By Mano Singham
I suspect that one reason that some nonbelievers find agnosticism appealing is that it is more socially acceptable in religious societies to say that one is an agnostic than that one is an atheist. Because the common (but erroneous view) view of the difference between an agnostic and an atheist is that the former does not know for sure if there is a god or not (or that it may be an unanswerable question) while the latter is sure that god does not exist, religious people may feel that agnostics are not directly contradicting to their own beliefs. They may even feel that they might be able to 'win' over agnostics to god since their minds are not made up.
As a result of this greater acceptance, those non-religious people who do not wish to ruffle feathers with their religion neighbors may prefer to adopt the label of agnostic. For some (like Elizabeth in yesterday's comments) calling oneself an agnostic may serve as a rest stop on the road to complete disbelief, a place to prepare oneself and one's religious friends and family for the reality that one has stopped believing.
Charles Darwin is a good example of this. A shy and retiring man, who sought to avoid controversy and personal conflicts, he preferred to call himself an agnostic instead of an atheist, although by the age of forty it was clear that he had lost all belief in god and religion and had very harsh words for both. As he said in his autobiography:
I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true: for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine. (The Reluctant Mr. Darwin by David Quammen, p. 246)
And yet, he shied away from calling himself an atheist. Edward Aveling, a professed atheist aware of Darwin's reluctance to adopt that label, recounted how at a dinner with Darwin, he tried to convince him "that the terms 'Agnostic' and 'Atheist' were practically equivalent – that an atheist is one who, without denying the existence of God, is without God, inasmuch as he is unconvinced of the existence of a Deity." (The autobiography of Charles Darwin and selected letters, edited by Francis Darwin, 1958, p. 60.)
Darwin's biographers pick up the story:
They lit cigarettes and Darwin, completely our of character, pitched in. 'Why do you call yourselves atheists?' In his dotage, forty years since his covert notebook days, he finally dragged the issue into the open. He preferred the word agnostic, he said. '"Agnostic" was but "Atheist" writ respectable,' Aveling replied, searching for common ground, 'and "Atheist" was only "Agnostic" writ aggressive.' But Darwin retorted, 'Why should you be so aggressive?' Is anything to be gained by forcing new ideas on people? Freethought is 'all very well' for the educated, but are ordinary people 'ripe for it'? Here spoke the comfortable squire, seeking not to disturb the social equilibrium. (Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, Adrian Desmond and James Moore, 1991, p. 657, my italics.)
I think that the italicized passage captures a lot of the truth. There is no question that saying one is an atheist triggers a more negative reaction than saying one is an agnostic. I suspect that many agnostics are like Darwin, effectively atheists but uneasy about the fact that atheism is perceived as being more aggressive in its opposition to religion than agnosticism, though logically and substantively there is little difference. Those, like Darwin, who do not wish to disturb the social equilibrium may find the label of agnostic more appealing.
Fence-sitting? On such a fundamental topic?
I read of Darwin and his works while still in elementary school as an inextricable part of my interest in dinosaurs. I saw the logic and common sense of evolutionary theory develop and solidify early as "continental drift" morphed into Plate Tectonics, after the findings from the I.G.Y. (International Geophysical Year) were published. Every new species described and every new fossil discovery have only entrenched my views more completely... and lessened any possibility of belief in ANY myth-based, supernatural entity, religion or creed. I went through a brief period in high school and college using the term agnostic, but for 3 or more decades, have used the true, reasoned approach and called it atheism. It is so fundamental a concept, such a core belief, or lack thereof, that the fence-sitting position, to me is very uncomfortable (pun intended.) Richard Dawkins and others should be lauded highly for their efforts to bring mankind fully into the 21st century and forever distance ourselves from outmoded, mythologically-based, archaic belief systems. Dr. Carl Sagan, that unequalled sage of science, covered the incredulity of religious belief in his book, "The Pale Blue Dot" and for those requiring a more varied and interesting, up to the minute view on atheist thought of the highest caliber, please go to: http://www.edge.org Enjoy your freedom from the dictates and indoctrination of religion!
Darwin was a keen observer and theorist and his theory is PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt. The only reason it is still called a theory is because it can't be proven in the same way a mathematical theorem can. That is a problem with semantics, NOT the science!