There is a misconception in American culture that unless you are 100% certain of God's existence, then one ought to self-identify as an agnostic. This is inaccurate, and what is worse is that the mislabeling provides shelter to bad religious ideas. Once the title of agnostic is worn, one feels they are in a non-position to comment or disagree with religious ideology. "Who knows the real truth? Who am I to disagree?" As a former agnostic, I found myself defending religion, not because I believed in it, but because I felt atheists were guilty of the same logic-crimes as a religious person: claiming to know the unknowable. It wasn't until a few years ago that I realized I had mislabeled myself as an agnostic. As it turns out, my mistake was purely in the definition of the terms.
Richard Dawkins describes a scale of 1 to 7 where a 7 is a religious person who has no doubt whatsoever in the existence of their God and believes it to be a factual as 2+2=4. A person who is a 1 on the scale would be the atheist version of the 7; having no doubt whatsoever in god’s non-existence, believing there is 0% chance that a god could exist. Obviously, an agnostic is a 4 on this scale.
Now what was eye opening to me was the realization that most atheists, including Dawkins, identify themselves as a 2 or a 1.1 at best. Very few atheist believe that God is impossible; most just believe it is highly improbable. This is a key distinction, and a logically safe position. It does not require claiming to know the impossible. Upon learning this I immediately began reevaluating my position on god. I thought about the lack of supernatural proof and how my daily life had gone by with no evidence or any hint of god’s presence; no matter how I had looked or prayed. Upon honest reflection, I realized that the whole notion of god had seemed improbable to me for a long time. More importantly I realized that no one requires a certificate of 100% confidence in order hold and act on beliefs in any of our daily activities or decisions - so why should not believing in god be any different?
No one needs to prove a belief within .00001% to hold strong convictions. The realm of agnosticism ought to stay in the ballpark of 50/50 probabilities. If a scientist can predict the outcome of an experiment with 98% accuracy, he/she should not feel obligated to say "I'm agnostic about what will happen if I run the experiment once more."
Agnosticism is an unattractive position because it has little utility in the real world. All of us make committed decisions with regard to our beliefs, which almost never have a certainty of the outcome. Rather, we make choices based on beliefs that have a high probability of being true. "Should i quit my job if I buy a lotto ticket?" -probably not. "Will I still have a job next week, when I've had steady work for 10 years?" -probably. "Should I home school my kids just to avoid a school shooting?"- probably not. “Should I avoid driving because there is a chance I will get killed in an auto accident?” –no.
Beliefs with a high probability of truth have utility. Agnosticism doesn't acknowledge that utility because there’s a chance of being wrong. It's inconsistent with what we use our beliefs to do every day.
Atheism finds consistency not only in science, but also in our daily life. The notion of God has no utility in offering testable explanations about the real world. Is there an experiment which uses God to yield higher results? On the contrary, it's a concept that simply isn't needed to explain our universe and its many phenomenons. Agnosticism, on the other hand, leads us to logical inconsistencies. Take a belief in garden fairies for an example: Technically they have just as much of a claim to agnosticism as a belief in a god, since neither can be disproved. Fortunately, we can avoid opening the Pandora’s box of beliefs that is agnosticism and eliminate the irrational ones by their examining their utility; by asking ourselves "does this belief increase my success in making predictions about nature, life and the workings of the universe?" Garden fairies may exist, but if no one can utilize that belief in any way, then what good is holding the belief? This is how one arrives at atheism. Not by making a conclusion with .00001% accuracy about god’s non-existence, but by acknowledging that the concept of god is unnecessary and without utility. The world is explained and functions perfectly well without it. For those who identify with the idea that "it's impossible to know what's true", I encourage you to cast off the label of agnostic and take a minute to consider what is probable.
If theism is true, there are certain conclusions that follow.
To be a theist you must accept or somehow explain away these facts: The birth of the cosmos was roughly 14 billion years ago. 11 billion years go by with galaxies forming and stars blowing apart. Eventually, one tiny planet becomes host to single cell organisms. Then, evolution by natural selection creates a massive diversity of life over the next 3 billion years. 99% of all species that ever existed are presently extinct. Some 200,000 years ago a type of primate called Homo Sapien emerges. Many die at birth or shortly thereafter, few live past 25. This suffering goes on for 196,000 years until roughly 4 thousand years ago; some 8,000 years after the agricultural revolution, a monotheistic god makes its first appearance to one man in all of humanity, in an illiterate civilization in the desert. This god does not acknowledge the extreme waste over the past 14 billion years; rather it is very concerned with who humans have sex with and in what positions. It is concerned with how slaves are taken and how food is prepared. It is concerned with the manner in which it is worshiped and whether or not work is performed on specific rotations of the earth on its axis. To a specific species of primates known as Homo Sapiens, on one specific planet, in one galaxy out of a trillion, in an infinite universe; God offers the choice between eternity by its side in heaven, or an eternity of fire and conscious torture for failure to comply with its revealed law.
According to David Barrett of the "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200," there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones. 34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world. "Over half of them are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the big denominations."
I'd like to point out that the majority religions of hold mutually exclusive beliefs, that is: they are incompatible. Most believe they are the one true interpretation of god and reality, while all the others are bound for hell-fire. Which means only a small group out of all the religious people in this world could actually make it to heaven, hell must be very crowded. Which begs the question: Why go through all the effort of universe creation, of 11 billion years of creating and blowing up stars, of the emergence and extinction of 99% of all species just to get to this small point in human history and then to send the majority of humans to torment for eternity. If that thought doesn't seem improbable, it certainly ought to seem sadistic.
If the theists worldview summarized above seems unrealistic, and if you do not participate in any of the 34,000+ variations of the 19 major religions of the world, and if you find that none of these religious beliefs seem compatible with what is scientifically provable/known about our world and universe, and if you base all of your important life choices on probability rather than possibility....... Then it is likely that you are already an atheist. Welcome.
Recommended reading: Morality Does Not Come From God
