Agnostic-Or-Atheist

By Michael Martin

By 'God' let us understand the theistic God: an all good, all knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe who reveals His desires through scripture and who performs miracles. Let us understand an atheist to be someone who disbelieves that God exists and an agnostic to be someone who neither believes nor disbelieves that God exists. The question is, if you are a nonbeliever, should you be an agnostic or an atheist? What are the basic rationales for the two positions?

Arguments for Agnosticism

Let us first consider some arguments for agnosticism.

1. The Argument from Huxley's Principle

Thomas Henry Huxley in his famous essay 'Agnosticism', argued that the basic principle of agnosticism is:

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.

This principle is used by many agnostics to reject atheism. They maintain that atheists pretend to the conclusion that God does not exist without being able to demonstrate it.

There are some problems with using this principle to reject atheism, however. First, depending on what is meant by 'demonstrate' the principle is dubious. If 'demonstrate' means a deductive proof or disproof of the kind found in mathematics, then the principle itself is mistaken. After all, few conclusions of science are of this kind. In general, inductive reasoning, which is based on generalisations from experience, is intellectually respectable although it does not yield demonstrative conclusions.

Secondly, the assumption that no atheistic arguments are demonstrable is controversial. Some atheistic arguments attempt to deduce a contradiction from the concept of God. In so far as these are successful, Huxley's principle does not apply. Moreover, to argue that the non-existence of God defies demonstration simply begs the question by assuming without argument that such deductive arguments are unsound. Furthermore, even if atheistic deductive arguments were unsound, this would not undermine atheism since some atheistic arguments are based on inductive reasoning.

2. The Argument from the Limits of Human Reason

Leslie Stephen, a well-known 19th Century agnostic, argued in 'An Agnostic Apology' that the agnostic asserts that there are limits to human intelligence and that theology is outside of these limits. He went on to say that since atheists claim to have knowledge that God does not exist, they have transcended the limits; hence their conclusion is not acceptable.

The problem with this argument from the limits of human reason is that it assumes what must be shown; in other words, it begs the question. Since atheists have claimed that one can have knowledge that God does not exist, this thesis must be shown to be false - not assumed to be.

3. The Argument from Intelligent Theists

Another argument for agnosticism runs as follows: many theists are very intelligent, even brilliant. Surely at least some of them know all of the arguments in favour of atheism and reject them. Should not the existence of such theists give atheists pause and cause them to reconsider their position? Indeed, should not the existence of intelligent theists induce atheists to be less sure of their own stance and to retreat to agnosticism?

This argument is not at all persuasive. To be sure, the fact that intelligent and knowledgeable theists exist might induce atheists to reexamine their arguments. But if, on careful examination, the atheistic arguments hold up to criticism, atheists are justified in maintaining their position. Moreover, this argument proves too much. After all, intelligent and even brilliant scientists have held all manner of crank and outlandish theories while knowing the arguments against them. Should their existence persuade other scientists to be agnostic with respect to these theories?

4. The Argument from the External Point of View

Yet another agnostic argument looks at atheism from an external point of view and tries to determine the causal factors that bring about atheistic belief and the acceptance of the arguments that are used to justify it. From this vantage point atheistic belief, values, and attitudes are causally dependent on social, historical, and psychological factors. Given different causal factors a person would presumably have very different beliefs. For example, had I been raised in a strict fundamentalist home, I might not accept the atheistic arguments that I do accept today. Indeed, the fact that I am an atheist today rather than a theist can be considered a matter of luck in that it depends on the conditions of my upbringing and other early causal influences. Given this insight, one might argue, the only rational stance to take is agnosticism, a position that avoids the possible biases of the accidents of birth.

The first problem with this argument is that if it were taken seriously, it would generate widespread skepticism in all fields including science. For example, there is no doubt that whether one accepts one theory of physics rather than another depends on a host of historical, social and psychological factors. But surely it is absurd to suppose that agnosticism vis-à-vis these theories is always justified. Sometimes the evidence for one theory is so much stronger than it is for any of its rivals that the rejection of its rivals is justified. It is also worth noting that not all atheists are born into atheistic families. Many are former religious believers who have rejected their religious heritage.

Another problem is that agnosticism is no less dependent than atheism on social, historical, and psychological factors. Had Thomas Huxley been born into different circumstances would he have written his famous essay on agnosticism? Surely this is not a reason for either believing or disbelieving its major theses. To be sure, the fact that what we believe about the existence of God is partly a function of our social, historical, and psychological background should alert us to possible bias and induce us to review our arguments. But after careful review we can justifiably decide that our arguments hold and that bias is not an important consideration.

5. The Argument From Dogmatism

One standard argument against atheism is that it is a dogmatic view characterised by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles. Since it is held that dogmatic views should be avoided, it seems to follow that atheism should be. In contrast, agnosticism is characterised as tentative, flexible, and open-minded. Indeed, it is maintained that since these characteristics are to be encouraged, agnosticism is to be preferable to atheism.

However, although there certainly have been dogmatic atheists, there is no necessary connection between atheism and dogmatism. Atheists can be just as tentative, flexible and open-minded in their positions as agnostics. They can be willing to consider objections to their arguments and even disposed to modify or abandon their views in the light of new evidence. On the other hand, agnostics can be as dogmatic as the most dogmatic atheists. They can cling stubbornly to their rejection of atheism in despite of strong evidence to the contrary, and unreasonably stick to their claims that there is no good evidence for disbelief.

6. The Argument From Certainty

It has sometimes been held that atheism is not justified since one cannot be certain that God does not exist; and since only certainty can justify disbelief in God, agnosticism rather than atheism is justified. It should be noted that this argument is similar to but not identical with Huxley's. Huxley's argument assumed that atheism would only be justified if it were demonstrable, that is, proven by deductive logic. The present argument assumes that atheism would be justified only if could be believed with certainty. Although some atheists may claim to be certain that God does not exist, certainty is not an essential element of their position. For atheism to be rationally justified it is only necessary that it be more probable than not or at least more probable than theism. Certainty is no more required in the case of atheism than it is in the case of scientific theories.

7. The Argument from a Good Epistemic Position

Another argument for agnosticism is that we never are in a good enough 'epistemic position' - a position to know - with respect to claims about God to say that because there is no positive evidence of God's existence God does not exist. To be justified in making such a claim two conditions must be met. First, it must be the case that if God were to exist, there would be positive evidence for His existence. Second, one must have good grounds for supposing that such evidence does not exist. In the case of God these two conditions are not fulfilled.

Similar requirements apply in nonreligious contexts. For example, not having positive evidence for a claim that there is a blue bird in the bushes does not always allow one to conclude that a bluebird is not in the bushes. One must be in a good epistemic position to reach this conclusion. In other words, it must be the case that if a bluebird were in the bushes, there would be positive evidence for its existence. Second, one must have good grounds for supposing that such evidence does not exist.

There are many problems with the argument from a good epistemic position. One is that even if it is sound, atheism is not refuted. Having no evidence that God exists is one way, but not the only way to support atheism. Another way is to show that the concept of God is incoherent and still another is to invoke the argument from evil. Furthermore if it is taken seriously, the argument from good epistemic position has absurd implications. If invisible and otherwise undetectable elves, hobgoblins, and leprechauns exist, there is no positive evidence for their existence. The reasonable stance to take to such entities is that in view of the lack of positive evidence they are merely products of the human imagination. Yet on the present argument we would have to suspend our judgment.

Finally, the argument fails because we actually are in a good epistemic position to claim that God does not exist. I argued in Atheism (Chapter 11) that if there were a God there would be evidence that there is one, and since there is no such evidence it is likely that there is no God. Perhaps the best way to understand this argument is to say that the main premise of the argument - if there were a God there would be evidence that there is - is a rebuttable presumption: If God is all-powerful, it seems that He could provide His creatures with good reasons for knowing that He exists and if God is all good, it would seem that He would want His creatures to know that He exists so that they could worship Him and follow His commands. Consequently, one would predict that He would provide them with good reasons for believing in Him. But if this is so, then there should be adequate evidence for believing in Him. That there is not such evidence indicates that an all good, all powerful and all knowing Being does not exist. However, I have argued that this presumption has not been rebutted. Consequently, the argument holds.

Arguments for Atheism

The basic rationales for atheism as opposed to agnosticism are the various arguments that are intended to justify disbelief in God.

First, the traditional argument from evil argues that the large amount of evil in the world makes the existence of the theistic God improbable.

Second, the argument from non-belief utilises the large amount of nonbelief in the world to show that the existence of a theistic God is doubtful.

Third, the argument from reasonable non-belief makes the case that the existence of reasonable nonbelief for God's existence shows that a theistic God's existence unlikely.

Fourth, various arguments have been constructed to show that the concept of God is inconsistent. For example, I have argued in detail in Atheism (Chapter 12) that the various attributes of God contradict one another. More recently, Theodore Drange surveyed other arguments of a similar kind (Philo, 1, Fall-Winter, 1998).

To date, I am not aware that any of these arguments - let alone that all of these arguments - have been refuted. Until they are, Atheism is justified

Conclusion

The basic arguments for atheism have not been refuted and the main arguments for agnosticism are unsound. This should give agnostics some pause. In a science fiction story called 'Are You an Atheist and Don't Know It?' in The Big Domino in the Sky, I argued that for many agnostics the answer to this question is 'yes'. The aim of the present aticle is more modest. Here my only desire is to urge agnostics to reexamine their position. They might be surprised at the results.