Examining Agnosticism
Why Do People Become Agnostic?
An agnostic is a person who claims either that knowledge of God is unknowable (strong agnosticism) or that evidence for God’s existence has not personally been discovered (weak agnosticism). Furthermore, an agnostic might also be more of a relativist and simply state that God might exist for some but not for others (we’ll call this subjectivistic agnosticism).
Why do people become agnostic? I’d like to answer that question in four possible ways. Of course an agnostic might hold to his or her position for a combination of these reasons or another reason not listed here, but I imagine this list will cover most of them.
1) Intellectual reasons. Many agnostics have honestly pursued the question of the existence of God and have found the evidence lacking. They see naturalistic explanations as to the origin of life, order and design in the universe, and the existence of morals as providing sufficient explanation for their existence. To them, God seems illogical. They often cannot understand why a good, loving, and powerful God would allow evil in the world.
2) Pragmatic reasons. Some agnostics have not really pursued the question of God’s existence. They have not done the research needed to examine the evidence or to look within their own souls to see if there is a need there for God. They are either too lazy or too apathetic. Often they say, “If God does exist, it would not make any perceptible difference to my life.”
3) Moral reasons. Some agnostics maintain their view because they are caught in a cycle of immoral behavior that is allowable under their current moral code, based on an agnostic view of the universe. Even though they might concede that evidence for God’s existence is strong, they recognize that if they should be persuaded that God exists they would be accountable for their actions and might have to cease the immoral behavior.
4) Tolerance reasons. Finally, some agnostics withhold judgment as to the existence of God for fear that they will be labeled as intolerant if a viewpoint is taken. There have been so many religious conflicts throughout history, and understandably, there is often a desire to avoid these.It should be clear, there are probably no two agnostics who are exactly alike. Similarly, I have not met two Christians exactly alike either. If you are agnostic, I challenge you to think deeply about why you have chosen this position. Likewise, Christians should be challenged to determine why we hold to our beliefs.
Agnostic, Agnostic, or Agnostic?
There is a fifth reason I have observed. Sometimes people choose agnosticism because they hear Christians (or other religious people) saying stupid things or they see them doing stupid things. I’ll admit, I was a little bit offended by the movie Saved, that mocks Christian teenagers. But that might have been the world’s way of saying, “If this is the way you all act, we do not want to be a part of the group.”
Very often, we must admit, we do things that we think please God, but that are not commanded in Scripture. (Crusades would be a big example, but we have plenty of modern examples too). So often people are agnostic because they refuse the social stigma of being a believer.
It also seems clear that #2 above is a very common reason for agnosticism. Many folks have looked for God, found evidence lacking and have then ceased looking for him, or have gotten busy with other things. It isn’t that they disregard the possibility of God’s existence, they are just tired of looking for him. To these folks I would throw out a thought. Is it possible that if the “evidence” were a snake it would have bitten you? Is it possible the evidence that God might exist is right in front of you? It is possible that some have so heavily bought into naturalistic presuppositions, where everything that exists must have a natural explanation, that even the most obvious hints of a divine being are missed or explained away. Just the fact that there is life is a big hint for me.
Sure, naturalism postulates abiogenesis and sure, that is a possible explanation for life (though as I see it, this is a hard package to buy from any perspective). But it is weak at best and certainly just as unprovable as theism. Not only this, but it also seems wise to construct a theory giving God the benefit of the doubt (after all, we are dealing with agnostics not atheists). For example, I might reason this way: If God did create the universe, I might deduce certain things about him. Namely, he is eternal (assuming cause and effect relationships), he is powerful, he apparently has a purpose, and so on.
Given these things I might also assume that he would want to communicate to mankind. This seems to be a logical inference. If he created me and I am a communicating being, then it is certainly possible that he is a communicating being as well.Thus, it makes sense from an agnostic perspective to examine possible communications from a divine being, assuming the divine being exists. In other words, if a person needs to be scientific about this, and assumes that it is possible that God might exist, then a good place to start would be to examine all persons who have ever claimed to be God or to be a prophet who speaks for God.
This task sounds daunting, but really its not. There are not all that many, or least not all that many categories of people who have claimed such things. For example, one need not examine every single god in the Greek and Roman pantheons. They can either be accepted or rejected as a group. If you are agnostic or know an agnostic, here is the challenge. Don’t be too lazy or too busy to do the research. It is possible that God exists. In that case it is of utmost importance that we spend our lives looking for him, after all, we need to know to what degree we are accountable to him and / or what he wants from us, given that he exists.
Is the Bridge Out? The Dangers of Agnosticism
Agnosticism is much more humble than atheism, since it admits that it does not have enough information or a wide enough scope of information to state bluntly that God does not exist. Having said that, agnosticism does face two dangers.
First, it fails to consider the consequences of eternity. Agnosticism is open to the possibility that people survive death in some form. Of course it is the heart of the position to either say the afterlife is unknowable or that the individual agnostic does not know, however, agnosticism is also by definition, open to the possibility.If I were on a passenger train and a man whispered to me, “Have you heard? The bridge is out 50 miles ahead. This train is going to crash.” But another passenger overhead and said, “Wrong! That is a mere rumor. The bridge is not out and we are going to be fine.” Well, I must admit that I would be an official agnostic, afterall I have no way of knowing which person is right. But I do know this, I would be doing everything in my power to find out the truth. I would ask other passengers, listen to the news on the radio, even go to the cabin and ask the engineers. I would not simply sit back and be content with the answer, “I don’t know.” That is the danger of agnosticism. It is open to the possibility of eternal consequences, but more often than not, seems apathetic. Of all people who should be seeking diligently for the truth, it should be agnostics, since they are open to the possibility of God’s existence and eternal life / death.
The second danger of agnosticism is its failure to examine all the evidence in proper context and in an unbiased fashion. Realizing that it is hard, if not impossible, to be totally unbiased, nonetheless an effort must be made to let the evidence speak for itself. Just one example of this is the Resurrection of Christ.
Many agnostics dismiss this event simply because they have not seen a person rise from the dead but often they fail to consider the Resurrection of Christ within a theistic worldview. They should say to themselves, “If God exists could I expect him to raise someone from the dead even if I never see it?” The answer is yes. Most agnostics instead say, “Since I have never seen a person raised from the dead, therefore it must not happen or I have no way to verify that it did happen.” But if the existence of God is granted for the sake of argument, then it should not be difficult at all to believe in the possibility of the Resurrection.THEN, if you believe in the possibility of the Resurrection, all I ask is that you take a long hard look at objective testimony and data. Here are several articles to help you think through this issue. Craig, Craig2, and Habermas.Bottom line: agnosticism is better than atheism, but still very dangerous.
Arguments Used by Agnostics to Support Agnosticism
Robert Ingersoll wrote a treatise in 1896 called “Why I Am Agnostic.” The arguments he brings forward are very similar to arguments agnostics use today. Here is a summary and response to a few of these.
The Product of Culture Argument
Premise one: Most people inherit their opinions and beliefs from their parents and their culture. People born in Iraq tend to be Muslims and people born in America tend to be Christians.
Premise two: If religion is so important, one would expect to see people adopt their religious views based on solid research rather than mere heritage.
Conclusion: No religious perspective is correct.
This is a very common agnostic argument, which Ingersoll brings forward immediately in his treatise. But there are some major holes in this argument. For example, premise one is indeed a reality, but why? The reason is because so few people take the time to examine their beliefs, sad but true. However, we must be careful to note that many people do take the time to examine their beliefs and very often change what they believe in the process.To prove this point, consider the agnostic himself. Very many agnostics were born into religious families, but as they grew older they rejected the beliefs of their parents. So it is clear that not everyone blindly accepts the beliefs they inherit. Many people change their beliefs. Muslims convert and become Christians. Christians convert and become Buddhists. And so on. This type of conversion happens all over the earth, not just in one place.
Just because the large majority of people are content to stay as their parents and culture are (a sign of laziness or oppression) does not mean that one view cannot be correct and another incorrect. Each philosophy of life or religious perspective must be evaluated on its own terms, not based on who believes it or who does not. This argument is illogical, for the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.
The Christians are Manipulative and Hypocritical Argument
Premise one: Religious people have committed many atrocious acts and have manipulated and often forced people to accepting their views.
Premise two: Religious people would not do this if their religion was actually true.
Conclusion: Their religion is not true.You can also read this argument postulated here and here.
Bertrand Russell says, “Cruel persecutions have been commoner in Christendom than anywhere else. What appears to justify persecution is dogmatic belief.”
Of course this argument holds no water at all for a belief system cannot be evaluated based upon the actions of those who claim to hold it. This is true for a number of reasons. From a Christian perspective, it is true because we believe that though we are saved by grace we are not yet perfect. Thus Christians still do mean and stupid things. The bumper sticker says it all – “Christians are not perfect, just forgiven.”
Also, we believe that there are many people who claim to be Christians and enjoy wearing the label, but who are in fact not rightly related to Christ by faith and thus not truly a believer. These people then give the Christian faith a bad name with their actions. But does that change the truthfulness or falsity of the Christian faith itself? No it doesn’t. Yes, Christians, real ones and counterfeits, have been hypocritical and will continue to be, but if you are going to attempt to determine whether Christianity is true (or any philosophy of life) then the belief system itself must be evaluated on its own terms.
I will admit that this argument has some validity. After all, one must ask the question, “Has this belief system worked for others in the past?” Those who do adhere to a belief system are, in a sense, commercials for that belief system. For example, I have no desire to join Islam and blow myself up as a suicide bomber! But what I want to make clear is that not every Muslim believes in blowing oneself up. If I am contemplating the truthfulness or falsity of Islamic belief, I should evaluate the belief system itself, on its own terms, regardless of the actions of adherents.
So the argument falls apart even if it has some usefulness and validity.
The God Cannot Be That Way Argument
Premise one: The God of the Bible is cruel, violent, and egotistical.
Premise two: As far as I understand what God might be like, he cannot be that way.
Conclusion: The God of the Bible is not the actual God, if an actual God exists.
Many agnostics go down this road, including Ingersoll. We read in Genesis 6-9, for example, of a God who seems to have no problem killing almost every living thing on the planet. Most people dream of God as the eternally good One, who is filled with innocent love for all creatures – a very different picture.The major problem with this argument is that it assumes that humans are allowed to construct God as we want him, given that he exists. But if God has indeed revealed himself in the Bible (or in some other way), then humans are to accept him as he has revealed himself not as we think he should be. If you are disapointed with President Bush’s stance on the war in Iraq, for example, you cannot simply say, “Presidents do not do that.” Sure, you might have in mind an ideal “president,” but then we all must face the reality of who the president actually is.
Premise two is weak, therefore, because there are no grounds of authority upon which to construct an idea of what God is like. It is just a personal feeling.
What many agnostics seem to misunderstand is the basic interpretive grid for understanding the God of the Bible: namely, God does all things for his own glory. The charge that he is egotistical might be correct, so long as egotistical does not imply sin. God is most certainly God-centered. He loves himself more than anything or anybody else. “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). “I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols” (Isaiah 42:8). Please be aware that these are two of hundreds of verses like these. All of them clearly show that God loves God most of all.
Thus, what seems to be cruel and violent to us as humans (flooding the earth) is a way that God is maximizing his own glory. This axiom: God does all things for his own glory, is the only way to understand the God of the Bible as a loving and good God.Of course, many agnostics admit this, but say that they could never worship such a self-centered and egotistical God. But is being self-centered wrong for God? We know that it is wrong for us. Why? Because we are not the center of the universe! There are other people who are equal with us all around us and we are the same basic value as every other person. But would it be vanity for God to see himself as the greatest treasure there is, if indeed he is the greatest treasure there is?? If he did not see and worship himself as supreme, it is clear, he’d be a liar and an idolater. He’d be denying the reality of what he himself actually is.
Read “God Created us for His Glory” and “Is God for Us or for Himself,” both by John Piper for a greater understanding of these ideas.At any rate this third agnostic argument fails as well, since we cannot base our understand of God merely on what we think he should be like.