George H. Smith is responsible for getting me to think about agnosticism from a totally different perspective than I had in the past. I read his book, “Atheism: The Case Against God” while in college, studying theology. Being that this is my first contribution to #onetheology, I suppose some context is in order. I am not a theist. I am probably one of the few contributors who is not going to post about believing in Jesus, or God, or Buddha, or any other deity figure popularly known in the theological realm. I am an agnostic atheist (technically speaking). I believe that everyone is an agnostic. That’s what this post is about.
I studied theology at a small bible college in rural north Texas, with the intent on becoming a minister. I learned about the God of the wealthy westerner, framed in the context of pentecostal evangelicalism, and decided to be a teacher, instead. Needless to say, I am no longer religious, but I am still very much interested in thinking/talking about theology and philosophy, and how it interacts with our culture past, present and future. That’s why Chad asked me to be a part, I suppose. I am glad to be here and I look forward to the stimulation and inspiration this blog promises. Okay, enough with the pleasantries, and back to the topic.
We are all agnostics, after all. It’s true. Let’s consider what that word actually means…
Exactly. I’ve heard many people use the word agnostic in different ways. Both in positive and negative fashions, dependent upon context, of course. I’ve heard people use it as an alternative to being an atheist. I’ve heard people refer to agnostics as those who are too scared to commit to any one belief. I’ve heard agnostics defined as people who are incapable of knowing anything, at all. But what do we mean by the word? More specifically, are we all agreeing on the same definition? Or does my definition differ from yours? And if so, does that make the word itself meaningless?
I enjoy speaking about the real world in ways that allow for clarity and mutual understanding. So what does the word agnostic mean? Etymologically speaking, the root word is gnosis. Gnosis means knowledge. The prefix “a” used before a gnosis means “not” or “without.” The word agnostic simply means “without knowledge.” When we use this word in reference to the metaphysical (which is usually how we all use it), we are speaking of metaphysical knowledge, not the every-day, evidence-based, knowledge we use our senses to interact with. So why does that make you and I, and every other human an agnostic? Because our theology demands it.
Although, our theology may differ, it does bring us together on the position of agnosticism (or our lack of metaphysical knowledge). I believe we all start from the same point. That point is the inability to know about the metaphysical world. More specifically, the inability to know anything about a deity within the metaphysical realm. To say that such a deity is unknowable/immeasurable/incomprehensible/etc. is not to make a positive knowledge claim. In other words, it is to actually deny knowledge. To say that such a deity is all-powerful and all-knowing is to make a positive knowledge claim. But, those 2 claims contradict one another, and a theist’s theological construct mandates both be true. They can’t both be true. An individual must either be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.
As we’ve established, to speak of being agnostic is to speak of knowledge, specifically (the inability to know). The label theist or atheist is strictly referring to positive belief or the lack thereof (I believe in god, or I lack belief in god). This is why one cannot be either agnostic or atheist. They must be a collection of 2 (either agnostic theist or agnostic atheist). Both labels answer 2 separate questions. Both labels are mutually exclusive.
So, now that you are an agnostic, what will you do with yourself? I suggest you you sip on some hot tea, or maybe a coffee and have a nice meal with someone you care about. Enjoy life. Agnostic bliss has a nice ring to it, I think.
Thanks for your openness, Vincent. I enjoyed reading your post.
Thanks for the read, man. I’m looking forward to writing more! Hope all is well in Austin.
Pingback: We Are All Agnostic, After All « clever blog title
Enjoyed your post Vince. You point out a very important yet subtle technicality that eludes most, and explain it with clarity and ease. Job well done.
Thanks Roderick!
You structured your argument very well. God cannot be unknowable and knowable, at the same and in the same sense. So, do Christians believe that God is unknowable and knowable, at the same time and in the same sense? I am aware of few Christians, if any, that claim they know absolutely nothing about God, as this would include His existence. Usually, when Christians use terminology such as “unknowable,” or “incomprehensible,” they mean that God cannot be known exhaustively. Now, you could argue that they should stop using those terms bc this just creates confusion about what Christians believe. Nevertheless, I do not think that most Christians are guilty of the utter contradiction of stating that they know absolutely nothing about God, and then stating that they do know something about God.
With that being said, I dont believe that is the essence of your argument. I think your greater point is that whether or not Christians think they know something about God, they in fact do not. The essence of your argument is that the concept of God, as a metaphysical construct, by definition, cannot be known. So, this inevitably leads us to the ?, was does it mean “to know?” Further, what are valid/invalid means to knowledge? Or as I like to say, “avenues to knowledge.”
At this point in the conversation some Christians appeal to blind faith. They say, “Vincent, you are correct. I do not know anything about God, but I believe plenty of things about God.” Game, set, match for Vincent versus these Christians. lol. Other Christians will appeal to revelation. They say, “God is unknowable so long as He chooses to remain unknowable. But He has chosen to reveal information about Himself, and the information that He has chosen to reveal is knowledge.” Im not going to get into an argument over whether or not revelation is a valid form of knowledge. Even if it could be argued that is, how do we go about determining whether or not He has revealed information about Himself? Further, how do we go about determining which proposed revelation is actual revealed information about God, from God?
Rather, I am going to appeal to the age old philosophical argument between the Rationalists and the Empiricists. The Rationalists claim that logic is the superior avenue to knowledge, while the Empiricists claim that it is sensory observation. If the Empiricists are correct, the metaphysical, by definition, cannot be known. If the Rationalists are correct, knowledge of the metaphysical at least remains theoretically possible. So who is right? Well, if we go about counting heads amongst the philosophers, the Empiricists have certainly won the day (Plato must be rolling over in his grave). Yet, it wouldn’t be any fun to settle the argument that way. How about neither? At least, neither strict Rationalism, NOR STRICT EMPIRICISM, is tenable.
You stated, “When we use this word in reference to the metaphysical (which is usually how we all use it), we are speaking of metaphysical knowledge, not the every-day, evidence-based, knowledge we use our senses to interact with.” Well, it appears that Vincent is an empiricist. There is nothing wrong with that. I think that any sensible person (excuse the pun) would agree that sensory observation is a valid avenue to knowledge. But is Vincent a strict empiricist? Even the fathers of Empiricism allowed for exceptions to strict empiricism namely, mathematics and tautologies. If you use math on an everyday basis, you accept knowledge that is not sensory based.
I would like to make a case for Empirical Rationalism, and I’m sure if the conversation in this thread continues, or if it picks up elsewhere, I will end up doing that. But this comment has grown long enough. I would like to bring it to a close by simply asking you Vincent, do you adhere to strict Empiricism? Or do you admit that there is knowledge, even everyday knowledge, that is arrived at, by some means other than just sensory observation?
Though I agree with this post to some extent, I think it is overly simplistic. Propositions that are very simplistic are often unsubstantial, in the sense that they do not add anything to what we already know about the world. The main problem I see here is that your use of the term “knowledge” is extremely limited. When you use this term, you seem to only have in mind “certain knowledge.” If this is the only type of human knowledge, then I completely agree with you. No one can be certain whether God exists or not, and thus we are all agnostics. In this sense, we are all on a level playing field–both the agnostic theist and the agnostic atheist–as you imply.
However, this is not the only type of human knowledge. If it was, I would actually go beyond what you have said here and argue that humans really cannot know much of anything, let alone whether God exists or not. Fortunately, there are different degrees of knowledge and different levels of certitude, and I think this is what sets individual “agnostics,” as you have defined them, apart. Both the theist and the atheist alike must utilize faith to fill the void of a lack of certainty. Nevertheless, all faiths are not blind, and thus all faiths are not on a level playing field.
For example, “person A” may have a faith in a “proposition A” that is based on various logical arguments, experiences, and reasonable inductions, whereas “person B” may have a faith in a “proposition B” that is completely void of all reason and all experience. Even though both “person A” and “person B” lack certainty–and are thus “agnostic,” in the way that you have defined it– the belief of “person A” and the belief of “person B” are not equivalent. The faith of “person A” is informed; the faith of “person B” is blind. Therefore, it would be right to say that “person A” has a stronger, more reasonable, more credible, more confident faith than “person B” does.
Furthermore, since all human knowledge involves some kind of faith–whether it be faith in your senses, faith in the intelligibility of the universe, faith in the trustworthiness of the human mind, etc…–all human knowledge varies in strength with the corresponding faith that helps to support such knowledge. So, in the same way that all faiths are not equivalent, all knowledge is not equivalent; In the same way that there are different types, or degrees, of faith, there are also different types, or degrees, of knowledge. I don’t think that your post really accounts for this point.
This would lead me not only to disagree with your definition of knowledge, but to also disagree with your definition of agnosticism. Again, by your definition, we are all agnostic because we all lack certain knowledge. If certain knowledge was the only type of knowledge, then you would certainly be right. In other words, if certainty is a requirement for knowledge, then we really cannot know much of anything. In fact, we might as well just give up on knowledge altogether. Therefore, if this is how one defines knowledge, then we are definitely all agnostic.
But this definition is far too limited, and it doesn’t really say anything substantial about reality as we already know it. I mean, to say that all finite creatures lack certainty, a certainty that would basically imply epistemic perfection, is basically equivalent to saying that all finite creatures are finite and thus imperfect.
Because certainty is not a requirement for genuine human knowledge, I think your definition of agnosticism needs refining. In terms of the issue of God’s existence, agnosticism is–based on the knowledge that one has been given, or that one has acquired–the decision to withhold judgment, or belief, or faith. Theism is–based on the knowledge that one has been given, or that one has acquired–the decision to believe, or have faith, in God. atheism is–based on the knowledge that one has been given, or that one has acquired–the decision to believe, or have faith, that God does not exist.
These definitions are not based on certain knowledge since it is assumed that certain knowledge is basically humanly inaccessible. Instead, these definitions are predicated upon a view of knowledge that emphasizes both human will and human belief in the knowing process. This is the way that people have traditionally defined these terms, and I think it is the more helpful way to do so. It is more descriptive and more substantial, helping us to differentiate between concepts and adding to our overall understanding.
Yes, there is a sense in which theists, atheists, and agnostics are alike. However, there is also a definite sense in which we are very different, a difference that is not really acknowledged in this post. So I guess what I am trying to say is that we are not all agnostics, after all (sorry, I couldn’t help repeating your title).
“…all human knowledge varies in strength with the corresponding faith that helps to support such knowledge.”
Would you elaborate please? You seem to imply that the stronger you believe in something, the more it counts as knowledge. Am I understanding you correctly? Because I strongly believe I am.