Is the Bridge Out? The Dangers of Agnosticism
Agnosticism is much more humble than atheism, since it admits that it does not have enough information or a wide enough scope of information to state bluntly that God does not exist. Having said that, agnosticism does face two dangers.
First, it fails to consider the consequences of eternity. Agnosticism is open to the possibility that people survive death in some form. Of course it is the heart of the position to either say the afterlife is unknowable or that the individual agnostic does not know, however, agnosticism is also by definition, open to the possibility.
If I were on a passenger train and a man whispered to me, "Have you heard? The bridge is out 50 miles ahead. This train is going to crash." But another passenger overhead and said, "Wrong! That is a mere rumor. The bridge is not out and we are going to be fine." Well, I must admit that I would be an official agnostic, afterall I have no way of knowing which person is right. But I do know this, I would be doing everything in my power to find out the truth. I would ask other passengers, listen to the news on the radio, even go to the cabin and ask the engineers. I would not simply sit back and be content with the answer, "I don't know." That is the danger of agnosticism. It is open to the possibility of eternal consequences, but more often than not, seems apathetic. Of all people who should be seeking diligently for the truth, it should be agnostics, since they are open to the possibility of God's existence and eternal life / death.
The second danger of agnosticism is its failure to examine all the evidence in proper context and in an unbiased fashion. Realizing that it is hard, if not impossible, to be totally unbiased, nonetheless an effort must be made to let the evidence speak for itself. Just one example of this is the Resurrection of Christ. Many agnostics dismiss this event simply because they have not seen a person rise from the dead but often they fail to consider the Resurrection of Christ within a theistic worldview. They should say to themselves, "If God exists could I expect him to raise someone from the dead even if I never see it?" The answer is yes. Most agnostics instead say, "Since I have never seen a person raised from the dead, therefore it must not happen or I have no way to verify that it did happen." But if the existence of God is granted for the sake of argument, then it should not be difficult at all to believe in the possibility of the Resurrection.
THEN, if you believe in the possibility of the Resurrection, all I ask is that you take a long hard look at objective testimony and data. Here are several articles to help you think through this issue. Craig, Craig2, and Habermas.
Bottom line: agnosticism is better than atheism, but still very dangerous.
First, it fails to consider the consequences of eternity. Agnosticism is open to the possibility that people survive death in some form. Of course it is the heart of the position to either say the afterlife is unknowable or that the individual agnostic does not know, however, agnosticism is also by definition, open to the possibility.
If I were on a passenger train and a man whispered to me, "Have you heard? The bridge is out 50 miles ahead. This train is going to crash." But another passenger overhead and said, "Wrong! That is a mere rumor. The bridge is not out and we are going to be fine." Well, I must admit that I would be an official agnostic, afterall I have no way of knowing which person is right. But I do know this, I would be doing everything in my power to find out the truth. I would ask other passengers, listen to the news on the radio, even go to the cabin and ask the engineers. I would not simply sit back and be content with the answer, "I don't know." That is the danger of agnosticism. It is open to the possibility of eternal consequences, but more often than not, seems apathetic. Of all people who should be seeking diligently for the truth, it should be agnostics, since they are open to the possibility of God's existence and eternal life / death.
The second danger of agnosticism is its failure to examine all the evidence in proper context and in an unbiased fashion. Realizing that it is hard, if not impossible, to be totally unbiased, nonetheless an effort must be made to let the evidence speak for itself. Just one example of this is the Resurrection of Christ. Many agnostics dismiss this event simply because they have not seen a person rise from the dead but often they fail to consider the Resurrection of Christ within a theistic worldview. They should say to themselves, "If God exists could I expect him to raise someone from the dead even if I never see it?" The answer is yes. Most agnostics instead say, "Since I have never seen a person raised from the dead, therefore it must not happen or I have no way to verify that it did happen." But if the existence of God is granted for the sake of argument, then it should not be difficult at all to believe in the possibility of the Resurrection.
THEN, if you believe in the possibility of the Resurrection, all I ask is that you take a long hard look at objective testimony and data. Here are several articles to help you think through this issue. Craig, Craig2, and Habermas.
Bottom line: agnosticism is better than atheism, but still very dangerous.
9 Comments:
Jason >> (on agnosticism) First, it fails to consider the consequences of eternity.
There is no rule that says agnostics must not consider the consequences of eternity.
Jason >> The second danger of agnosticism is its failure to examine all the evidence in proper context and in an unbiased fashion
Why do you say this? What evidence do you have that leads you to this conclusion?
Jason >> The second danger of agnosticism is its failure to examine all the evidence in proper context and in an unbiased fashion
FRO > Why do you say this? What evidence do you have that leads you to this conclusion?
Notice that I qualified this statement by saying that unbiased examination of evidence is nearly, if not, impossible. That is for anybody, religious, agnostic, Christian, or otherwise. As to the evidence that leads to this conclusion, I included links to 3 articles that present a strong abjunctive case that the Resurrection of Christian is logical possible and in fact the best explanation of the data we have available.
There is enough evidence to remove reasonable doubt, and taken abjunctively with other theistic arguments, the case for God's existence and the resurrection of Christ is not just logical, but compelling.
If you look back on my previous blogs regarding agnosticism, you will see that people become agnostic for a number of reasons. Being convinced intellectually is only one of them. The other three (becuase a person lacks motivation, because a person is caught in immoral behavior, or becasue a person does not want to be labeled "religious") all taint a person's ability to view evidence unbiasedly.
I also admit the same difficulty from being a Christian. If the evidence pointed strongly away from the Resurrection and / or God's existence, I would have a very difficult time still giving up my beliefs. I would hate to be labeled an "apostate" or some such thing. So my point is that unbiased examination needs to be done by all parties, but it is hard. Still it needs to be done.
If the bones of Jesus, for example, were presented by some archeologist, that would be strong evidence against my belief and I would be forced to reconsider. Likewise, since the bones of Jesus have never been presented, it makes much sense to try and find the best explanation as to why they have not.
Jason >> There is enough evidence to remove reasonable doubt, and taken abjunctively with other theistic arguments, the case for God's existence and the resurrection of Christ is not just logical, but compelling.
I'm sorry, but I suppose I just don't agree.
I didn't post to start an argument about evidence of God's existence. I just thought it would be helpful to discuss your views on agnosticism with a real agnostic (for us both).
Jason >> This train is going to crash.
I mentioned this argument to my wife, mostly because I thought it was a colorful example of an argument for belief vs. unbelief (kind of a story version of Pascal's wager). She pointed out that the example is not yet complete: What if there was a third man you stated, "If we stop the train, we'll be killed by bandits." And a fourth man who says, "We can stop the train but if we go outside, we'll be killed by swamp gators."
In other words, people are often presented with these kinds of "believe in [this] God, or you will be punished" arguments. Often these Gods are mutually exclusive, thus, even if I was to choose, someone else would tell me that I'm still in danger.
For that reason, I find agnosticism no more or less dangerous than any other position. The fact that I honestly lack a belief in God makes this a non-decision.
I really appreciate your conversations here and am not trying to be argumentative either. I appreciate your candor and honesty and your presence is very helpful in attempting to understand agnosticism.
I mentioned this argument to my wife, mostly because I thought it was a colorful example of an argument for belief vs. unbelief (kind of a story version of Pascal's wager). She pointed out that the example is not yet complete: What if there was a third man you stated, "If we stop the train, we'll be killed by bandits." And a fourth man who says, "We can stop the train but if we go outside, we'll be killed by swamp gators."
Point well taken and of course the Wager is limited, no doubt. I really did not mean for the story to be a correlation to the wager. It more illustrates the idea that if something is possible, further research to determine truth should be done. So if a third and fourth chimed in about bandits and gators, it only means more research needs to be done to determine the validity of these claims. Agnosticism often says, "There are too many claims, so I am not going to research any of them."
Also, the illustration was not meant to be totally negative in the sense of avoiding God's judgment (bridge out). It could have been equally compelling if the word the passenger received was, "I heard that this train is going to an island paradise where we will spend the next three years being pampered..." In this case if I were the passenger (just as with the possibility of the bridge being out), I would investigate to find out the truth. That is really the point of the illustration.
Thanks again.
Jason >> Agnosticism often says, "There are too many claims, so I am not going to research any of them."
I agree with this point. I will mention that the reasoning behind not doing the research isn't necessarily laziness. It's because there are SO MANY of these mutually exclusive claims that they serve to discredit eachother. There aren't 3 or 4 people on the train. There are hundreds if not thousands! It may actually be physically impossible to do the research required in a fair an balanced way. Maybe this, more than anything else, leads to the kind of apathy that you have noted in agnosticism.
Fro-frau:you have seemed to already make up your mind on this.From all you have stated,you do not seem to be actively looking for answers as to whether or not God exists.You have commented on many more posts from this site,and it is the same thing at all of them.What exactly are you looking for?Any answer anyone has given you,you have an excuse to not believe it-at all.It has grown tiresome,to want to post a comment on some posts,and they are filled up with your comments of disbelief.Some of us believers out here want to be able to read comments from fellow believers and learn something.
Some of us believers out here want to be able to read comments from fellow believers and learn something
I wasn't aware that this was a believer-only forum. The administrators here have commented (on several occasions) that my posts were appreciated. At no time have they expressed a wish that I refrain from posting my perspective.
Addresssing the most recent posts first, to "kelly", if "Fro-Frau" wasn't actively serching for answers, do you think he would be at this page? Likewise, and in response to the original author, I am agnostic, and I am actively searching for answers, or I wouldn't have found this page.
I would also like to agree with "Fro-Frau" about the abundance of belief systems claiming to be the correct one, hindering some agnostics from searching for the truth. I disagree that people who claim to be agnostic, but who are not looking for answers, are really agnostic at all. A separate "ism" should be named for those who "don't know and don't care". (My recent ex-boyfriend could lead the group!)
Furthermore, I would like to think all intelligent beings go through a period of agnosticism before settling upon their own chosen beliefs. The contrary would suggest unquestionably accepting whatever dogma was fed to you.
My conclusion after reading several of your posts, is that you are guilty of the very thing you warn of; failure to examine all the evidence in proper context and in an unbiased fashion.
Fro-frau,I did not say that this was a believer only forum,or that you should stop commenting.I apologize for coming off that way.I see that I did.I would love to see you and the others who don't believe or don't know what to believe,or even don't know how to believe,come to Christ.And for Brandi,I hope the same for you too.
Post a Comment
<< Home