, the Arlington National Cemetary, et cetera: the common religion of (United States) Americans, similar enough to Christianity that Christians are able to claim that we're a Christian nation founded on Judeo-Christian values and usually get away with it.
All right, I know it sounds kinda crazy--the United States doesn't have a religion, not even an unofficial one!--but it makes a weird kind of sense. (And now I know why I get so upset when people advocate temporarily suspending Constitutional rights.)
I'm in the "not sure" religious category myself. I mainly figure that any deity who was all obsessed with being worshiped isn't really worth it anyway, that they'd rather us act morally and spend our time in this life on this life. (So there, says Gwen to "the jealous God" and the kill-the-infidels God.) It's my version of Pascal's Wager: I wouldn't want to worship pretty much any monotheistic deity I've read about even if they did exist, and if they don't I'm also fine not worshipping them. Maybe some of the polytheistic deities, but then if they're that cool they don't mind me not worshiping them.
And I think that the "worse than homosexuality!" exists. Not for my circle of friends I'm no longer in touch with, but then the idea of "worse than homosexuality" would sound stupid to them anyway (clarification: because homosexuality isn't bad).
But for my parents, for instance? I haven't told them yet--I don't want them to think they've been remiss in their parenting duties in raising me to be a Good Christian. (They'd still love me and all, but...parental disappointment.) I think they'd think it was their fault, and then they'd work harder to get my younger siblings to turn out better, as in, the indoctrination I never had. (We used to go to church, which I liked because of the singing, but we haven't since we moved when I was ten.)
Yep, religion in the United States is a weird, weird thing.
P.S. I'm in favor of going back to the original coin motto: "Mind Your Own Business."

Ginny | September 17, 2006 03:36 PM

Annalee: I stand corrected. I have noticed a larger movement within Friends to have Programmed Meetings, which I find unfortunate. Additionally, there was a Meeting (if I remember correctly) in North Carolina which made a statement on Marriage defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman and for the purpose of procreation, a position which I find repugnant. It seems that many Friends today are being led to the need to...be led. I much prefer the ability to be a free thinker.

MatGB | September 17, 2006 04:11 PM

John, on the semantics thing, I tend to think of atheism as a 'faith'. It annoys some atheists, but it works for me. I believe there to be no god or gods. I also know that this cannot be proved, only disproved.

It's an element of faith. I don't believe in fairies, I don't believe in ghosts, I don't believe in gods, but I respect the rights of those that believe otherwise because, well, I may be wrong, although I doubt it and believe them to be deluding themselves.

To me, an agnostic is someone who hasn't thought about it, hasn't come to a decision, doesn't really know their own mind. From your description, you're an atheist, according to my internal definitions. But, essentially, it's semantics, we agree on what matters. And I really must get around to buying that book. And yours, for that matter...

Timothy McClanahan | September 17, 2006 04:45 PM

The concept of a world without religion sounds interestint at first, and may at first glance be thought to be a better place, without religious wars, etc., but that neatly sidesteppes human behaviour. We'll group up into any group we can just so we can be part of a group and lord it over other groups. Whether it's my race vs yours, my state or town vs yours, my soccer team vs yours, whatever, it doesn't matter. We don't need religion to feel a need to kill someone else; it just makes for yet another excuse.

While I have no statistics at hand, and I doubt if any such exist, it certainly seems to me that more people have been killed because of religion, than have been spared because of religion.

Speaking of soccer "houliganism," it's kind of interesting that alcohol helps spur on the same type of antisocial behaviour as religious ferver, isn't it? Does this mean ulta-religious people are acting kind of drunk, intoxicated on their religion, and thus losing inhibitions against doing things their professed religion bans (murder, etc.)? Hmm, just had that thought - it bears further cogitation, though I'm feeling quite peckish, so I'll stop here and go in search of some tasty comestibles.

fishbane | September 17, 2006 04:45 PM

Matt: You say semantics, I say squid. "Agnostic" refers to someone who claims to have not convinced themselves of one side or the other of the various claims about superior beings that have beem made over time. Many people, myself included, have concluded they are right about the topic, but still apply the label to themselves because they cannot demonstrate why they are right to others.This is one of the ways we sever belief from fact.

As far as:

But I find it rather ironic how some people will screach about how no one respects their position on God's existance with the same breath that they'll call me and mine idiots for not sharing said position. Prosletyzers annoy me. I don't particularly care whose side they're on.

Respect is a two way road. Speaking only for myself, I don't have any particular reason to be spiteful to religious people. I do, in fact, make jokes about invisible pals and whatnot, but that is mostly around friends, and hardly worse than some theists asserting strongly that I will be tortured forever in firey pits once dead. In matters that matter, I am, and I think most of my fellow travelers (not like we're organized, or anything) are usually quite respectful. And really, I don't understand why the faithful (of whatever faith) should be so thin-skinned. As I understand it, most faiths call upon believers to something much more severe that polite mockery.

As a datapoint, I go to church about once a month with a person who is close to me. I'm about as non-xian as can be, but I'm perfectly capable of respecting my friend enough to take communion because it is important to them.

(For the record, I was a Religious Studies major in a small, expensive liberal arts college in the NE U.S., until I realized that I wasn't doing anything useful, and dropped out. And that was before I realized that the degree was worth more than the knowledge, and was sad about screwing the pooch both ways. So it goes.)

Jon | September 17, 2006 05:35 PM

I also don't particularly care whether someone is a believer or not. But I become quite annoyed when people lump everyone who believes in God in with the religious reich of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. I am a gay born-again Christian. They say I don't exist. But then who typed this post?

Not all Christians try to force pseudo-science in schools, and we don't all bomb abortion clinics. Those who do are only a mouthy minority, but it is far easier for lazy news people to quote one of these "leaders" than to try to find out how most Christians actually feel.

jason | September 17, 2006 05:35 PM

Excellent, John. Truly excellent. Thank you.

fishbane | September 17, 2006 05:54 PM

Jon, above: But I become quite annoyed when people lump everyone who believes in God in with the religious reich of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. I am a gay born-again Christian. They say I don't exist. But then who typed this post?

Jon (obviously not Scalzi, just to be clear): I'd just ask, who is "they", or alternately, the "people"? You're quite clearly angry with some number of so far unidentified people that if I squint, I can mistake for someone who seems like me, but I have trouble figuring out how you came to that anger towards something that vaguely looks like me.

What set you off? I don't mind talking, if I am, in fact, the sort of person that makes you angry. Why not air our laundry here, in our favorite authors home, instead of stinking up our own? (Sorry. That meaphor went on for too long. This is why I'm not published yet.)

Mark K. | September 17, 2006 06:04 PM

Rachel:

I think it's okay to make common cause with religious people in some cases, and also to speak against religion as a phenomenon...

I wouldn't presume to tell anybody who they should make common cause with, or on what causes, but I will point out that for a non-trivial number of religious people, this kind of statement can sound a lot like "I think it's okay to work with gay people and also speak against homosexuality as a phenomenon." As in, religion often isn't merely an intellectual position, but an umbrella category for a deeply meaningful set of personal experiences.

Annalee Flower Horne | September 17, 2006 06:47 PM

Ginny, I agree with you about the unfortunate tendencies I see among Friends with regards to acceptance these days. The 'gay marriage issue' is tearing through Quakerdom in a big way right now. It came up many, many times at the World Gathering of Young Friends in 2005, and again at the gathering in Africa later that year.

One of the big things that I took away from the world gathering, though, is that many Programmed Friends are a lot like us. They tend to be more Christo-centric than unprogrammed Friends, but most of their core beliefs are the same as ours. A lot of them are not evangelical.

I kinda feel like I'm thread-jacking by talking about Quaker politics here, though. If you drop me an email (Flowean at earlham dot edu), I'd love to continue this discussion someplace where it's not cluttering up Scalzi's comment thread.

Janiece | September 17, 2006 07:28 PM

My copy of this book just shipped today, and I can't wait to read it. I'm always up for books that make me think.

The trouble with discussions surrounding religion (or sex, or politics) is the emotional hook. Once an individual gets "hooked" into an emotionally loaded discussion with no intention of listening to the other party, but only to convince the world that they are RIGHT, no meaningful discussion will occur. I'm glad this thread seems to have escaped this trap.

I would say that my issue is with FANATICS, of any stripe, be they fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, Atheist, et al. If you are a fanatic, then I have no time for your argument, be it good, bad or indifferent, as your credibility is suspect, at best.

Matt Arnold | September 17, 2006 08:14 PM

I refer to me, Scalzi, and Dawkins as obviously atheistic as it's possible to get and still remain reasonable. Call it hairsplitting, but there is a good reason that I reject the term "agnostic." That reason is that I have hundreds of real-life experiences about how listeners and readers think the word "agnostic" means. They think it means we think the evidence for God is as good as the evidence against; or that we haven't thought about it and hardly care. In other words, it means not taking sides.

I choose the word "atheist" specifically because by so doing, I'm taking sides and revealing that I think believers in God are wrong.

An atheist doesn't have to be obnoxious or pushy about it; just state it with that word and leave it at that. And all of a sudden one more piece of the social unanimity the believer depends on will have been shaken. The freedom to leave behind belief in God is difficult for most people because they literally don't think they know any atheists. Atheists are "those evil, nasty people" charicatured in Jack Chick cartoon tracts. Once they meet enough normal, friendly, charming people who are willing to admit they gently but firmly disagree on God, rather than hedge deceptively with the mealy-mouthed word "agnostic", they will be more accepting of diversity at the very least.

This is why I choose the label of an atheist.

Mark K.:
I wouldn't presume to tell anybody who they should make common cause with, or on what causes, but I will point out that for a non-trivial number of religious people, this kind of statement can sound a lot like "I think it's okay to work with gay people and also speak against homosexuality as a phenomenon." As in, religion often isn't merely an intellectual position, but an umbrella category for a deeply meaningful set of personal experiences.

Homosexuality is not indicative of (as King put it when discussing prejudice) "the content of one's character." It's curious that so many can believe religion is the only source of all morality and character, and simultaneously religion is sheilded from criticism as if it were just any other genetic demographic category. As if it were a mere multicultural decoration. As if it weren't, in this free country, a choice that reflects character.

fishbane | September 17, 2006 08:33 PM

I choose the word "atheist" specifically because by so doing, I'm taking sides and revealing that I think believers in God are wrong.

That's fine. That's fair. I hope you're OK with the fact that, while I agree with you, I'm not willing to sign on. My little issue is that I cannot prove to myself that god (pick one, or several) doesn't exist. I don't think (they) it does (excuse the grammar), but I can't prove it. Therefor, I can't call myself an atheist.

I understand why atheists get annoyed with my position, when they come from a political front. I have trouble with that, but that seems obvious.

I wonder about the interesting parts - what makes Matt not like what is so obviously the same belief state we share, other than my (and others) acceptance of J. Random Religion as being Just Fine. (I also don't tape bacon to any animals. I like it better without adhesives. )

Rachel | September 17, 2006 08:35 PM

Mark K.:

"I think it's okay to work with gay people and also speak against homosexuality as a phenomenon."

Well, isn't it? If a conservative republican agrees with a log cabin republican about abortion, don't they make common cause about that? Should the fact taht the conservative agrees with the log cabinner mean that he must agree with everything else in the log cabinner's stable of opinions?

So I like Hugo Schwyzer's feminist blog. I am interested in his religious interpretations and the way that he uses religion in his posts.

I still think religion, by and large, is a damaging phenomenon. That doesn't mean I think Hugo is a dolt, or that he personally is damaging. As I said, I'm even interested in his Christianity.

But I don't think there's a problem with me saying all these things, supporting Hugo's feminist stands, and also believing that religion does more bad than good.

Janiece | September 17, 2006 08:45 PM

Matt Arnold,

"Homosexuality is not indicative of (as King put it when discussing prejudice) "the content of one's character."

In the case of many religious persons, I think you will find disagreement on this point. Although I personally believe that homosexuality is determined biologically, I know many people who consider it "wrong," and fully within the control of the individual. Looking at the world through a religious lens, they feel they can fully justify their condemnation through their belief.

Okay, I'm bored with the whole Devil's Advocate role now.

"As if it [religion] weren't, in this free country, a choice that reflects character."

Bravo! Choosing a religious doctrine that advocates immoral behavior "in the name of (insert deity here)" is a free choice, and speaks to the morality (or lack thereof) of the individual making the choice.

fishbane | September 17, 2006 08:48 PM

Wow, we need some puppies. Stat!

Janiece | September 17, 2006 08:55 PM

fishbane,

I'm a fan of Giant Schnauzers, myself.

Paul | September 17, 2006 09:27 PM

John:

[Because Dawkins calls himself an agnostic on pages 50 - 51 in the book, noting, of course, that "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."]

Well, yes, but wouldn't you say that he's using the term 'agnostic' here to state that he isn't one? He doesn't believe in the fairies, and he doesn't believe in the god. He's agnostic about them to exactly the same degree, which is to say not at all.

[This is to say he's intellectually honest about it: He deeply doubts the existence of god, and thinks the evidence is rather overwhelmingly against one existing -- he's not one of those people who thinks it's a 50/50 chance of God existing. He's a de facto atheist, but admits one cannot know for certain.]

But there's no 'but' there. Being an atheist doesn't mean knowing for certain; it's not a claim one makes about oneself that one 'admits' one can't back up. Another commenter, fishbane, says:

[That's where I fit in, too - I believe there is no god, but I have no way of proving that is so, so the best word for my belief state is agnostic.]

Have we read the dictionary lately, people? 'I believe there is no god' is as good a definition of atheism as you'll put together in six words or fewer. Not being able to prove it either way is neither here nor there. Theism/atheism isn't about proof; it's about what you believe or don't.

I've seen elsewhere what looks to me like a real queasiness about using the word 'atheist' in people whose descriptions of their own beliefs are absolute textbook examples. There's a retreat towards 'agnostic', which is quite at odds with what the word traditionally means. Do societal pressures make it hard for people to call themselves what they are? The argument that someone refers to themselves as an 'agnostic' because the existence of a god can't be conclusively disproven is, as Tim Walters says, an odd bit of logical exceptionalism. Ask someone whether they honestly believe in those invisible pink unicorns, and they'll (hopefully) say, without equivocation: 'No', even if when pushed they'd agree that their existence can't be conclusively disproven. And yet, with the whole god thing, there's this genuine reluctance to admit to lack of belief, which shows itself in what seems to me to be a disingenuous choice of the word 'agnostic' over 'atheist', even when the latter is by far the better description of the position being taken.

John Scalzi | September 17, 2006 09:49 PM

Paul:

"Well, yes, but wouldn't you say that he's using the term 'agnostic' here to state that he isn't one?"

Not really, no. If he were an absolute atheist I suspect he would come straight out and say so, because Dawkins isn't the sort to pull his punches on the subject. Therefore, an agnostic of the de facto atheist sort, as noted. If you want to argue his choice of label, you need to take it up with him.

For my part, I find that "agnostic" rather adequately maps my feelings on the subject, which is why I'm content to use it, and I'm not one to pull my punches on the subject, either.

Paul | September 17, 2006 10:11 PM

John, could you clarify what you mean by 'absolute atheist' and 'de facto atheist'? I'm not sure I'm getting them.

Re: Dawkins. I'm kind of stunned that anyone would see him as in any way equivocal on the matter of atheism. I might have to go quote hunting, but conventional wisdom about him is that he's about as militantly atheist as they come. It's what endears him to me.

John Scalzi | September 17, 2006 10:23 PM

Paul:

"John, could you clarify what you mean by 'absolute atheist' and 'de facto atheist'? I'm not sure I'm getting them."

I'm going by what Dawkins writes in the book. For the de facto atheist, he provides the quote: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption he is not there." Whereas an absolute (or more accurately as Dawkins refers to them, "strong") atheist is provided this quote: "I know there is no god." Dawkins notes that he'd be surprised to meet many people in the latter category.

I don't believe Dawkins is being in the least bit equivocal on the subject of God; he merely recognizes, quite correctly, that he cannot know for certain, as he also recognizes that he cannot know for certain about the fairies in the lawn, as wildly unlikely as they might be. Basically, he's too good a scientist to say he knows with absolute certainty something he doesn't, which in my opinion is a good position to take.

Karl | September 17, 2006 10:46 PM

More on the atheist versus agnostic terminology debate:

I choose the word depending on the context. Much of the time, people have the idea of an agnostic as someone who can't make up their mind. For those people, I call myself an atheist. I don't want them to get excited about the possibility of my conversion. I explain the relevance of the agnostic terminology when the discussion gets more technical.

It seems that people choose the term depending on the kind of religion they engage. It's hard to be anything but atheistic about the God of the religious fundamentalists. There’s too much falsifiable evidence laying around. The world didn’t begin 6,000 years ago. God doesn’t answer prayer in a statistically obvious way.

Then again, if someone thinks of God as a vague cosmic power underlying the universe, it's pretty hard to falsify that concept. I'll call myself an agnostic. What if God is another term for the organizing properties of the universe, i.e. the laws of science?

Tell me what you mean by the term "God" and I'll tell you whether I'm an agnostic or an atheist about your God.

Avdi | September 17, 2006 10:49 PM

See also Oolong Caluphid's classic trilogy: Where God Went Wrong, A Few More of God's Greatest Mistakes, and Just Who is this God Person, Anyway?

Scorpio | September 17, 2006 10:53 PM

Um. I think "half" is a huge overestimation. Those Chinese and those Indians, you know.

Steve Burnap | September 17, 2006 11:06 PM

Usually I've seen that position called "Weak Atheism" ("I don't believe in God because I see no evidence for one") as opposed to "Strong Atheism" ("I know there definitely is no God".) It's very close, but not exactly the same as what I've seen called "Strong Agnosticism" ("There's no way to prove God's existence so I don't waste time worrying about it".)

Though it's possible to be a "Weak Atheist" and a "Strong Agnostic" at the same time, and that's where I've always kinda sorta fell.

I have no interest in proselytizing and honestly I've not particularly suffered for holding the views I hold, though I think a lot of that is that when you don't believe in God, you don't particularly talk about religion, especially if you are the sort of "mind your own business" type non-believers often are. But sometimes I think that the public view of agnostic/athiests is more negative than it should be because the default in this country is "believes in God" so that if you say nothing (as most agnostics/atheists do), people just assume you believe and so "atheist" is this strange "other", and not their friends and neighbors. I often wish there was a way to simply say "look, I don't believe in the invisible sky giant" without coming off as some sort of activist.

John Scalzi | September 17, 2006 11:09 PM

Scorpio:

"I think 'half' is a huge overestimation."

It's not. There are about 2.1 billion Christians and about 1.3 billion Muslims (and about 14 million Jews). Which is about 3.4 billion people, which is about half the current world population (actually a bit more, I think).

Source: Adherents.com

Matt Arnold | September 17, 2006 11:24 PM

The claim that one doesn't know for sure that there are no fairies, pink unicorns, or flying pigs is such pedantic hairsplitting that it's actually humorous. So I ask you, why do we invoke this word, "agnostic", only when the gremlin in question is a god? I suspect it's for a deeper purpose than merely to avoid rocking the boat (although it actually is that in some cases).

The deeper purpose is that the skeptical and freethought community is deeply committed to attaining something near perfection in microscopic accuracy and meticulous honesty. I'm actually quite proud of the scientific community of which Dawkins is part; only this crowd would go to such pains of ultra-scrupulous academic quibbling that they'll go to any length to give their philosophical opponents precisely as much advantage as they can. And weigh it out with a teaspoon. It's like a right-handed master swordsman agreeing to fight left-handed just so that there's no doubt he's the best. You won't get such rigorous fairness and self-criticism from nearly as many religious scholars.

Jenny Rae Rappaport | September 17, 2006 11:34 PM

So right, the whole point about the 14 million Jews is slightly inaccurate... there may be 14 million people who claim that they're Jewish, but at least in the US, there are many, many Jews who classify themselves like I do, as "Jewish agnostics". This term has come about for a variety of reasons, but essentially, it's come to mean people who consider themselves culturally Jewish and who believe in Judaism from a cultural standpoint, but who don't give a damn about whether God exists or not because they don't believe there is a God. I do the High Holidays, Hannukah, and Passover, but I observe them because it's something my family has been doing for millennia.

The leaders of American Judaism have been trying to fight against this trend for years, but as long as they continue to tell me how wrong it is for me to want to marry my non-Jewish, atheist boyfriend, even though I fully intend to raise my future children as Jews.... they can go figure out how to repair their religion themselves.

John Scalzi | September 17, 2006 11:34 PM

Matt Arnold:

"So I ask you, why do we invoke this word, 'agnostic', only when the gremlin in question is a god?"

Evidently we don't; as Dawkins says, he's also agnostic about the fairies in the garden.

Nor for that matter, do I; I'm agnostic on any number of things that I'm deeply skeptical about, because I think it's right and proper to acknowledge that fundamentally there are things I don't know and can't prove.

The issue is that people confuse "agnostic" with "wishy-washy." However, I fail to see that as my problem.

Jonathan | September 17, 2006 11:55 PM

We’ve spent a lot of time on Atheism vs. Agnostic, yet I’m surprised no one has chosen to explore a Deism-like thread.

I’d have expected sci-fi types would be predisposed to believe that our existence has some creator, or some purpose beyond the terrestrial. It’s hard to imagine everyone on this thread are convinced that there is NO intelligence that set this Universe and our existence into motion.

I’ve heard that many physicists and astronomers are religious because they better appreciate how unimaginably vast and complex the Universe is, and yet is also so orderly and precise. Einstein wanted to know the “thoughts of God” by understanding the fundamentals of nature. So I’d expect the sci-fi fans to have a similar desire to explore nature’s truths. (yeah, I realize I’m making an argument to lovers of FICTION, but I’m hoping we can acknowledge the difference between fantasy diversion and our personal beliefs). So I expected the sci-fi types be more characterized as dreamers (like me) and thus additionally prone to superfluous musings and explorations beyond the rational.

Sure I’m a skeptic, and I can hop-aboard the bandwagon rejection of organized religion with the best of ‘em, but I’m curious…. in the privacy of each of your personal thoughts, are you REALLY so convinced that no creator exists? Or are you trying to convince yourself? I’m still trying… but no firm answer yet.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. - Albert Einstein

Anonymous | September 18, 2006 12:10 AM

I think that the terms agnostic and atheist approach different parts of the question.

The term atheist talks about an absence of belief in God. The term focuses on belief.

The term agnostic talks about the existence of God being unknown or unknowable. It's talking about certainty.

The use of a given term depends upon the issue that a given person finds most relevant. This is why you often find the self-labelled atheists engaging the fundamentalists. They are arguing about which belief is correct. Meanwhile, agnostics often appear more conciliatory. It's not that they believe much different than the atheists. They just talk about the issue differently. They focus on determining the appropriate certainty for a given belief.

The terms are not mutually exclusive. It's perfectly coherent for a person to call themselves an agnostic atheist.

Karl | September 18, 2006 12:10 AM

woops, that was me.

Ted Lemon | September 18, 2006 12:35 AM

Steve: e pluribus unum is latin for "from many, one." This appears on the nickel and the quarter, but sadly not on the dime or the dollar bill. I don't have any other currency on hand or I'd check that as well. I have to agree that it would be nice if that had precedence over "in God we trust," since in fact it's a much better description of what's important about the U.S. Oh well.

John, for an invisible pink unicorn to exist is actually a logical impossibility. A unicorn is either pink, or invisible, but not both. So to be agnostic about the existence of such a creature is in fact illogical. Such creatures definitely do not exist.

I could give you some equally good proofs for the nonexistence of God, but it's rather pointless to do so; the only real purpose of these arguments is to dispel wrong ideas about what God could be, in the mind of someone who is interested in what or whom God is. For someone who is already certain, one way or the other, such proofs are uninteresting at best; heresy at worst.

David: I have yet to figure out what sort of deity Will Shetterly believes in, if any. Perhaps one day he will come clean... :')

Gottacook | September 18, 2006 12:39 AM

What Jenny Rae said above, I agree with completely. Judaism has no creed. My wife and I both grew up in families that belonged to synagogues, and we belong to one now in large part because we want our two daughters to have a Jewish education and milieu - but they'll be able to make up their own minds later about what they want to take from it, as we did. Oddly enough we now live in a neighborhood (outside Washington, DC) with many orthodox Jewish families, and so we have to explain to the girls that we are as much Jews as they are; we don't base our daily lives on observance the way they do, but Jewish identity is important enough to us that we want such a thing to continue. Not the same as religious belief at all, at least not for me and my wife.

John Scalzi | September 18, 2006 12:45 AM

Ted Lemon:

"A unicorn is either pink, or invisible, but not both."

Sez you. I posit the invisible pink unicorn existing unobserved in a Schroedinger's box, where it exists in an indeterminate state, both pink and invisible. That's the unicorn I am agnostic about.

Eric | September 18, 2006 12:45 AM

"I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."

I'm at a distinct disadvantage since I don't have an advance copy of the Dawkins book and cant't read the paragraph. However, to me the comment comes across as far more likely to be a snarky reference to the "Cottingley Fairies" hoax than an "honest" admission that he doesn't know if there are fairies in his garden. I.e. Dawkins may not be able to conclusively prove a negative, but he doesn't have any hesitation about comparing God to a hoax played upon the public and people like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who willingly played the part of "credulous dolts" because their need to believe trumped their sense of reason.

However, like I said, I could be wrong. Perhaps I'm reading too much into the sentence. (However--and someone correct me if I'm wrong--I'm fairly sure that Dawkins is chummy with James Randi and I know that Randi has used the Cottingley Fairies to illustrate several points about human credulity and the ease with which intelligent people can be deceived by simple means. At any rate, I'd be shocked if Dawkins wasn't rather familiar with the whole affair.)

I also would have to say, John, that your feelings of not feeling marginalized "because I also happen to be a white, educated, heterosexually-bonded non-handicapped male of above average financial means, and those facts matter more in this society" may have a great deal more to do with your geography and the nature of your work than they do with any of the factors you mention. I happen to be white, educated, heterosexual (although single) and of above-average financial means, but I also live in the South and work as a lawyer in a county with significant poverty and education issues: I cannot say I have been actively discriminated against, but I can also tell you that having a "don't ask/don't tell" religious policy is extremely prudent down here. Times that the subject has come up, I've had people actually argue with me about my religious beliefs--as in, "No you're not, you can't possibly be an atheist." Down here, my beliefs would probably receive more respect if I were an active, chicken-sacrificing, orgy-hosting, blasphemy-screaming Satanist. Marginalized? Oh yeah.

Matt Arnold | September 18, 2006 12:48 AM

Jonathan,
certainly not any SF I read. Well, other than Robert Sawyer's embarrassing novel "Calculating God." (More about that here.) An irrational explanation is no real explanation at all, so "explorations beyond the rational" is no less a mishmash of meaninglessness than if it were a contradiction in terms. Science fiction that attempts it is definitely not playing to SF's strong suit. We're dreamers about the possible and preferably the plausible. Those are categories which has no overlap with the irrational.

Don't make Einstein out to be anything but an atheist. He really hated it when people misinterpreted his metaphors that way. Nature is not a benevolent, all-wise supernatural person, and he didn't intend to equate the two.

Scratch the surface of a Deist, and you get a confused Atheist. Oh, excuse me, I meant a confused Agnostic-- I forgot that some in this crowd want to split meaningless and ineffectual hairs about that.

All of us are rock-solid in our unbelief concerning flying pigs, because no matter how much we concede that they fall within the laws of physics, when it comes down to it none of us are buying umbrellas to protect against falling pigshit. It's the same with god. See, when you examine atheism, agnosticism and deism "under a microscope" as it were, they really have microscopic differences. But zoom out to the level at which we live life, and you can't tell them apart.

Lisa | September 18, 2006 12:58 AM

I go to a Unitarian Universalist church, the church of beleiving whatever the hell you want. (Joke: What is a UU? An agnostic with children. That pretty much sums me up.)

I go for the community spirit and the peace and solace of service and for the social and religious education for my kids (which is largely age-appropriate comparative religion peppered with UU history, environmentalism, and sociology training.)

In regards to what would happen if there were no religion due to the fact that God/Jesus/Whoever forces people to be good--I've never understood that argument. So believers of Yahweh are only good people because God told them to be so they can go to heaven and get their prayers answered? You can't be a good person for the sake of being good? For the sake of your fellow man?

I think it was Lincoln who said something on the order of "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion." We all know religious folks who are wonderful examples of the best that religious teachings can be. And we all know very religious people who are moral and ethical assholes. Same goes for your agnostics. I think the root cause of whether people make positive moral choices lies somewhere other than religion. I think it may lie more in the sciences of neuropsychology and sociology.

In any case, we all struggle from time to time to make the right moral choice. If religion helps someone do that and gives them some sense of peace, I'm fine with it. But when we get into some of the murkier moral issues (abortion, etc.) that we all as a society have to decide on together...it gets very hard to even have discussions and come to good moral conclusions with someone whose only talking point is that "God said so." That is when religion gets really damaging. Especially when both sides are saying, "I'm right because God says so" because that only leads to war.

Steve Ely | September 18, 2006 01:20 AM

I used to think of myself as an evangelical Christian, but my faith has been slipping away progressively more in recent years, such that, while the situation may change back, I'm verging more on agnostic these days. But I still very much have and anticipate continuing to have sympathy, affection, and esteem for many friends who have a strong faith in God, and so I don't expect to ever be on board with the level of contempt and hostility it seems like Dawkins has for everyone religious.


So, anyway, I wanted to say thanks, John, for your being able to share Dawkins' view of God without sharing his apparent loathing of believers.

Paul | September 18, 2006 01:24 AM

Karl:

"The terms are not mutually exclusive. It's perfectly coherent for a person to call themselves an agnostic atheist."

A really interesting point. Obviously it's consistent to recognise the inherent disprovability of a deity, but at the same time to consider oneself, and label oneself, an atheist. Both are accessible if one chooses. What's interesting is to see what people do choose, given the choice.

On the disbelief side of things, how often do people who disbelieve in the existence of a god, but at the same time recognise the possibility, however remote, call themselves 'agnostic', and how often call themselves 'atheist'? What I tend to see is far more people for whom both are true choose 'agnostic'. The hedging is on the side of belief. Even the merest chance is enough to push them away from the scary word, even though it's perfectly descriptive of what they think.

However, it doesn't seem to be the case that there's a symmetrical retreat from theism in the face of the possibility, however remote, that a god might not exist. Are churches full of people who believe that there's a god, but who accept that it's possible there might not be, and consequently think it's logical to call themselves 'agnostic'? Not so much. Again the hedging is on the side of belief.

Djscman | September 18, 2006 03:07 AM

A few years ago I found the Maxims for Non-Believers on the internet somewhere, and they changed my life. The seven simple commandments really spoke to me, told me how to comport myself, instructed me how to spread the the Words with Maximum (ha-ha!) impact. Every Sunday I spend an hour or two reading and rereading them, reciting aloud as necessary. The other six days of the week I pick one Maxim at random to meditate upon. Sometimes the power of the Maxims comes over me and I begin to lurch and shake all over the floor, speaking in a grammar and vocabulary that might be wholly unique, but is also consistent.

I try not to preach the Maxims too often or too powerfully to my believer friends and family--that trespasses against the spirit of the Maxims. But I do craft little macrame bracelets with each Maxim abbreviated in gold print. T.K.E. for (mortal) life, yo!

With regards to Dawkins writing in a sort of loose blog-style, does that remind anyone else of Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World, or Charles Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions...? The authors had some interesting anecdotes and nifty conclusions, but there didn't seem to be an overarching organizing principle to the books, um, much like this sentence has no larger point or thesis to support, except maybe Dawkins is following a proud literary tradition of skeptical inquiry...?

Anna Feruglio Dal Dan | September 18, 2006 03:59 AM

John, as for not being discriminated against: most people don't really register your agnosticism unless you tell them about it. But there are junctures when being a non-believer would effectively disqualify you from things - running for office, for example. And it would probably make it just that little much harder for you to get custody in case of divorce.

Here in the UK, where many "good" schools are religious school, you woulnd't be able to send you kids to them. In Italy, it's very hard to have a funeral service. Not as bad as having flaming crosse on your lawn, but I wouldn't consider not being able to run for office a small limitation.

As for the rest, I think there is a real distinction between agnosticism and atheism, and the people who are proclaiming themselves agnostics are, and the people who are proclaiming themselves atheists really are.

That is, while I cannot disprove the existence of God, I don't think I am really required to do so, and I think this makes me an atheist.

And, while I am amused by people like Dawkins, I don't think all religious people are credolous dolts. I think they are wrong, but I think many of them are wrong in pretty sophisticated ways.

What really annoys me are not the people who have given serious thought to their faith and have confirmed it, but those who never even thought of questioning it.

A.R.Yngve | September 18, 2006 05:43 AM

When people say "God" they seem to mean many things at once -- often without being entirely aware of it.

One one level, "God" means simply "that which created the Universe". I have no problem with the need to explain why anything exists -- but I don't think a final answer to that is possible.

But: on a deeper, emotional level there's a lot of stuff going on.... to many religious people, "God" so obviously is a parental authority figure writ large.

-People announce their "rebellion" against Jahve as they would rebel against an autoritarian father.

-People refer to "God" as a "father", or "He".

Where does this need of an "über-parent" come from?

That Neil Guy | September 18, 2006 06:58 AM

The Whatever: Come for the Bacon on a Cat. Stay for Threads like This.

dave | September 18, 2006 07:05 AM

The term atheist talks about an absence of belief in God. The term focuses on belief.

The term agnostic talks about the existence of God being unknown or unknowable. It's talking about certainty.

True. One thing that is missing, though, is a word for someone who simply doesn't care about the question of the existence of God. 'If I gave it any thought, I'd probably be agnostic' is too much of a mouthful.

Tim Haas | September 18, 2006 07:59 AM

One thing that is missing, though, is a word for someone who simply doesn't care about the question of the existence of God.

I use the word "nontheist" for that very sense.

John Scalzi | September 18, 2006 08:00 AM

Tim Haas:

"I use the word 'nontheist' for that very sense."

I prefer the term "apatheist," myself.

Schwa-Schwa | September 18, 2006 08:21 AM

Hi,

I'm personally an atheist - a Christian atheist even, since it would be quite dirty to refuse to acknowledge the powerful Protestant influence on my life and morality - but for me the reason people are religious is summed up in a graffiti that used to be on a shop in my home town:

ELVIS DUZZENT LUV YOU

NOBODY FUKKEN' DUZ!!!!

Leaving aside the utter illiteracy and the reference to Elvis, have a think about what religion gives you. It gives you Someone who loves you unconditionally - not a thing all of us have access to, I'm afraid. It gives you a community in the form of a church, whereas as an atheist you have to make your own community, perhaps through work, a sporting club, a fan club - again, not something everyone has access to. In many societies, and I'm thinking particularly of Islamic societies, religious bodies are the only ones providing reliable welfare services that you and I would expect to be funded through our taxes.

When Christianity failed to give the people what they needed, it lost supporters. If atheism/agnosticism fails to give people what they need, it will lose supporters. Atheism is associated with neoliberalism and rampant individualism, which by definition don't look after the community ("there is no society, only individuals and their families"). Guess what? Evangelism and Islam are ready to step into the void.

Anonymous | September 18, 2006 09:12 AM

However, it doesn't seem to be the case that there's a symmetrical retreat from theism in the face of the possibility, however remote, that a god might not exist. Are churches full of people who believe that there's a god, but who accept that it's possible there might not be, and consequently think it's logical to call themselves 'agnostic'? Not so much. Again the hedging is on the side of belief.

I appreciate the honesty of Christians willing to admit that they are technically agnostic, living out their faith in the awareness of that uncertainty. However, it seems that most humans are not wired that way. Faced with uncertainty, most people prefer a possibly wrong answer to an unresolved question.

When people say "God" they seem to mean many things at once -- often without being entirely aware of it.

One one level, "God" means simply "that which created the Universe". I have no problem with the need to explain why anything exists -- but I don't think a final answer to that is possible.

But: on a deeper, emotional level there's a lot of stuff going on.... to many religious people, "God" so obviously is a parental authority figure writ large.

Most people don't know what they are talking about when they mean God. If you ask them, they can give a quick definition:
- created the universe
- omnipotent
- benevolent
- answers prayer
- saves people
- (it varies depending on the individual)

When the questions get deeper, God starts sounding more like a conceptual gap-filler, an answer for questions that are beyond our comprehension:
- it's a mystery
- we aren't meant to know
- God is beyond our understanding
- you can't prove whether God exists

And when the skeptics are away, people revert to a feeling of God as being more of a parent:
- being with them
- answering prayer
- helping them find peace about the next life
- giving them a feeling of purpose

People talk about God as though it means one distinct thing but I find it hard to know what a person means without getting to know them for a while. Most people, when it comes down to it, don't know what God means in a rational sense. There can be many different ideas of God, even within the same church.

There's something complex going on. It seems that most people believe in God on the basis of feeling but they justify it on the basis of reason. It's like the feeling and the reason exist in two separate worlds.

We have a world of remarkable diversity of belief. People hold these beliefs strongly despite the diversity. Because there is no criteria to clearly distinguish which of these beliefs are more likely to be correct, these beliefs are supported by ritually addressing the spiritual needs that people feel. The basis of spiritual belief, in most cases, is these spiritual needs and not empirical, rational inquiry.

Anonymous | September 18, 2006 09:41 AM

Excellent entry, John.

What you said reminded me of two books: the first is Karen Armstrong's A HISTORY OF GOD: THE 4,000-YEAR QUEST OF JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM. It's well written, informative, and a good read. It describes how God has changed to reflect the societies that have worshipped him in different millenia--and although I doubt Armstrong would describe herself as atheist or agnostic, I think she would agree with the description of God as a somewhat psychotic figure, over time.

Sam Harris' THE END OF FAITH: RELIGION, TERROR, AND THE FUTURE OF REASON seems to echo Dawkins, but his emphasis is the danger that religion brings to society, here and now. Along the way, he tries to respond to the argument that religion does bring good as well as evil, with some success, and tries to construct an alternative to religion, less plausibly to me. What the book really brings forth is a powerful indictment of allowing religious thinking to trump reason.

AliceB | September 18, 2006 09:43 AM

Shoot. That was me.

dave | September 18, 2006 09:43 AM

Atheism is associated with neoliberalism and rampant individualism, which by definition don't look after the community

Funny, when I was growing up it was just the opposite. If you said you were an atheist you were assumed to be a communist.

John Scalzi | September 18, 2006 09:52 AM

Yeah, I don't know that I buy the whole, "Atheism associated with neoliberalism" thing, either. The atheists I know personally are pretty much all over the board with their politics.

Steve Buchheit | September 18, 2006 10:17 AM

Dave, the correct word for not thinking about a god either way would be "heathen."

As for neoliberalism being Godless, that's just Karl Rove clap-trap.

I also think it's interesting how most of the conversation is about monotheism and specifically Yahweh worship compared to the non-belief in such. Granted, the argument was predisposed to that bent, I just happen to think it's interesting.

George | September 18, 2006 10:19 AM

Is it so difficult to believe that an organism with attributes that to us are godlike could have evolved in this immense universe?

Janiece | September 18, 2006 10:28 AM

George,

I have not noted anyone denying the possibility of a highly evolved species in our universe. May I ask what prompted your comment?

Minivet | September 18, 2006 10:31 AM

I'd like to draw out and compliment another section of your post from what's been discussed:

Also, there's the nagging question in my mind of how much, on a purely practical level, the human condition would change if our species were somehow magically innoculated against the idea of God.

Amen. In China, monotheism had next to no impact, and indeed conceptions of gods in general have not had any prominence in public discourse for at least a hundred years. But has China had any less trouble with irrational fanaticism?

Take away gods, and people will find other things to be crazy about.

Cambias | September 18, 2006 10:43 AM

I'm an atheist, though of the non-strident variety (I have no problem with dollars trusting God, for example). However, I have come to realize that all of my ideas of right and wrong, good and evil are ultimately derived from religion.

After all, as a hard-core materialist, I recognize that right and wrong have no objective meaning in the physical universe. They can't be measured or observed except through human beliefs. Which means, of course, that to say it's "wrong" for someone to impose religion on me is absurd -- unless I can do so within the context of that religion. The whole basis for our modern religious tolerance is Protestant Christianity's emphasis on individual salvation, which provides just that context.

Another issue which atheists are curiously blind about is the abysmal track record of attempts to create a moral order without that God fellow. Consider the competing abbatoirs of Fascism and Communism in the 20th century, both of which were based on a flawed understanding of Darwin. Compared to that, your fundamentalist aunt or that annoying street preacher are pretty small potatoes.

(Yes, you may now bring up the Inquisition. I will now point out that the Inquisition ended two centuries ago and despite operating for half a millennium never racked up the body count Communism and Fascism managed in a few decades.)

All of this is just to say that atheists probably need to be more cautious about moral preening and self-congratulation than religious folks. And that we atheists may need those religious folks more than they need us.

Mark DF | September 18, 2006 10:47 AM

For pink unicorn’s sakes, my head is whirling.

John, I second the marginalization comments by Eric—and I think it also happens in much much more subtle ways. For example, I live in MA, the home of gay marriage. I work in Boston, at a finance firm where most people present themselves as accepting/tolerant of gay men and lesbians. And yet, while I have not experienced overt discrimination—I get nice reviews, good raises, people cooperate with me—in six years I have been invited to a casual co-worker kind of lunch by only one straight guy (n.b.: I’ve initiated invites plenty---and not a few have been turned down with “gee, can’t make it today”). Nothing I can really call anybody on, but, well, I tend to lunch with the same female co-worker or go it alone. At the risk of starting a subthread (at Whatever? Heavens!) I would call that marginalization, but not discrimination, and at the further risk of sounding paranoid, I attribute it to my orientation (‘cause, hey, I’m a nice guy who should be able to click friendship-wise with more than one person out of eighty co-workers).

Contrast that with an agnostic/atheist. One can have the exact same apparent social life and family life as a devout religious, so belief status probably does enter in how someone is perceived as a friend/co-worker/neighbor until long after the level of friendship is established. Co-workers (at least in here in the Northeast) tend not to ask if you go to church. There’s no initial/earlier perception of Otherness.

What’s further different on the agnostic/atheist front is job status. In my experience as a freelancer, I’ve felt assessed predominantly on my work product, not my suitability as a co-worker. Almost by definition, I self-selected places I felt comfortable working at, either consciously or unconsciously, and it’s not out of the realm of possibility that I didn’t get some jobs because someone perceived me as gay and was uncomfortable with it. Again, that type of situation is not as likely to come up for an agnostic/atheist, I think.

Janiece | September 18, 2006 10:59 AM

Mark DF,

Are you implying that it's easier for an atheist to "pass," and so does not experience the same level of discrimination as individuals with more obvious differences? Interesting idea...

Dave | September 18, 2006 11:02 AM

In China, monotheism had next to no impact, and indeed conceptions of gods in general have not had any prominence in public discourse for at least a hundred years. But has China had any less trouble with irrational fanaticism?

The last time China had a serious brush with monotheism was the Heavenly Rule of Tai-Pang, back, in the mid 1800s. The resulting war killed twice as many people as the First World War.

Jennie | September 18, 2006 11:07 AM

I would like to comment on Dawkins' hypothesis that belief in God is a byproduct of the evolved need for children to accept the authority of their parents. I have not read the book, so I can only go on what Scalzi paraphrased in his post.

All pack animals have a hierarchy, and therefore have a mechanism by which subordinate members of the pack accept the authority of the dominant members. Wolves are an excellent example. Yet wolves do not have religion. No animal does, except for the human animal. So why would humans develop religion, when we are already hardwired for the pack mentality?

I am also curious if Dawkins addresses the brain functionality of religion. Research has shown that the temporal lobe is most active during an experience described by the subject as "spiritual." The temporal lobe is also the locus of creative activity. Does anyone know what part of the brain is involved in the experience of authority? If it is not the temporal lobe, then that seems to cast doubt on Dawkins' hypothesis.

I don't have the answers to these questions, but I think they are relevant to the foundation of the entire discussion. Every human culture has had some form of religion. Why? Dawkins posits biology. If that is ruled out, then why?

Also, as others have noted, there is a signficant distinction between religious people and fundamentalist fanatics. The terms should not be used interchangeably.

Finally, it is possible for religion to accommodate science. In my experience, intelligent non-religious people often point to the incompatibility of religion and science as a reason for rejecting religion. Many expressions of religion certainly do fly in the face of basic science (e.g. intelligent design). But not all religions have such contempt for science and scientific thought. Again, we need to distinguish between fundamentalist fanaticism and religion.

Nikudada | September 18, 2006 11:16 AM

Since becoming a reader post bacon syndrome I might as well say hello and join the discussion.

Personally my own agnosticism stems from a Socratic faith. If it is impossible to know anything then it seems futile to attack the god problem is any kind of fanatical way. Granted, this is the reason that faith is synonomous with religion - its impossible to actually know if God exists, unless he's talking to you.

In my opinion, though, its the answers to most all the questions in life that have splintered religion. It seems odd that during a period when we didn't know why rain fell we created (or discovered) large families of gods. As these questions were answered our number of gods dwindled. Now polytheism is a little less predominant now that so many of these questions have been answered( yet clearly not nonexistent since we still have hinduism, buddism, and a whole load others I'm too ill informed to know of).
But the biggest question, that of death, still plagues us. It is the one query to which science will seemingly never be able to answer and is, therefore, the one thing that prevents me from claiming to be an atheist. I have as much trouble believing science can solve the question of what happens after you die as I do that there is some guy up in the clouds who occasionally likes to plague cities, tell people to kill their sons, speaks to people in deserts, or punishes people by making them screw bulls.

Ok, nuff rambling for now. I'm sure to have angered enough people with my terrible grammer and incoherent statements. Cheers,
Nick

Steve Buchheit | September 18, 2006 11:16 AM

Jennie,

"Yet wolves do not have religion. No animal does, except for the human animal. "

I think that needs a qualifier of, "no other animal has exhibited what we recognize as religious behavior." At one time we said than animals had no language or reasoning capacity. Both of those have been disproven.

And while I haven't read Dawkin's book, I think the post about "authority figure" wasn't talking about Dawkin's theories.

Jenny Rae Rappaport | September 18, 2006 11:27 AM

Just as a side note to Jennnie and Steve's comments... are there any novels out there that have animals that have evolved their own religions? I don't mean animals with human religions superimposed on them, but an actual religion tailored for that animal? There's got to be something out there, right? Titles, anyone?

Jenny Rae Rappaport | September 18, 2006 11:28 AM

Whoops, sorry for the extra "n" in your name, Jennie.

Steve Buchheit | September 18, 2006 11:38 AM

Jenny Rae, "Watership Down" okay, we can make an argument that the god is a human mix of Christ and Coyote, but then again, the rabbits are humanized.

John Scalzi | September 18, 2006 11:38 AM

Jenny Rae Rappaport:

I believe Watership Down fits that description.

Steve Buchheit | September 18, 2006 11:40 AM

John,

JINX!

John Scalzi | September 18, 2006 11:45 AM

Damn. By the rules of jinx, I owe you a soda.

Steve Buchheit | September 18, 2006 11:52 AM

John, I yield my soda prize to Athena. ;)

A.R.Yngve | September 18, 2006 12:06 PM

"Bears Discover God".
;-)

Jenny Rae Rappaport | September 18, 2006 12:16 PM

Scalzi and Steve:

It's been so long since I read Watership Down, I totally forgot that. I distinctly remember that rabbits can't count above three though. =)

Any others? It occurred to me that the Redwall books could conceivably fall into that category, but while the mice have an abbey, they're not particularly religious. Instead, they excel at making delicious-sounding food.

Tim Walters | September 18, 2006 12:54 PM

Duncton Wood by William Horwood. An odd but compelling book about highly religious, intelligent moles.

Eric | September 18, 2006 12:59 PM

I think Anna's comments about political office and matters like child custody are well-taken. In local political races where I live, the candidate's church is almost always an implicit issue--how many people attend, how the person is regarded within the religious community. In a recent D.A. primary, a candidate made it a more explicit issue by prominently advertising his church attendence: if the gambit failed, it was only because his opponent's tours to give Bible-studies-speeches are well known around here.

Even on the national level, a part of President Bush's appeal is that he is regarded as a good Christian and a godly man by many people. Several surveys, if I'm not mistaken, have shown that large segments of the American population care about their President's religiousosity.

It's good that I don't have political aspirations: they wouldn't get anywhere.

Cambias: attempts to create a moral order obedient to that God fellow haven't gone well, either. The excesses of Nazism may or may not have had anything to do with atheism (in fact, if you accept Goldhagen's thesis in Hitler's Willing Executioners, Christian--specifically Lutheran--anti-semitism may have been one of the existing conditions that made the Holocaust possible). The excesses of the Inquisition, however, had everything to do with attempting to create a moral order pleasing to the God fellow.

The contention that we owe religious toleration to Protestant ideals is dubious on several fronts. First, Protestantism was not a monolithic front (and arguably still isn't, even if schisms have been conveniently buried): anyone who thinks that Protestant beliefs led directly to religious moderation and tolerance is woefully unfamiliar with the history of the Reformation, during which time assorted Protestants were seemingly happy to torture and kill rival Protestants and Catholics for miscellaneous heresies (or simply to guarantee political or material influence and control--funny how real estate disputes can turn vicious when they're dressed up as ideological differences). Secondly, ideals of religious tolerance have a much more obvious and direct debt to the Enlightenment philosophers who began to emerge as Reformation Europe's wars began to lose steam--besides being exhausted after the battles and purges, many of these fellows were heretics or even deists or even (gasp!) freethinkers who had a vested interest in moderation and tolerance.

Preening and self-congratulation are unflattering behaviors in anyone. What is perhaps more troubling is the veiled threat in, "we atheists may need those religious folks more than they need us." While I agree that the vast numbers of Christians could, if they wanted to resort to time-honored traditions, rise up and torture me until I professed myself born again and then murder me on the gallows or stake, I hardly think that's something anyone should be proud of or humbled by.

bonnie-ann black | September 18, 2006 01:07 PM

religion is hardly an "opiate" of the people, since it is often used to rouse them to fury, idiocy, obstinancy, homicide, regicide and suicide. it is, however, an opiate in that it dissolves self-will in many instances. just look at the idiocy of both Benedict XVI and the muslim reaction.

i'm what Margaret Atwood describes as a "strict agnostic." i don't believe in a personal, interested god. because if i did believe there was a personal, interested god, i'd have to hate it.

Minivet | September 18, 2006 01:28 PM

In China, monotheism had next to no impact, and indeed conceptions of gods in general have not had any prominence in public discourse for at least a hundred years. But has China had any less trouble with irrational fanaticism?

The last time China had a serious brush with monotheism was the Heavenly Rule of Tai-Pang, back, in the mid 1800s. The resulting war killed twice as many people as the First World War.

I was indeed leaving out the Taiping Rebellion, mostly because it had no lasting influence. I admit I had forgotten how many died in that rebellion, but the toll of the Great Leap Forward was similar or higher, proving my original point.

Minivet | September 18, 2006 01:29 PM

Forestalling another comment: That is to say, no lasting influence in terms of the spread of monotheism.

Karl | September 18, 2006 01:47 PM

Doh! Did it again.

That anonymous post with lots of bullet points about religious beliefs being derived from felt needs and not rationality was me.

Mark DF | September 18, 2006 01:48 PM

Janiece:

Yeah, I guess I am saying it's easier for an atheist to pass. I hope that's not perceived as playing "Who Has It Worse" because that wasn't my intent.

What I was trying to point out is, from an observational point of view, if someone does not make any specific remarks that would affix an identity label, someone else might still perceive them as gay but not likely to perceive them as atheist. That would be passing. Take it up a notch, if asked how one's weekend was, an out gay guy says "My husand and I went to the movies." An atheist says "My husband and I went to the movies." The first reveals orientation status. The second does not reveal belief status. That's passing, too. I was tossing out the contrast to illustrate why John might not perceive marginalization based on his beliefs.

Brian Greenberg | September 18, 2006 02:18 PM

Ted Lemon:
e pluribus unum is latin for "from many, one." This appears on the nickel and the quarter, but sadly not on the dime or the dollar bill. I don't have any other currency on hand or I'd check that as well. I have to agree that it would be nice if that had precedence over "in God we trust," since in fact it's a much better description of what's important about the U.S. Oh well.

Just because the blogosphere must correct every little mistake, I'm obligated to point out that "E Pluribus Unum" IS on both the dollar bill and the dime. On the dollar bill, it's on the back, on the banner in the eagle's beak. On the dime, it winds through the branches & torch on the back (http://web.mit.edu/cjoye/www/photo/img/Dime.jpg)

John Scalzi:
I posit the invisible pink unicorn existing unobserved in a Schroedinger's box, where it exists in an indeterminate state, both pink and invisible. That's the unicorn I am agnostic about.

Hmmm...an odd argument from the "you can't argue with science" guy. Color, as an attribute, is defined by specific wavelengths in the visible light spectrum. Human perception of color is defined by the effect that light has on the color receptor cells ("cones") in the retina. So, by either definition, I can't see how anything that's invisible could accurately be described as having a color. QED.

</smartass>

Leigh | September 18, 2006 02:20 PM

I was walking with an aquaintance down the sidewalk one day while a street preacher was yelling about how we are all going to hell. Suddenly the aquaintance turned to me and asked me, "Are you Christian?" I paused.

Yes. I am. I've even attended a four year mini-seminary that qualifies me educationally to be a deacon within the Episcopalian church. I am a regular attendee of church service, in the choir, and beyond attendance, actually believe in God. But I paused at the question, because I knew answering yes to him would mean he would catagorize me with that preacher and assume that I believe in the same firey hell and damnation as he. Instead I answered, "Christian with or without a sense of humor?" He laughed and apparently decided I was okay.

What bothers me about all this isn't the number of unbelieving heathens who are all going to hell (that is a joke). It is the view of Christians as a whole. If the Bible tells me that we are supposed to be recognizable by our love (somehow that phrase doesn't get quoted as often as the one bit about homosexuality in Leviticus) then many people have gotten off track, possibly including me at times.

But I do think that faith (any faith, not just Christianity or Episcopalian--though I am proud of my particular brand because we have a gay bishop and a female presiding bishop elect) is important for people as a whole. Like Cambias's argument, I don't find it surprising that many of the social leaders of our age and the past were people of faith. I don't find it surprising that it was Rabbi Rothchild and other white religious leaders who first took a public stand with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (himself a man of faith) in Atlanta during the civil rights movement. Faith can (and probably should) be radical.

When we stop looking at a faith as a way to prosperity, as a way to pray ourselves safe, be in an "in" group, or as a way to get something from God or the Universe, and begin looking at faith as a giving of oneself, we hope, we begin to recognizable by our love.

I stand with Jon, the gay born-again, and the two Quakers, and the others with a faith who posted before. Most Christians are not standing on corners proclaiming damnation. Most of us don't believe that. I'm sorry that the loud minority has created such a black picture of us. Maybe it is time we start standing on street corners proclaiming God loves you, you are accepted, you will go to heaven, whether you care or not.

As for who I believe is going to hell or heaven, I forget who said it but I like it: You can be sure you have created God in your own image, when God hates all the same people you do.

Jemaleddin | September 18, 2006 02:35 PM

Sorry I'm late to this discussion, but:

John: which gods are you agnostic towards? Kali? Allah? Thor?

Christians certainly aren't agnostic towards Zeus or Shiva: they're atheists. I think their religion is every bit as ridiculous as they find everyone else's, therefore I'm an atheist, just like them.

Is there a chance that gods exist? Sure. But it's the same chance for each one, and I'm still an atheist to all of them.

Ted Lemon | September 18, 2006 02:38 PM

I find it a little weird how many "Christians" think the Old Testament is the literal word of God, but when they see Jesus' teachings contradicting their favorite parts of the Old Testament, they side with the Old Testament, not with Jesus. To me, that seems more consistent with being an ersatz Jew than a Christian.

Wakboth | September 18, 2006 02:47 PM

Religion, in moderation, can also be a beneficial opiate, relieving pain and stress.

The problem, I believe, is fanaticism, which is an all too universal human problem.

Brian Greenberg | September 18, 2006 02:51 PM

I find it a little weird how many "Christians" think the Old Testament is the literal word of God, but when they see Jesus' teachings contradicting their favorite parts of the Old Testament, they side with the Old Testament, not with Jesus.

A son disagreeing with his father in public? And today's teenagers thought they invented the concept...

;-)

Steve Buchheit | September 18, 2006 03:45 PM

Brian, "A son disagreeing with his father in public?"

Considering the Christian God is technically a triune, He would be arguing with himself in public. There's a word for that. :)

Hilary | September 18, 2006 03:47 PM

John you make a number of very interesting points which deserve further discussion and exploration. One of the very few I would rebut and recast is “… there's the nagging question in my mind of how much, on a purely practical level, the human condition would change if our species were somehow magically inoculated against the idea of God.” I believe our survival depends upon it.

Leaving aside for now issues of culture, degrees of dogma and where your fist ends and my nose begins, I would rephrase the issue as, is the end of faith required for the human race to survive? For it is the “virtue” of religious faith, not any particular religion, that is the antithesis of rationality. Belief in Santa Claus is adorable in a 4 year old and pathological in a forty year old. No amount of evidence to the contrary (Jesus rode a T-rex to church, carbon dating is Satan’s tool, 70…70 virgins and they’re all mine) can change this faith, and it is dangerous (go read Sam Harris on this).

The following quote is from a conservative lobbyist in Washington “...people can only sustain so many moral movements in their lifetime. Is God really going to let the Earth burn up?” …http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1786227,00.html… Well for the sake of my grandchildren I hope this guy’s influence is limited. This sort of crap can be found in the halls of power and not just the wing nut community.

The species is in it’s adolescence, flush with new hormones and hair in odd places (are atheists the pubic hair of humanity); we are in for a century or two of global maturation, embarrassing woodies and societal angst; jarring for individuals and just plain ugly for species. It’s time to grow up; babies with matches’ burn down houses, adults use them to fire up foundries. We are capable of destroying/degrading the human habitability of this planet by intent or accident. Our mere presence changes the number and distribution of species, the chemistry, the geology and the weather of earth; our structures alter local tectonics, cities are thermal mountains and don’t get me started on orbital space junk. This is our house and it needs to be maintained.

Religious faith offers an excuse not to do what is required to deal with the complexities of evolving into the planetary stewardship phase of civilization. Faith in gods, voodoo, or the earth mother provides the exception to rational thought, and once you have an exception then you can always find reasons to excuse other inconvenient truths. We don’t need to be Spock we just need a reasonably clear head. Faith confirms the null hypotheses of rationality; the ultimate “Get Out of Jail Free” card.

Evolution favors the selfish, the dangerous, and “those that take care of their own”; until cooperation is required to survive. Common interest can be negotiated, immutable dogma cannot. If the entity you are negotiating with does not perceive the problem to be relevant and in their interest to solve then you’re screwed; I’m getting raptured, but until then where’s my Hummer. Cooperation on a global scale is required to maintain the climate, manage resources and insure that in an era where WMD technology is attainable by lesser groups (I’m talking bugs not bombs), that we don’t critically injure civilization.

I don’t advocate controlling people’s minds or restricting their beliefs. In fact, faith seems to be an artifact of evolution, but that’s another discussion. I think we need to educate and offer better alternatives; to wean society from it’s fairytales and prepare people for the complexity and responsibly of growing a civilization. Fasten your seatbelts; it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

As I am pulling much of this out of my rosy red rectum, feel free to kibitz, complain, embellish, or decry. My wife is embarrassed by my spelling and improper word substitution; I am a lousy typist, speller and atrocious proof reader, so just go with the train of thought.

Nathan | September 18, 2006 05:07 PM

Hilary

Your post brought into focus for me something that's been nagging me about this thread.

Every once in a while, someone will ring my doorbell with the intention of talking to me about God. I try to be polite because intellectually, I know that in their minds, they're trying to do me the greatest kindness they possibly can.....saving me from eternal damnation

On a more viceral level, the thought that's always foremost in my mind is "Well, I think everything you believe is completely wrong, too pal, but I didn't come to your house to tell you!"

Methinks that telling religious people that they're delusional isn't likely to gain many converts.

CJ | September 18, 2006 05:20 PM

A friend of mine helped me clarify why I didn't like Jehovah's witnesses coming to the door like that: they're not there to help you per se. They're there because they have been told it's their duty to witness for their God. They are trying to earn their own salvation by converting us heathens.

I'm not quite as nice to them as I used to be....

Bob Smietana | September 18, 2006 05:58 PM

Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project and Owen Gingerich professor emeritus of astronomy and of the history of science at Harvard would probably beg to differ with Dawkins. Both have books about science and God out now -- Collin's is called The Language of God, and Gingerich's is called God's Universe. Interesting stuff.

There's some evidence that monotheism, in the form of underground protestant churches, is alive and well in China.

I'm biased as a believer, and we Christians are no saints, but at least in the 20th century, the track record on athiestic cultures was pretty bad. The Soviets, Nazis, Cambodian communists, the Maoists, killed a lot more folks than the religious folks did. That may change in the 21st century, God forbid, but my hunch is that without God, human beings will worship either themselves or their society: that the State becomes God, and bad things follow.

Andrew Wade | September 18, 2006 06:08 PM

Evolution favors the selfish, the dangerous, and “those that take care of their own”; until cooperation is required to survive.

Not true. Natural selection can and sometimes does favor selfishness even when it is disastrous when applied globally. Natural selection is very much "local", though what local means can very greatly; and the global results can be strictly suboptimal. Google "game theory" and "evolutionarily stable strategy"; but the short of game theory is that even when cooperation is in everyone's best interests, it is not necessarily the rational choice for any given player The "prisoner's dilemma" is a famous case of this. Sometimes it is irrationality that leads to better results.

CartoonCoyote | September 18, 2006 07:08 PM

I'm biased as a believer, and we Christians are no saints, but at least in the 20th century, the track record on athiestic cultures was pretty bad. The Soviets, Nazis, Cambodian communists, the Maoists, killed a lot more folks than the religious folks did.

I have a serious problem with describing Nazis as 'atheistic'; they were anything but. I have an even more serious problem with lumping together the rest because of their lack of religious motivation in racking up death tolls.

Hilary | September 18, 2006 07:38 PM

Nathan – telling a hardcore fundie that they are delusional will not provide much satisfaction above the level of a spanking well delivered. But providing strength to those about to jump ship is valuable. And sowing doubt in their kids is a public service.

Bob S – one of the problems is that faith and intelligence seem to be well compartmentalized. There are many smart people who believe. As I said before there are good arguments that faith is part of an evolutionary process, I’ll post it later when I’ve cleaned it up a bit for this audience. The desire to believe is very strong particularly under adversity (I have very personal experience with this). But wishing something to be true and having it be true are two different things.

The Soviet, Nazi, Cambodians and Maoists were authoritarian cults of personality not atheist movements. Believers of all stripe have orders of magnitude more blood on their hands. If you want to formally debate some of this, the people over at God is 4 Suckers will do so (they have footnotes, I don’t). The folks there are only rude to blathering idiots (Bob you don’t appear to be one of those), to those that want an open discussion, there are quite polite. I say this because I assume that John doesn’t want the Whatever to become overwhelmed by the atheist-theist debate until universal thermodynamic equilibrium sets in.

If there were institutions providing the same benefits of community that religious institutions provided I think you would see fewer church members. While I believe there is fundamental brain structure involved in belief; that function can easily co-opted by belief in humanity and that incredible thing the universe; poof all magic gone.

Andrew – that was intended as a gross generalization. That evolution operates at many different levels both macro and microscopically is a concession wrung from me faster than Scalzi can say kitty carbonara. That humanity is now able to influence it’s own evolution is really the point, poorly stated on my part. This was also in reference to the rise of tribal species. I can’t and won’t dispute an thing you’ve said.

Hilary | September 18, 2006 0