Thread: Agnosticism and Christianity

The following is a Facebook note written by a friend of mine who is an agnostic. I would like advice on the best way to respond to his arguments.



"Today, I'd like to talk about a source of boundless misunderstanding and a pet peeve of mine: Agnosticism. Now, before you grab your torches and pitchforks (though you wouldn't, since my friends seem to be fairly open minded), let me explain. Agnosticism is not what many people seem to think it is. It isn't synonymous with Atheism. In fact, it has as much in common with Theism as with Atheism. Which is not much, besides the subject matter. Agnosticism is no more connected with Atheism than Science and Religion, Church and State, Knowledge and Belief. Those last two are the root of the issue, but I'll get to that shorty.

First, an analysis of what people think Agnosticism is. The immediate answer from the majority of people is that it passes no judgment on whether or not God(s) exist, and therefore is the middle ground between Atheism and Theism. It is not. Unfortunately, this seems to be the most common usage. Common enough to be on Wikipedia, most of the time (one of the few times Wikipedia is wrong, but it's a misunderstood issue, so I think we can forgive it this once). But that doesn't make it right.

“So, what do Agnostics believe?” you might ask me. And I would respond: “Anything.” See, Agnostics don't believe anything specific. It's not a belief system. That is the biggest misunderstanding, so I'll repeat it again: Agnosticism does not relate to beliefs. What it does relate to is knowledge. As one can tell from the word, assuming one has a strong understanding of ancient Greek, is that it comes from the prefix “a-”, which means against or not, and the (Romanized) base word “gnosis”, which means knowing. So, the basis of the word itself is knowledge, not belief. This means that, regardless of what you belief, one will always also be an Agnostic or a Gnostic, either they know or they don't know. This groups everyone into one of four groups: Agnostic Theist, Gnostic Theist, Agnostic Atheist, and Gnostic Atheist.

The simple fact of the matter is, while one is alive, one cannot know for sure that God(s) exist, or that no God(s) exist. There is not sufficient proof against the existence of all of them, followed or potential, and there is not sufficient proof supporting the existence of any of them, simply by the nature of religion. What this means is that any logical person, regardless of the strength of their beliefs one way or another, must place themselves in the Agnostic camp. There simply isn't proof for either side of beliefs. Hence, Agnosticism is open-minded and logical group which most people should strive to fall into, whether they're Atheists, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Snake Handlers, or any other set of beliefs.

Gnosticism is essentially the mirror image of Agnosticism. It includes people who says “I know that God exists” or “I know that there are no Gods”. Mere assertions, presented as definite facts, and without enough proof to back it up. This is close minded, delusional, and Dogmatic. The exception would be if certain beliefs can be logically falsified, but even that's a very slippery slope, and should be avoided unless for some reason proven necessary. Gnosticism is not the way of tolerance or understanding, two assets which are all but required in the diverse modern world.

To get back to my original point, Agnosticism is not something to be scorned, and is separate from belief. It's the smartest path to take, since it's the only one founded on the one absolute truth that is universal, regardless of religion or set of beliefs: no one knows for sure if God(s) exists. Agnostics just accept that fact, and keep it separate from their faith."

"Today, I'd like to talk about a source of boundless misunderstanding and a pet peeve of mine: Agnosticism. Now, before you grab your torches and pitchforks (though you wouldn't, since my friends seem to be fairly open minded), let me explain. Agnosticism is not what many people seem to think it is. It isn't synonymous with Atheism. In fact, it has as much in common with Theism as with Atheism. Which is not much, besides the subject matter. Agnosticism is no more connected with Atheism than Science and Religion, Church and State, Knowledge and Belief. Those last two are the root of the issue, but I'll get to that shorty.

He immediately puts science and religion and belief and knowledge at odds with one another, as if they can't be reconciled or don't interact in anyway. Why should that be true?

“So, what do Agnostics believe?” you might ask me. And I would respond: “Anything.” See, Agnostics don't believe anything specific. It's not a belief system. That is the biggest misunderstanding, so I'll repeat it again: Agnosticism does not relate to beliefs. What it does relate to is knowledge. As one can tell from the word, assuming one has a strong understanding of ancient Greek, is that it comes from the prefix “a-”, which means against or not, and the (Romanized) base word “gnosis”, which means knowing. So, the basis of the word itself is knowledge, not belief. This means that, regardless of what you belief, one will always also be an Agnostic or a Gnostic, either they know or they don't know. This groups everyone into one of four groups: Agnostic Theist, Gnostic Theist, Agnostic Atheist, and Gnostic Atheist.

There is some strange wordplay going on here. In one sense of the word, the one he describes himself as, the "agnostic" is someone who believes that knowledge of whether or not God exists is not possible or whatever; but surely agnostics don't believe just anything! No agnostic believes that knowledge of God is attainable, for example.

The simple fact of the matter is, while one is alive, one cannot know for sure that God(s) exist, or that no God(s) exist. There is not sufficient proof against the existence of all of them, followed or potential, and there is not sufficient proof supporting the existence of any of them, simply by the nature of religion. What this means is that any logical person, regardless of the strength of their beliefs one way or another, must place themselves in the Agnostic camp. There simply isn't proof for either side of beliefs. Hence, Agnosticism is open-minded and logical group which most people should strive to fall into, whether they're Atheists, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Snake Handlers, or any other set of beliefs.

Why should any person believe that knowledge of God is not attainable? He begs the question against any religion when he asserts this, because it is a presupposition they explicitly deny. There are a lot of empty and just plain false assertions in this paragraph that could take a lot of time and space to deal with.

Gnosticism is essentially the mirror image of Agnosticism. It includes people who says “I know that God exists” or “I know that there are no Gods”. Mere assertions, presented as definite facts, and without enough proof to back it up. This is close minded, delusional, and Dogmatic. The exception would be if certain beliefs can be logically falsified, but even that's a very slippery slope, and should be avoided unless for some reason proven necessary. Gnosticism is not the way of tolerance or understanding, two assets which are all but required in the diverse modern world.

He gave us mere assertions in favor of his agnosticism without supportive argumentation just a paragraph ago; by his own standards he is close-minded, delusional, and dogmatic. Clearly he is dogmatic if he says the plain truth is that we cannot know that God exists, and that's just the way it is!

To get back to my original point, Agnosticism is not something to be scorned, and is separate from belief. It's the smartest path to take, since it's the only one founded on the one absolute truth that is universal, regardless of religion or set of beliefs: no one knows for sure if God(s) exists. Agnostics just accept that fact, and keep it separate from their faith."

"No one knows for sure if God(s) exist(s)" is clearly not a universal truth; if Christianity is true, then this is plainly false. If any of the monotheistic religions are true, actually, this is a false assertion. So, no, it is not a universal truth.

Few observations:

1. Agnosticism is, by definition, a belief system. They believe they can't know; they can't prove they can't know. Under his own requirements then, i.e. requiring material proof, he cannot know he doesn't know; he can only believe it.

2. He presupposes materialism and a demand for material proof without proving the demand exists. Of course the immaterial cannot be proven via material means, that's a given, but to demand such and exclude the alternative, i.e. evidencing the immaterial via the immaterial, is ridiculous.

3. He claims agnosticism is the only thing premised on absolute truth; that no one knows for sure. If no one knows for sure, then there is no absolutely truth. He is, in essence, equating subjectivism with agnosticism. The same way you demolish subjectivism applies to what he brands agnosticism.

Fin.

Originally Posted by Calvinist Cowboy

Agnosticism is no more connected with Atheism than Science and Religion, Church and State, Knowledge and Belief. Those last two are the root of the issue, but I'll get to that shorty.

Hilariously enough, all four of these relationships are connections.

• To believe knowledge of God is unattainable (agnosticism) is therefore to lack belief in God (atheism), if one is rational. And he himself uses the term "agnostic atheist" later!
• Science is based on a specific metaphysical view of the universe, which is ultimately grounded in a faith-presupposition, thereby relating it (if not uniting it) to religion.
• Those who adhere to the 1646 WCF understand that both church and state are under God, and it was not until a somewhat recent interpretation that this is taken to imply a secularized state.
• KNOWLEDGE IS ALWAYS DEFINED IN TERMS OF BELIEF! (Sorry, this one's just inexcusable.)

First, an analysis of what people think Agnosticism is. The immediate answer from the majority of people is that it passes no judgment on whether or not God(s) exist, and therefore is the middle ground between Atheism and Theism.

Actually, this is how it's always construed. No such neutrality exists, but nonetheless that is what "agnostic" means if it is always used that way.

As one can tell from the word, assuming one has a strong understanding of ancient Greek, is that it comes from the prefix “a-”, which means against or not, and the (Romanized) base word “gnosis”, which means knowing. So, the basis of the word itself is knowledge, not belief.

When trying to understand what a word means, one should appeal to how it is used, as the root meaning of the words does not necessarily point to a solid definition (as I implied above). For instance, imagine people hundreds of years from now looking back on the twentieth and twenty-first centuries and studying the word "gay."

Nonetheless, I'll critique the position as he defines it, but please, anyone who is reading this: understand that this is not agnosticism as it is usually mentioned.

The simple fact of the matter is, while one is alive, one cannot know for sure that God(s) exist, or that no God(s) exist.

...begging the question. This one's egregious.

Agnosticism is open-minded and logical group which most people should strive to fall into, whether they're Atheists, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Snake Handlers, or any other set of beliefs.

In other words, "SHUT UP AND AGREE WITH MY OPENMINDEDNESS. QUIT BEING SO DOGMATIC, YOU KNOW YOU'RE NOT RIGHT!"

Mere assertions, presented as definite facts, and without enough proof to back it up. This is close minded, delusional, and Dogmatic.

Yeah, it sucks when people do that.

---------

This guy's a new atheist who is trying to give credibility to his position. "There's not enough evidence; you should relinquish belief immediately." Typical secularist-humanist-evolutionist propaganda. Far from neutral or open-minded or fair or default.

aaaaaaand I apologize for my tone.

Well, his whole premies is delusional. He says that no one can know for sure that God exist or that what they know is true, and yet his whole statement is a statement of surety. He is sure that what is purports is the truth. If he truly believed what he was saying, then he would have to admit that his statement has the possibility of being wrong. He must go through life knowing that all he thinks might be wrong. He cannot chose his side of thinking as being correct while stating that nothing can be known to be true for sure.

I generally have a lot more patience with agnostics because they realize the absurdity of trying to say that as finite beings, they can know all of the universe and can definitively say, there is no God. An atheist will say that he can know there is no God.