Well, I'm glad I could clear that up.
Seriously, there are many nonbelievers, including myself, who think
that
it's time we take a second look at the use of the term "agnostic."
Thomas
Henry Huxley, a contemporary of
Darwin's, originally invented the term to describe himself after being
dissatified with the dogmatism and certainity he found among both
religious
believers and nonbelievers regarding the existence of God. Since it
was
impossible to prove or disprove this matter, Huxley argued, one should
try
to keep an open mind and just say, "I don't know."
That's all well and good, but sooner or later someone's going to say to
us:
"Yes, but what do you believe?" Agnosticism is a matter of
knowledge,
and when it comes down to that, everyone's an agnostic. Nobody has
produced the definitive answer on whether or not there is a God. How
many
times have Christians said that they rely on "faith" instead of
"proof?"
Huxley himself said, "Agnosticism is, in fact, not a creed, but a
method."
There are a few agnostics who hold theistic beliefs. I once heard a
sermon
by a Unitarian-Universalist minister on
"Pious agnosticism". Going back a little further in
time,
in 1965 Methodist bishop Leslie Weatherhead wrote a book titled, The
Christian Agnostic. An apologetic for liberal mainline Protestantism,
Weatherhead specifically wanted to address those who admired Jesus of
Nazareth as a role model, but couldn't accept the traditional doctrines
of
the virgin birth, bodily resurrection, or the infallibility of the
Bible.
(The wisdom of this approach will not be debated here.)
However, most of those who call themselves agnostic, both now and in
the
nineteenth century, were atheists for all practical intents and
purposes.
While they may not have proof, they're fairly certain that the
Judeo-Christian God, or any other God, doesn't exist. They don't
worship
or pray to him, and they'd sooner criticize the church than attend one.
Huxley's opponents accused him of trying to avoid the slanderous label
of
"atheist". Despite his denials, I don't think they were entirely
incorrect.
But there is no reason why "atheist" should be a slanderous label.
My position is that we should define ourselves by what we believe, not
what
we know -- because there's a lot that we don't know. While I believe
that
it's possible that some "higher power" created and sustains the
universe,
he(?) would be more like the deistic "clockmaker" than anything else.
I do
not believe that there is any deity that takes care of us or grants us
special favors, and for that reason, I prefer to call myself an atheist
instead of an agnostic.
by Kenneth Blackledge
On Meretricula's FAQ page, she stated that Charles Darwin was not an
atheist; on her Reader Comments page is a note from me claiming that he
was. So who's correct? Actually, Darwin himself once wrote in a
letter to
a clergyman: "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the
existence of a God. I think that generally... an agnostic would be the
most correct description of my state of mind."