By Mano Singham
There is no doubt that religious people find agnosticism easier to deal with than atheism. You can see it in the way that those religious people who can get beyond the emotional reactions to atheism that I listed yesterday often argue that since one cannot prove that there is no god, one has to admit that one is unsure and that therefore one is 'really' an agnostic. They are right in their argument but wrong in their idea of what atheism and agnosticism involves.
All atheists will readily concede that there can be no proof of the non-existence of god because of the logical impossibility of proving such a negative. But having said that, we do live our lives assuming that there is no god and find that the world makes perfect sense and everything seems to work nicely. We are practically certain that there is no god just as we are certain that we can drive our cars without ever considering the possibility that a unicorn might suddenly run across the street or Santa Claus land in his sleigh right in our path, even though we are not 100% certain that unicorns and Santa Claus and flying reindeer don't exist either
What constitutes atheism should be easy to understand. What I find hard to understand is how the agnostic position differs from that of the atheist. Merriam-Webster defines an agnostic as "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable."
An atheist would have no objection to that statement. As I have said before, there is no possible logical argument and no conceivable evidence that could ever establish the negative conclusion that there is no god. So agnosticism and atheism seem to me to be logically equivalent, at least as far as that particular dictionary definition goes.
Some agnostics may be seeking to create a distance between themselves and atheists because they suffer from the same kind of misunderstanding about atheism as religious people, thinking that atheists are absolutely sure that there is no god, and thus they may wish to separate themselves from those whom they perceive as possessing an unjustifiable and arrogant certainty.
Or perhaps the difference between atheism and agnosticism lies in the secondary definition of an agnostic as "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god." (my italics)
It is true that while an atheist is not logically certain there is no god, he or she is functionally certain there is no god, living in a way that is consistent with the assumption of no god. They have no need to introduce the god hypothesis into their lives for any reason. Since atheists live as if there is no god, it is safe to say that atheists are committed to believing in the nonexistence of god.
So is that the difference? Is that why agnostics shun the word atheist and prefer the label of agnostic, because they are uncommitted on this question while atheists are committed? But what does being 'uncommitted' really mean? Is there a difference in the probabilities that atheists and agnostics assign to god's existence? Atheists assign the probability of god's existence to be infinitesimally close to zero. I doubt that the lack of commitment by agnostics to god's existence or non-existence means that they assign 50% probability to each option. Agnostics clearly think that god's non-existence is far more likely than his existence.
So are agnostics distinguished from atheists in that while they think that the probability of god's existence is very small, they give it a slightly higher value than the almost-but-effectively-zero value that atheists assign?
But that kind of difference is hard to quantify. One way to operationalize that vague notion and test the true beliefs of agnostics is to ask them if their lack of commitment to non-belief results in any observable behavioral differences when compared to that of atheists.
Atheists live as if they are sure that there is no god. Do agnostics behave in some way that is different from atheists as a result of being agnostic? Are agnostics nervous about being wrong about god's non-existence and only finding out after they are dead? Are they are hoping that their 'softer' agnosticism will result in god giving them a reduced punishment? Do they at least occasionally go to church/mosque/temple/synagogue or do other quasi-religious things? Are there some things they will not say or thoughts that they will not allow themselves to think because it is too risky, such as, for example, denying the Holy Spirit? After all, Jesus said: "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matthew 12:32)?
If the answer is 'no' to all these questions, then they are atheists irrespective of what they choose to call themselves because they are living their lives as if they are committed to the non-existence of god. If they say 'yes' to any one, then I think we need to define them as believers who have serious doubts. (One wag unkindly described agnostics as cowardly atheists.)
I suspect that there are many agnostics among the readers of this blog. I would be curious to learn what they think on this question.
Agnostics
dw- I have always considered agnostics fencesitters, The probability is they are atheists, but they don't want to admit total non-belief because of the ramifications of publicly doing so. I suppose the word "cowards" covers it, but it may be too strong to describe those who merely don't want to commit themselves due to the hassle. A way of having the discussion of religion to go away. Yes, I am an atheist.
Puzzled? Maybe you need to think harder.
I can understand if you think that agnostics are mistaken, but to say that they are really atheists in all but name, who lack the courage to express it openly is an attempt at mind-reading. Is it so unthinkable that someone might disagree with you? You seem to prefer a convenient, black-and-white world, filled with rational atheists on the one hand and religious fanatics on the other. Agnostics blur this picture - perhaps that's why you want them out of the picture.
I can safely guess that 'scepticism' is a cornerstone of your world view. Me too; I believe in scepticism because I believe in reason. But notice that agnostics are at least as sceptical, if not more so, than you. You probably believe something along the following lines:
- There is insufficient evidence to establish the existence of God.
- The burden of proof lies with theism.
- God is logically similar to an Invisible Unicorn, a Flying Spagetti Monster, etc.
- We shouldn't believe in 'supernatural' things, only 'natural' ones. God is a 'supernatural' thing, so we shouldn't believe in Him.
- The scientific method hasn't encountered God, and it would have if He existed.
- All the philosophical arguments that try to establish the existence of God fail, whether taken individually or together.
These are all doubts, indeed, but they are also beliefs. Is it so unthinkable that an agnostic might doubt some of them? Consider:
- What exactly counts as 'evidence for God'? At what point does the evidence become 'sufficient'?
- How exactly does the burden of proof function? Is it proportional to complexity? Number of posits? What factor(s) are involved?
- Is God really similar to a Unicorn in any relevant respect? One is infinite, the other finite. Does the kind of evidence that pertains to one partain seamlessly to the other as well, or is this a false analogy?
- What does 'supernatural' actually mean and how is it relevant to the conclusion? (Read, for instance, 'Against the Supernatural as a Profound Idea' on this site)
- Is the scientific method appropriate to determine God's presence? Perhaps God is more of a philosophical than scientific posit?
- Have you looked at all the philosophical arguments for God? Have you even looked at most of them? If you have, are there people who disagree with your reasoning? What do you say to them? How reliable would you say your philosophical skills are?
Surely any thinking, sceptical, rational person must confront doubts like these if they are to take their own atheist-rationalism seriously. Is it so incredible that some might not be able to overcome them?
If you like scepticism, you'll love agnosticism. To think that agnostics are mistaken is understandable, but to think that they are deluded, cowardly or dishonest is odd. I must admit that I am puzzled as to why you are so puzzled.
Philosophical Arguments for God?
- Have you looked at all the philosophical arguments for God? Have you even looked at most of them?
Well, not that there are too many, and too convincing ones, since Kant devastated good old Anselm's "Fool proof", and no theologist/philosopher of whatever cloth is nowadays happy with Aquina's "5 ways to prove God exists". As for Paley's clockmaker god (although Hume already said all that has to be said about it) - it's an inference to the best explanation for a phenomenon, not a proof. If better explanations for the phenomenon arise, then they're the best. As in Paley's case, what we know today about evolution.
As Alex Byrne put it
If a persuasive argument for the existence of God is wanted, then philosophy has come up empty. The traditional arguments have much to teach us, but concentrating on them can disguise a simple but important point. As Anselm and Paley both recognized, the devout are not exactly holding their collective breath. For the most part, they do not believe that God exists on the basis of any argument. How they know that God exists, if they do, is itself unknown—the devout do not know that God exists in the way it is known that dinosaurs existed, or that there exist infinitely many prime numbers.
Thanks, Arthur
Thank you, Arthur for that detailed and thoughtful post. I've personally never encountered this peculiar reaction to agnostics by and atheist before and your analysis of it was quite cogent.
Of particular interest to me was this point: "What exactly counts as 'evidence for God'? At what point does the evidence become 'sufficient'?"
Apparently, this is a highly individualized issue. What I take as sufficient evidence for God is clearly not the same as some others who post to this site. But I'm also puzzled by the idea that all arguments for God must be philosophical ones and that science has nothing to say about the possible existence of God. Science is not a compendium of facts, nor a body of knowledge, it is a process—a methodology. A means of using reason, observation and experimentation to parse the world. I find these things are as helpful in the realm of faith as they are in the realm of physics.
Like you, I'm puzzled by the idea that certainty about a thing can arise out of uncertainty. Atheists maintain that God cannot be disproved or proved, yet also maintain that, beyond a shadow of doubt, there is no God. I am floored by the suggsetion that agnostics are, not skeptics, but cowards.
I guess skepticism is in the eye of the beholder. So, I'd ask the atheists hereabouts: Are there things that one is not allowed to be skeptical about?