Meditation 98: Is Agnosticism Cowardly?

Is it respectable to be agnostic about the existence of God, or is it simply a form of cowardice? The agnostic suspends belief on the question of God's existence because neither theists nor atheists can prove their claims beyond a reasonable doubt. Not even our contemporary atheists claim to prove, deductively, that God does not exist. However, sensible atheists try to show that God's existence is so unliksely that we have no rational warrant for  belief in God. The key, here, is to decide how important it is to have rational grounds for believing in God. If one agrees with a logically minded philosopher like Bertram Russell, then we ought to believe only that for which we have good reasons. Not having good reasons for believing in something will count against believing in it. Traditionally, philosophers commit themselves to finding the best reasons for their beliefs. 

The question of God's existence is a metaphysical one, and this is part of the problem. Metaphysical questions do not find firm answers in the history of philosophy. Though individuals may stand firm until they die, the arguments go on. Critics have complained that there is no apparent progress in metaphysics. Philosophers are still arguing about God, and the same old arguments go round and round under different reformulations. Nevertheless, we can explain this apparent lack of progress by noting that such is the nature of metaphysical debate. Each position has its own set of  assumptions and convictions, and proponents believe that they can accommodate all of them within one metaphysical view or another. The trouble is that two clashing metaphysical views cannot both be true, yet each asserts the truth of  its own position. Fighting ensues, but victory is temporary and rhetorical. Now one side has the upper hand, now the other.

However, there is no reason to despair over this state of affairs. Each side in a metaphysical debate is learning from its opponent just what its own position is. By learning to defend and to attack, each side gains a depth of understanding about its own view and that of the opponent, even while realizing that ultimate agreement is unlikely, given their differing assumptions and commitments. This does not render the conversation pointless. It shows us that the element of choice is paramount in shaping metaphysical convictions. Nothing determines one's ultimate posture toward the universe but oneself. Theists choose to believe in God. Atheists do not. The former believes in supernatural powers and causes, the latter believes that everything we can understand has a natural explanation. An agnostic feels that the leap of faith into theism or atheism is without foundation and thus, like a skeptic, suspends belief.

The stand of not knowing whether God exists is certainly a logically possible position. If one cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of God, then agnosticism is also intellectually respectable, and, perhaps, theoretically unavoidable. However, is it morally or ethically respectable? Perhaps the courageous thing to do is to assert a consistent atheism as the most likely theory, given what we know of ourselves and the world. This would be no dogmatic assertion of atheism, but a claim that allows the tiniest logical possibility that theism might be true. However, just because something is logically possible is not, in itself, a reason to believe it.

Perhaps the moral thing, the courageous thing, is to adopt an agnosticism with strong atheist tendencies. Otherwise, one might be open to the accusation of taking the easy way out. Pascal's Wager is like this. You might as well believe in the existence of God, because, if you are right, you gain an eternal reward; and, if you are wrong, you lose nothing, since death is simply an end to conscious existence. On the other hand, if you do not believe, and there is a God, woe betide you as a skeptic. You have everything to lose and nothing to gain by your disbelief. Is agnosticism is a similar kind of insurance policy? Does the agnostic take false comfort from the thought that it is better not to deny God’s existence absolutely, since a wrathful God might be less wrathful with an agnostic than an atheist?

Assuming for the sake of argument that the problem of evil, the failure of the metaphysical ‘proofs’ for God’s existence, and the lack of empirical support, all make God’s existence most unlikely. The agnostic fails to take this into account for the sake of a peaceful life. Run-ins between believers and nonbelievers are anything but peaceful. To push atheism in the face of believers is to ask for aggravation.

A critic may claim that this reticence points to another problem with agnosticism. It makes the agnostic too tolerant of religion as a whole, and too willing to give equal time to positions that do not warrant it. This is like a Creationist arguing that 'Intelligent Design' ought to be given equal time in our schools with evolutionary theory. If things are set 99 percent in one way, and 1 percent in another, there is no reason to give equal time to both. If we accept reason’s urging to reject superstition and to explain things as best we can with our limited human understanding, then, perhaps, the courageous thing is to be a practical atheist, while remaining a theoretical agnostic. Practical agnostics, on this account, are indeed somewhat cowardly.