Knowledge, belief & agnosticism (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Thursday, May 05, 2022, 09:19 (715 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "But agnostics, Rosenbaum proudly points out, refuse to believe what is not or cannot be verified as true, and they therefore stand against the dogmatism of both theism and atheism. When faced with the question of cosmogenesis—what "banged," and who or what did the banging—the agnostic shrugs, ever so humbly, and says, "I don't know."

A fair summary of the agnostic position, though I don’t know why Rosenbaum would say it “proudly” though the agnostic says it “ever so humbly”. I’ll opt for “humbly”.

QUOTES: "It is a response calculated to let you know that the agnostic occupies an elevated plain of intellectual integrity, one on which lives are directed by facts, not faith. What the agnostic doesn't realize, however, or willfully ignores, is that he is just as much a person of faith as those he tries to distance himself from. It begins with what he really knows.
"What he, or any person, knows is what he accepts as true; and what he accepts as true depends on several factors, starting with personal experience.
"In cases where personal experience is no help—as when contemplating questions about the origin of the universe, the existence of heaven or of the soul, the meaning of life, and so on—people depend on non-experiential sources of knowledge.”

The author spends most of the time quite rightly analysing the faith of the atheist, but the quotes above make for one gigantic non sequitur. Agnostics, like everyone else, accept countless everyday “facts” based on experience, and yes, we even have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow! That has nothing whatsoever to do with the list of highly specialized questions! There is no faith involved in the statement that we do not know the answers!

QUOTE: “What's more, his belief in "uncertainty" is an expression of faith in the certainty that the answers to ultimate questions are uncertain.”

I can only speak for myself. I do not know the answers. I believe that the only way I will ever know the answers is if God does exist and manifests himself to us – probably in a life after death. If I die before any manifestation, and if there is no life after death, I will never know the answers. I do not say this with pride. I humbly acknowledge that either the theist or the atheist is right, so my lack of faith means that one way or another I am wrong. I have no idea why the author thinks this puts me in the same bracket as theists and atheists with their respective faiths.

QUOTE: "...the agnostic, who ever so humbly professes uncertainty as to God's existence, discloses his functional atheism by rejecting revealed truth and ordering his life as if God did not exist. He is attempting to avoid the costs of associating with atheism while at the same time enjoying the "benefits" thereof. In the end, that is pretty "weak tea.'"

Atheism is not “functional” – it is simply disbelief in God. “Revealed truth” is an extraordinary expression if we bear in mind that belief in God requires faith and has no more objectivity than the atheist’s faith in materialism. But uncertainty does not mean rejection. Rejection is atheism. It is true that the agnostic is unlikely to go to church or mosque or synagogue, and does not “order his life” around religion, but why is this classed as a “benefit”? Is he saying that faith in God is a handicap? I hope he’s not implying that atheists and agnostics are not subject to the same social and humanitarian principles as religious people. But it’s not clear what he’s trying to say here. “Weak tea”? I have no problem at all with people who think they know the answers, so long as their faith (in God or in materialism) does not cause harm to others, but I don’t see a confession of ignorance concerning questions to which there are no known objective answers as being a weakness or a strength. Why does the author want to pass such a judgement?