I have a few questions for those who self-identify as agnostics when it comes to questions about gods.

First I suppose I should give my opinion on agnosticism to provide context for my questions.

Whenever possible I prefer to read the originator’s opinion on a concept and let that influence my opinion, and when it comes to agnosticism we can read what Thomas Henry Huxley intended the term he invented to mean.

When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain “gnosis”–had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion …

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of “agnostic”. It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the “gnostic” of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. [Quoted in Encylopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 1908, edited by James Hastings MA DD]

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, ‘Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction. [" Agnosticism," 1889]

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism. ["Christianity and Agnosticism," 1889] (Source-Infidels.org) {Emphasis mine}

As a method, agnosticism is the application of skepticism to the quest to discover reality “without regard to any other consideration”. That last part is key. All preconceptions color perception. I’m not sure anyone could live 24/7 as a diehard agnostic or skeptic. We all make presumptions, we all operate daily depending on certain things like gravity to be consistent. But that doesn’t mean we understand gravity. We know too little of our universe, even about ourselves, to think that we have “all the answers”. So the agnostic would be very suspicious of anyone who claimed to have “all the answers”, especially when that group is exclusive and requires a suspension of disbelief in order to attain those answers.

“It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty.” Agnosticism doesn’t accept absolute statements without logical justification. “Absolute truth” is a concept foreign to Huxley’s agnosticism, unless it can be shown that there are no exceptions, none, anywhere in our common reality. “Absolute truth” implies absolute knowledge. Even theists would have to agree that human beings do not posses absolute knowledge. No human who has ever lived has had absolute knowledge. I am confident in stating that as a fact. If someone can illustrate that they do posses absolute knowledge, please comment below. I hope you don’t mind some healthy agnostic challenge. And obviously “absolute knowledge” would include knowledge of the future. There can be no exceptions to an absolute.

I see no inconsistency in being both agnostic and an atheist. I’m an agnostic in the methods I use to discern truth (small “t”) and appreciate reality. I’m an atheist in my opinion on theism. I do not contend that gods absolutely do not exist. That would contradict my opinions on absolutes. But the probability of something like any god existing, let alone any specific god, without leaving any unmistakable physical evidence of its existence that unequivocally points to the god, is so infinitesimally small that it is barely possible.

So my questions to those who define themselves as agnostics are:

If you consider yourself agnostic in matters of theology, and if you believe that as an agnostic you have no opinion on whether or not gods exist, what would you accept as evidence one way or the other?

If you’re theistically agnostic, do you consider miracles, signs, predictions and religious visions possible?

Would you be just as comfortable having someone pray over you for a healing as you would visiting an emergency room if your appendix burst?

If you don’t use skepticism in order to reach defensible conclusions (not absolutely right answers, though) then what good is it doing you?

Perpetual wonder is one thing, perpetual ignorance is another. Eternal indecision isn’t a blessing, it’s a curse. Agnosticism is a great tool for liberating your mind but a poor excuse for ignoring evidence. Look at the evidence.  Look at it “without regard to any other consideration”.

Agnosticism isn’t an endpoint, it’s not a goal. It’s a means of reaching those. The goal is to see clearly. The endpoint is yet to come.

Related articles by Zemanta

• A Skeptic’s Take on the Public Misunderstanding of Darwin (sciam.com)
• The Harder Debate (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Shut Up, That’s Why (tuibguy.com)

Print Friendly