Agnosticism vs. Atheism

I have had difficulty deciding whether I should label myself as an agnostic or an atheist. The problem, of course, lies in definition. Technically speaking, I am an agnostic. I see it as the only rational choice.

Here's the religous story of my life. I was raised in a nonreligious environment and found no reason to believe in God. Science seemed to do a good job of answering my questions and I didn't really see a reason to delve any further. As I learned more science, my beliefs were cemented even further. At this stage of my life, I was an atheist (I would have denied the existence of God).

Then I transitioned to agnosticism when I learned that scientifically speaking, everyone should be an agnostic (there is no absolute proof for or against God's existence). Even if there was scientific evidence for God, his existence would still just be a THEORY, just like the theory of evolution... which is still called a theory, even though the evidence has reached a point that if you round a little, it's pretty much fact. My point being, stating that the existence of God is a theory would imply that there is SOME level of doubt, however small.

Then a wavy bit came. I started to consider that if I pretended to believe in a Christian God, my life would be more complete; I'd be happier. This is the closest I came to believing. This is a bit of a cheat because I was divying myself up into an "emotional" bit and a "rational" bit, a tactic that I have become increasingly aware of as I become older. At this stage I would have denied any affiliation whatsoever; I was still trying to make up my mind.

Anyways, the rational bit won after a bit of a struggle. What ended the conflict was reading Dawkins's God Delusion and Life of Pi. Life of Pi suggests that one should believe whatever one prefers (and thus supported my belief that being Christian just to be happier is a good enough reason), but in the end Dawkins's firm statements had a more profound effect on me. Furthermore, I think Life of Pi was promoting existentialism; religion wasn't being taken too seriously at all.

However, one statement in Life of Pi had a serious effect on me. It was along the lines of "choosing agnosticism as a way of life is like choosing immobility as a means for transportation." It stuck, and I felt compelled to choose between atheism and theism. Dawkins also expressed annoyance at agnostics, so reading God Delusion didn't help me there, either.

So I decided that I was an atheist. But after thinking a lot about philosophical arguments, and definitions, I finally changed one more time, back to agnosticism, and I sincerely doubt that I will change again in my lifetime. I've simply thought too hard about this, and believe I have come to the most sound, rational, conclusion. So let's see... here are the terms.

ATHEIST: somebody who does not believe in God or deities
AGNOSTIC: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists

Next, let's define God. I'm talking about ultimate cause God, not necessarily the Christian one. An eternal being that created/started everything, or is the totality of reality, etc.

Postulating the existence of such an eternal being is not even a theory, it's a guess. Anything eternal cannot be measured; human beings are limited, mortal beings. There's no scientific evidence that can point either way... infinity is simply too far off from the limited length of time we can infer actually happened, which is just the age of the universe (what was it, about 11 billion years?). If we found a way to go back to the big bang and hit a time wall, it wouldn't prove that an ultimate cause started it. Heck, it might've been us hitting the time wall!

My point being, this doesn't even approach what we can conceive as being an experimentally provable theory. Empirically, it's nonsense (as Hume would have said). I see the problem of God having to do with the extensive connotation of the word, which has deep roots in the history of moral conduct. It is hard to reject this thing completely, because by being nice and decent human beings in the U.S., we necessarily participate in a Christian moral scheme.

Anyways, to wrap up this post... a loosely defined eternal being might or might not exist; there is simply no way to prove it either way unless you define it a bit better with respect to time and such. With respect to this kind of God, I am a true agnostic.

With respect to a Christian God, it is different. Consider the following two theories:
"The God that is described in the New Testament does not exist."
"Evolution results in the creation of new species from common ancestors."

Personally, I think an empirical thinker should come to the conclusion that a lot of evidence supports both of these theories. The fact that they're theories does mean a little bit of doubt is involved, however. This is a lot less doubt than is involved for the loosely defined God, as mentioned earlier.

So that settles it. I am an agnostic. Apologies if I offended anyone... but really, Dawkins is much harsher than I am...