February 7, 2020
The Methodological Flaw of Agnosticism
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.
– Trick question, I am God
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:
- 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.
- 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.
13 Comments
Comments are closed for posts older than 90 days
“The thing is, to heavily paraphrase Philip K. Dick, reality doesn’t give a shit if you believe in it or not. ”
I love this line. Thanks, Chris.
Just one comment from a scientist (quoted from my book: “Humane Physics”)
“Bottom line: am I an atheist? If the word ‘atheist’ means that I am absolutely certain, beyond even a shadow of a doubt that there is no such thing as a ‘god’, then I am not an atheist. No self-respecting scientist can be 100% certain of anything in the universe. Only probabilities exist in science and I admit, for lack of evidence to the contrary, that I assign an extremely low probability to the idea of a creator. Yes, the universe could have been created by a god or any number of gods. Life and evolution could have been started on Earth by an alien culture of superhuman power and we would not know anything about it. However, all the established religions with which I am familiar are so obviously man-made that I find it difficult to believe that anyone could take any of them seriously. Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu said: “If triangles had a god, he would have three sides”.
Does that make me an agnostic?
I don’t think so.
Your comment was caught in a spam filter. Sorry about that, I missed it. For clarity’s sake, I’ll remove the other messages related to this issue.
As an agnostic, that last paragraph is basically the reason why. Reality will exist with or without me. Do I hope there’s a happy, paradise-like place where I can see loved ones past their death? Sure, fear of loss and loneliness push many people to that. It’s a survival instinct. Wanting there to be a beyond. An end is scary to many. So is a life lived in ways you don’t like or want. A second chance sounds sweet. But do those wishes shape the concept of a beyond or does the existence of a beyond create that need for fulfillment? Who knows.
Do I know whether there is or isn’t a God or a beyond? No. Do I believe I can know in any way before I actually die? No. So it doesn’t concern me or my way of life while here. My ethics are shaped by what I perceive makes people happy or not happy, and by the voice of my conscience, which is the only measure I can trust. Not to be right in any objective way, but to guide me in ways that won’t generate guilt, and therefore bad feelings. It just happens to also function in ways that are socially acceptable, since it’s also partially shaped by those societal expectations.
Gods or no gods are irrelevant, and believing in them or not is as well, since it’s a question without a humanly (living-humanly) achievable answer. As you said, you’re an atheist because there’s no proof, and you’re just not sitting around for it. But you don’t disregard the tiniest possibility. If you did, you would be claiming to know everything about how the universe(s) and life work, and you’d be just as “mad” as theists (and politicians). So you just don’t buy it. Not because you are sure you know the One Grand Truth about everything, but because there’s nothing to suggest there is a deity or deities. That’s agnosticism, the way I see it. And it’s the only thing that makes sense in my own mind.
Wasn’t it Socrates who said that compared to those who don’t know a thing and think they know it all, he is at least aware of the fact that he doesn’t know it all? To express the gist of it, that is. So onto the pile of “maybe, but my show’s on, will ruminate on it when dead” it goes.
Thanks for your input!
I have another question to agnostics who find the idea of a universe-creating god possible. If their god was supposed to have created the universe, isn’t this a contradiction? One definition of the word ‘universe’ I found is: “The Universe is often defined as “the totality of existence”, or everything that exists, everything that has ever existed, and everything that will ever exist.” Doesn’t this universe then include any possible gods (if they exist)? So are gods self created? I have been told (by theists) that god created time and space. That’s another contradiction – doesn’t the word ‘created’ mean to bring something into existence that wasn’t there before? Doesn’t the word ‘before’ imply the existence of time? So there had to be time before god created it? My last question: What was god doing during the infinity of time before he created the universe? The poor thing must have been bored out of his mind with no one and nothing to interact with. So the idea of a ‘creator’ god leads to multiple contradictions in my mind. Sorry for the irreverence, but I spent years and years arguing with theists on philosophy forums and I got zero answer to these questions.
“I spent years and years arguing with theists on philosophy forums and I got zero answer to these questions.”
That makes two of us!
Parenthetically, when St. Augustine was asked what God did before making heaven and earth, he evaded the unanswerable question by saying that God was busy preparing hell for people who ask inquisitive questions 🙂
Once I watched, on TV, a ‘debate’ between Hitchens and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The archbishop was evasive, mocking, rude, using all the tricks of a dishonest ‘debate’, refusing to admit that he did not have any answers or replies to Hitchen’s questions. That matched exactly my experience with arguing with theists. The best (and most honest) reply I ever received from theists was: “I don’t know but I have my faith and that’s enough for me.” – admitting that faith in contradictory ideas is an act of intellectual capitulation. The word ‘god’ for these people is basically a code word for the unknown: “If I can’t explain it, then God did it!” Personally, I put my faith in science. At least it’s not circular and not stagnant: we are making progress, however slowly since quantum phenomena was discovered. We may never have an answer to that (may be beyond our biological brain’s capacity to comprehend) , but at least we don’t believe in inherited (from my culture where the concept evolved) imaginary friends and childish fantasies about the adult version of Santa Claus.
I just think we kinda missed the point of the aristotelic-inspired altogether: sensibility is a crucial part of thought, unless we want algebra that never becomes numerical, which actually borders on useless (use here goes beyond utility – to hell with utilitarianism, I’m no petit-burgeois!). — cf. Emanuele Coccia’s “Sensible life”, excellent book, excellent thinker (or philosopher ‘lato sensu’).
This is very interesting. For some reason, your comment also reminded me of the concept of negative capability – which might be (very tangentially) related.
Well, yes, there is a lot of related points, not just tangentially (and what is the tangent if not a way of touching, even if only for the briefest moment, if only at the smallest region?).
For one, I would like to propose that Keats is somewhat predating Freud: nonknowledge is the fundamentum of all knowledge, or, at least in non a so radical take, nonknowledge is one of so many knowledges. Now, the fact I will not define what is “nonknowledge” is aesthetic in itself, as in
deliberationbeauty. (I would even invert and say that beauty is itself deliberation, or, to speak with Nietzsche, giving chance a chance.)Also, yes, open-ended questions, unanswering answers, symbolism as you call it, there is something excessive, something exceeding stricter meaning, going against the grain of form/content, I like to call it a force.
If you’re up for it, let’s keep the flame burning and the conversation going. I’m certainly having a hell of a great time, hope you are too.
Absolutely, I always enjoy an intelligent conversation — particularly one related to abstract concepts 😉
What fascinates me the most in negative capability is precisely its self-contradictory nature. I suppose that’s the case with everything complex enough to be interesting — what is the human experience if not a series of endless (and often unresolvable) self-contradictions?
Another interesting point regarding negative capability and aesthetic beauty — one that neatly brings the concept into the present topic, i.e. agnosticism — is our relative inability to i) define aesthetic beauty ii) precisely delineate its function in improving the human experience (also see the comment section of the negative capability post).
In other words, there is an inherently fascinating internal inconsistency at play: We can’t properly define why “something” is beautiful, and we can’t properly define how exactly it improves the human experience, yet we can deny neither the existence of beauty nor its meaningfulness.
The relation to the existence of God problem is where we draw the line between negative capability and philosophical truth; between finding meaning in what could be termed irrationality and discovering the truth in rationality.
One possible escape — actually I refer to this in my post “When Books Write Themselves: Perspectives on Creativity” — is to understand the dynamics of ideation and creativity. Referring to the Wright brothers’ first powered flight, I say in that post:
Perhaps the key in accommodating ideas pertaining to “things we cannot see” (I don’t like the term “God”; it carries too much ideological baggage) is precisely in separating the irrational (subjective, beautiful, creative) from the rational (objective, functional, consistent).
I kinda think the very issue is remaining within the visual paradigm that dominated 19th century thought, I mean, the whole modernist thing with all the historical avant-garde (and kinda continued by post WW2 movements) was precisely to doubt vision as the dominating force of reason(ing). What you’ve been calling irrational processes, I dub as *intuitive* processes/practices/methods/whatever. Because, precisely, these things have their own reason(ing) – I would insist on claiming this on certain public spaces and discussions, as a way of legitimating these processes. But on other occasions I would claim them as irrational, even mad or insane, which would produce some interesting effects. Call it tactical or strategic thinking, it’s about letting it flow when the time’s right and controlling the productive pace when it is needed; in other words: let the dog run itself if it needs to be so, but keep holding the leash firmly.
All this is certainly true. Interestingly enough, it’s not only in a modernist/literary context that vision as a dominating force of reasoning was questioned. It’s surely a greatly ironic element (an act of God, perchance! 😛 ) that also science, through developments in quantum mechanics, has introduced the idea of things not always being what they seem – perhaps Francis, who commented earlier, could offer his input here, as he’s a physicist.
I think a great source of confusion and misunderstandings is often when one field of — hmm… I don’t want to call it “knowledge”, so I’ll call it “experiencing” — overextends into another. There’s this scene in Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark, where the eponymous character, as a lecturer, says the scope of archaeology is “fact”, not “truth” — which is the scope of philosophy. Much of the woes in understanding and experiencing our surrounding world spawns from, say, science’s (inadvertent?) excursion into philosophy, or the (far less inadvertent or innocuous!) meddling of, say, theology in scientific matters.