An Agnostic's Manifesto

Pity the poor agnostic these days, caught in the middle of an ever-widening gap between an increasingly assertive religious fundamentalism on one side, and on the other a new brand of atheism whose dogmatic certitude and zealous proselytizing make it appear more fundamentalist by the day. Where in the conflict between these two competing claims of absolute certainty—religious and scientific—is there room for the person willing to throw his hands in the air and say simply, “I don’t know?”

Enter into this chasm the journalist and host of KQED public radio’s nationally syndicated talk show Forum, Michael Krasny. Krasny’s new book, Spiritual Envy, is essentially an agnostic manifesto: an eloquent and deeply personal journey to find some kind of spiritual center in what has become an increasingly polarized debate about the role and function of religion in America.

Krasny has long considered himself to be an agnostic, and while that term has taken on multiple shades of meaning since it was coined by Thomas Huxley in 1876—there are theist agnostics and atheistic agnostics and a whole lot in between, Krasny writes—at the core of agnosticism is the notion of being “without knowledge.” Yet, as Krasny notes, Huxley used the term himself not to indicate merely lack of knowledge, but rather to imply that, when it comes to matters of the divine, knowledge (at the least the scientific kind) is simply unattainable.

Finish this review at http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-04/michael-krasny-agnostic-manifesto/

Just another voice in the "evil atheist" meme.

Here's the key phrase: "there are theist agnostics and atheistic agnostics and a whole lot in between, Krasny writes—at the core of agnosticism is the notion of being “without knowledge."

Being an agnostic and all, I'd wager money Mr. Krasny neither knows nor cares whether you believe.

"increasingly assertive religious fundamentalism on one side, and on the other a new brand of atheism whose dogmatic certitude and zealous proselytizing make it appear more fundamentalist by the day"

The "New Atheist" meme is just bullshit. Please explain:
1. how, by definitions of the word, an atheist can be a "fundamentalist"
2. how, by definitions of the word, an atheist can be "proselytizing" their non belief.
3. how any of the "new atheists" are doing anything but actually talking their lack of belief and how religion fits into the world.

And I really don't care what Reza Aslan has to say about atheism because he is the actual author of the segment you quote.

Fine, they don't use the word evil.

But this:
"dogmatic certitude and zealous proselytizing make it appear more fundamentalist by the day"
certainly ain't a love poem.

And, frankly, I'm a little tired of the "atheists are as bad the RW fundies" bullshit.

they kill people, see, its EXACTLY the same! :sarcasm:

see post 13 below.

Of course we can discuss the difference between the statements "I do not believe in the existence of God" and "I believe there is no God." Regardless, the very definition of proselytize is to "Convert or attempt to convert someone from one religion, belief, or opinion to another." When someone thinks there is no God and tries to get me (a Christian) to agree to that, that is proselytizing.

What you call proselytizing, I call defense. After all, I need not say anything about the existence of any gods until someone starts telling me why I should believe in one.

Have you ever wondered what would happen if EVERYONE who believed in any kind of God kept it to themselves? I know you have been taught since childhood (as I was) not to "hide it under a bushel", but I would like for you to imagine it for just a few minutes. Paint a picture in your mind of an entire world where people worship peacefully in private and say nothing about their gods in public. Do you see an atheist writing a book in that world? Do you even see a need for the word "atheist"?

I don't.

dictionary.com calls it that!

You call it "defense" which says to me you feel like you're being attacked. Im sorry that has been your experience. I hope you dont feel like I am attacking you. I too have been labelled and condemned and told Im going to hell and it instantly made me tune out the people trying to "save me." The only people Jesus spoke harshly to were the fundamentalist, holier-than-thou religious hypocrites.

I was raised as a Christian in a very hands-off way. Mom took me to church & sunday school but we rarely if ever talked about God outside of church. She was raised by a British mother and talking about religion was a big no-no. The only (for lack of better words) unabashed Christians in my family were my great-aunt and uncle and they were truly the most loving, kind people you could ever hope to know. Real salt of the earth. I really wish they were still here with us.

I came to my beliefs much later in life and I have always been hesitant to share them. I think thats why I like it here at DU & the R/T forum. It gives me a chance to really think things through and its a lot less confrontational than "real life." That said I believe it is my duty to share what I believe but I am not here to judge or condemn. I just want others to know the joy Ive found and let them know it can be theirs too. I share your vision of worshiping peacefully, in private, but I cant imagine not trying to share what Ive found. Ill try to do both, and if I cross any lines with you I know you will set me straight :)

Other than that quibble, I have a problem with your claim of motivation. I will say that it is laudable to wish to share joy, and it is something we all do. We tell each other about films, books, music, websites, drinks, and so on, and we do it because these things bring us joy and we wish to share it with others. But where does the desire to share end, and the desire to be right begin? How do you get from "You know what's been great in my life? God." to debating with others about the existence of that God and the dogma of the religion you follow?

In short, I don't think that sharing joy is your only motivation.

When I said "I dont call it that, dictionary.com calls it that!" I meant that dictionary.com says proselytize is to "Convert or attempt to convert someone from one religion, belief, or opinion to another."

Out of curiosity I looked up their definition of atheism:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

But where does the desire to share end, and the desire to be right begin? How do you get from "You know what's been great in my life? God." to debating with others about the existence of that God and the dogma of the religion you follow?

In short, I don't think that sharing joy is your only motivation.

My break is over, have to get back to work. These are all good issues so Ill get back to you :)

"But where does the desire to share end, and the desire to be right begin?"

My faith is just now (after 25 years) making the transition from needing constant reassurrance to full, complete acceptance. Its taken me a long time to hammer out what I believe and there is a never-ending refinement process ahead of me. But its so exciting!!! I dont need to make myself feel better by fooling myself into thinking I have all the answers. I dont need to make myself feel right by getting others to believe what I believe. I dont know how to prove that, I guess you just have to trust my sincerity or not trust it. Kind of hard to do since we've never met! :hi:

"How do you get from "You know what's been great in my life? God.' to debating with others about the existence of that God and the dogma of the religion you follow?"

The two are not mutually exclusive. I like sharing with people the good news Ive recieved and what changes its had in my life. My hope is maybe they can avoid some of the pain Ive experienced and find relief. I also love debate! It sharpens my concentration and helps me gain new insight into what I believe and how differently some other people think & feel. The kicker is (and I think this is what you are getting at) I should NOT debate my belief in God with you by badgering and heckling and shouting and namecalling and with threats of hell and damnation, but by just doing what we are doing now - talking to one another as civilized people and debating our beliefs.

"In short, I don't think that sharing joy is your only motivation."

This is something I wrestle with, believe me. To those who say Christians pull the wool over their own eyes to make life easier on themself, well, I wish they would walk a mile in my mental shoes! I ask myself these questions often. Why do I believe this? Should I try to get others to believe it? Why? Am I doing it out of fear or love? Am I doing it to score brownie points with God?

So how do I deal with it? As I said earlier, there are times when you just have lay all that doubt and fear and hesitation aside and say to hell with it. Scripture is full of good advice on the subject too: "When you give, dont let your right hand know what your left hand is doing." "When you pray, go into your closet and not onto the street corner." "When you fast, annoint yourself with oil and do not dress in sackcloth and cover yourself with ashes." Back to the point, you have every right to doubt my motivation, in part because of your past experiences. Add to that the fact we have never met. All I can do is be as honest with you as I can and let you judge for yourself. I look forward to our future conversations and the opportunity to do so :)

When an atheist talks about their lack of religion, it's "proselytizing"? Interesting how that works.

intentionally or not, you are asserting that I believe in a double-standard; I do not.

Let me be clear: if I share my spiritual belief, the good that has come of it, and the desire for others to reap the same benefit, that IS proselytizing. I am hoping to change people's opinions and worldview and that is most definitely proselytizing.

By the same token, if an atheist (meaning a person who believs there is no God) tries to convince me that there is no God, they too are proselytizing.

p.s. remember, I am trying to answer your question #2 in post 5 ("how, by definitions of the word, an atheist can be "proselytizing" their non belief.")

I mean, if the religious would keep their beliefs in their homes and in their churches and to themselves, there would be no need to debunk any of the claims, especially when those beliefs are forced into my life.

What. The. Fuck.

does that mean we are dogmatic skeptics? Wait, I know, we could be dogmatic, always correct agnostics! That's the ticket!

astonishing polymath. His breadth is occasionally just stunning. Has a few betes noirs, for instance cannot pronounce the word 'imbroglio', but is all in all an amazing voice.

You all got up bright and early to go knock on people's doors on Sunday to proselytize about how there is no god, right? I mean, thats what all us loud mouthed, danger to society atheists do, because you know, we won't be satisfied until WE DESTROY RELIGION ENTIRELY...:sarcasm:
I find it hard to believe that anyone can talk about "assertive fundamentalists" and "atheists" in the same breath when 77% of a people in a poll DONE THIS YEAR say prayer plays an important part of their day....
But no, apparently writing a book and doing interviews is being assertively obnoxious. Yet another "SHUT UP ATHEIST" article.

there are Christians here on DU who need to be shown the error of their ways :P

Snark aside I feel like there are some here who are a d a m a n t that there is no God and that anyone who believes such a thing is dangerous and delusional, an impediment to an advancing rational society. The message is clear: the world would be better if there were no believers of any kind. To me and my understanding, that stinks of intolerant fundamentalism. Just my opinion.

1. Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.
2. Thou shalt try really hard not to screw anybody over unless they screwed you first.
3. THOU SHALT KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF.

George Carlin was far wiser than many give him credit for.

I think one of the funniest roles ever was George as the catholic cardinal in Dogma!

"Doesn't it just POP!?"

that homosexuals deserve the right to marry and serve in the military. There are some here who are a d a m a n t that women have the right to make their own reproductive decisions. And those who feel that way about such issues feel that those opposing them are dangerous, and certainly an impediment to an advancing compassionate society.

Are you going to call them fundamentalists too?

I dont run from that label. I agree with you on the points you mentioned: I am adamant that gays deserve the right to marry, and I am adamant that a woman has the right to make her own reproductive decisions. I do not however make the blanket statement that those who oppose me are inherently dangerous.

To pick one issue, I am adamant that gays ought to have the right to have their marriage recognized by the government (civil unions) and by any church that is willing. It is a non-negotiable issue with me. So yes I am a fundamentalist on this issue in that I take fundamentalism to mean I am unwilling to change my mind or compromise on this issue.

edit- I forgot to answer your question: yes, I would call those people fundamentalists b/c their opinion will not change and they are unwilling to compromise. Being a fundamentalist isnt always a bad thing.

Just so you know.

"a person who is unwilling to change thier opinion on a matter and who is unwilling to compromise"

this is, of course, not a dictionary definition but rather how I define the word.

How do you define it in your own words? I know we can look up the textbook def. but Im more interested in your own personal view.

Everyone on earth has an issue they're unwilling to compromise on. So in a Venn diagram, your circle for "fundamentalist" perfectly overlaps that of "human being."

Defining words to suit our own individual purposes may stroke one's ego but it does nothing to further understanding and in fact muddles it.

by that I mean I dont want small differences of opinion in the meaning of a word to overshadow the greater topics we are discussing. Im attempting to answer your question ("Are you going to call (supporters of gay & reproductive rights) fundamentalists too?"). My answer is yes, they are fundamentalists on those issues according to my understanding of the word.

"Your definition is useless (because) everyone on earth has an issue they're unwilling to compromise on. So in a Venn diagram, your circle for "fundamentalist" perfectly overlaps that of "human being."

It depends on how you look at it. If a person has ever told a lie, they could technically be described as A Liar. Since all people have lied, we are all Liars. But to me it wouldnt make sense to call all people liars, because that (IMO) cheapens the word and lessens its meaning/impact. Instead, it makes more sense to only call those who repeatedly engage in dishonesty A Liar (and Im NOT calling you one by the way! Im not smart enough for those kind of insults :) ) Likewise, you are correct in saying that EVERYONE on earth is A Fundamentalist by my definition of the word, but it wouldnt make sense to me to call every human being A Fundamentalist, rather only those who are unyielding and intransient on many issues. Do you see what Im getting at?

Defining words to suit our own individual purposes may stroke one's ego but it does nothing to further understanding and in fact muddles it.

We all have our own definitions of words. How many of us carry around & consult a dictionary all day? We dont do it to stroke our own ego; we do it for convenience and to maintain a stable worldview. Having our own personal definitions DOES make it harder to further our understanding, thats why I want to take the time to be as clear as possible.

Like I said, I dont want to argue semantics and thats not what Im trying to do right now. I just want to reach out and show you how I mentally approach these things so that we can move on from here.

Because you've arbitrarily created a new definition of a word. And now, backed into a corner, you are further reserving the right to only apply your brand new arbitrary definition *when and where YOU want to*. How exactly does this improve communication?

Having our own personal definitions DOES make it harder to further our understanding, thats why I want to take the time to be as clear as possible.

Then you should pick definitions that actually meaningful and useful.

1) there is a dictionary definition for every word, yet every word carries different meaning & connotation to each person. Do you agree or disagree? If not, why?

2) we were talking about fundamentalism. I said "well, since I consider X to be fundamentalism, then Y is true." Is it wrong of me to phrase my beliefs in such a way? If so, why?

3) according to dictionary.com, the definition of fundametalism is "strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles." So what does strict mean? What does it mean to adhere? What is a "basic idea?" What is a basic principle?" Words have the meaning that we assign to them. When we all agree, good. When we disagree, lets discuss what we think it means. I told you what I think fundamentalism means. Is this wrong?

Yet that is your argument. I'm just trying to figure out if you even know what you mean.