From time immemorial, theists have been accused (often justifiably so) of wearing their religion on their sleeve. In recent years atheists have well and truly snatched this particular distinction away from the theists, although they are known to take exception to the word ‘religion’ being used to describe their beliefs. Notwithstanding their loud protestations, the way they acquire/defend/present their beliefs is quite indistinguishable from what they attribute to and criticize the theist for.
Today I propose to highlight a ruse that way too many atheists are apt to resort to. Like all deceptions, they probably end up duping themselves the most. Unfortunately, they manage to fool plenty of others as well, which prompts me to address the issue. One reason they persist in this practice is that for every occasion their ploy is recognized and pointed out as what it is, they manage to pull it off successfully on ten other occasions. Liking these odds, they keep repeating the manoeuvre over and over.
The nature of the stratagem is this: the man starts every discussion on religion by claiming to be an atheist. If the conversation goes according to his plan and does not derail into the ‘undesired’ territory, well and good. The plan could not be any simpler: The theist is challenged to produce his proof for the existence of God. The undesired territory refers to his adversary asking him to bring his proof against the existence of God. In case the discussion goes off-script in this way, the man simply takes one step backwards and ‘clarifies’ that he is actually an agnostic, and therefore the onus of proof lies with the theist, because it is the latter who is making a positive claim. But the agnostic stance is never his default position; it is always his fall-back option. In what follows, I will have more to say on the method behind this apparent madness.
It is quite understandable why he starts off as an atheist, only to change into an agnostic (if challenged) instead of coming clean from the start. Unfortunately for him, agnosticism does not quite fit the bill. To be an agnostic, for him, is infinitely less fun than it is to be an atheist. The ‘I don’t know’ stance sounds way too bland, something that somehow does not quite do his intellect justice. The absence of conviction makes the tasks of being assertive, pretending to know better than the theist, hitting the latter over his head and ridiculing him so much more difficult to pull off. An additional benefit of atheism is the element of independence and thoughtfulness still thought to be associated with it, something that started in the times when going against the inherited and traditional beliefs accompanied great risk to one’s very life on account of its rarity, and which consequently required a lot of courage. Though all that has changed in very basic measure as far as vast territories of the earth are concerned, atheism continues to be a fashion statement in many circles regardless. Being a mere agnostic, instead of an atheist, robs him of all these charms. He is all too aware of it, and that is why his preferred stance, his first-serve so to speak, is always atheism. Until he is challenged to bring evidence that warrants his conviction, that is. Agnosticism, on its part offers the great merit that the onus of proof can be placed squarely on the theist, and with impunity. (For all is various merits, this is something atheism fails to offer.)
That said, if the man happens to have a discussion with somebody else the very next day, he is certain to start from the atheist position all over again. For he hopes that his opposite number on that particular day will lack the presence of mind to call him out; to demand evidence to support his stance.
Having discussed these issues for a quarter of a century now, I am all too aware of a popular variant of the response employed by the atheist when he finds his back against the wall in this way. This variant, though it may sound different on first hearing, is essentially identical to the first. Instead of owning up to being an agnostic really, he may press into service some fancy jargon comprising nice distinctions: definitions of implicit/explicit, weak/strong and narrow/broad atheism, that is. Of course, no reasonable man can have anything against precision – in fact it is crucial to be precise in such debates – but one has perfect right to be suspicious when somebody takes refuge in such niceties at such a late stage, reluctantly, and when he is left with no alternative. For in comparison, an upright man would be expected to come clean from the get-go; instead of opening proceedings by resorting to trickery, only to hide behind agnosticism or fancy qualifiers appended to the term ‘atheism’ in the event of somebody putting him on the spot.
