In this essay, the term "theistic" refers to any metaphysical philosophy, or religion, with at least one deity at its heart. Such deities may be metaphorical, or representations of natural forces, or actual Supreme Beings of some kind. The term "non-theistic" refers to any metaphysical philosophy, or religion, which does not have any deities at its core. Such philosophies consider the existence of deities to be irrelevant to the message they convey. This is contrasted with "atheism," which is an assertion that there cannot be any deities of any kind. I'll mention atheism in more detail, below.
Agnosticism is simply an assertion that it is impossible to know, with any certainty, whether or not God exists, and even if he does, it is impossible to know anything about him.
That is the sum total of what is meant by "agnosticism." Having said that, this assertion has many potential implications, so that, ultimately, agnosticism can mean different things to different people. So, what I say about agnosticism, may not apply to all agnostics.
The term "agnostic" is quite ironic, since the classical Gnostics, who were ultimately condemned as heretics by the orthodox Christian Church, explicitly referred to God as incomprehensible, as "the Unknown." (Perhaps this irony inspired Huxley!)
At any rate, many religions actually agree with agnostics, that God is unknowable. This usually surprises folks in both camps, but it is true, nonetheless!
Agnosticism makes no such assumptions, and does not engage in interpretation of events. What is, is; what is not, is not; and what is not knowable, isn't knowable. (Is it any wonder this is what I believe, given my empirical viewpoint?)
Just as theistic religions and philosophies assume the existence of God, so too does atheism assume that God cannot exist. Just as God's existence is not evident, God's non-existence is equally not demonstrable. There is nothing observable which proves that there cannot possibly be a God. To assert that God cannot exist, is just as much a leap of faith as asserting that God does exist!
Having decided that theism and atheism are equally based on assumptions rather than observation, it's fair to ask if the central tenet of agnosticism might, likewise, be a bald assertion. The answer, quite simply, is that it is not. To say that the existence of God is uncertain, is based upon the observation that there is no proof, or disproof, of God's existence. In the face of a lack of evidence either way, one cannot assume that either proposal is true. This is a reasonable, logical conclusion, thoroughly rational, which makes no assumptions, and which does not engage in interpretation.
As noted already, there is no evidence of God's existence in nature. One cannot simply look around and conclude, based solely upon observation, that God exists. Even if one supposes it's possible — as agnostics do — it's pretty hard to figure out anything about him. Thus, if one does, perchance, get to know God, it has to be through divine intervention, or "revelation." That is, God must do something to make himself evident to a person.
History is full of people who've experienced such revelations. Most religions were founded on the teachings of a "prophet" to whom God revealed himself. All of those religions, however, disagree with each other — in some cases, violently!
How can it be that a single God, if he exists, could inspire different "prophets" in such vastly different ways? Such a God would, necessarily, be rather capricious, mercurial, and devious.
Of course, it's possible that the supposed "real" God inspired only one of those religions, and all the rest are just pretenders. But ... which of them is the real one? How does one tell them apart? How can a person verify the divinity of any given religion?
The answer, quite simply, is that one cannot, in fact, verify any religion. It's impossible! (Most religions claim this is not true — that it is the "one true religion," and can even offer reasons why this is so; but in all cases, the reasoning is based on assumptions and interpretation, not on fact or observation.)
Even so ... let's assume that one of the world's religions is, indeed, the "one true faith" of the "real God." Why would such a God reveal himself in only one specific way, and leave the rest of the world untouched? Why would such a God not try to make evident that his religion is the religion? In an instant, an omnipotent God could make himself and his wishes known; why wouldn't he?
Most theistic religions argue that God does not do this because he does not want to violate "free will;" he wants people to come to him willingly, rather than be thunderstruck into believing in him. This idea, however, begs the question of what sort of God would engage in "head games" of this kind?
The bottom line of all this, of course, is that it is totally unreasonable to believe in such a whimsical deity. Even according to most religions, God's behavior is unexplainable and inconsistent. It is impossible to meaningfully worship an incomprehensible, whimsical, inconsistent God.
The problem is that others often think that this is what "agnostic" means; that agnosticism is a lack of belief, a form of existential "fence-sitting." This is not true of a majority of agnostics, though; agnosticism is an unequivocal conviction that God is, ultimately, not provable and not knowable. There is absolutely nothing indefinite about it!
I can no more be angry with God, than I can be angry at Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. To assume that I must be "angry at God" is presumption of the highest order.
Typically, this is an attempt to personalize the debate over God's existence, and make it less rational. It's an intellectual trap — just like the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
(There's a little controversy over whether a person can be both an atheist and an agnostic. I believe this is the case. In fact, I admit that by some definitions, I am, myself, a "weak atheist." The only reason I don't claim this label, is simply because I think the label of agnostic best describes my thinking.)
The bottom line is that atheism and agnosticism share a good deal in common. The major difference is that agnostics don't make the leap of faith necessary to assert that God cannot exist.
Now ... these may not sound like much of a foundation for a Church, but these three principles are simple, direct, rational, and based upon observation, rather than belief, faith or assumption. Ultimately, what better basis could there be?
As long ago as the 6th century BCE, the predecessors of the ancient Stoics decided that ethics and morals could not have any metaphysical component; an action was moral (or not) based solely on rational analysis. Building on this idea, the Stoics themselves constructed a solid, strict tradition of ethics and morals. Stoic morality became the standard of morality for the Greco-Roman world; in fact, early Christianity adopted many Stoic ideas!
Shortly after the Stoic school was founded, far away in China, Confucius (Kung Fu-tzu) established a school of philosophy, whose foundation was ethical behavior and following ancient ritual traditions. His work became the cornerstone for all later ethical and moral traditions in the Far East. His morals are strikingly similar to those taught in Christian churches everywhere. Yet — never once did Confucius resort to a God. He explained the impetus for morality as a way for people to interact meaningfully. (Thus, he anticipated the work of later scholars such as Hobbes and Kant.)
More recently, the rational nature of ethics and morals has been championed by Hume, Kant, Hobbes, and more recent philosophers who've built on their work. Their conception of morality as a "social contract," a social adaptation meant to protect humanity as a whole, is rather compelling.
The main fear of many theists, in particular evangelical Christians, is "moral relativity," or people deciding on their own individual morals, rather than living up to a single common standard. Kant in particular argued against this, however; if morality is a social contract, then it must be agreed upon by society as a whole — individuals cannot just fabricate their own moral standards.
In any event, agnosticism is not an excuse for being immoral or even amoral. As members of society, agnostics are responsible for living in society harmoniously. The same goes for anyone, regardless of their own philosophy — this includes Christians, Muslims, atheists, Jews, Wiccans, Neopagans, etc.
So for anyone to object to agnosticism because they think it's an "anything-goes" philosophy — well, that's groundless. There is no such thing as an "anything goes" philosophy! No serious philosophy advocates immorality.
While some agnostics may fit either of these descriptions, I know of none that do. Most agnostics are far from uncertain or vacillating between religions. On the contrary, they are quite certain that God is neither provable nor disprovable, and incomprehensible, even if he does exist. There is no uncertainty in their minds.
That said, some agnostics engage in spiritual exploration. Unburdened by the assumption that any given religion has any veracity, they freely look at all of them. Sometimes this is out of simple curiosity; other times it's because they are looking for simple, objective truths that may be part of a religion.
In any event, it's fallacious to think of agnosticism as a state of vacillation or uncertainty. Most agnostics are quite sure of what they believe.
Well ... the agnosticism-as-cover-for-atheism theory is, in my experience, bunk! I know of no atheists who are unafraid to state their convictions. The idea that they'd want to disguise their atheism is based on the assumption that atheism is "bad," which is not an assumption that atheists themselves would make!
Of course, trying to reason with people who've crossed this line, is impossible. They will not, and cannot, comprehend that imposing their religious ideas on others is wrong, and in fact, anyone who tries to tell them so, is automatically "the enemy" worthy only of death.
It's events like this that shake people's faith in their own religions, though, which — ultimately — contradicts what the extremists are trying to do! This only further entrenches them in their extreme beliefs, which leads to even more extreme behavior, and so on.
While religion can be a force for good (using the September 11 example, one of the first charities to help out was the Salvation Army), extremism is an inevitable result — no matter the religion's tenets.
You see, that's all belief in God is: a choice. A choice to believe in something.
I've also heard, "Try reading the Bible, then you'll see!" For the record: I have, indeed, read the Bible, in Greek as well as English. I know it quite well, in fact, better than most "believers." It comes with the territory, having had an education in medieval history. I not only know the Bible well, but I also know the writings of the Church Fathers, too, and the history of the Church and Christianity as a whole. Furthermore, since I know Latin and Greek, I've read the New Testament in its original language, the Old Testament in the Septuagint, and know quite well the process by which it was translated into Latin, as well as the process by which the Biblical Canon was decided.
The history of Christianity, and the history of the Bible itself, is far from flattering.
So, do not bother emailing me to tell me what the Bible says, or anything of that sort. I already know what it says. In fact, I'm familiar with numerous interpretations of it. None is appreciably better than any other, so you are not going to talk me into believing your interpretation, whichever one it may be.
Who says that life has to have meaning?
"Meaning" can only be inferred, it is not inherent. To look at the world, and one's life, and decide that it has some particular "meaning," is an erroneous inference, a baseless assumption. As an example, take the statement:
Jugebble megola varin os makudafuppel.What does it mean? Are you able to figure it out? Are you dying to know? Or even just curious? Well, set your mind at ease; it doesn't mean anything! I just made up those words — they're gibberish. But — human instinct is to attempt some sort of interpretation; they're words, after all, and a collection of words must mean something.
Finding meaning in things that have none, is not unusual; it's known in psychology as pareidolia. Pareidolia can take forms such as seeing President Nixon's face in the bumps on a potato, or a likeness of the Virgin Mary in the bark of a tree. To infer that life has some sort of "meaning," is the same thing as trying to make sense of the gibberish I typed.
This line of thinking assumes that one should be part of a religion and actively attend services — or, more generally, that one must actually believe in some form of spirituality.
This is, however, just an assumption. People pursue spirituality simply because it is "expected." Unbelievably enough, however, one need not do this! The fact is that one need not concern onesself with anything "spiritual." Living life on its own terms, in an ethically-sound manner, without resorting to metaphysics, can be very rewarding.
While an agnostic really can't put his or her heart into a theistic religion, there are non-theistic, or minimally theistic, religions, which they can find rewarding. Among them is Buddhism, but there are others, such as some forms of Pantheism and Neopaganism. Go ahead and investigate them, if you want.
Perhaps the most important thing that agnostics can do, is to live in a genuine manner. Engaging in metaphysical thinking is useless, and can even be counter-productive. Learn to accept life for what it is.
That's my sermon, and I'm sticking to it!
Back up to Dennis's Philosophical Pages Main Menu.