From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Fri Sep 06 2002 - 08:51:54 MDT
Should atheists be agnostics? By Michael Martin
http://www.philosophersnet.com/article.php?id=583virus
By 'God' let us understand the theistic God: an all good, all knowing,
all-powerful creator of the universe who reveals His desires through
scripture and who performs miracles. Let us understand an atheist to be
someone who disbelieves that God exists and an agnostic to be someone who
neither believes nor disbelieves that God exists. The question is, if you
are a nonbeliever, should you be an agnostic or an atheist? What are the
basic rationales for the two positions?
Arguments for Agnosticism
Let us first consider some arguments for agnosticism.
1. The Argument from Huxley's Principle
Thomas Henry Huxley in his famous essay 'Agnosticism', argued that the basic
principle of agnosticism is:
In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you,
without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the
intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain, which are not
demonstrated or demonstrable.
This principle is used by many agnostics to reject atheism. They maintain
that atheists pretend to the conclusion that God does not exist without
being able to demonstrate it.
There are some problems with using this principle to reject atheism,
however. First, depending on what is meant by 'demonstrate' the principle is
dubious. If 'demonstrate' means a deductive proof or disproof of the kind
found in mathematics, then the principle itself is mistaken. After all, few
conclusions of science are of this kind. In general, inductive reasoning,
which is based on generalisations from experience, is intellectually
respectable although it does not yield demonstrative conclusions.
Secondly, the assumption that no atheistic arguments are demonstrable is
controversial. Some atheistic arguments attempt to deduce a contradiction
from the concept of God. In so far as these are successful, Huxley's
principle does not apply. Moreover, to argue that the non-existence of God
defies demonstration simply begs the question by assuming without argument
that such deductive arguments are unsound. Furthermore, even if atheistic
deductive arguments were unsound, this would not undermine atheism since
some atheistic arguments are based on inductive reasoning.
2. The Argument from the Limits of Human Reason
Leslie Stephen, a well-known 19th Century agnostic, argued in 'An Agnostic
Apology' that the agnostic asserts that there are limits to human
intelligence and that theology is outside of these limits. He went on to say
that since atheists claim to have knowledge that God does not exist, they
have transcended the limits; hence their conclusion is not acceptable.
The problem with this argument from the limits of human reason is that it
assumes what must be shown; in other words, it begs the question. Since
atheists have claimed that one can have knowledge that God does not exist,
this thesis must be shown to be false - not assumed to be.
3. The Argument from Intelligent Theists
Another argument for agnosticism runs as follows: many theists are very
intelligent, even brilliant. Surely at least some of them know all of the
arguments in favour of atheism and reject them. Should not the existence of
such theists give atheists pause and cause them to reconsider their
position? Indeed, should not the existence of intelligent theists induce
atheists to be less sure of their own stance and to retreat to agnosticism?
This argument is not at all persuasive. To be sure, the fact that
intelligent and knowledgeable theists exist might induce atheists to
reexamine their arguments. But if, on careful examination, the atheistic
arguments hold up to criticism, atheists are justified in maintaining their
position. Moreover, this argument proves too much. After all, intelligent
and even brilliant scientists have held all manner of crank and outlandish
theories while knowing the arguments against them. Should their existence
persuade other scientists to be agnostic with respect to these theories?
4. The Argument from the External Point of View
Yet another agnostic argument looks at atheism from an external point of
view and tries to determine the causal factors that bring about atheistic
belief and the acceptance of the arguments that are used to justify it. From
this vantage point atheistic belief, values, and attitudes are causally
dependent on social, historical, and psychological factors. Given different
causal factors a person would presumably have very different beliefs. For
example, had I been raised in a strict fundamentalist home, I might not
accept the atheistic arguments that I do accept today. Indeed, the fact that
I am an atheist today rather than a theist can be considered a matter of
luck in that it depends on the conditions of my upbringing and other early
causal influences. Given this insight, one might argue, the only rational
stance to take is agnosticism, a position that avoids the possible biases of
the accidents of birth.
The first problem with this argument is that if it were taken seriously, it
would generate widespread skepticism in all fields including science. For
example, there is no doubt that whether one accepts one theory of physics
rather than another depends on a host of historical, social and
psychological factors. But surely it is absurd to suppose that agnosticism
vis-à-vis these theories is always justified. Sometimes the evidence for one
theory is so much stronger than it is for any of its rivals that the
rejection of its rivals is justified. It is also worth noting that not all
atheists are born into atheistic families. Many are former religious
believers who have rejected their religious heritage.
Another problem is that agnosticism is no less dependent than atheism on
social, historical, and psychological factors. Had Thomas Huxley been born
into different circumstances would he have written his famous essay on
agnosticism? Surely this is not a reason for either believing or
disbelieving its major theses. To be sure, the fact that what we believe
about the existence of God is partly a function of our social, historical,
and psychological background should alert us to possible bias and induce us
to review our arguments. But after careful review we can justifiably decide
that our arguments hold and that bias is not an important consideration.
5. The Argument From Dogmatism
One standard argument against atheism is that it is a dogmatic view
characterised by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or
unprovable principles. Since it is held that dogmatic views should be
avoided, it seems to follow that atheism should be. In contrast, agnosticism
is characterised as tentative, flexible, and open-minded. Indeed, it is
maintained that since these characteristics are to be encouraged,
agnosticism is to be preferable to atheism.
However, although there certainly have been dogmatic atheists, there is no
necessary connection between atheism and dogmatism. Atheists can be just as
tentative, flexible and open-minded in their positions as agnostics. They
can be willing to consider objections to their arguments and even disposed
to modify or abandon their views in the light of new evidence. On the other
hand, agnostics can be as dogmatic as the most dogmatic atheists. They can
cling stubbornly to their rejection of atheism in despite of strong evidence
to the contrary, and unreasonably stick to their claims that there is no
good evidence for disbelief.
6. The Argument From Certainty
It has sometimes been held that atheism is not justified since one cannot be
certain that God does not exist; and since only certainty can justify
disbelief in God, agnosticism rather than atheism is justified. It should be
noted that this argument is similar to but not identical with Huxley's.
Huxley's argument assumed that atheism would only be justified if it were
demonstrable, that is, proven by deductive logic. The present argument
assumes that atheism would be justified only if could be believed with
certainty. Although some atheists may claim to be certain that God does not
exist, certainty is not an essential element of their position. For atheism
to be rationally justified it is only necessary that it be more probable
than not or at least more probable than theism. Certainty is no more
required in the case of atheism than it is in the case of scientific
theories.
7. The Argument from a Good Epistemic Position
Another argument for agnosticism is that we never are in a good enough
'epistemic position' - a position to know - with respect to claims about God
to say that because there is no positive evidence of God's existence God
does not exist. To be justified in making such a claim two conditions must
be met. First, it must be the case that if God were to exist, there would be
positive evidence for His existence. Second, one must have good grounds for
supposing that such evidence does not exist. In the case of God these two
conditions are not fulfilled.
Similar requirements apply in nonreligious contexts. For example, not having
positive evidence for a claim that there is a blue bird in the bushes does
not always allow one to conclude that a bluebird is not in the bushes. One
must be in a good epistemic position to reach this conclusion. In other
words, it must be the case that if a bluebird were in the bushes, there
would be positive evidence for its existence. Second, one must have good
grounds for supposing that such evidence does not exist.
There are many problems with the argument from a good epistemic position.
One is that even if it is sound, atheism is not refuted. Having no evidence
that God exists is one way, but not the only way to support atheism. Another
way is to show that the concept of God is incoherent and still another is to
invoke the argument from evil. Furthermore if it is taken seriously, the
argument from good epistemic position has absurd implications. If invisible
and otherwise undetectable elves, hobgoblins, and leprechauns exist, there
is no positive evidence for their existence. The reasonable stance to take
to such entities is that in view of the lack of positive evidence they are
merely products of the human imagination. Yet on the present argument we
would have to suspend our judgment.
Finally, the argument fails because we actually are in a good epistemic
position to claim that God does not exist. I argued in Atheism (Chapter 11)
that if there were a God there would be evidence that there is one, and
since there is no such evidence it is likely that there is no God. Perhaps
the best way to understand this argument is to say that the main premise of
the argument - if there were a God there would be evidence that there is -
is a rebuttable presumption: If God is all-powerful, it seems that He could
provide His creatures with good reasons for knowing that He exists and if
God is all good, it would seem that He would want His creatures to know that
He exists so that they could worship Him and follow His commands.
Consequently, one would predict that He would provide them with good reasons
for believing in Him. But if this is so, then there should be adequate
evidence for believing in Him. That there is not such evidence indicates
that an all good, all powerful and all knowing Being does not exist.
However, I have argued that this presumption has not been rebutted.
Consequently, the argument holds.
Arguments for Atheism
The basic rationales for atheism as opposed to agnosticism are the various
arguments that are intended to justify disbelief in God.
First, the traditional argument from evil argues that the large amount of
evil in the world makes the existence of the theistic God improbable.
Second, the argument from non-belief utilises the large amount of nonbelief
in the world to show that the existence of a theistic God is doubtful.
Third, the argument from reasonable non-belief makes the case that the
existence of reasonable nonbelief for God's existence shows that a theistic
God's existence unlikely.
Fourth, various arguments have been constructed to show that the concept of
God is inconsistent. For example, I have argued in detail in Atheism
(Chapter 12) that the various attributes of God contradict one another. More
recently, Theodore Drange surveyed other arguments of a similar kind (Philo,
1, Fall-Winter, 1998).
To date, I am not aware that any of these arguments - let alone that all of
these arguments - have been refuted. Until they are, Atheism is justified
Conclusion
The basic arguments for atheism have not been refuted and the main arguments
for agnosticism are unsound. This should give agnostics some pause. In a
science fiction story called 'Are You an Atheist and Don't Know It?' in The
Big Domino in the Sky, I argued that for many agnostics the answer to this
question is 'yes'. The aim of the present article is more modest. Here my
only desire is to urge agnostics to reexamine their position. They might be
surprised at the results.
Suggested reading
Nonbelief and Evil , Theodore Drange (Prometheus Books)
Atheism: A Reader, ed. S T Joshi (Prometheus Books)
Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, Michael Martin (Temple University
Press)
Test your beliefs about God by playing Battleground God
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/god.htm
--------------
Regards
Jonathan
http://www.limbicnutrition.com/blog/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:56 MDT