My Problem with Agnosticism

Warning: religious and philosophy talk ahead. Proceed at your own risk.

Click on the follow through link to read my essay "My problem with Agnosticism". It's probably worth reading if you like philosophy, I think. Before you begin, however, here is a link to what Wikipedia has to say and understand that I will define agnosticism and then refer to my definition of the term. So before you write me off for being "wrong", try and understand my points and my point of view. Don't disagree with me until you understand what I am saying. OK, disclaimer over, essay ahead.

Also, there arn't any photos, because throwing some in would be irrelevant. Sorry.

There is something that realy bothers me about people who say they are agnostic. I feel as if they are still in the process of figuring themselves out, and what they mean to say, or at least what they should say is a simple “I Don’t Know”. Sadly, “I don’t know” is an uncomfortable phrase to tell people - nobody likes admitting they don’t know something. Saying agnostic is a firm position which requires no further thought or action (something else I despise about anything that isn’t sceptical, critical, or questioning). It gives people an honest answer that isn’t “I don’t know”, it doesn’t make anyone upset (so they think), and it requires of the agnostic no further thought of the difficult subject. No need to research or ask questions or have any faith. Agnosticism is easy.

But can’t we just get rid of it? Can’t people just say ‘I don’t know’? What serious intellectual, who has spent years studying the subject of God, is an agnostic? None that I know of (but I don’t know much).

To resign in the fact that we can’t know something, well, that's just stupid. On a personal level, you don’t know. But as a stance, a theory, to say ‘we can’t know’ just takes a shit on both reason and faith. Both! People of faith would say that with faith, you can trust. You can believe, even if you cannot ‘know’. People without faith (such as myself, this is biased I know) would say that you shouldn’t believe in something you have no reason to believe in. Just because an agnostic would not say anybody is wrong, doesn’t mean they are right. Agnosticism seems stop-gap. Like a tricky escape from a mental problem. It’s easy.

If humans resign to the fact that we, as a race, cannot know something - then we will never know it. Ask somebody generations ago if a human could ever see through a wall (infared, x-ray, etc) or fly (planes, skydiving, that dude who ties jets to his back), or run 100 meters in 9.63 seconds. What if humans decided that we could never find the higgs-boson particle or figure out a better way to organize/control a group of people? Nobody will ever try to do any of this amazing things! There will be no innovation. Nothing impossible will ever get done. None of this is about God, but my point remains. We must make our attempts at knowledge. To [intelligently and with belief] make a stance is respectable. To decide that no stance may ever be taken - to decide that knowledge cannot be had. I have a serious problem with that. That stance says that I cannot question. I am against anything that says I cannot question.

An agnostic does not believe in God. They do not pray. (if they do, to what?), they are - functionally speaking, from the view of a religious - Atheists. Agnostics will not be saved. All the literal/physical/functional/action steps (ie: not going to church) towards Atheism have been taken, so why can’t they take that last mental step? If one does not have a good enough reason to believe in something, they should not believe in it. Say that you do not know. Then do some more research, some more analysis, and some more introspection, and come to the conclusion that there is no God. Or that there is one.

No belief is permanent. I may not be an atheist 2 years from now - or even 5 minutes from now. But until the day where I am presented enough evidence or reason to believe in God, I will continue to not believe.  I am of the opinion that non-belief is the default. Believers need to prove themselves, I do not. I have nothing to prove, only something to disprove. Now, I have reasons to NOT believe in God (not just a lack/rejection of reasons TO believe), which makes me atheist. But even without those, one can just say “I don’t know”.
Lets assume I do not have reasons to NOT believe in God (follow?). I merely do not have reasons TO believe in God. I still cannot come to the conclusion that God may exist. I cannot enjoy the option or relish in uncertainty. I must have a reason to believe what I believe. A lack of a reason against something is no reason for it. In other words, lack of disproof is not proof. I have a lack of disproof that there is a giant silent bikini-clad purple squid floating above my house, but I do not believe that there is one there. And neither should anyone, without reason. Even faith needs reason to support it (IE: I have faith this roof will not collapse on me, because it has not before and buildings are up to code and such and such). Faith needs to be substantiated in reason somewhere.

This (the whole God thing) is an important topic. I don’t want to be wrong - burning in hell forever? That sucks! And I think all humans should spend some time thinking about this and other important topics. Thats the philosopher in me talking. To just pick an elaborate “I dunno” (and to say it with such confidence!) is frustrating, because it provides one with an out, an escape from questioning. I am against anything dogmatic, anything that says ‘you cannot question this’. I am against anything that lets somebody not question something. I question my atheism all of the time, I try and have discussions with religious people often. Sometimes I have tried to have a discussion with an agnostic, and every time (admittedly not many, but so far 100% of the time), they just pushed the discussion away. Like it wasn’t worth their time to think about, and we should get back to talking about sports or politics or giant purple bikini-clad squids. Agnostics don’t like questioning, and that is some serious bullshit.

Always question everything always. (and that isn’t self-defeating: question that too!). We call this approach the critical method, and it's what powers both philosophy and science. Yeah, that science.

Never resign or accept that something is unknowable. Particularly forever unknowable. Go where the evidence best warrants and have reasons for thinking what you do.

There is no shame in “I don’t know”. Its honest, and it means you have thought about it more than just accepting what the loudest voice told you. I love it when somebody I am having a discussion with  says “I don’t know”. Such people are worth having discussions with.

--
Written by Hunter Dyar September 2012. My views/beliefs may change over time.