Essentially, agnosticism can be called I-don’t-know-ism, when it comes to the question, “Does God exist?”
Agnosticism comes in two flavors:
1) Strong agnosticism says that nobody can know if there is a God. That is, knowledge of the divine is not available to humans.
2) Weak agnosticism is much more modest, stating that some people might know if there is a God, but the agnostic maintains that he has not personally been convinced.
Why do people become agnostic?
Some agnostics have carefully researched all the evidence in favor of the existence of God and have concluded that it is not strong enough to support belief in God. However, they have also concluded that evidence does not disprove the existence of God. So they suspend belief until further evidence is provided.
Some agnostics are too busy to examine the evidence in favor of God’s existence. Since time is a major commodity, it is difficult for many to invest hours attempting to answer the question of whether there is a God. So they simply default on agnosticism.
Some agnostics are too lazy to examine the evidence in favor of God’s existence. It isn’t that life is too busy for these folks, its just that studying can be difficult, and so they opt out and decide to take the risk of agnosticism.
Some agnostics are immoral and want to stay that way. These people know that if they began to believe in God, they would have to change their behavior, so they simply maintain that they do not know if God exists, and remain in their cycle of immorality. These folks are typically not interested in the evidence at all, but rather in keeping the authority over their own lives.
What is the problem with agnosticism?
It is dangerous. Here is a story to illustrate:
Ben was minding his own business while riding on a train from Cincinnati to his hometown of Pittsburgh. The man sitting in front of Ben (whose name happens to be Will) suddenly turns around, holding his cell phone in his hand. He speaks directly to Ben, but in a loud voice so that all the passengers can hear. “I have been on the phone with my wife who is watching CNN. She saw a report that our train is in danger. The bridge we are supposed to be crossing about ten miles down the track has been washed away by a flooding river. We must do something!”
Ben is naturally troubled by this report and turns his ipod off to concentrate. Just then Mary, the lady sitting behind Ben, leans over the seat and retorts to Will: “Oh, don’t be such an alarmist! I’ve been speaking with my family too, and they say the bridge has sustained some damage, but it’s only minor. They say it should hold our train just fine. We have nothing to worry about!”
Ben is officially an agnostic. He honestly doesn’t know whether the bridge is safe to cross or not. Should he believe Will or Mary? In his gut, Ben is aware of his need to find out for sure. So he begins to research the situation in careful detail. He says to Will, “Okay, tell me exactly what your wife said she saw on CNN.” Will repeats his wife’s story that the bridge is totally washed out.
Ben turns to Mary, “Which network was your family watching?”
“I’m not sure,” she says, “and now I can’t get a cell phone signal to call them back.”
Ben feels a sense of panic and decides he needs to act quickly to get more accurate information. He walks the aisle to the cabin and knocks loudly on the locked door. One of the engineers cracks the door and peeks out. “Yes?”
“Have you guys been watching the news?” asks Ben politely.
“No. Why?”
Ben recounts the information to the engineer, stressing that the train could be in serious trouble if the bridge is out. But the engineer is not interested. “We haven’t heard anything. If there was a problem the station would let us know.” He then adds, “We are on a schedule, mister. We cannot stop this train unless it is a real emergency.”
What is Ben going to do now? He feels that his own life is at possible risk, but he isn’t sure. He is still basically agnostic. But this is precisely why remaining agnostic is so dangerous. Many people, who say they do not know if God exists, or which religion is true, seem to pretend that they are not even on the train of life. They act as though it doesn’t matter whether there is a God, or which worldview is true. But in Ben’s case, it clearly matters.
It Does Matter
Most religions have some type of judgment doctrine. Christianity, for example, holds that those who die in their sin will spend eternity in Hell as punishment. So the agnostic is on the train of life and Christians are preaching, in effect: “The bridge is out. If you remain in your current condition you will soon crash and be ruined.”
Of course, other people, like Mary in the story, are saying that everything is fine. No judgment is coming for anyone. Naturalists, for example, claim that when we die, we simply cease to exist. There is no afterlife to worry about.
Who should we believe? Well, at the very least the agnostic, like Ben, should get up and do more research. Maybe the Christian is wrong, but the agnostic should at least study the position very carefully before he simply dismisses it altogether. Put another way, the agnostic had better be absolutely certain that the bridge is safe before he sits back down in his seat awaiting his fate. At that point, of course, he is no longer an agnostic – he has made his decision to disbelieve.
Back to Ben, who warned the engineer about the bridge, but was brushed off. Suppose, as he continues thinking about the situation, he becomes more and more convinced that Will is right. He comes to believe that the bridge is actually out and that his life is in danger. If this happens, he may decide to do something radical. Perhaps he opens the door of the train, takes a deep breath, and leaps. Would that hurt? Absolutely. He would hit the ground hard, and potentially break bones. But Ben concludes that this jump is better than remaining agnostic on the train where he is facing potential death.
The Christian is the person who is convinced that judgment is coming. This is not all there is to Christianity, but this is certainly part of it. He is convinced that he is a sinner who deserves the everlasting judgment of God, and he is willing to take a leap from the train in order to avoid that devastation. Will it hurt? Yes. Will he lose things he really wants? Yes. But in the end, his life is gained. Jesus taught this when he said:
And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9:43-48)
Agnostics cannot pretend that they are not on the train of life. We are all riding. But there is horrific devastation ahead. The evidence for this is highly convincing. Christ has offered us an opportunity to jump. He even promises to catch us when we leap. You should not be content to sit in your seat and await an unknown fate.
Why Do People Become Agnostic?
As I stated above, 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 (I hinted at these at the beginning of the article).
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 as to why some people become or remain agnostic. 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.
Remember the story of passenger train? If that were me on the train I might be agnostic as to what was about to happen on the train, but I know this for sure: I would be doing everything in my power to find out the truth of the matter.
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.
Conclusion
When taking all of these things into account – why people are agnostic, the dangers of agnosticism, and the weaknesses of arguments in favor of agnosticism – it seems abundantly clear that agnosticism as a basic stance on the existence of God should be discarded in favor of wiser choices. I would add my desire that agnostics would give Jesus Christ a closer listen than perhaps ever before.
What is the difference between the self-proclaimed prophets Jesus and Muhammad?
3) Muhammad was very interested in money for self gain, but Jesus was not
Interestingly, Jesus personally wrote none of the books of the Bible (at least in his humanity) and yet he is the subject of all sixty-six books included in it. He is the hoped-for Messiah of the Old Testament, and the present Lord in the New Testament.
