My letter published in the February/March 2024 Vol 44 No 2 issue of Free Inquiry.
https://secularhumanism.org/2024/01/letters-february-march-2024/
Re: “Why Am I Agnostic?” by Alejandro Borgo (FI, October/November 2023), Borgo mischaracterized atheism. He said, “The fact of being an atheist is a position taken in the conviction that there is a proof that the entity called ‘God’ does not exist.”
Not so.
I used to call myself an agnostic because I could not prove if a god exists, so I took the agnostic position that the existence of a god is unknown—and perhaps unknowable. I was without belief in any gods and thought it highly improbable that any supernatural beings exist. When I learned that this view is consistent with atheism (without a belief in any gods), I became an atheist. So, my "conversion" from agnosticism to atheism was more definitional than theological.
In reality, depending on how terms are defined and their context, I can accurately call myself an atheist or an agnostic, as well as a humanist, secular humanist, secular Jew, freethinker, skeptic, rationalist, infidel, and more.
I’m curious about why people find “atheist” so much more threatening than “agnostic," when self-described "atheists" and self-described "agnostics" often hold identical views about deities. As with atheists, agnostics almost never give equal merit to belief and disbelief. For instance, I can neither prove nor disprove the following: “The universe was created 10 minutes ago and its creator planted false memories in all of us.” I assume we are all “agnostic” about this hypothesis, while quite certain that the claim is false. We agree that the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion—as it should be with any supernatural claim.
I’m comfortable with agnostics, and don’t particularly like to hear atheists refer to agnostics as gutless or cowardly atheists.
Herb Silverman
https://secularhumanism.org/2024/01/letters-february-march-2024/
Re: “Why Am I Agnostic?” by Alejandro Borgo (FI, October/November 2023), Borgo mischaracterized atheism. He said, “The fact of being an atheist is a position taken in the conviction that there is a proof that the entity called ‘God’ does not exist.”
Not so.
I used to call myself an agnostic because I could not prove if a god exists, so I took the agnostic position that the existence of a god is unknown—and perhaps unknowable. I was without belief in any gods and thought it highly improbable that any supernatural beings exist. When I learned that this view is consistent with atheism (without a belief in any gods), I became an atheist. So, my "conversion" from agnosticism to atheism was more definitional than theological.
In reality, depending on how terms are defined and their context, I can accurately call myself an atheist or an agnostic, as well as a humanist, secular humanist, secular Jew, freethinker, skeptic, rationalist, infidel, and more.
I’m curious about why people find “atheist” so much more threatening than “agnostic," when self-described "atheists" and self-described "agnostics" often hold identical views about deities. As with atheists, agnostics almost never give equal merit to belief and disbelief. For instance, I can neither prove nor disprove the following: “The universe was created 10 minutes ago and its creator planted false memories in all of us.” I assume we are all “agnostic” about this hypothesis, while quite certain that the claim is false. We agree that the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion—as it should be with any supernatural claim.
I’m comfortable with agnostics, and don’t particularly like to hear atheists refer to agnostics as gutless or cowardly atheists.
Herb Silverman
