On Agnosticism and Dogmatic Atheism.

Agnosticism

Agnosticism is merely skepticism about one particular concept.

I am an agnostic atheist. I make no knowledge claims about a concept that is designed to defy evidence one way or the other, *and* I also don't believe in god(s) for lack of evidence, and the slippery concept involved.

Agnosticism is the skeptical heart of any scientific exploration - the leaving open of possibilities. Some would call that skepticism, but skepticism is the heart of both science and agnosticism. If you imagine there is not more room for exploration, exploration stops. What N. deGrasse Tyson called a perimeter of ignorance. Although he spoke specifically about God-belief, I suspect we can consider it also true of any claim or concept that puts further investigation out of bounds. I also include "knowledge" is that group of claims/concepts that halt inquiry.

Open and free inquiry is necessary, *NECESSARY*, to continued human development. Period. If you want to continue human development, then you *MUST* maintain a skeptical core that questions what you think you know. Fail in that and you fail yourself and everyone around you.

Dogmatic atheists are not useful in the continued exploration. For every dogmatic, exclusionary atheist, there are 20 or more dogmatic theists who are just as "certain" about their truth. The dogmatic atheist is a drain on our thought processes and a reversion into "belief = knowledge" garbage.

Agnosticism merely points at a particular concept and says,"We cannot know this." They are simply correct about "knowing" about the God-concept. Sometimes you have to point at the flaws of a concept to start accounting for it. More thoughtful agnostics seem to do this, as do I.

Those who are interested in science will recognize that need as well, understanding that hypotheses must have empirical referents or they become matters of wild inference.

I don't have a problem with someone not believing in god(s) - I don't believe in god(s) either - but asserting it as a knowledge claim is the same idiot mistake theists have made for ages. We do not advance the subject matter that way, and it plays right into the theists' hands, portraying atheism as just another belief system.

We must rise above that. Agnosticism/skepticism allows us the room we need to do so. Dogmatic atheism is just more of the same hunkering down, entrenched in irrational and enthusiastic quasi-certainty.

I am not defending a "fence sitting." I am defending the possibility of inquiry. Stop relying on jaundiced soundbites you hide behind and fucking think!

We need skepticism. We need the recognition of fallibility. Agnosticism is merely skepticism about one particular concept.

Polarization

Polarization is the theme of the moment in our culture. Calm, rational, critical thought is falling aside in the face of the screaming. Atheists are not immune to its twisted allure, it seems.

One of the sad things is it's almost an inevitable outcome. Religious people proclaim their "certainty" at the top of their lungs and with absolute confidence, and many atheists feel the need to do the same just to be heard. That's part of how theists "win." To fight them we risk becoming them, unless we are very, very careful. What was that quote about battling not with monsters again...?