JULY 2001

I expected a large response to last month's column. I did not expect the avalanche that arrived. Nor was I ready for the intensity of the hostility that was spewed at me for even bringing the whole thing up. And, FYI, if you can't make your points civilly don't bother writing. I won't read it, so don't waste your time. However, there was a very good reason for my writing about the agnostic thing. I've said it before, but it bears repeating:

My target audience has always been fence-sitters and closet atheists. I was in that closet and I sat on that fence myself for many years, lonely and uncertain, and if I had been able to read the type of thing I am now writing, my stay on that fence would have been shortened by years. My mail tells me I am reaching not only a large audience (approx. 4,000 hits monthly now) but a most appreciative one (350 emails monthly now). A full one-third of my mail comes from closet atheists who have no one to talk to and feel almost like aliens from another planet. These people go to Mass, Temple, "fellowship" and so on, and don't believe a word of any of it. But they are afraid of the social ostracism that accompanies outright atheism. So, the Internet provides them with an anonymous way to vent their frustrations as well as feeling vindicated in their lack of beliefs. And I'm delighted if I can be of help to these people.

I'm especially pleased to be hearing from so many young (under 25) people, and that is why I write things like the atheist/agnostic piece. Young people are struggling to work out their atheism, and such articles help them to think it through. That is my goal and my reward. You old died-in-the-wool "agnostics" can call yourselves anything you like. I know you'll never change. But the young have a chance to come to terms, honestly, with what they are, and discussions such as this can help.

In my own youth I called myself an agnostic for the same reason everyone else does—social acceptance. There never has been, nor is there now, any other reason for referring to oneself that way, as the smallest amount of honest contemplation will prove.

But it's so sad, because we'd find each other much more quickly if we were all honest and the subject were not formally TABOO. There are a lot of us atheists out there. However, we are slowly but surely finding each other on the Internet, and taking comfort from it. So keep up the hope. It can only get better.

Approximately 80 percent of the mail I received about the agnostic article said things like, "Finally! You said so clearly what I've thought for years!" There was a lot of that. But the other 20 percent was positively furious, often rudely so, and some of it was just stupid. People really are afraid of that dirty A-word! Confusing things is the definition problem. The word "God" is as misunderstood as the word "atheist." Interestingly, and tellingly I think, not one person addressed my point that up until 1870 no philosopher felt the need for the word agnostic. How could they possibly have got along without it?

Thomas Huxley, who coined the troublesome word, and Charles Darwin, were both keenly aware of the shocked, nay horrified reaction the religious had to Darwin's theory of evolution. In some of Darwin's correspondence he mentioned that he thought the word "atheist" was "too aggressive." (That's baloney, but remember we're talking about Victorian England.) He did not want it attached to his theory. Huxley obliged by creating a meaningless word, but it didn't make much difference. Evolution and atheism are still very much synonymous in the minds of many.

Following are the objections raised to last month's column. Many of them were nearly identical. But I don't think I've left any of them out:

• So many of you kept insisting that you could positively claim no God existed—and then went on to discuss all the human-created gods I clearly said were not what I was talking about. I was talking about the possibility of some unknowable entity that may have started the universe. There is no way to deny something that cannot be comprehended! Anything incomprehensible to the human mind by definition cannot be affirmed or denied. For example, someone wrote, "If something is defined as contradictorally [sic] as God is, I don't see any problem in concluding the thing doesn't exist." Another wrote, "…because by our own definitions, we both 'know' that there is/are no, and cannot be, any god(s)." However, our definitions are meaningless in this context except to cast them aside. Human definitions of God are fairly easily refutable; but unknowable means indefinable.

• An awful lot of you missed my whole point. And that is, that the question is not, repeat not "Is there a God?" And the reason that question cannot be answered by anyone is that no one, not one single human being, has infinite knowledge of the universe. Einstein didn't have it. I don't have it. You don't have it. Ozzie and Harriet didn't have it. Okay? Therefore, while people may believe anything they like, they cannot know anything about anything possibly supernatural because the human mind cannot comprehend that which is unknowable. So, the only question to be asked and answered is, "Do you acknowledge a deity?" And there are only two answers to that—yes or no. There is no way to answer that with, "I don't know." (Unless you're an idiot!)

• "You have assigned properties to God, and listed them, numbers 1 through 8, and Number 7 proves that God does not exist." No, *I* did not assign any properties to anything, nor do I accept any of them as other than what they are—wishful dreaming. I was simply listing the properties others claim for their humanly-created gods, and how their acceptance of those properties as being reasonable is anything but.

• God can be defined as Nature itself and can therefore be said to exist. Well, God can be defined as a paper clip if you so choose. But now back to the real world.

• "Some very famous people called themselves agnostics, so, according to Judith Hayes, those people never existed." (I warned you some of them were stupid.) Millions of people call themselves agnostics. That has nothing to do with whether or not the term has any meaning. (It doesn't.)

• So many people simply made denials and claims about there being no gods. Deny your hearts out, claim whatever you like, but you cannot know. None of us can. People can claim anything they want. It proves nothing. I can claim that my dead mother comes down from heaven every Thursday and has breakfast with me. We have oatmeal. Then she goes back up. I can't back up this claim with any proof. But I can sure as hell claim it, and hold it to be true. So what? My whole point is that no one can know for certain whether or not there is a god of any kind.

• Someone demanded that there are two categories: (1) those who believe that there are no gods and (2) those who don't believe in any, even though they don't claim #1. Both #1 and #2 people acknowledge no gods and are therefore nontheists—atheists. The #1 folks can believe anything they like; but they cannot know.

• "Whether there are gods in that picture is of no general concern, except of course if you are confronted individually." I can only say that this person must be living on another planet. He certainly feels no compassion for the millions of human beings who have been murdered in the name of religion; nor could he have read a newspaper lately or heard of the pope or school vouchers or "charitable choice" or………

• "Agnostics argue that there is no logical answer to the question, 'Is there a God?' " No, they don't. They say they don't know if there is a God or not. That is a perfectly logical answer. But since they don't know, they obviously do not acknowledge or worship any god and are therefore atheists.

• "Do you think it's possible to be both agnostic and atheist all at once?" Of course. I think they are one and the same thing.

• Several people said they don't like calling themselves atheists because they are therefore defining themselves as being against something, in this case theism. Atheism supposedly means "anti" (because of the "a") and so is a negative term. However, that would then mean than asynchronous means being against synchronicity and asymmetrical means being against symmetry. Obviously neither assertion is true. Asymmetrical means to be without symmetry; asynchronous means to be without synchronicity; and atheism means to be without theism. There's nothing about being against theism implied in the word. Society has erroneously chosen to assign many ugly characteristics to the word, but that little "a" means none of them. And many atheists actually think religions have some good points, and miss their own religious pasts; but, since they no longer believe, they are without theistic beliefs—they are atheists.

The amount of mail I received, and the sometimes desperate attempts to make the case for agnosticism shows how society is winning on this issue. Many of us nonbelievers hate that poor little a-word as much as Born Agains. But it all only boils down to this: you either believe in a god or you do not. Choose. There is no middle position.

And now, I think enough has been said about this! Any more would be beating a dead horse. (What an ugly phrase to get into the language!) And I think next month I'll write about chili recipes. 

© 2001 Judith Hayes

Back to Main Page                              Back to Previous Columns