An Agnostic What?

Posted by Ryft

Aug 2

NOTICE: The following is for those interested in responding to the article I wrote on 7 November 2006 under the same title (http://apologia.wordpress.com/2006/11/07/an-agnostic-what). I am republishing it here because that blog is not only inactive but very dead. It does not exist for me to log into. Therefore it is impossible to authorize the comments or respond to them. Thanks to WordPress policy, that article continues to exist. And thanks to Google, it receives a great deal of traffic. But since that blog is dead, only comments submitted here can be authorized and published—and responded to.

Roberto Teixeira’s blog likewise no longer exists, so I have removed the link to his article which was originally entitled "The New Atheists." However, you may click on this Internet Archive link and scroll down to that article title.

It is a very popular idea—far too popular—that somehow ‘agnosticism’ is neutral territory on the question of God and where one stands with respect to belief in him. Cruising through Technorati this evening, I discovered a post by Roberto Teixeira on the subject of agnosticism in his blog (which is not usually devoted to subjects like these, so perhaps he has not explored the finer points of philosophy). After giving a little background information about how and why he turned his back on God, and the weakness of the arguments for God that he has encountered, he made a rather disappointing remark:

Agnostics cannot prove or disprove god; thus, they neither accept nor deny it.

This is, of course, simply false. In reality there are two species of agnostic: (1) those who believe God exists, and (2) those who do not. And this is because ‘agnosticism’ in itself is a sub-set of both theism and atheism: one can be an agnostic theist (e.g., Deism) or an agnostic atheist (e.g., ‘weak’ atheism). The term ‘agnostic’ refers to what one knows (epistemic) and ‘atheist’ refers to what one believes (doxastic). I can hear Teixeira saying something like this: "I can’t really say for sure whether or not God exists—" (this would be his agnosticism speaking) "—but my worldview has no place for God and my life is lived without any reference to him" (this would be his atheism speaking). We must grant that Teixeira is an agnostic on the epistemic question because he claims to be an agnostic, but we can also perceive him as an atheist due to his implied naturalist assumptions and conclusions. The reality is that no one is ever just an agnostic; when it comes to the question of God’s existence, even the most ambivalent person ultimately comes down on one side or the other. Even if one has not thought very much about the issue, he nevertheless conducts his life in a manner consistent with either theism or atheism (e.g., he lives his life as though God does not exist, which is a practical atheism).

Just as a side note, one of his concluding remarks was:

People cannot be reasoned out of something they didn’t reason into.

There are two things to be said about this: (i) I certainly know many atheists who did not reason their way into atheism, and (ii) I certainly did reason my way into Christianity. In the final analysis, his clever adage does not apply to reality quite as neatly as he might have hoped.

UPDATE: 24 July 2009

I should like to clarify the point I was making above. The reason why Teixeira’s statement was simply false (when he asserted that agnostics "neither accept nor deny" the existence of any gods) is because there are agnostics who in fact do accept that gods exist; e.g., fideists and deists. It is a rather common thing for people to accept or believe things for which they cannot offer definitive proof. For example, there is no shortage of people who accept that life exists elsewhere in the universe, or that our universe is simply one out of a multiplicity of universes, despite the fact that there is no way to definitely prove either belief.

This is why I described the difference between what one believes to be the case and what one knows to be the case, where the latter is predicated on empirical criteria. Thus one can admit belief in the existence of God (theist) while admitting it is not an item of empirically verified knowledge (agnostic). Ergo, his statement is invalidated by contradicting evidence, the fact that there are agnostics who are theists.

A very popular objection I receive is that atheists do not have any belief about the existence of God, that atheism is not to be characterized as the presence of a particular belief. But this clever attempt at averting the burden of proof—which is precisely its impetus—is only superficially true. As one gets below the surface of the issue, one finds that all atheists universally have a particular belief about God: that "God is not required." This is the very nature of atheism; i.e., when it comes to science, reason, knowledge, ethics, etc., all atheists universally believe and affirm that God is not required for any of it.

UPDATE: 1 August 2009

I received a comment at the dead blog from an anonymous reader who calls himself DampeS8N. In his comment he said that it seemed I was missing "something very important," which is that it is possible for a person to "believe a God exists, and know nothing about it." He goes on to say,

I find that nearly universally the [theistic] forms of agnostics will also emphatically disbelieve in most or all organized religions, and most powerfully Christianity. How can this be? Simply, they believe the universe is quite intricately arranged, the forces and processes of nature have, one way or another, conspired to produce beings that can ask the questions we are debating here, and for them it seems too convenient. They have come down on the side which says things are too well arranged to be purely chance.

It seems that he did not realize I said the very same thing, viz. that agnostic refers to what one knows to be the case and theist or atheist refers to what one believes to be the case. This is why agnostic theists are no more or less likely than agnostic atheists. My very rebuttal against Teixeira was predicated on the existence of theists who are agnostics, which defeats any notion of agnosticism being necessarily atheistic.

DampeS8N later says,

The ultimate question for me is not which one of the many faiths is right. It is the question of whether or not the universe needs an intelligent creator. Faith doesn’t enter into the equation.

I agree with him, to a limited extent. Whether or not the universe’s origin is incorporated within the narrative of some particular religion is a separate matter from whether or not her origin requires a transcendent causal force in the first place. And people who affirm the necessity of such a transcendent causal force while rejecting most or all revealed religions are called deists. And like DampeS8N, they too believe that nothing can really be known about such a deity because said deity does not interact with his creation, e.g., he does not intervene, he does not have a chosen people, he does not reveal anything about himself, etc.

As for your specific question, DampeS8N? There is no such thing as "merely agnostic." Since you find the arguments for a transcendent causal force behind the origin of the universe to be intellectually compelling, your agnosticism is theistic in virtue of being indistinguishable from deism.

UPDATE: 2 August 2009

Another commenter who calls himself Writey had the following to say:

What am I? Am I an atheist, or an agnostic atheist?

I strongly believe that God does not exist. I have my own set of reasoning and evidence for this. However, I also acknowledge that I don’t have any proof, or definitive knowledge, that God does not exist. No one does! Yet in my conviction of his non-existence, I wouldn’t categorize myself as a "weak" atheist. Perhaps by my definition, many atheists are in fact agnostic atheist, as I’m sure they will acknowledge there is no way to know for sure.

What do you think?

The term weak atheist does not describe a person’s character, as if he is intellectually wimpy or somehow a wish-washy person. Rather, it describes whether or not the person feels he can definitively prove the substance of his atheistic beliefs. There are strong atheists on the one hand, who feel they can definitively prove the non-existence of all gods about which they are atheistic; and there are weak atheists on the other hand, who feel that the existence of deity is an insoluble issue, insofar as being outside the scope of empirical inquiry. (However, even the weak atheist believes and affirms that "God is not required" for such things as science, reason, knowledge, etc.)

Since you come across as someone who is not aware of any definitive proof one way or the other when it comes to the existence of God, you would fall under the label agnostic atheist—you do not claim to know that God does not exist (agnostic) but you find no reason to believe he does (atheist).

Most Commented Posts

Filed under: Atheism, Philosophy

DampeS8N

I decided I should repost my comment in full. Thank you for responding. I hope we can continue this debate, and others, in the same respectful manor we already have. It is not easy to find intellectual debate on these subject, in any of the many directions. Flame wars abound. But wars cannot shed light on such topics.

I’m not sure that what I described is deist. If you expand deism to mean any supernatural force, perhaps. But you neglected to comment on the most important segment of my argument.

At any given moment, someone’s stated ideals and thoughts can place them squarely in one group. You point, and you see a deist, or an atheist. But what I describe is something fluid. New evidence can sway ones mind to a new side. Today I am an Atheist, tomorrow I am Hindu, and next year I am Muslim.

This fluidity is what I tend to call Agnostic. Not because it is correct at any given moment, but because it is the only term neutral enough to be acceptable at any given moment, even when it isn’t exactly accurate.

Call it the Christianity of Doubt. As opposed to Catholicism, or any variety of Protestantism.

It is the only word that mostly-fits all the time.

Original Comment Re-posted:

I realize this is old. I haven’t researched if this blog is even still active. I came here based on a google search. Still, I am forced to have to reply, if only for those who might come along as I did.

You are correct, about the meanings of the words you have defined. However, you have missed something important. Something very important.

I can be an agnostic theist, and not believe in any one or many gods.

In other words. You can believe a God exists, and know nothing about it. You can believe that there is a creator of the universe with intellect, and not believe in the Christian God.

This is where the fundamental element resides. Agnostics do fall to one side or the other, but to the side of the necessary existence of any creator.

I find that nearly universally the non-atheist forms of agnostics will also emphatically disbelieve in most or all organized religions, and most powerfully Christianity. How can this be? Simply, they believe the universe is quite intricately arranged, the forces and processes of nature have, one way or another, conspired to produce beings that can ask the questions we are debating here, and for them it seems to convenient. They have come down on the side which says things are too well arranged to be purely chance.

These facts are also snapshots of time. Personally, I’ve bounced around the two kinds of agnostic as I’ve researched various religions. Each new holy book offers new wisdom to me. They change me.

I now vibrate between a kind of pantheism and agnostic atheism. It would be easy to say that ‘at the end of the day’ I will fall into one side or the other. At that day end, it would be true. But the next day might find me on the other side of the fence.

I would think that is also valid. I’m not sure, one way or the other, but I am sure that the Christian God doesn’t make sense to me. I find the books to be peppered with differing opinions. I don’t see divine law, I see a book with words that say they are divine. I see the same in many other holy books. Ones older, ones newer.

The ultimate question for me is not which one of the many faiths is right. It is the question of whether the universe needs an intelligent creator or not. Faith doesn’t enter into the equation. Even if the Christian God came down to me, sat next to me, performed some action I once thought impossible, this wouldn’t prove to me that he created the universe. For all I know he just has better technology than me.

I am agnostic because we cannot know. We can feel. We can have faith. But we cannot know. Even if God talks to us, we cannot know. I could be crazy. He could be a fabrication. He could be a trickster with special powers. He could be Satan himself. I don’t know, we can’t know, so I am agnostic. If only because there is no other word for it. I label myself as merely Agnostic.

Is there a better term for what I am?
http://www.aristophrenium.com Ryft

A little over a month ago I joined an atheist discussion forum. You want to talk about difficulty finding intellectual debate on these subjects? I am finding endless examples of vitriolic irrationality. There is blatant flaming, too, but I don’t return the favour so it can’t become a flame ‘war’. Since flame posts are intellectually bankrupt, there is nothing there for me to respond to. So I don’t.

But that site has inspired me. It truly has. I’m going to develop a new section for our web site here called Fundy Atheists Say The Darndest Things, and it will serve as a public display of stunning atheist nonsense—especially their horrible ignorance of logical fallacies and constant erroneous applications thereof. Endless examples of that.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with you so let’s move on.

Perhaps you weren’t describing deism, but I was trying to aim low with my response. I wanted to go in with minimal assumptions. There were hints of pantheism, but this sense of there being a transcendent causal force contradicted such an idea. Your comments seemed to imply that you lean favourably toward the idea of there being a creator ("things are too well arranged to be purely chance … I’ve bounced around the two kinds of agnostic as I’ve researched various religions"). Pantheists see the universe as god so belief in a creator-god steps outside of this, because a logical contradiction would otherwise result (i.e., a creation being its own creator means it would have to exist and, at the same time, not-exist).

So I went for the deism angle. But it hardly matters either way, in the final analysis, because both of them are theistic positions—i.e., either would carry my point, which is that identifying as agnostic does not answer whether your beliefs come under atheism or theism. Belief that the universe is god is theistic (pantheism). Belief that there is a transcendent impersonal creator is also theistic (deism). Agnosticism is consistent with either. So to describe yourself as just agnostic does not answer whether you are a theistic one or an atheistic one. Absolutely everyone, when the question is pressed upon them, comes down on one side or the other, atheism or theism.

(It should be realized that a person with vaguely theistic beliefs does not necessarily have to live consistently with those beliefs; they might admit them when asked but otherwise live without thinking much about it.)

But let’s now look at what you presented as the fundamental point, this idea that an open mind pursuing deep questions has a certain fluidity. New information and arguments could sway one’s mind from this position over to that position. "Today I am an atheist, tomorrow I am Hindu, and next year I am Muslim." Given this fluidity, you think it more practical to call it just agnosticism. Here is my problem with that:

It reduces the term ‘agnostic’ to utter meaninglessness.

How? Because it ends up describing absolutely every thinking person on the entire planet. And a term that describes everything is a term that essentially describes nothing. Every single person on this planet drifts in their thinking from this to that to something other, their beliefs changing and developing under more information. My own belief structure has experienced dramatic changes thus far in my life. But does that mean everyone should simply call themselves ‘agnostic’? Should the fact that someone can go from atheist to theist (or vice-versa) mean we ought to rid ourselves of any distinctions? Such a radical postmodernist sentiment strikes me as not only unhelpful but ultimately destructive to truth, reason, knowledge, etc.

It seems far more sensible—and ultimately intelligible—for a person to describe himself exactly as he is and not run away from the importance and value of distinctions. If today you’re an agnostic who is atheistic, then embrace it. And if tomorrow you become Hindu, then embrace that theism. And then if next year you happen to become Muslim, then you are still a theist but of a different sort. These are important and valuable distinctions that contribute not only to clarity in your own self-understanding but also the understanding of others with whom you share your experiences and insights.

If someone believes that the universe is god, then the "neutral" and "acceptable" term for it would be ‘theist’. And if they admit to knowing nothing really about this sort of god, then the neutral and acceptable term for that would be ‘agnostic’. They would be an agnostic theist, the right and proper term for their position—one which is neutral and acceptable. (Both terms are distinctive enough to be valuable without being overly precise.)

P.S., I have to reject your term "Christianity of Doubt." I can sympathize with your meaning, but I have to stand in vigorous defense of the faith. Although Christianity leaves room for doubt on this or that subject, it allows no room for doubt about God. When a person has genuine doubt about the existence or nature of God, that person is not yet Christian—despite the evident popularity out there of being flippant with the term. "Christian" has a very precise definition that persistently defies all attempts to devaluate it.
DampeS8N

I used the term Christianity of Doubt, as Christianity is emblematic of many faiths—as different as Mormons are from Catholics are from Unitarians (if you want to call them Christian). And so, I feel, the label Agnostic can be applied.

You are correct, however, that when pressed someone will come down, at that moment, on one side or the other. But we aren’t often pressed. I label myself Agnostic because it is easy. Is that a cop out? I don’t think so. Surely, I could drop down my thoughts exactly any time I am asked, but it takes time. And it is often the last time I am asked; so the next time an assumption is made that is likely to be wrong.

Agnostic makes for a satisfying answer to the simple question for most people, and anyone who probes deeper is free to do so. Much like a Baptist might label them self as Christian at a casual request. It is here where I think the term is still useful. Yes, it doesn’t mean almost anyone could call them self an Agnostic. But the fact that they do not gives it some extra meaning. It is clear what you are not—that is, ‘sure’.

And what I am ultimately unsure of is the need for the universe to require a creator, the need for that creator to care, the need of humanity for gods to lead them. I do flop from theist to atheist, but overall I lean atheist. Which is not at all how you’ve described me.

I think the general lack of intelligent debate on this subject stems from ignorance. Dyed-in-the-wool atheists often do not read about religion. And the religious often reject (based on insane arguments) anything outside their own religion. What atheists fail to do almost universally is argue from the standpoint of the faith they are arguing against. It is no different [for an atheist] to say to a Christian that his faith is infantile and based on silly, obvious myth and oh how could anyone fall for such blatant lies, than it is for that Christian to say to the atheist that he is ignorant of the teachings of Christ and the lessons in the Bible. Both are using cyclical reasoning.

The mantra of the atheist is essentially the same as for science. It isn’t about disproving. It is about proving over and over. Science is about testing an hypothesis repeatedly, and tossing it out if the evidence doesn’t support it. How does one test the supernatural? And life goes on just the same without it so it should be left behind. Cultural value be damned. Emotional support is for cowards. Hope is for babies.

The impasse is in neither side being able to reason from the other’s perspective.

It is through this kind of reasoning that I have been researching and dismissing as many forms of religion as I can—on their own terms, by their own logic or lack thereof. I think it is through this endeavor that some amount of truth can be obtained, the truth that this, that, and the other specific faith is demonstratively illogical.

Thank you for acknowledging my intellect. And I freely and openly acknowledge yours. Respect is a lost art.
Ryft

Although I think you made some pretty horrific comparisons—or perhaps it was an excellent argument only horribly phrased—I’m going to ignore them as they were not central to the crucial point you were trying to make. (I am referring here to your comparison of how atheists confront Christianity and how Christians confront atheism. If I thought you were presenting a properly articulated view, I would have a heyday with it.)

And notwithstanding your own views about the range of faiths the term "Christian" can apply to, this web site has strong affinity to the necessity of clear and consistent definitions for intelligible and meaningful dialogue. The definition of "Christian" has clear, orthodox, historic and scriptural precedent that defies the popularity of contemporary usage which tries to dilute it. With her monotheism she is not home to Mormons (polytheists) and with her exclusive truth claims she is not home to Unitarians (pluralists). I have terrible impatience with any usage that strips words of their meaning (e.g., rejecting the attempt by Stephen Roberts to characterize God-believers as ‘atheists’; regardless of how convenient it might be for his clever argument, it is nonsensical). Thus ends my rant.

Having said that, I tentatively agree with the key point you were trying to make here. When it comes to casual conversations that have no religious or philosophical subject, referring to yourself as simply ‘agnostic’ may suffice. You are right, that in our everyday world the question is not usually pressed upon us. But wasn’t my response sensitive to that? "It should be realized that a person with vaguely theistic beliefs"—or atheistic beliefs—"does not necessarily have to live consistently with those beliefs; they might admit them when asked, but otherwise live without thinking much about it."

But at the end of the day, the point I was making had little to do with mundane occasions for such distinctions. You see, whether or not there arises a relevant occasion for an agnostic to admit the distinction either to himself or someone else, it is nevertheless the case that every single agnostic in the world is either an atheist or a theist. It is a fact which does not require biographical validation. Perhaps he does not think very much about the matter himself, maybe he rarely finds himself in circumstances that require him to make the distinction. Neither point matters when it comes to the fact that no agnostic is "merely agnostic."

As for "neither side being able to reason from the other’s perspective," I have to wonder if you are unfamiliar with presuppositional apologetics. Although it is true that atheists never reason from the Christian perspective [1], reasoning from the atheist perspective is one of the very hallmarks of the presuppositionalist methodology. We use the atheistic perspective to prove the intellectual and epistemic bankruptcy of the atheistic perspective. That is to say, we do not disprove it from the Christian perspective, we disprove it from its own perspective.

And I should love to interact with you sometime on the point of Christianity either lacking logic or being demonstrably illogical. In all the years I have engaged in formal and informal debate, not once has any such allegation withstood logical scrutiny.

[1] I once wrote an article entitled "The Arrogance of Atheism" (which caught the attention of Austin Reed Cline, Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism and editor of the Atheism/Agnosticism section of the About.com web site). I should republish it on this site; and since my original rebuttal to Cline vanished when my former web host went out of business, I should also write a new rebuttal.
http://www.dampes8n.com DampeS8N

“Although it is true that atheists never reason from the Christian perspective”

“And I should love to interact with you sometime on the point of Christianity either lacking logic or being demonstrably illogical.”

Oh, I simply must answer these calls. Just not here and now. :) Expect email.

I take the term Christian to mean a believer in Christ. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Christian, and several other sources seem to agree with my take on the term. It is simply these definitions I used. Replace the word Christian with “Person who believes that Jesus was/is the messiah” if my use of the word offends you. I certainly meant no offense, nor did I intend to help dilute the meaning or gravity of such a label. It may hold no personal meaning to me, but using it improperly must look like mislabeling a quasar as a star does to me, only a million times worse.

Regardless of my own stance, I have the utmost respect for the history of that, and all other, religions. Even when I make it a point to appear the opposite. No religion is without its murders and zealots, and that goes for Atheists, and they all too often forget it.

So I sincerely hope you can forgive me.
Ryft

Your truth claim regarded the Christian faith, which consists of far more than bare intellectual assent to Jesus being the Christ (e.g., someone who believes that Jesus is the Christ but denies the Trinity falls outside Christianity; q.v. the four ecumenical creeds). I appreciate your effort in defining what a Christian is, but it is logically irrelevant because your truth claim was not about Christians. This sort of approach borders on a confused Red Herring argument, which I would caution you against.

By the way, a quasar arguably is a star, albeit a dead one. The source of its enormous energy is understood to be supermassive black holes at the center of young galaxies; i.e., the galaxies are not the quasar but rather the host thereof and surround it. And what are supermassive black holes formed by? Yep, collapsed stars.

Notice: The informal debate between DampeS8N and myself over his claim that the Christian faith either lacks logic or is demonstrably illogical has begun. At his request the debate is being conducted via email correspondence. The final results will be published at this web site upon completion of the debate.