This is my response to a claim that agnosticism is self-contradictory. The author of that claim clearly doesn't understand agnosticism. The claim itself can be found at http://www.choosinghats.com/2011/05/an-informal-introduction-to-covenantal-apologetics-part-43-–-agnosticism/. I tried to comment within that page; however was unable to. It directs to a 404 error. My response follows here.
This argument is flawed as it assumes an incorrect premise. In addition, it necessarily yeilds an irrational conclusion (see last paragraph).
Agnostics do not assume that a god doesn't exist. To the contrary, they assume nothing. An agnostic witholds from forming a belief (one way or the other) until he finds satisfying evidence for either proposition. An agnostic will not hold out that there's no God until satisfied of evidence of that proposition. And an agnostic will not hold out that there is a God until satisfied of evidence of that proposition. And this doesn't just go for God. It goes for EVERY god. It goes for Roman gods and Egyptian gods and Greek gods and Hindu gods. In fact, this is a mindset that isn't even limited to the supernatural. Are there other intelligent beings on other planets in the Universe? I have no convincing evidence for "yes" or for "no". Hence, I withold from forming a view as I have no reasonable basis to hold one.
Is this atheism? Yes, it is. Agnosticism is a sub-branch of weak atheism ("I don't hold a belief that a god exists").
But whatever words we choose to define it, agnosticism (or weak atheism) is a rational approach. One might claim that it's more rational than strong atheism ("I believe there's no god") as the latter attracts a burden of proof (as it's a positive claim). This is arguable and this is not the time and place.
All that needs to be said here is that agnosticism is not self-contradictory and that it doesn't assume that a god doesn't exist. It simply refuses to assume either the existence or non-existence of a god. And as such, it is inevitably a non-theistic position as it lacks belief that a god exists.
Finally, if we are to take your view that an "I don't know one way or another" position is self-contradictory then humans would be forced to form a positive view about every unproven aspect of reality based on sheer arbitrary choice. And that would indeed be irrational.
Regards
@allocutus
An agnostic is someone who does not know whether or not God or gods exist, or does not think such knowledge is even possible. The 'a' in agnostic denotes negation (Gr.) and 'gnostic' refers to knowledge. Hence agnosticism in general is an attitude of not-knowledge, but with specific reference to God or gods is not-knowledge of God or gods. This is how the author of the post was understanding agnosticism ("the agnostic...does not know whether or not God exists"), and it is a widely accepted understanding of the term.
ReplyDeleteThe argument runs as follows:
1. "If God exists, then everyone knows that God exists;"
The author bases this premise on Romans 1 of the Christian Bible. The Christian God is described there not only as *knowable*, but as *known*. However, the agnostic rejects that he knows God exists.
In fact, the agnostic's claim is expressed in the second premise of the argument:
2. "The agnostic does not know that God exists;"
from which it follows (modus tollens):
C. "Therefore, God does not exist."
The argument form is valid, and so I take it you reject one of the premises. But I am unclear as to which premise you do reject.
Hope this helps.
I agree the the argument is logically valid. I disagree with premise 1, however. It should be modified to "if God exists AND Romans 1 is true...."
DeleteIn the light of the above, the argument does not disprove God and neither does it seek to.
That said, my post was in response to your claim that agnosticism is self-contradictory OR that it assumes the non-existence of a god. As you rightly point out, the very premise of agnosticism is "I don't know if a god exists" or even "God's existence is unknowable". Given this position, agnosticism cannot assume anythinga about a god's existence. It's the opposite. It's a position of non-assuming.
I disagree that agnosticism is closed-minded on the issue of existence of god. The phrase was coined by Thomas Huxley who simply said "My friends say they have knowledge of god's existence or non-existence. I don't have that knowledge. I'm going to call myself a-gnostic" (praraphrasing). This is not a closed-minded position. It's an honest position that says "I don't know one way or another".
Note also the difference between knowledge and belief. I may say I believe a god exists but I don't know it. Does that make me a theist agnostic? Or I may say (and that would be true) I don't believe in God's existence but I don't know it (there's always a possibility, however tiny). Would that make me an atheist agnostic?
This is why one of the most common usages of the word "agnostic" these days is "one who neither believes nor disbelieves the existence of a god". The issue of KNOWLEDGE is simply left out.
"I disagree with premise 1, however. It should be modified to 'if God exists AND Romans 1 is true....'"
DeleteIf God exists then Romans 1 is true. By God I am referring to the God of Christian Scripture. I am arguing in terms of an entire worldview, not generic theism.
We can modify the premise as you suggested, but then you will just reject it by saying that Romans 1 is false. That is fine, but it also precludes the existence of the God of Christian Scripture. And that leaves you with the same problem.
Thanks.