How to be a Good Agnostic

by
Jason Dulle
JasonDulle@attbi.com

There are three basic positions one can take when it comes to the existence of God: theism, atheism, and agnosticism. Theism affirms that God(s) does exist; atheism affirms that God does not exist; agnosticism affirms that we cannot know if God does or does not exist. It is the latter position that is the topic of this article.

Agnosticism is a much humbler position to take than is atheism. The atheist says he absolutely knows there is no God. Such a statement is beyond his finite knowledge, and cannot be conclusively proven. Agnosticism is a much wiser road to take because at least it admits its own finiteness and ignorance (although I believe that theism is the most logical position to take for reasons beyond my present scope). While agnostics are wise enough and humble enough to be modest and tentative in their beliefs on such important matters as the existence of God, many agnostics are confused as to what agnosticism really is.

There are two common mistakes people make in their confession and/or practice of agnosticism: 1. they falsely suppose that agnostics are neutral, non-biased individuals; 2. they mistake uncertainty for ignorance.

Concerning the former, all people are biased. It is impossible to be non-biased. If one claimed that they were not biased it evidences the fact that they are biased to the notion that they are unbiased. While all of us are biased we are biased in different directions. When the rubber meets the road it can be readily seen where the bias of the agnostic lies. Some will be biased toward the notion that God does not exist while others are biased toward the notion that God does exist. It is not too often that one will meet an agnostic who does not have strong opinions on religion one way or the other. Whether one chooses to express their bias, or how much force they use when expressing their biased opinions is another issue, but most agnostics will exhibit a bias nonetheless. With the level of bias exhibited by some who consider themselves agnostics we have to wonder if they are really agnostic at all.

Concerning the latter, being an agnostic does not mean that one is comfortable with not knowing, doing nothing to rid themselves of their uncertainty. Ignorance and agnosticism are two entirely different things. I don't know much about trigonometry, but that does not make me agnostic about trigonometry; it makes me ignorant. Someone who claims to be agnostic, yet has not truly interacted with the arguments for and against God's existence, is not a good agnostic. Agnostics are those who have considered the issue and cannot come to a decision, not those who know nothing about the issue and thus have no position. A "good agnostic" is one who seeks to better understand the issue, amassing evidence which would eventually lead them to make a decision as to whether or not God exists.

Many who lay claim to the title "agnostic" are little more than intellectual cowards who do not wish to take the time to study out the different opinions, and do not want to have to make a decision as to what is true and what is false. They would rather sit on the fence of indecision all their life, taking no position at all. It is much easier to not have a position than to labor to find the truth, and then stand firm in that truth against error. While they say they search for truth they often look no further than the tip of their nose for it. Some will look to the hills, but will never allow themselves to find it because it's easier and safer to be a seeker than it is to be a finder.

Agnostics often pride themselves with being open-minded, but when their starting philosophy about truth is that one can never know truth (which in itself is an absolute truth claim and thus inconsistent with the agnostic philosophy because one absolutely knows that they cannot know anything absolutely!), they automatically become closed-minded. The mind can only be open if indeed there is something 'out there' to discover and know, and we are actively pursuing that which there is to discover. If there is nothing to discover, then the mind is truly closed, and only then are we justified in not caring to seek out truth and discuss various truth-claims with those of opposing opinions. Agnosticism that degenerates into an "I don't discuss religion" agnosticism is not agnosticism at all because it has already decided the matter-that there can be no decision to the matter, and that such a decision is not important. Such a position, however, is not agnostic, but certain, and thus not agnosticism at all. To be an agnostic means to examine all available evidence, being open to come to a decision once enough evidence has been accumulated so as to be able to make such a decision. Any agnostic who acts like a true agnostic cannot stay agnostic for long!

Email IBS | Statement of Faith | Home | Browse by Author | Q & A
Links | Virtual Classroom | Copyright | Submitting Articles | Search