The Agnostic Fallacy

[Bear]

The Agnostic Fallacy

Agnosticism is mostly considered a vague middle ground in the debate
surrounding the god question. Some people see it as the most rational
alternative, given the sheer weight of debate going on from both theists and
atheists.

Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the term agnosticism, defined it thus:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the
vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the principle may be
expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can
take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the
intellect, do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated
or demonstrable. (Thomas Huxley, "Agnosticism")

Some people think he formed the word as a joke, a wordplay on the old
Gnostic sects. I can't really say.

At any rate, the definition above is enlightening, but is also a bad
definition. It defines a process instead of a result. As such, it is a good
rational guideline, in terms of following the objective evidence, but it
does not tell us what agnosticism is as a position.

The modern definition of agnosticism turns around a lack of knowledge about
the god question. The word a-gnosticism itself means not-knowing, just like
a-theism means not-belief in god.

Graham Oppy distinguishes between strong and weak agnosticism. This is his
thesis:

strong agnosticism, i.e. the view which is sustained by the thesis that it
is obligatory for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question of
God's existence. (...) weak agnosticism, i.e. the view which is sustained by
the thesis that it is permissible for reasonable persons to suspend
judgement on the question of God's existence. ("Weak Agnosticism Defended",
Graham Oppy)

It is important to note, at this point, that agnosticism is not in fact part
of the atheism-theism gradient. Both atheism and theism are concerned about
belief, not knowledge. The basic atheist proposition can be formulated as
follows:

A1 : I lack belief in gods.
And the theist proposition as follows : T1 : I believe in gods.

Both are inherently personal propositions. We are talking here about what
the person believes, not about reality itself. If we look at this
ontologically, we can translate it in the following way:

A2 : I know that there is no god-belief in my mind.
T2 : I know that there is god-belief in my mind.

The atheist and the theist are not making statements about what exists in
reality, only on what they believe. However, there are positions which
pertain to knowledge about reality. Monotheistic religions, and
strong-atheism (also called positive atheism) share this gradient. We can
define them as follows:

R : I know a god exists.
P : I know no god exists.

These statements concern what actually exists out there in reality.
Agnosticism is part of that gradient: it claims that the kind of knowledge
stated in propositions R and P is irrational. Thus, agnosticism is actually
compatible with both atheism and theism. An agnostic atheist is someone who
does not believe in gods regardless of their lack of knowledge on the
question. An agnostic theist is someone who believes in gods regardless of
their lack of knowledge on the question.

Given these facts, why is agnosticism a fallacy? While it parades as a
"moderate" option which is most "reasonable", it is little more than an
example of the cult of compromise. It's not because a debate is raging from
both sides of an issue that both must be wrong. Or as Richard Dawkins
eloquently writes:

I think it's important to realize that when two opposite points of view are
expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly
halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.
("Richard Dawkins' Evolution", The New Yorker (September 9th, 1996))

If we examine the agnostic premise, we find that it is quite unreasonable.
Agnosticism is based on the notion that we can have no knowledge on the god
question. But for this to be true, the agnostic must know all possible
arguments of atheism and theism, since he discards them all out of hand. If
any single argument is valid, then agnosticism must crumble. Many such
arguments are available in the atheist literature, and it is disingenuous to
deny them.

Furthermore, the lack of knowledge inherent in agnosticism is
self-contradictory. If we know nothing about the god-concept, then we cannot
claim it exists, or discuss it rationally.

If we claim not to know anything about the concept, then we still know
something about it: that it is beyond human understanding, and rational
discussion. Therefore agnosticism is contradictory, and must inevitably lead
to strong-atheism.

Furthermore, agnosticism must be self-contradictory, as identity is
necessary for anything to exist, and there is no such thing as an undefined
object. Whatever exists in reality has attributes. If we admit that we have
no knowledge about the god-concept, including how to define it, then it
cannot exist. Thus assuming agnosticism is true leads to a contradiction.

Agnostics have to answer the following question, if their position is to
make any sense at all:

How can you presume that "god" has some possible meaning if you have no
knowledge about "god"?

To claim that "gods could exist" is possible, one must attribute some
meaning to "god" in order for this proposition to be meaningful. To say that
"gods cannot exist", from this semantic viewpoint, is to say that there can
be no referent to "god", because the word "god" is meaningless.

But the agnostic has no knowledge about "god" from which he can attribute it
meaning. Therefore agnosticism contradicts itself on this crucial issue.

A number of arguments can be proposed in favour of agnosticism. I will now
examine the most important arguments.

* Argument from the limits of human reason

Based on Huxley's equivocation between a judicious use of reason and
agnosticism, some thinkers have proposed that atheism oversteps the
boundaries of human reason. I have already pointed out that this is
unreasonable. If it is true that human reason cannot discuss theology, then
the atheist arguments must be shown to be invalid. It is not sufficient to
simply declare it without evidence.

* Post-modernist argument

A more fundamental argument can be built on the grounds of post-modernism.
According to this school of thought, all of our positions and beliefs are
determined not by truth, but by our upbringing and social context. Children
raised from Christian parents will be naturally biased to become Christians.
Children raised from atheist parents will be naturally biased to become
atheists. Only agnosticism escapes this bias, by stepping outside of
positive positions and claiming moderation.

However, this argument not only suffers from the same flaw as the previous
argument, in that it is not sufficient to claim that atheism is biased but
it must also be proven, but it is also open to the standard refutation of
post-modernism. Being a positive position, post-modernism itself is also
subject to upbringing and social context, and therefore must be rejected out
of hand, if we follow the argument.

* Antirealist attack

An even more fundamental argument has been recently elaborated by agnostic
Bill Schultz. In his article "A Formal Justification of Agnosticism", he
proposes that agnosticism is valid because logic is invalid in cases where
we do not observe facts of reality directly. Since we cannot observe gods
directly, we cannot make any knowledge claim about the god question.

Unfortunately, the fundamental nature of this argument means that it is
extremely vulnerable to the flaws exposed above. First of all, it is not
sufficient to claim that logic is invalid in cases where we do not observe
facts of reality directly. This claim must be proven. There is no functional
difference between facts of reality that we observe directly and those we
observe indirectly: in both cases we must use logic in some form and to some
extent.

Secondly, if logic is not applicable to cases where we do not observe facts
of reality directly, then this also applies to the truth or falsity of
agnosticism, which is not observable directly. Following this argument, all
we can do is say that agnosticism is untenable.

Finally, if the god question is special because its object is not observed
directly, then this also applies to any other absurd entity. We do not
observe Santa Claus, unicorns, giant space waffles, or angels directly. The
antirealist attack would have us suspend judgment on all these entities
also. But this is an absurd position.
(http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/agnostic.html)

[Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]]

>why is agnosticism a fallacy? While it parades as a
>"moderate" option which is most "reasonable", it is little more than an
>example of the cult of compromise. It's not because a debate is raging from
>both sides of an issue that both must be wrong.

i agree; it is inauthentic

>Furthermore, agnosticism must be self-contradictory, as identity is
>necessary for anything to exist, and there is no such thing as an undefined
>object.

absolutely; the mere admission of the proposed "thing" is to admit
attributes;

>How can you presume that "god" has some possible meaning if you have no
>knowledge about "god"?

precisely; the admission of identity requires attriutes; and the root
of the christian deity is grounded in the semitic christian texts,
therefore the root of the matter is in the claimed revelation. if the
revelation is invalidated then the attributes of the deity disappear,
and the deity along with them.

>or angels directly. The
>antirealist attack would have us suspend judgment on all these entities
>also. But this is an absurd position.

completely absurd.

i reject the notion of "strong" or "weak" atheism as well as
agnosticism. there is either the presence of a belief or there is not.
saying one is not sure whether a creator exists is external to the
fact.

[Machque]

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

> i reject the notion of "strong" or "weak" atheism as well as
> agnosticism. there is either the presence of a belief or there is not.
> saying one is not sure whether a creator exists is external to the
> fact.

Understood, but how do you differentiate between those who lack merely
belief in a deity and those who claim that there is no deity?

[Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]]

asserting that there is no deity i put in the category of asserting
there is no [arbitrarily name unknown phenomenon].

one needs attributes to identify anything, even a symbol.
deity as symbol without attributes cannot exist in the human world of
symbol.

to speak of a deity one is referring to revelation, to attributes
compiled in written texts.
it always comes back to the alleged revelation.

to exclude the alleged revelatory texts is to talk about nothing.
therefore it is meaningless to assert a deity does not exist.
therefore those type of atheists are mistaken.
they have built upon this mistake and developed their own vocabulary
and definitions in order to give themselves something to talk about.