Home For Fiction – Blog

Certain things are relative: Although we can say “hot” or “cold”, we can also compare, and say “hotter/colder than”. There are also things that are binary – either or. No matter what Hegelians might claim, I doubt you can be “a little bit pregnant”. In this context, an intellectually honest philosopher has to acknowledge a methodological flaw in agnosticism.

Theism is the belief in the existence of a supreme being – “God”. A pedantic observer would perhaps make all kinds of elaborations on this (arguably focusing on the difference between a theist and a deist), but for the purposes of this post – and focusing on what I term as the methodological flaw of agnosticism – the above definition should suffice.

That is, we have people – theists – believing in the existence of God. We also have atheists, who don’t find evidence for such a claim, and therefore do not accept the existence of God. Agnostics, on the other hand, are people who argue that nothing is known or can be known about the existence of God.

Agnosticism is effectively a perpetual suspension of judgment. As an agnostic, you basically say “I can’t know that there is a God, but I also can’t know that there isn’t. Hence, I refuse to take a stance”.

However, that’s precisely what the methodological flaw of agnosticism really is, as we’ll see.

The Methodological Flaw of Agnosticism Is about Epistemic Inconsistency

Cogito Ergo Sum, said Descartes. I think, therefore I am. Most people have at least heard that phrase, but not necessarily everyone understands its repercussions.

“I think therefore I am” is the culmination of an intensely skeptical line of argumentation. In simple terms, Descartes suggested – rightly – that it’s conceptually possible that absolutely everything we know about the world is a gigantic fallacy.

Nobody really believes that, the way nobody actually accepts solipsism, but it’s conceptually possible that a demon, as Descartes argued, could’ve messed with your head and planted all kinds of bizarre images, sounds, and experiences in general. In a more modern version, imagine you’re in the Matrix.

However, reflecting on those experiences cannot be simulatedThe word "simulated" can perhaps mislead some people to think this is an argument for/against the possibility of an AI-based consciousness. That is entirely irrelevant to the present issue, that is, that having the ability to (self-)reflect cannot be simulated. In other words, I cannot exclude that I am a computer having the ability to self-reflect, but, since I can self-reflect, I exist, whether as a human or as a computer.. And so, whether the experience of seeing red is based on an actual rose in front of you or because you’re dreaming, having the subjective experience of seeing red is a sign that few would attempt to dispute.

But what does all that have to do with flaws in agnosticism?

Choose Your Beliefs Wisely

As I said above, nobody really believes they’re in the Matrix. Perhaps we entertain the idea as a thought experiment, but we generally live our lives not paying attention to it.

Effectively, we have chosen to disregard the hypothesis, the way we disregard solipsism or that the sun might not rise the following morning. The reason we do that is because our lives and systems of thought would descend into chaos.

Now, why do agnostics have a different measuring stick when it comes to the existence of God?

After all, the two cases seem to be identical:

1. I don’t know and it’s highly likely I can never know whether I’m not in the Matrix. However, I choose to assume I am/I am not.
2. I don’t know and it’s highly likely I will never know whether there is a God or not. However, I choose to assume there is/there is not.

Notice how your choice is irrelevant. You may believe you’re in the Matrix or you may believe you aren’t. I expect most people to believe they aren’t, but the other option is also a legitimate one.

Similarly, the methodologically consistent approach in regard to the existence of God would’ve been 2: You may believe"Believe" is a very tricky word here, as it means both "have a belief in" and "be convinced by the arguments for", which complicates things. No need to fret too much about it, however, as it is not the main issue here. there is, or you may believe there isn’t.

On the other hand, suspending judgment on the existence of God (what agnostics do) is not methodologically consistent with not suspending judgment with other unknowable factors, such as the nature of reality as described above.

Why Do People Suspend Judgment on the Existence of God?

Good question, right? I don’t have a clear answer to that. I’m an atheist. I do not feel at all convinced by any arguments put forward for the existence of God, and until theist apologists – having the burden of proof – present such arguments (just in case, I won’t hold my breath), I consider it overwhelmingly likely that there is no God. In result, I choose to live my life accordingly.

Perhaps an agnostic reader would like to offer their input, but my guess is (some) agnostics might feel the need to hedge their bets when it comes to, well, the possibility, however remote, of eternal damnation.

Personally, I find that strategy meaningless. Although marginally better than Pascal’s ridiculous wager, it’s highly fanciful – and of scant philosophical cohesion – to expect a supreme being to be persuaded by the “but you never offered proof” defense.

The whole idea of divinity and supremacy is predicated on dominance. That means, to put it simply, that the game is always rigged.

Parenthetically, if you’re interested in the topic – i.e. defending against a supreme being – I highly recommend you take a look at the thought experiment known as Roko’s Basilisk. It’s one of the most intelligent thought experiments of its kind, with very interesting repercussions.

Does the Methodological Flaw of Agnosticism actually Matter?

I do have an answer to that. Technically, it’s not an answer but simply the voicing of my opinion – and it’s arguably worth exactly as much as you pay for it.

In any case, I believe flaws in agnosticism don’t really matter, because agnosticism doesn’t matter. But before the theists or atheists among you rush to applaud, hear this: I don’t think theism or atheism matter either; not in any fundamental (no pun intended) way.

The thing is, to heavily paraphrase Philip K. Dick, reality doesn’t give a shit if you believe in it or not.

In other words, to argue for or against God (or whether we should suspend judgment) is largely irrelevant, as reality – at least to the extent that grants us epistemic access – remains unaltered.