I call myself an atheist, but when asked to be more specific the answer I give usually goes something like this:
I’m willing to accept that there might be a god or gods or some higher power in the universe. I highly doubt it, and I would even go so far as to say there probably is not, but I can accept that it is possible. I’m only human and, after all, I don’t have any proof that there isn’t, so I can live with that. Besides, I think it’s good to have an open mind and I love the idea that anything is possible. I would love to know that god exists, I’m just not holding my breath for it.
My views on the afterlife are that if there is a god, he will understand why I didn’t believe him and grant me passage into heaven (or whatever equivalent.) If not, I will simply decompose back into the Earth from which I came.
A lot of people think this constitutes agnosticism. I usually hear agnostics describe themselves of thinking there is a higher power but not knowing what it is. Basically, as they self-identify, they are mostly people who believe in god but not in any religion. This is definitely not me.
Atheism, to me, simply implies the lack of belief. A-theism : Non-theism : the lack of belief in a god or gods. This is how I feel my beliefs can be best described. Many people, however, feel that atheism implies the ruling out of any possiblity of a god or gods. I don’t see how the word implies that at all.
So my question is: do I fit into one of these categories more than another, and if not, is there a third word that better describes my beliefs?
I know that Gandhi said there are as many different religions as people but it’s hard to have a good religious debate when you and the person you are debating can’t agree on your religion.
We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote:
The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
Well I don’t consider myself a Unitarian, although I agree with their principles. However, the op describes my outlook exactly. And I have never been quite sure how to describe such an outlook. Atheist and Agnostic both seem close but not quite a match.
To me (although IANAT (theologist)), that sounds more like deism or theism to me.
(Theism is the opposite of atheism - ‘Belief in a deity or deities,’ as the OED puts it. It’s sort of a catch-all term for people who believe in God/gods but may or may not have a specific set of religious beliefs. Deism posits the existence of God but rejects all revelations, which means it rejects most religions that I know of.)
The OED defines an agnostic as follows:
n. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.*
In other words, agnostics believe that you can’t have a definite belief on the existence of God/gods, which sounds closer to what you’re talking about than what most of the self-identified agnostics you mentioned apparently believe.
I don’t wish to offend, but if that list represents the basic Unitarian beliefs, then there doesn’t seem to be all that much to it. By that definition I am a Unitarian, as are almost all of the people I know. Those are the same “Principles and Purposes” that define Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and most other religions, minus the “religious” parts. It seems to be little more than a basic list of rules on “how to be a good person”.
What is it about the Unitarian Universalist Association that makes it more than just a group of people who go around being good people? Or is it the intent of the UUA that there be nothing more than that? After all, most of the world’s religions agree on the “basics”; is it the intent of the UUA to promote those “basics”, while deliberately eschewing the “religious” beliefs so as to be all-inclusive?
An atheist believes that there is no G-d. My experience is that most atheists are actively opposed to the belief, and to religions in general.
An agnostic is uncommitted. My experience is that agnostics don’t really care. If there’s a G-d, OK. If not, OK. The word really suggests that ultimate reality is unknowable.
I consider myself to be a Deist. If it was good enough for Ben Franklin, it’s good enough for me! G-d could change my mind, though. Let the Red Sox win the World Series this year, and I’ll believe…
You lack, or don’t claim special knowledge Cisco. No gnosis makes you an a-gnostic. Your desire to obtain such knowledge might turn you into a Unitarian Universalist, but you aren’t one yet.
I think the distinction must be drawn between weak and strong agnostics. Weak agnostics answer “Is there a god (of any description)?” with “I don’t know” in the sense of being merely unsure. Strong agnostics respond “It’s unknowable”, believing that if a god does exist, by its nature it is unknowable. This view also draws a distinction between belief and knowledge. A strong agnostic would say that a Christian believes in the Judeo-Christian God, but he doesn’t know that He exists.
In case it’s not obvious, I fall into the latter camp. I was raised Catholic, so I can never really completely escape the belief, but I try to remain relatively unaligned.
Speaking as someone who was brought up as a UU, and is the brother of a UU minister (although I’m not a member now), you’ve pretty much got it. Just about the only common characteristic of UUs is that they are trying to “go around being good people.”
One point that separates UU from most other religions is that there is no specific set of beliefs one is required to hold in order to belong. Some might question whether in that case UU can actually be considered a religion. So if you like to equate religion with dogma, perhaps UU is better thought of as a spiritual community.
The article shows copyright 1909, so the term “free-thinkers” may be somewhat archaic, but it seems to be an umbrella for atheism, agnosticism and various forms of deism. I don’t really see where rejection of freedom of the will fits in with the rest of it, though. I’d think that choosing to do good without the goad of spiritual punishment would rely solely on freedom of the will.
“Free-Thinker” may describe your beliefs, but I don’t think you’re going to find a word that won’t require further explanation for most people. Having been raised Catholic, I’m regarded by the church as a “stray lamb”, but I’d probably best describe myself as cheerfully blasphemous with strong agnostic tendencies.
commasense, thanks for the explanation. I had always thought of Unitarians as being a bit wacko; I now see that I seriously misunderstood the situation. I would argue that the UUA is not a “religion”, but I do now have a much better understanding of why someone would be a Unitarian. In fact, had I known 15 years ago, I probably would have considered myself a Unitarian at the time.
Coincidentally, a few hours after I wrote my previous post, I learned from my sister, the UU minister, that the governor of Texas has denied tax-exempt status to two UU churches specifically because they have no dogma. :wally
It’s being fought, of course.
No word on whether he’s going to do the same for churches whose ministers make political endorsements from the pulpit, which is constitutionally prohibited.
It’s possible for an honest atheist to philosophically acknowledge the possibility that God exists, the same way it’s possible for an honest Christian (or other theist) to philosophically acknowledge the possibility that God doesn’t exist. Neither one believes it, though, and that’s why they’re not agnostics. Agnostics hold both possibilities in roughly the same esteem.
WCStyles, many theists seem to think that a universe without God is a mechanical, deterministic universe, incapable of supporting free will. This may even have been the position among “Free-thinkers” in 1909, but it’s certainly not a majority position among atheists now.
cmkeller: What’s disingenuous about believing that, if god exists, he is forgiving?
IIRC, the primary tenet of the Universalist movement (that later merged with the Unitarians to become the modern UUA) was belief in the salvation of all souls. That is, that no truly good god would condemn anyone to hell for earthly sins.
So Cisco is solidly in the UU camp on that point.
As I mentioned, when I was a child, my parents went to the UU church. It is, then, no surprise that I grew up feeling no need for any form of religious or spiritual belief. I have usually considered myself somewhere between the strong and weak agnostics that Mathochist describes.
However, I don’t believe it is merely this upbringing that has instilled in me a revulsion for any religion that asserts that an all-knowing, “benevolent” god could condemn a person to eternal torment for certain acts or thoughts. It’s ludicrous that a Supreme Being could be so petty. Humans, yes; a so-called god, no.
This is the main reason I have problems with Christian fundamentalists and Muslims. I find the Koran’s nearly constant threats of hell sickening.
Not the way I see it. I don’t not believe in god because I’m bitter, or immature, or all my friends are doing it. I don’t believe because there is no evidence or popular claim of god outside of the major religions, and the major religions are all flawed. If there is a god out there I’m confident that he will understand why, based on the information I had during life, I didn’t believe in him.
This can of course be turned around by me seeing proof of god, but I’m not holding my breath.
