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; 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: (1) I certainly know many atheists who did not reason their way into atheism, and (2) 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.
1 comment
Comments feed for this article
November 12, 2006 at 4:44 am
Roberto Teixeira
Nice of you to have commented. I think we have conflicting views on what agnosticism means. Or maybe I was just narrowing my view a little bit, as you seem to have noticed. See what the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”, official views of the Catholic church says:
“Agnosticism
“2127 Agnosticism assumes a number of forms. In certain cases the agnostic refrains from denying God; instead he postulates the existence of a transcendent being which is incapable of revealing itself, and about which nothing can be said. In other cases, the agnostic makes no judgment about God’s existence, declaring it impossible to prove, or even to affirm or deny.
“2128 Agnosticism can sometimes include a certain search for God, but it can equally express indifferentism, a flight from the ultimate question of existence, and a sluggish moral conscience. Agnosticism is all too often equivalent to practical atheism.”
Sure the Catholic Church doesn’t speak for all Christian, but their definition of agnosticism matches mine. Also, the Oxford English Dictionary defines agnostic as “a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.” That’s me.
You see, my wife is a practicing catholic. My children will all be baptized and I will not forbid — not that I would have the power to do it anyway — that they learn about religion. But *I* still maintain that there’s not way to be sure that god either exists or doesn’t.