This
state of play is unfortunate - it somewhat props up the argument that a certain
strain of atheism, otherwise called New Atheism, is almost as intolerant of
dissent as any religion. Now let me give potted definitions of
atheism and agnosticism. Atheism is the total moral and evidential negation of God,
gods and, by extension, religion. Agnosticism, for its own part, thrives on
scepticism and doubt, a serious doubt which, taking its cue from Huxley, errs
on the side of nonbelief in any god. However, unlike atheism, there are several
strands to agnosticism. Although I have only known and identified with 'strong
agnostics' - that is, those whose doubt and scepticism are absolute - it is
believed that there are also 'weak agnostics' - those who imagine evidence might
be found for the existence of God one day. While ‘strong agnostics’ may
otherwise be called ‘agnostic atheists,’ ‘weak agnostics’ may be synonymised as
‘agnostic theists.’ Wheels within wheels? Well, there is also the ‘apathetic agnostic’
who believes that dwelling on the existence or nonexistence of God (or gods) is
pointless and unnecessary because the likelihood that any god oversees the affairs
of the world is in itself nonexistent.
One
of the greatest irreligious and finest secular reasoners of all time is Robert
Green Ingersoll, otherwise called ‘The Great Agnostic.’ Ingersoll was a
brilliant oracle of rationalism, far more impressive and trenchant than any
atheist of his generation or even many of those who came before and after him.
Huxley himself was resolute in his sceptical agnosticism and was even more
‘godless’ than Darwin. And though Voltaire might see himself as a deist – a
believer in the absconded, absentee God, a god conjured up in the first place by
reason and not revelation – he was almost as imbued with pragmatic observational
insight as the fiercely atheistic Baron d’Holbach.
Not
long ago when Neil deGrasse Tyson declared that he is not exactly an atheist,
that although he does not like tags, he would prefer the epithet ‘agnostic,’
atheists waxed petulant. They would not even cut Tyson any slack, considering
how clear it is that the physicist is a strong/atheistic agnostic. The editor
of Sceptic magazine, Michael Sherner,
also made a point of describing himself as... well, a sceptic. In an essay, Sherner describes scepticism as the most
reasonable position for him; ‘I do not know that there is no God,
but I do not believe in God,’ he writes. This would have made him an agnostic
if he had not declared earlier: ‘No one
is agnostic behaviourally... we act as if there is a God or as if there is no
God.’ For all this, 21st-century atheists believe that every agnostic is a confused, weak-willed softie who is waiting to be proven right that god
exists. Postmodern, postmillennial new-assertiveness might be the reason why
New Atheists no longer suffer agnostics gladly. Taking sheaves of leaves out of
the books of atheist bruisers and brights like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, many atheists want an all-out battle against the forces of
religion and superstition, so to express any sort of epistemic doubt about the
possibility of a god is seen a cop-out. So why is there a schism between atheism and
agnosticism today? For the new atheists, the middle ground is too safe; the mean
is not golden; agnosticism, to them, is a halfway house whose back door leads
to the realm of religion and God-worship – or at least it has a rear lookout
towards belief. All it takes for the agnostic to gain the realm is a ‘leap
of faith.’
Naturally,
as a secular humanist, I am as nontheistic as any atheist out there. Do I think
it is delusional to believe in any sort of deity? Certainly. Do I accept that
God is not great? Certainly – I daresay, if he/she/it exists, he/she/it is a
sinister protosadist and necrophile. After all, death and decay are the ultimation of the lives of his poor, choiceless creatures. Does religion poison everything? Pretty much – although
since it acts as opiate and pabulum for some people, it has its Machiavellian,
if not mephistophelian, uses. So why not declare myself an atheist? Well,
though I do not believe that God (or gods) exists, there is no way I can prove
anything one way or the other. Using the ethnocentric books of Abrahamites as a guide, Allah
or Yahweh might as well exist in the shape of a torturous, callous demiurge. This bloodthirsty, capricious booby-trapper uses his/her/its creatures as pawns on a
chessboard on which he plays with his alter ego, Mister Lucifer. So am I really
interested in putting myself at the mercy of this fickle filicidal Palestinian
god? No. Nor at the mercy of any sort of god.
If
you decide to call me an agnostic, I am what you may call an ‘apathetic
agnostic.’ The operative word here is 'apathetic,' an adjective of apathy –
indifference. But then again, I am more of an ‘apathetic atheist’ than
apathetic agnostic because, beyond the tautological character of the latter
phrase, if I am pulled up short by someone and told, ‘Hey, God lives in the next street,’ I’ll only say to the person –
assuming I allow that he is sane – to go back to God and tell him/her that I think he/she/it is a nasty piece of work and that I am not
interested in knowing him/her/it. It makes no odds to me whether or not God
exists; I am not questing after any god or gods; I am not interested in gods,
whichever vestments they are adorned with. My attitude is that of unconcern. I am an irreligious indifferentist. But unlike many atheists, I am not interested
in trying to prove or impress on anyone that God does not exist, as its existence or nonexistence means
absolutely nothing to me.
How
do I arrive at this position? Well, although I sometimes describe myself as a sceptic, I am, not to put too fine a point on it, an apatheist – someone
apathetic towards theos. Apatheism is
a dynamic term that may be used for categorical indifference to God and religion and for mere lukewarmness towards religious practice while
describing oneself as religious. Attitudinally speaking, apatheism is mainly
used for the overlap of disbelief in God and an uninterest in religion and
unconcern about both. For me, apatheism is the satori position of secular sensibility. It is the apotheosis of unbelief
and godlessness. Apatheism is a far stronger position to take than atheism because while it correspondingly anchors its premise in lack of belief in God, it
clinches its argument with this cavalier, neither-nor, shut-your-face coda: ‘Even if by any chance proof is provided
that there is God, I don’t give a cuss about him/it/her.’ Unlike the
theists, I see no point in wasting my time trying to defend the indefensible,
striving to provide proof for something that is eternally unprovable. And while
I am in complete agreement with the views of atheists and ‘strong agnostics,’ I
do not think I should spend precious time cutting down an airy-fairy hypothesis
or idea like ‘God.’ Even so, every once in a while, I do go out of my way to
puncture the myth of God, particularly when God-botherers invade my space with
their ludicrous certainties and fantasies. Just as it is conceptually
impossible to be agnostic about God and religious belief, apatheism is indeed a
ticklish stance to take in a world where a lot of people would like to muddy
the faces of others with a cosmetic cocktail of God, religion, superstition and
mumbo-jumbo. There is always the urge to stare down the chimaera that is God and religion – and these days, I prefer to do the staring down calmly,
coolly, even dispassionately, and that is the whole point of apatheism, the idiosyncratic
species of apatheism that I embrace.
