Arguments Used by Agnostics to Support Agnosticism
Robert Ingersoll wrote a treatise in 1896 called "Why I Am Agnostic." The arguments he brings forward are very similar to arguments agnostics use today. Here is a summary and response to a few of these.
The Product of Culture Argument
Premise one: Most people inherit their opinions and beliefs from their parents and their culture. People born in Iraq tend to be Muslims and people born in America tend to be Christians.
Premise two: If religion is so important, one would expect to see people adopt their religious views based on solid research rather than mere heritage.
Conclusion: No religious perspective is correct.
This is a very common agnostic argument, which Ingersoll brings forward immediately in his treatise. But there are some major holes in this argument. For example, premise one is indeed a reality, but why? The reason is because so few people take the time to examine their beliefs, sad but true. However, we must be careful to note that many people do take the time to examine their beliefs and very often change what they believe in the process.
To prove this point, consider the agnostic himself. Very many agnostics were born into religious families, but as they grew older they rejected the beliefs of their parents. So it is clear that not everyone blindly accepts the beliefs they inherit. Many people change their beliefs. Muslims convert and become Christians. Christians convert and become Buddhists. And so on. This type of conversion happens all over the earth, not just in one place.
Just because the large majority of people are content to stay as their parents and culture are (a sign of laziness or oppression) does not mean that one view is correct and another incorrect. Each philosophy of life or religious perspective must be evaluated on its own terms, not based on who believes it or who does not. This argument is illogical, for the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.
The Christians are Manipulative and Hypocritical Argument
Premise one: Religious people have committed many atrocious acts and have manipulated and often forced people to accepting their views.
Premise two: Religious people would not do this if their religion was actually true.
Conclusion: Their religion is not true.
You can also read this argument postulated here and here. Bertrand Russell says, "Cruel persecutions have been commoner in Christendom than anywhere else. What appears to justify persecution is dogmatic belief."
Of course this argument holds no water at all for a belief system cannot be evaluated based upon the actions of those who claim to hold it. This is true for a number of reasons. From a Christian perspective, it is true because we believe that though we are saved by grace we are not yet perfect. Thus Christians still do mean and stupid things. The bumper sticker says it all - "Christians are not perfect, just forgiven."
Also, we believe that there are many people who claim to be Christians and enjoy wearing the label, but who are in fact not rightly related to Christ by faith and thus not truly a believer. These people then give the Christian faith a bad name with their actions. But does that change the truthfulness or falsity of the Christian faith itself? No it doesn't. Yes, Christians, real ones and counterfeits, have been hypocritical and will continue to be, but if you are going to attempt to determine whether Christianity is true (or any philosophy of life) then the belief system itself must be evaluated on its own terms.
I will admit that this argument has some validity. After all, one must ask the question, "Has this belief system worked for others in the past?" Those who do adhere to a belief system are, in a sense, commercials for that belief system. For example, I have no desire to join Islam and blow myself up as a suicide bomber! But what I want to make clear is that not every Muslim believes in blowing oneself up. If I am contemplating the truthfulness or falsity of Islamic belief, I should evaluate the belief system itself, on its own terms, regardless of the actions of adherents.
So the argument falls apart even if it has some usefulness and validity.
The God Cannot Be That Way Argument
Premise one: The God of the Bible is cruel, violent, and egotistical.
Premise two: As far as I understand what God might be like, he cannot be that way.
Conclusion: The God of the Bible is not the actual God, if an actual God exists.
Many agnostics go down this road, including Ingersoll. We read in Genesis 6-9, for example, of a God who seems to have no problem killing almost every living thing on the planet. Most people dream of God as the eternally good One, who is filled with innocent love for all creatures - a very different picture.
The major problem with this argument is that it assumes that humans are allowed to construct God as we want him, given that he exists. But if God has indeed revealed himself in the Bible (or in some other way), then humans are to accept him as he has revealed himself not as we think he should be. If you are disapointed with President Bush's stance on the war in Iraq, for example, you cannot simply say, "Presidents do not do that." Sure, you might have in mind an ideal "president," but then we all must face the reality of who the president actually is.
Premise two is weak, therefore, because there are no grounds of authority upon which to construct an idea of what God is like. It is just a personal feeling.
God is Egotistical
What many agnostics misunderstand is the basic interpretive grid for understanding the God of the Bible: namely, God does all things for his own glory. The charge that he is egotistical might be correct, so long as egotistical does not imply sin. God is most certainly God-centered. He loves himself more than anything or anybody else. "You shall have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3). "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols" (Isaiah 42:8). Please be aware that these are two of hundreds of verses like these. All of them clearly show that God loves God most of all.
Thus, what seems to be cruel and violent to us as humans (flooding the earth) is a way that God is maximizing his own glory. This axiom: God does all things for his own glory, is the only way to understand the God of the Bible as a loving and good God.
Of course, many agnostics admit this, but say that they could never worship such a self-centered and egotistical God. But is being self-centered wrong for God? We know that it is wrong for us. Why? Because we are not the center of the universe! There are other people who are equal with us all around us and we are the same basic value as every other person. But would it be vanity for God to see himself as the greatest treasure there is, if indeed he is the greatest treasure there is?? If he did not see and worship himself as supreme, it is clear, he'd be a liar and an idolater. He'd be denying the reality of what he himself actually is.
Read "God Created us for His Glory" and "Is God for Us or for Himself," both by John Piper for a greater understanding of these ideas.
At any rate this third agnostic argument fails as well, since we cannot base our understand of God merely on what we think he should be like.
The Product of Culture Argument
Premise one: Most people inherit their opinions and beliefs from their parents and their culture. People born in Iraq tend to be Muslims and people born in America tend to be Christians.
Premise two: If religion is so important, one would expect to see people adopt their religious views based on solid research rather than mere heritage.
Conclusion: No religious perspective is correct.
This is a very common agnostic argument, which Ingersoll brings forward immediately in his treatise. But there are some major holes in this argument. For example, premise one is indeed a reality, but why? The reason is because so few people take the time to examine their beliefs, sad but true. However, we must be careful to note that many people do take the time to examine their beliefs and very often change what they believe in the process.
To prove this point, consider the agnostic himself. Very many agnostics were born into religious families, but as they grew older they rejected the beliefs of their parents. So it is clear that not everyone blindly accepts the beliefs they inherit. Many people change their beliefs. Muslims convert and become Christians. Christians convert and become Buddhists. And so on. This type of conversion happens all over the earth, not just in one place.
Just because the large majority of people are content to stay as their parents and culture are (a sign of laziness or oppression) does not mean that one view is correct and another incorrect. Each philosophy of life or religious perspective must be evaluated on its own terms, not based on who believes it or who does not. This argument is illogical, for the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.
The Christians are Manipulative and Hypocritical Argument
Premise one: Religious people have committed many atrocious acts and have manipulated and often forced people to accepting their views.
Premise two: Religious people would not do this if their religion was actually true.
Conclusion: Their religion is not true.
You can also read this argument postulated here and here. Bertrand Russell says, "Cruel persecutions have been commoner in Christendom than anywhere else. What appears to justify persecution is dogmatic belief."
Of course this argument holds no water at all for a belief system cannot be evaluated based upon the actions of those who claim to hold it. This is true for a number of reasons. From a Christian perspective, it is true because we believe that though we are saved by grace we are not yet perfect. Thus Christians still do mean and stupid things. The bumper sticker says it all - "Christians are not perfect, just forgiven."
Also, we believe that there are many people who claim to be Christians and enjoy wearing the label, but who are in fact not rightly related to Christ by faith and thus not truly a believer. These people then give the Christian faith a bad name with their actions. But does that change the truthfulness or falsity of the Christian faith itself? No it doesn't. Yes, Christians, real ones and counterfeits, have been hypocritical and will continue to be, but if you are going to attempt to determine whether Christianity is true (or any philosophy of life) then the belief system itself must be evaluated on its own terms.
I will admit that this argument has some validity. After all, one must ask the question, "Has this belief system worked for others in the past?" Those who do adhere to a belief system are, in a sense, commercials for that belief system. For example, I have no desire to join Islam and blow myself up as a suicide bomber! But what I want to make clear is that not every Muslim believes in blowing oneself up. If I am contemplating the truthfulness or falsity of Islamic belief, I should evaluate the belief system itself, on its own terms, regardless of the actions of adherents.
So the argument falls apart even if it has some usefulness and validity.
The God Cannot Be That Way Argument
Premise one: The God of the Bible is cruel, violent, and egotistical.
Premise two: As far as I understand what God might be like, he cannot be that way.
Conclusion: The God of the Bible is not the actual God, if an actual God exists.
Many agnostics go down this road, including Ingersoll. We read in Genesis 6-9, for example, of a God who seems to have no problem killing almost every living thing on the planet. Most people dream of God as the eternally good One, who is filled with innocent love for all creatures - a very different picture.
The major problem with this argument is that it assumes that humans are allowed to construct God as we want him, given that he exists. But if God has indeed revealed himself in the Bible (or in some other way), then humans are to accept him as he has revealed himself not as we think he should be. If you are disapointed with President Bush's stance on the war in Iraq, for example, you cannot simply say, "Presidents do not do that." Sure, you might have in mind an ideal "president," but then we all must face the reality of who the president actually is.
Premise two is weak, therefore, because there are no grounds of authority upon which to construct an idea of what God is like. It is just a personal feeling.
God is Egotistical
What many agnostics misunderstand is the basic interpretive grid for understanding the God of the Bible: namely, God does all things for his own glory. The charge that he is egotistical might be correct, so long as egotistical does not imply sin. God is most certainly God-centered. He loves himself more than anything or anybody else. "You shall have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3). "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols" (Isaiah 42:8). Please be aware that these are two of hundreds of verses like these. All of them clearly show that God loves God most of all.
Thus, what seems to be cruel and violent to us as humans (flooding the earth) is a way that God is maximizing his own glory. This axiom: God does all things for his own glory, is the only way to understand the God of the Bible as a loving and good God.
Of course, many agnostics admit this, but say that they could never worship such a self-centered and egotistical God. But is being self-centered wrong for God? We know that it is wrong for us. Why? Because we are not the center of the universe! There are other people who are equal with us all around us and we are the same basic value as every other person. But would it be vanity for God to see himself as the greatest treasure there is, if indeed he is the greatest treasure there is?? If he did not see and worship himself as supreme, it is clear, he'd be a liar and an idolater. He'd be denying the reality of what he himself actually is.
Read "God Created us for His Glory" and "Is God for Us or for Himself," both by John Piper for a greater understanding of these ideas.
At any rate this third agnostic argument fails as well, since we cannot base our understand of God merely on what we think he should be like.
2 Comments:
Jason, You make a worthy point in saying that it is appropriate for God to be God-centered. Yet we can repeatedly see in Scripture that God's glory and His love for humanity are not diametrical: His love for us is to His own glory. When Christ taught that whoever would be greatest would be a servent, I hardly think that He meant that greatness was to be achieved by exersising something opposite to it. Perhaps the very nature of true glory (that being the very nature and Character of God) is such that it involves a willingness to extend grace; to give something not warrented, to refrain from such actions as would be justified. Indeed, we might ask whether it is a greater thing for a Being to insist on exersising His every right and perogitive, or to by His own will "not consider equality with God something to be grasped, taking on the very nature of a servant." Let us not be too willing to affirm God as power hungry anti-Christ that Neitsche would have accepted. The Bible, I am convinced, speaks of no such being.
That being said, I think that we must respond to the claim that God is cruel and violent by noting that illiminating sin by such means as the flood is both the mandate of justice (a proper response to human evil) and of mercy, so that we might be saved, in part from our own potential of depravity. We must leave no room for the idea that God derives a self-satisfying ego-boost from the condemnation of human souls. In the famous parental words, does it not hurt Him more than it hurts us?
I am agnostic, and I don't align myself with any particular agnostic's logic or beliefs. I believe that doing so would contradict my agnosticism. And rightfully so, because this guy you're quoting sounds like a real idiot. Like you, I have a hard time seeing how he jumps so far from observation to conclusion. And it doesn't take someone schooled in logic and reasoning to see that.
Post a Comment
<< Home