ag·nos·ti·cism [ag-nos-tuh-siz-uhm] –noun
- An intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.
- The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
- The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
[Origin: 1870–75; agnostic + -ism]
I don’t want to wade into the current (or latest, if you look at this historically) spat between atheists and theists, but I find it tragic that – and I don’t know why I’m surprised – there is no middle ground of perspective in the discussion. It’s not much of a “discussion” to begin with, is it?
I don’t particularly care about Richard Dawkins, his followers/imitators, fundamentalist zealotry of any sort, and atheism in general. I think atheism, while legitimate, is about as interesting and constructive as a “zero” on a chalkboard. Of theoretical curiosity, but not much else. Yet lately there have been many books published – the latest of note being Christopher Hitchens’ – throwing down the atheist gauntlet against organized religion.
I have a healthy wariness toward organized religion and I understand, in light of the recent alignments in many parts of the world between fundamentalists and political/military activity, why the gauntlets are hitting the ground on either side of the theist atheist debate.
Or at least I think I understand – I’m just a layman.
Yet agnosticism is never mentioned. Atheists joke that agnostics are just vacillating fools and leave it at that. The problem is this: history proves that certainty has a best-before date. Anyone remember the Age of Reason, when classical physics had reached such austere heights that it became referred to as the Age of Certainty? And then those crazy guys, like Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein, had to go and blow the head off of it – essentially showing that presumptions about time and space (as well as lot of other things) were not as they had been presumed to be. And yet, perplexedly, many pro-atheism websites contain quotes from Einstein proudly questioning the limits of God.
You can be certain that the sun will rise every morning (even if obscured by clouds), yet, technically speaking it’s in the process of burning out (when it reaches thermal equilibrium with that cold “space” stuff). So, not even that is certain.
I argue that our need for certainty is an ancient one, and whether it be expressed in theistic or nihilistic terms, it is always coupled by Thoth’s ape: the spectre of an annoying footnote which clearly states “You know this could all change at any minute.”.
What’s wrong with embracing uncertainty – does it not open more doors, feed more thoughts, raise more questions? Is it not more analogous to the inherently uncertain and complex world around us? Allowing for uncertainty is being honest with the way life works; it is neither cynical nor pessimistic. In fact, I consider it more spiritually genuine (although agnosticsm itself does not need to be used only in those terms) than holding a fixed idea of what “lies beyond”, whether it be God or maggots.
I just wanted to put this out there, as I’m tired of only hearing two sides to an argument which cannot be limited to such a static form.
If you read closely, you’ll actually notice that a lot of the outspoken “atheist” authors admit themselves to technically be agnostics, but also that in their minds the possibility of gods is so remote that calling themselves atheists paints a more accurate picture.
Well-balanced, erudite post. I’ve recently read the revered/reviled Dawkins and would like to add two things.
I think Dawkins sees atheism as a 99% certainty that there is no god. I guess he’s as aware as the next person that certainty is never, well, certain.
As for the god of Einstein and the others, he calls that the scientific god, that last bit of uncertainty these people swept under a carpet of awe and frustration of not understanding. He never takes this view of god seriously.
So, sorry if I made this sound too much like I’m ‘in the debate’. I seldom comment, and now this, you could argue. My apologies.
Personally, I’ve been an agnostic way too long I felt, and while doubt is a healthy reflex, I consciously reverted to atheism. With religion, 99% is good for me.
But, as always: splendid writing.
Thanks for the comments (zak and nils). It’s true, as you both say, that one of the deciding factors between someone identifying themselves as atheist or agnostic lies in the question of God.
I wanted to avoid this specific question in order to delve into a larger question of the ‘certainty of belief’ – what some would call “faith” (be they religious or not).
I’m not a card-carrying God-believer and yet there are many things/phenomena in the world that, while they do not beg consideration of any particular religion, fly in the face of what we know as certain.
In the end, perhaps everything we have yet to discover (and I will argue it’s ore than we currently know) will eventually replace the “magic” of religious belief.
I suppose I feel it is important to keep one’s mind open at all times, and even if one holds to beliefs that are of a spiritual/religious nature, it shouldn’t necessitate a willingness on the part of the believer to deceive himself. Newton, after all, spent his later years studying alchemy. Edison was convinced he could build a fax machine that would send messages to the “afterlife”. I admire these traits, though in retrospect they are footnotes in their respective careers.
Thanks again to you both.