Agnostic Guide Chapter 5 - Atheistic Agnostic

Cosmology

The cosmological argument is the underlying point behind various terms for religious and non-religious people. A cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of a first cause to the universe as an uncaused cause. It’s often used as an argument for the existence of a supreme being as that cause. The basic premise is something caused the universe to exist, and this first cause must be our supernatural creator.

Theists give that supernatural creator a name and persona. The persona they describe ranges from a very human-like god with thoughts and emotions like ours to a very general view like pantheism with the universe itself as the god. Most theists worship and revere their supernatural cause of the universe as the intentional cause for their own existence. We could also be a happy accident within a caused universe and the creator may not even care we exist.

Atheism, in lacking theism and its various definitions of a supernatural creator for our existence, logically lacks the concept of supernatural creation. A strong atheist rejecting all theistic beliefs must say they reject the supernatural creation concept in total, since they’re completely without theism. A strong atheist logically believes in a natural creation or no creation at all as their cosmological position. A weak atheist might be more in agreement with agnosticism.

Agnosticism holds the answer to the creation question as something we don’t know and possibly can’t know. It’s not focused on a possible intelligent being for creation and is really about holding open the whole nature of creation as unknown. Creation could have a natural cause, supernatural cause, or may not even be an event in our existence. We don’t have the knowledge or proof for the first cause so any claims for a natural cause or everything being uncaused must be viewed as an unproven claim. Likewise, any claims regarding belief in a supernatural cause must also be seen as an unproven claim.

Ultimately one of the cosmological viewpoints has to be true in the end. Without the knowledge of that truth, the agnostic stands for an ideal that the metaphysical is unknown to us and could be inherently unknowable. Agnosticism simply says we know nothing of what may be beyond physical existence, whereas strong atheism and theism both attempt to take a stance on certain metaphysical concepts such as the nature of creation.

Agnosticism

Agnostics don’t have a defined belief regarding creation because agnostics don’t know. Agnostic means "without knowledge." An agnostic theist is a bit of an oxymoron because it’s a belief in something you have no knowledge about. How can you believe in the undefined? As soon as the belief takes on any vague definition of a creator or god such as pantheism, then you are simply a theist and probably not an agnostic using any meaningful sense of the word.

An agnostic isn’t an anti-theist in the strictest sense since an agnostic doesn’t completely lack a belief in the overall creation or god concepts. An agnostic doesn’t know the nature of the origins of the universe and doesn’t have the knowledge to reject such a general concept without specific knowledge claims. An agnostic's lack of knowledge does align them with weak atheism in that they agree with the rejection of specific theistic beliefs. This is because the agnostic view that we don’t know contradicts any defined beliefs with their claimed knowledge.

In short, the agnostic sees belief for or against the idea of a creator or god as wrong because we lack the knowledge to believe in such things or to completely reject the entire concept. The agnostic doesn't jump into the spectrum of belief or complete disbelief in gods. The agnostic simply says we don't have the knowledge to put ourselves on the extreme ends of that scale. It’s not done to sit on a fence on the subject. It’s done to say we’re not entirely in the fight for or against beliefs and anyone engaging in such fights are doing so from a position of ignorance.

Agnosticism as a methodology really says anti-theists are just as wrong as the religious in their belief and convictions. The agnostic belief of "we do not know" means anti-theists don’t know without a doubt that no gods or supreme beings exist. Likewise, the religions believing in gods don’t really know their gods exist. Agnostics believe they are both equally wrong in what they think they’re absolutely sure of and the unknown is the only honest and accurate truth.

Thomas Henry Huxley created the term agnostic in 1869 when he wrote:

When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant...

Huxley later expanded on his explanation of agnosticism since some of the confusion we see today with the term was already starting to appear then. The true core of agnosticism for me is the notion of "the not dreamt of in our philosophy" which atheism or anti-theism doesn’t have or address. Here is Huxley's explanation:

Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word "agnostic" to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence; and it has been a source of some amusement to me to watch the gradual acceptance of the term and its correlate, "Agnosticism" (I think the Spectator first adopted and popularised both), until now Agnostics are assuming the position of a recognised sect, and Agnosticism is honoured by especial obloquy on the part of the orthodox. Thus it will be seen that I have a sort of patent right in "Agnostic" (it is my trade mark); and I am entitled to say that I can state authentically what was originally meant by Agnosticism. What other people may understand by it, by this time, I do not know. If a General Council of the Church Agnostic were held, very likely I should be condemned as a heretic. But I speak only for myself in endeavoring to answer these questions.

1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.

2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.

3. I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions. On trial of any so-called miracle the verdict of science is "Not proven." But true Agnosticism will not forget that existence, motion, and law-abiding operation in nature are more stupendous miracles than any recounted by the mythologies, and that there may be things, not only in the heavens and earth, but beyond the intelligible universe, which "are not dreamt of in our philosophy." The theological "gnosis" would have us believe that the world is a conjuror's house; the anti-theological "gnosis" talks as if it were a "dirt-pie" made by the two blind children, Law and Force. Agnosticism simply says that we know nothing of what may be beyond phenomena.

Agnosticism isn’t a belief system and is really just a methodology of honesty towards existence which should guide our beliefs. Agnosticism is a position regarding religious knowledge and some people think this makes agnostic theism a logical position. However, I think the use of agnostic as an adjective to describe faith-based theistic beliefs is like saying there are female theists. One has very little to do with the other even though both labels remain accurate when you put them together.

Theism makes no claims of knowledge and agnostic theism doesn’t modify the term at all. Additionally, if you honestly apply agnosticism to your religious viewpoint then you should “not pretend that conclusions are certain” even though that’s what theism clearly does. Believing in a religion is a leap of faith to believe in the unproven. Blind faith is used in defiance of your own reason. Huxley said this of agnosticism as a methodology incompatible with religious faith:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle…Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Robert G. Ingersoll was a famous American Agnostic of the 19th century. He had this to say about evil in the universe and people believing the universe was created and run by God:

There is no subject -- and can be none -- concerning which any human being is under any obligation to believe without evidence...The man who, without prejudice, reads and understands the Old and New Testaments will cease to be an orthodox Christian. The intelligent man who investigates the religion of any country without fear and without prejudice will not and cannot be a believer... He, who cannot harmonize the cruelties of the Bible with the goodness of Jehovah, cannot harmonize the cruelties of Nature with the goodness and wisdom of a supposed Deity. He will find it impossible to account for pestilence and famine, for earthquake and storm, for slavery, for the triumph of the strong over the weak, for the countless victories of injustice. He will find it impossible to account for martyrs -- for the burning of the good, the noble, the loving, by the ignorant, the malicious, and the infamous.

Ingersoll had a lot of great things to say about agnosticism in an essay about why he considered himself an agnostic. Here are just a few gems including his view of the nature of a god:

This God must be, if he exists, a person — a conscious being. Who can imagine an infinite personality? This God must have force, and we cannot conceive of force apart from matter. This God must be material. He must have the means by which he changes force to what we call thought. When he thinks he uses force, force that must be replaced. Yet we are told that he is infinitely wise. If he is, he does not think. Thought is a ladder — a process by which we reach a conclusion. He who knows all conclusions cannot think. He cannot hope or fear. When knowledge is perfect there can be no passion, no emotion. If God is infinite he does not want. He has all. He who does not want does not act. The infinite must dwell in eternal calm.

It is as impossible to conceive of such a being as to imagine a square triangle, or to think of a circle without a diameter.

Yet we are told that it is our duty to love this God. Can we love the unknown, the inconceivable? Can it be our duty to love anybody? It is our duty to act justly, honestly, but it cannot be our duty to love. We cannot be under obligation to admire a painting — to be charmed with a poem — or thrilled with music. Admiration cannot be controlled. Taste and love are not the servants of the will. Love is, and must be free. It rises from the heart like perfume from a flower.

Here are Ingersoll’s beliefs about supernatural power and gods:

Then I asked myself the question: Is there a supernatural power — an arbitrary mind — an enthroned God — a supreme will that sways the tides and currents of the world — to which all causes bow?

I do not deny. I do not know — but I do not believe. I believe that the natural is supreme — that from the infinite chain no link can be lost or broken — that there is no supernatural power that can answer prayer — no power that worship can persuade or change — no power that cares for man.

I believe that with infinite arms Nature embraces the all — that there is no interference — no chance — that behind every event are the necessary and countless causes, and that beyond every event will be and must be the necessary and countless effects.

Man must protect himself. He cannot depend upon the supernatural — upon an imaginary father in the skies. He must protect himself by finding the facts in Nature, by developing his brain, to the end that he may overcome the obstructions and take advantage of the forces of Nature.

Is there a God?

I do not know.

Is man immortal?

I do not know.

One thing I do know, and that is, that neither hope, nor fear, belief, nor denial, can change the fact. It is as it is, and it will be as it must be.

We wait and hope.

The closing section of Ingersoll’s essay is poetry to me:

When I became convinced that the Universe is natural — that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world — not even in infinite space. I was free — free to think, to express my thoughts — free to live to my own ideal — free to live for myself and those I loved — free to use all my faculties, all my senses — free to spread imagination’s wings — free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope — free to judge and determine for myself — free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the “inspired” books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past — free from popes and priests — free from all the “called” and “set apart” — free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies — free from the fear of eternal pain — free from the winged monsters of the night — free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought — no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings — no chains for my limbs — no lashes for my back — no fires for my flesh — no master’s frown or threat — no following another’s steps — no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.

And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain — for the freedom of labor and thought — to those who fell on the fierce fields of war, to those who died in dungeons bound with chains — to those who proudly mounted scaffold’s stairs — to those whose bones were crushed, whose flesh was scarred and torn — to those by fire consumed — to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still.

Let us be true to ourselves — true to the facts we know, and let us, above all things, preserve the veracity of our souls.

If there be gods we cannot help them, but we can assist our fellow-men. We cannot love the inconceivable, but we can love wife and child and friend.

We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know. We can tell the truth, and we can enjoy the blessed freedom that the brave have won. We can destroy the monsters of superstition, the hissing snakes of ignorance and fear. We can drive from our minds the frightful things that tear and wound with beak and fang. We can civilize our fellow-men. We can fill our lives with generous deeds, with loving words, with art and song, and all the ecstasies of love. We can flood our years with sunshine — with the divine climate of kindness, and we can drain to the last drop the golden cup of joy.

Bertrand Russell was a well-known British philosopher of the 20th century. He answered the question “Are agnostics atheists?” with the following:

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

Agnostic Theism

I use the agnostic label to describe my viewpoint concerning the possibility of intelligent creators. I sometimes clarify my viewpoint as an agnostic atheist when communicating with picky people insisting agnosticism only describes knowledge and doesn’t say anything about beliefs in gods. Agnostics are logically de facto weak atheists lacking theistic beliefs. I say this only if you must insist religious beliefs are worth considering without “justifiable true beliefs” under the common definition of knowledge. Faith isn’t a sufficient justification for belief. The world’s religions aren’t worthy of consideration as faith-based claims of knowledge and aren’t compatible with an agnostic view of knowledge.

I agree with the historical agnostics when they first invented and promoted the term. Agnostics see knowledge as the standard for evaluating supernatural claims and believe we “lack knowledge” concerning such things as definable gods. The agnostic term means without knowledge, so an agnostic believing in gods using faith has dismissed the primary reason for defining agnosticism in the first place. Theism is belief based on faith so it really has nothing to do with agnosticism or being an agnostic.

The about.com website has an article concerning agnostic theism not existing at all and says it should be considered a myth. I don’t necessarily buy into their view of this supposed myth. It said criticisms of the term boil down to “none of the religious faiths allow a person to believe without knowing for sure” which doesn’t adequately describe my own criticism of agnostic theism. It’s a false premise unless religions are gnostic and claim to have justified true beliefs. I haven’t encountered any religions claiming true knowledge and have only seen faith presented as proof of their beliefs.

You can claim to be agnostic Christian or agnostic theist in the more general sense. These only work if I insist Christianity and theism aren’t making knowledge claims with their religion or beliefs. They would have to strictly concern beliefs without knowledge, but then beliefs about what? Religions and theism consists of beliefs in supernatural claims that may or may not be justifiable as the truth. These beliefs are weak knowledge claims at a minimum even if they’re not proclaimed to be statements of verifiable knowledge.

Being a theist is making an unverifiable statement about knowledge and being an agnostic takes a negative position regarding that knowledge. Agnostic theism would be a twisted logic way to say a person fully acknowledges their religion is completely unjustified but they choose to believe in it anyway. Theism already says this simply by using belief instead of knowledge to define itself, so in that sense most theism is an agnostic theism by definition.

Agnosticism doesn’t describe or qualify a belief in supernatural knowledge claims. On the contrary, agnosticism is as contradictory to those claims as the atheist position of lacking theistic beliefs. When presented with new belief claims, agnosticism and atheism come to the same conclusion of falsehood using two different approaches.

Agnosticism starts from a default position of not knowing about such things without verifiable evidence using common standards of knowledge. It’s the agnostic view of knowledge which should cause the agnostic to lack any specific theistic beliefs.

Atheism starts from the position that we don’t believe things based on faith alone. Atheism also needs some sort of verifiable evidence to establish a justifiable belief in something. I’m not entirely sure what atheism would use as a default standard for disbelief other than stubbornness if they’re not also agnostic regarding theistic knowledge claims.

Atheism only means lacking belief so I don’t see it as a useful starting position for why we should disbelieve. It only says to me we should disbelieve because we disbelieve. It’s why I’m primarily agnostic in my response to god claims which leads me to an atheist position on specific god claims. This is why I have trouble seeing atheism as a complete stand-alone position for disbelieving for the sake of disbelief and I keep coming back to agnosticism as my central viewpoint.

Anti-theism

The root meanings of a- and theism defining atheism doesn’t really mean much conceptually. Theism is the belief in gods and the prefix a- only means someone who lacks those beliefs. It doesn’t mean anything more than that as a word.

Atheism doesn’t mean the same thing as anti-theism if anyone actually calls themselves an anti-theist. The anti- prefix means “opposed to” whereas the a- prefix simply means “without” that thing. If you’re not a theist then you’re an atheist.

If you’re a hardcore anti-theist then you also fit in the broad category of atheist since you also lack a belief in gods. Anyone who is a non-theist is by definition an atheist in the general sense whether you like the word or not. There are plenty of agnostics who don’t like the word and disagree with this. I’m focusing on the definitions and actual meaning of the words and not the opinions and feelings about the words.

Atheists, in the strictest sense, aren’t the complete opposite of theists. Atheists simply lack beliefs defined by theists. An atheist qualifying their disbelief by saying they only believe as they do because they lack knowledge is in agreement with agnosticism concerning knowledge.

Finding true anti-theists is harder than finding atheists since an anti-theist would believe there is undeniable evidence for nothing supernatural existing outside of the natural universe. An anti-theist would be engaging in as much of a leap of faith in the proven non-existence of a metaphysical first cause as the theists believing a creator exists and wrote some holy books using human hands as proof of it all.

Atheism

Here's another attempt to show agnostics can fit in the atheist group. The undecided, unconvinced, and unbelievers all fit under atheism as an a-belief or non-belief group. Flipping this by defining a group X as an unbelief group would mean only unbelievers can be described as X. This breaks up the binary choice because we've narrowed the definition of what it means to be excluded from the belief group. We'd have to lump together the undecided and unconvinced with the believers in the a-X or non-X group. This is because they are all a-unbelievers or non-unbelievers. Those words don't mean belief which proves not being an unbeliever isn't the same as being a believer, just as not being a believer isn't the same being an unbeliever.

Atheism and agnosticism are generally two sides of the same non-belief coin. I’ll try not to dwell too much more on the meaning of atheism since arguments over the differences between it and agnosticism are widely available and heatedly debated online. I can embrace both terms as accurate labels describing my own non-belief. However, I’ll provide another example to demonstrate a nuance between the two terms.

Everyone is atheistic and lacks belief in many specific gods since various gods are defined by humanity. We're all probably atheistic or lacking in beliefs about Zeus for example. Atheism in general means you're atheistic about all of the gods defined in human theism; otherwise you’d define yourself as a believer of whichever god it is you are not atheistic about.

Atheists sometimes say they’re just atheistic about one more god than the religious people. Atheists and agnostics often agree with the Christian and Muslim criticisms of each other’s beliefs. They’re both right about what’s wrong with the other’s religion.

Agnosticism was a term created by Thomas Huxley for people who are atheistic towards all gods defined by humanity but can’t say for certain they lack a belief in an unknown or unknowable creator concept. This appears to be more in contrast to an active anti-theism of Huxley’s time than the passive atheism most modern atheists are claiming is synonymous with agnosticism. This is a continuing source of confusion for atheism and agnosticism in the modern day.

Only anti-theism would be in conflict with agnosticism because anti-theism would imply knowledge of the negative as a truth. The simpler “lack of belief” with atheism and “lack of knowledge” with agnosticism are complimentary without any real distinction other than where you put your personal emphasis. I'm an atheistic agnostic. Regardless of labels, I’m simply an unbeliever engaging in freethought no matter which labels people argue are right for me.