Agnosticism: Agnosticism asserts no knowledge of god(s) and therefore concludes there are no reasons to believe in them or not to believe in them. An agnostic follows this credo and differs from the atheist who has developed an active belief that there are no gods. When it comes to the question of existence of deities, an agnostic will respond: I just don’t know.
“Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen.”
(‘The Agnostic’s Prayer’, Roger Zelazny,
Creatures of Light and Darkness, 1969)
In the book What We Can’t Not Know, J. Budziszewski writes:
“An agnostic claims ignorance about God. If he concedes that it is possible to know something about God but that he does not know it, then he condemns himself, for he is too lazy to learn the most important thing. To justify himself he would have to maintain that knowledge of God is not the most important thing, but that would be merely to claim that something else is God — and that he already knows all about it. If he says it is impossible to know anything about God, he contradicts himself, for to know God’s unknowability would be to know something about God. Indeed it would be to know a great deal about him. First one would have to assume that He were infinitely distant, because otherwise one could not be so sure that knowledge about Him were impossible. Second one would have to assume that He were unconcerned, because otherwise one would expect Him to have provided the means for one to know Him. Finally one would have to assume that He were completely unlike the Biblical portrayal, because in that account he does care about us and has already provided the means for us to know Him. So in the end the so-called agnostic must claim to know a quite a number of things about God. The problem is he cannot justify any of them.” (p.65)
“You should never, ever, doubt what nobody is sure about.” (Willy Wonka)
WPF
[ Reply | Delete ] garyo36 on May 23, 2006 at 5:16 AM
Re: Are there any true agnostics?
I believe in God because I believe it is more rational to believe in God than it is to not believe in God. At the same time, I agree with the agnostic.. there is no way to know for certain wether or not there is a God. I think anyone who claims for certain that God exists is lying to themselves and is more a fool than I am! God made us to be rational and that’s exactly what we should be! Part of faith is doubt! Why? Because that’s how God wants it!
Comment by wpfreund — July 29, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
I appreciate your comments. I also agree that it is more rational to believe in God than not. But, what makes something more or less rational is presence or lack of ‘reasons’ that support that belief. A reason is like a piece of evidence that leads us to believe that the belief in question is actually true, i.e. it is justified. To have a justified, true belief is (in most cases) to have knowledge. Now, consider the following facts:
(1) The Bible is replete with references to the fact that we can ‘know’ or be certain that God exists. Read through the book of Ezekiel and look for the phrase “… so that you will know that I am God” and similar phrases.
(2) Psalm 14:1 says that only the fool says in his heart there is no God. Look at the verse carefully. It says that the fool tells himself (in his heart) that God does not exist. It is a matter of self-deception, a repression of the truth already obvious to him.
(3) Passages like Rom. 1:20 illustrate that God has put enough evidence of himself in creation so that we are without excuse. This is an extremely important concept. Think about it this way: if there was no sure evidence of God’s existence, then when the atheist or agnostic stands before God, he or she can simply say “look, the Christian apologist that talked to me didn’t give me very good arguments, so how do you expect me to believe in you?” and God would reply “I guess you’re right, you’re not accountable for your disbelief. You’re free to go without judgment”. This isn’t Biblical, but it isn’t plausible either. The universal idea of ultimate justice presupposes the ability and availability of sufficient knowledge so that one is held accountable.
(4) You write “I agree with the agnostic.. there is no way to know for certain wether or not there is a God.” But, this is precisely the point of the argument I presented. You cannot rationally make this claim. It requires too much knowledge of who and what God is to be able to say definitively that God is such that we can’t know anything about him. You fail to address/respond to the heart of the problem with the assertion of religious agnosticism.
(5) You make the claim that “anyone who claims for certain that God exists is lying to themselves and is more a fool than I am!” You give no reason to support it and so I see no reason to believe it.
(6) The very next sentence, “God made us rational…” seems to contradict your previous assertion that we cannot have certainty. Perhaps you need to clarify your meaning of “certainty”.
(7) You write that “Part of faith is doubt!”. This is to confuse faith with intellectual assent/belief. Belief is presupposed in the Biblical concept of faith in God. The Biblical concept of faith, if you do a careful study, is about ‘trust’. I see no reason either Biblically, theologically, or philosophically, why God would want us (“…that’s how God wants it!”) and therefore it would be somehow morally praiseworthy to doubt. See John 20:27 where Jesus tells Thomas to not doubt, but believe. Or, Mark 9:24: “I do believe, help my unbelief (doubt)”. Though you haven’t phrased it this way, what you might be getting at is the idea that co-erced belief is not free and meritorious, and so God ought not give us proof of his existence. But, there are other ways for human beings to reject the knowledge of God: self-deception, willfullness, corrupt ideas, the fact of God’s hiddenness, etc. But, more importantly, it is possible to know everything true about God: that he exists, he is good, etc. but still not put one’s faith/trust in God. James 2:19 says “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.” Even with 100% certainty (how could Satan come before God himself, as told in the book of Job, and not be certain he was real?), there is still room for dis-trust. For you to write “because that’s how God wants it!” begs the question at hand.
Thanks for you comments! Feel free to disagree with my reply, but give me some reasons for me to think you are correct next time.
WPF
Comment by wpfreund — July 29, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
Agnosticism asserts no knowledge of god(s) and therefore concludes there are no reasons to believe in them or not to believe in them.
Incorrect. That’s agnostic atheism, not agnosticism. Agnostics say that they don’t know for sure if any gods exist. Some believe in gods anyway and are agnostic theists. Maimonedes was perhaps the most famous person to explicitly adopt an agnostic theism.
An agnostic follows this credo and differs from the atheist who has developed an active belief that there are no gods.
Incorrect again. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods, not the assertion that there definitely aren’t any gods. Some atheists go on to make that assertion but others don’t.
An agnostic claims ignorance about God. If he concedes that it is possible to know something about God but that he does not know it, then he condemns himself, for he is too lazy to learn the most important thing.
Incorrect yet again. Just because a person currently doesn’t not know something doesn’t mean they are lazy. There are lots of things I don’t know but may be researching in order to know. Agnosticism is not incompatible with study.
To justify himself he would have to maintain that knowledge of God is not the most important thing, but that would be merely to claim that something else is God — and that he already knows all about it.
This is only true if “God” is defined as the most important thing; of course, an agnostic cannot do that because that definition requires knowing stuff about God. Ergo, it’s inappropriate to expect an agnostic to treat the existence of some alleged deity as the most important thing.
If he says it is impossible to know anything about God, he contradicts himself, for to know God’s unknowability would be to know something about God.
This would be why agnosticism is defined more basically as the absence of knowledge about the existence of gods. A person who doesn’t know if any gods exist also cannot know details about any gods.
So in the end the so-called agnostic must claim to know a quite a number of things about God. The problem is he cannot justify any of them.
No, the real problem is that nothing said here can be “justified” except on the basis of misdefining agnosticism and atheism. That’s called constructing a Straw Man and is a logical fallacy.
Comment by Joe — July 29, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
1. On your clarification of agnosticism, I don’t follow you. To say “there are no reasons to believe” (me) is to say “they don’t know for sure if any God’s exist.” (you) There is no substantial difference.
2. I dont’ agree that “Atheism is the absence of belief in gods…”. By this definition, agnosticism counts as atheism since an agnostic has an absence of belief in gods. Atheism is the positive view that God does not exist. It literally means “no God”.
If G stands for “theistic belief”,
A stands for “denial of theistic belief”,
and S stands for a denial of a belief committment for or against both G and A,
we have the following logical analysis:
X = (G v A) & ~(G & A)
Y = (G v A v S)
Theism is an example of affirming G.
Skepticism and agnosticism are examples of denying the entire formula X, claiming a 3rd option, Y.
Atheism is a case of denying G (denying G necessarily implies the affirmation of ~G or A).
So, claiming ~G is to claim A. In saying G is positively false, one is implying that A is positively true.
Regardless, of how we define the terms, we can get stuck in word games all day. I am defining these terms as such, and using them as such.
But, ~G
3. “Just because a person currently doesn’t not know something doesn’t mean they are lazy.” You misunderstand the point. Agnosticism looks like this:
I = ignorance about God
Busziszewki is arguing that in order to justify or qualify I, there are only 2 options:
1. Claim such knowledge is possible, or
2. Claim such knowledge is impossible
If, as you seem to claim, such knowledge of God is possible (since you don’t deny it), then the agnostic merely has to begin learning about God. So, since the agnostic is not claiming that God does not exist (atheism), he or she merely has to begin learning about God. You and J.B. just seem to differ on whether or not you think knowledge of God is genuinely possible, but that is the whole point. J.B. thinks it is, and so by possible, he seems to mean that such knowledge is readily available, and so all we need to do is begin learning it. I think if you were to re-defined “possible”, your point would have more strength.
4. “This is only true if “God” is defined as the most important thing; of course, an agnostic cannot do that because that definition requires knowing stuff about God.” But if it is possible to know something about God (as I showed above), then knowledge of God is attainable, so one either chooses not to obtain such knowledge or they do. If they attain such knowledge and then deem that such knowledge is still not the most important thing, then I agree with you. Each person values different things more highly.
5. “This would be why agnosticism is defined more basically as the absence of knowledge about the existence of gods. A person who doesn’t know if any gods exist also cannot know details about any gods.” Yes, I agree. But you miss the point in that J.B. is giving possible justifications or qualifications on one’s agnosticism. If he is right that there are only 2 options, then you can see how those options break down.
6. “No, the real problem is that nothing said here can be “justified” except on the basis of misdefining agnosticism and atheism. That’s called constructing a Straw Man and is a logical fallacy.” I think you are mis-understanding his argument. His conclusion is preceded by calling the agnostic a “so-called” agnostic. He is referring to the agnostic who justifes his agnosticism by saying it is impossible to know anything about God, thus turning himself into a skeptic (see my blog on skepticism). Perhaps your point, however, would apply to the first option: one who says it is possible to know about God. If that is your point then I can see what you are saying, but it doesn’t apply exactly to the issue J.B. is addressing.
Thanks for your comments.
WPF
Comment by wpfreund — July 29, 2006 @ 5:18 pm