The Moral Dilemma of Agnosticism

In the July 28 edition of The Slate, Ron Rosenbaum identifies agnosticism as the reasonable option for those who do not know whether there is a God, finding it impossible in all honesty to commit themselves either to theism or atheism.  He notes that the latter demands the same kind of belief, and can be accompanied by the same levels of intolerance as the most belligerent religious fundamentalism.  It is gratifying to hear him observe,

Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.)  Faced with the fundamental question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually. Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing.

From a Christian perspective, and I also believe from that of the believing Jew, there is no such thing as an atheist or agnostic.  All men are endowed with what has been called a natural knowledge of God which it takes an act of the will to deny, for “ever since the creation of the world God’s invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made, so [the ungodly are] without excuse.”  “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the earth shows forth his handiwork.”  

Nor am I sure Mr. Rosenbaum (and on this he stands with many believers) understands the nature of theism, for the “knowing” that believers in God profess--or should profess--is not of the kind many imagine it to be.  While believers believe it is true knowledge, it is also partial and analogical, the product of sight, citing St. Paul once again here, “through a mirror, imperfectly.”   The knowing paradoxically stands alongside unknowing, both of which are equally valid and true, so that more than a little of the offense caused by Hoffer's True Believer comes from mistaken enthusiasms rather than the knowledge of God.  (Which is not to deny that by the same token much offense comes, as Christ indicated it would, from knowledge of God and obedience to him.)     

But these things aside, I doubt whether agnosticism, or a least the fixed neutral attitude on God implied by the idea of agnosticism, can exist comfortably on the logic of its own grounds, either.  The agnostic says he does not believe in God, but neither does he deny him--he professes the possibility of God’s existence, but does not know whether he exists.  The problem his reason makes him face, if he is honest, is a moral one that I doubt can be avoided.

If it is possible that God exists but the agnostic cannot see him, the question of this existence (because it is the existence of God) must become the Principal Thing for him.  He must abandon agnosticism as a static state and become a seeker.  If he will not, then he has refused what must be for a professed agnostic the most singularly important of all conceivables, and, like the seeker, he is no longer neutral on the question, but is in active refusal to consider God--an a-theist in the sense of a person in rebellion, someone who has said in his heart “no God.”       

Comments

[Christopher Hathaway]

he is no longer neutral on the question, but is in active refusal to consider God--an a-theist in the sense of a person in rebellion, someone who has said in his heart “no God.”

Into this camp I would add all those who claim to believe but who put no effort in seeking to know the will of God, who take both his existence and his approval of their lives for granted. Those who do not care whether they are saved are just as lost.

[Aleksei]

Well said. I would add to this category those who are "lifetime seekers." Most of my friends fall into this category and, for them, questions weighs more than answers. Answers are opinions, metaphors, allegories--but questions are undeniably real. This is not only a moral dilemma but an existential one.

[smh]

This is a place where the Hebrew text is much heavier than the English, in which "there is" or similar construction, must be added to "the fool has said in his heart . . . no God" to make a grammatical translation.

In Hebrew, נָבָ֣ל בְּ֭לִבֹּו אֵ֣ין אֱלֹהִ֑ים , (sorry if the letters don't come through) there is only the negative particle, which has a considerably wider semantic range, and can be read as having to do not only with a rejection of existence, but a wide range of negations or denials that amount to the same. At least that's how I read it.

[A Mere Observer]

I think that, while thoughtful agnostics hold their position in good faith (pun intended), the key weakness in their argument is the mistaken conflation of two different senses of "know" -- the factual and the personal. They are hardly entirely to blame for that, as far too many Christian apologetics make the same mistake, and treat God as an abstract logical point to be proved, or an empirical datum to be verified by observation and experimentation, rather than a person who encounters and is encountered.

This is why Dr. Hutchens is absolutely right that the principled agnostic faces an irresolvable moral dilemma, and cannot remain in a static state but must become a seeker. In this the atheist is more consistent -- his rejection of God is a flat refusal to risk the encounter by asserting its impossibility, rather than admitting its possibility but avoiding the risk of having his uncertainty permanently disproved, since the encounter will then require personal commitment and surrender.

Perhaps the most common forms of practical agnosticism in our society today is the man who abstractly concedes the possibility of "commitment" and toys with social relations, but will not try to seek out and find the woman with whom he should be united in exclusive lifelong fidelity.

[Robert Espe]

I believe it was J. Budzizewski who pointed out that the most rational action if one really could not determine whether or not God existed, would be to procede as if He did just in case. The absence of agnostics spending time in daily prayer trying to determine the will of a possibly knowable God for their lives was why he concluded there is no such thing as an agnostic.

[John FB]

I think I'd consider myself an agnostic, but certainly not an indifferent one. The question of whether there is a God and if He exists, what He demands, is frequently on my mind.

The problem is that, after years of listening to Christians and reading their apologetics and finding little agreement on too many areas of life, I've had to be willing to trust my own fallible intuition of what is right and true while simultaneously be willing to re-assess my ideas if new evidence is given.

This isn't being sectarian. I'm simply telling you this as a bit of an outsider who pledges no allegiance to any creed. Everyone has reliable witnesses for their own truths, and many of these truths conflict. Of course, everyone is equally passionate and jealous of their own creed's truths as if they were as obvious as day. Not everyone can be correct.

So, many of us are just willing to muddle along in relative unknowing, comfortable with a certain degree of ambiguity. We act on those somewhat dim set of beliefs knowing that the only other option is paralysis.

[Clifford Simon]

"Militant Agnostic: I don't know, and you don't either." -- Bumper sticker (a goofy message, of course...)

[Michael H.]

So, many of us are just willing to muddle along in relative unknowing, comfortable with a certain degree of ambiguity. We act on those somewhat dim set of beliefs knowing that the only other option is paralysis.

The option between "dim set of beliefs" and "paralysis" is a false dichotomy derived from a complete non sequitur. If multiple competing groups hold their various truth claims in mutual jealousy, what logically follows is two options: a) one is right or b) none is right.

Thus the moral imperative for the agnostic, as Dr. Hutchens points out, is to seek out the truth to validate option A or B. If the agnostic chooses to not seek the truth, he has concluded that his own understanding is superior to the understanding of others. In short, he has made a de facto choice for option B. If the agnostic has concluded this, he is now the sole member of yet another competing subset of beliefs: his own.

The agnostic may not be evangelical about his particular belief, content to live and let live, but if this is so we have a deeper problem with him: he cares not for his fellow man, as demonstrated by his disregard for bringing them the truth. Even pagan philosophers in their wisdom sought truth first, and in seeking truth often came close to the one who is the Source of all things. The agnostic who chooses a vague personal theism thus damns his fellow man to whatever Hell there is, for the rest of mankind is not privy to this latest truth claim.

Now you may say that our academic agnostic's truth claim has no Hell to which mankind may be damned. If so, then there is no moral imperative to avoid Hell. If there is no moral imperative to avoid Hell, then there is no reason to live the good life. If there is no reason to live the good life, then there is no reason to seek God. If there is no reason to seek God, then God per se makes no difference. Such an agnostic is a deist, which is little more than a functional atheist.

For a Christian of any denominational permutation, there is a clear dichotomy, but is not the one you suggest. It is either a) cling to the divine and evangelize in its name* or b) there is no god worth knowing about. Option B is the realm of agnostics and atheists. This is the moral dilemma of agnosticism that Dr. Hutchens pointed out: he must be a seeker and come to the Truth, or he must live as if the Truth does not matter--and as they say, actions speak louder than words.

*Jews and Muslims are monotheists with disparate understanding of the divine, but I doubt anyone would deny their theism. Various schools of Hinduism are polytheists or pantheists or polytheists, but are thus theists with certain understanding of a spiritual realm with prescriptions for right living. The Christian would not call any of these atheists**, but certainly misguided theists.

**Actually, I might call certain Hindu schools functional atheists, but that's another conversation.

[John FB]

Michael, so how does one arrive at the conclusion that they've reached the truth? What is the mechanism by which one knows that the truths they're willing to live and die for are the correct ones?

[Michael H.]

John,

Your second question is more relevant and pointed than the first. The first opens a wide range of possibilities, though I would say one should lean on a combination resembling the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Note that though the quadrilateral as such is set to Christian doctrine, it could just as broadly be applied to any other group: the Old and New Testaments become, for example, the Qur'an or the Torah for Scripture; Tradition honors the historical beliefs of any given group; Reason is always Reason; Experience can be life experience both within and outside the Church.

The second question is of interest in its way, but it ignores the general thrust of my original response. Say you are unsure of any given mechanism, in which case you must either choose one or choose none. If you choose none, you are content in the truth you are sitting in, which just goes back to my original point that you have selected your personal truth value over all others. If you choose one, you are thus a seeker.

Whichever course you take, it is an act of pure faith. And de fide actions as such put you in certain ontological and teleological camps. This metaphysical outlook without evangelism is nigh solipsism insofar as it rejects the minds of others (and so the being of pure spiritual, mental actuality).

The moral imperative for the agnostic is one of basic metaphysics. If there is no higher order, then he is functionally an atheist and ought to live his life as such. If he lives his life as if there were a metaorder, then he ought to seek the Orderer such to better understand and reflect that order in life.

Simply be intellectually honest: do I live as if there were a god? If no, why not? If it is because I believe a god is unimportant, then I am an atheist. If yes, then what is it said god wants me to do? What god is it that seems most consistently aligned with my reason and natural knowledge? This is the being I am seeking. One may, at the end of the line, find himself firmly outside Christendom, but he will have honestly and eagerly sought the origin and termination to his existential musings.

If God matters, be a seeker. If God does not matter, admit to atheism. To sit in one place without seeking is the paralysis you claim to be avoiding by being a non-dogmatic, non-evangelical agnostic with a conglomeration of personal truth values.

[Ian]

Mr Hutchens’ argument seems designed more to provide comfort to the precarious Christian than light to the agnostic. As I hope any Christian will admit,the “static-state” he describes is common to both professing believers and professing doubters, and rather beside the point. He should be more concerned with the predicament of a sincere agnostic. It's perfectly possible to be unsure of God’s existence and nature, and yet to be, in Hutchens’ term, a “seeker.” What about the agnostic who seeks and wants to know but still admits every morning that he doesn’t? How very different is his situation than that of most Christians? The difference, it seems to me, is simply that one still claims a personal acquaintance with the divine, while the other doesn’t. If that personal experience is imaginary, then the believer is possibly only consoling himself to ward off metaphysical fear. If it’s real, then that’s what the sincere agnostic wants too but isn’t, so far, able to find. People should be more charitable toward one another.

Also - Michael H, wrote: “If there is no moral imperative to avoid Hell, then there is no reason to live the good life.” This is clearly bunk and I would hope that most Christians would admit it. Is the avoidance of punishment the only reason to pursue the good?

[Steve Nicoloso]

Even Christopher Hitchens cannot prove, and makes no claim to prove, the non-existence of God. Which is why the famous bus-side ad said, "God probably doesn't exist..." Which is to say that some, called atheists (but by Hutchens' definition more aptly called agnostics), believe it is possible to assign probabilities to the existence of God, which is not a different kind of thing from assigning probabilities to the existence of, say, Sasquatch or quantum gravity or midichlorians. This presumes that god, if he, she, or it exists, is an artifact of the Universe, whose existence may be judged to be more or less probable based on empirical facts. And this is the exact kind of god that Christians (and Jews and, I think, Muslims) don't believe in. So the parties speak, when they speak at all, on completely different wavelengths.

The agnostic is actually quite correct to be unconvinced of the existence of god by the empirical evidence. But that is not the kind of god of whose existence he ought to be convinced anyway. Instead, the actual God whose existence he ought morally to recognize is the one who is absolutely necessary for anything else to exist. But in the very framing of the question, he doesn't seem to be looking for him.

[Ian]

Martin Gardner, the recently deceased long-time contributor to Scientific American and Skeptical Inquirer, understood what you’re getting at, Mr Nicoloso, and believed in God for two basic reasons: as a better answer than most for the question of why anything whatsoever exists, and because he found it personally consoling. This, at least, was being honest. He saw that while his positions might make him a theist, they weren't nearly enough to make him a Christian. (For believers and non-believers alike, his book, ‘The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener’ makes good reading.)

It’s one thing to believe that God exists, and another thing entirely to believe in a specific divine revelation. This second predicament (the question, which God?) is where one is specially called to weigh evidence and consider probabilities, I suppose. Christians sometimes want conflate the two questions - of God’s existence and His identity - and see agnosticism on the second point as if it were identical to agnosticism on the first.

[Steve Nicoloso]

I agree, Ian, that conviction in the necessity of a non-contingent being is not tantamount to believing in Christian revelation. It is instead a necessary first step on the road of true seeking, vis-a-vis lazy seeking (i.e., agnosticism). Once one is satisfied as to why anything at all should exist, this ought naturally proceed to questions of truth, beauty, and virtue... otherwise, yes, you really are just back to square one.

[Michael H.]

Also - Michael H, wrote: “If there is no moral imperative to avoid Hell, then there is no reason to live the good life.” This is clearly bunk and I would hope that most Christians would admit it. Is the avoidance of punishment the only reason to pursue the good?

Your error is in thinking of Hell as punishment rather than as the unnatural state of being separated from what is good. If there are no eternal consequences to my temporal existence, then it makes no sense to seek anything in this material world than my own pleasure (while hedging against pain). Hedonism is the logical end to materialism.

Secondly, you rip the sentence out of context. The sentence was purely about consequence and truth seeking. If a man holds an individual truth and does not share it with the rest of us, despite it being true, he has either condemned us to our ignorance or else concluded that there is no condemnation. The only reason there would be no condemnation would be because there is no absolute. If there is no absolute, he would be a functional atheist.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Is the avoidance of punishment the only reason to pursue the good?

It is always and everywhere true that avoidance of punishment, typically that of your own society, is the only reason to appear to pursue the good, typically that defined by your own society. Whether the Good is always and everywhere equal to the good defined by your own society is really the question.

Pursuing the good is sometimes good for your health, good for your society, good for your marriage, good for your children. And this is why ethical systems arise, with little variation (the last 7 commands of the Decalogue for example (last 6 in Protestant counting)), in all societies, the presence or absence of Christian revelation notwithstanding. But the fact that general societal good (social trust, honesty, future time orientation, etc.) follows from the population at large adhering to the ethical system, doesn't mean that one cannot simultaneously benefit thereby while at once privately flaunting the strictures. The Wicked can (and do) prosper, especially when their master vice is supported by a great many lesser virtues. Many, in fact, will go to their graves never having received their comeuppance for having shirked their responsibility to play "by the rules". It is for this situation, hell was designed.

[Robert Espe]

I suppose that out of concern for the functional atheist, I would recommend that they read Mere Christianity (I've loaned a copy to an agnostic friend). If they got through that and were still asking me for things to read, I would send them to the works of John MacArthur, and Raavi Zacarias.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

As Heaven is not a place where we receive our reward for "doing good," Hell is not a place of punishment for "not doing good" -- that is, "doing evil."

Heaven is a place where those who respond to God's proffered love and mercy with acknowledgment of their sin and need for grace and forgiveness. Hell is a place for those who reject that offer and prefer to be the masters of their own lives, no matter what.
Some of those in Heaven may have done far worse things on earth than some who are in Hell.

As C.S. Lewis said, Hell is the place God set aside for those who would not say to Him, "Thy will be done," so He instead says to them, "Your will be done.'' In "Perelandra," a demon-possessed man says to the Christian protagonist Ransom, "I don't need your bleedin' mercy." And Ransom replies, "The Bleeding Mercy is exactly what you need."

We do nothing to deserve Heaven. We do nothing but deserve Hell. As Paul says, all our good deeds are like the rags women use to halt their monthly bleeding -- fit for nothing but to be thrown away and burned. All this business about "being good to avoid eternal punishment" entirely misses the central reality of Christianity -- and thus the central reality of the Universe. We are made to love God and serve Him throughout infinite time, but there is no valid service that is not done within that love and in full recognition of our utter inability to deserve it.

What does Jesus say to those who come to Him and say, "We cast out demons in Your Name!" He says, "Depart from Me, for I never knew you." When we understand why He said that, we can begin to understand what being a Christian is.

[Steve Nicoloso]

As Paul says, all our good deeds are like the rags women use to halt their monthly bleeding -- fit for nothing but to be thrown away and burned.

Though it is somewhat tangential to the thread, A) St. Paul didn't say that, and more importantly B) that common interpretation of Isaiah is somewhat tendentious, and certainly not shared by all Christians. Isaiah's condemnation of "righteous acts" being like "filthy rags" seems, in context, to refer to "righteous acts" performed by those of God's people in continuous sin against him. In other words, these are only apparently righteous acts, like I was talking about above, to be seen and approved by men in your own community. Which is, of course, hypocrisy. This passage does not appear to be a blanket condemnation of all righteous works whatsoever, which the Bible spends so much ink elsewhere recommending.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

Steve: Thanks for the correction of my mental lapse, but I think what I said was germane because this thread is focused on actions far more than it is on the essence of faith, and that is disturbing. Paul, of course, said that we were not saved by our works -- they have no value for salvation -- but through faith given by grace "in order to do the good works God has prepared in advance for us to do." (Ephesians 2:8-10). Which means that they are God's good works, not our own. As James says, they are the evidence of our faith. But they are not that faith itself, and the faith is what saves. "Good deeds" performed by atheists may be good in the temporal sense, but they are not good in the eternal sense because they have nothing of God in them.

Of course we are commended to do good. But my citing the lost who come to Jesus boasting of their works in His name, only to be rejected, was to note that they do not claim to love Him, and that is where and why they fall short. Their good deeds availed them nothing. Our love for God is also a gift of His, not something we can create on our own. He fills us, not the other way around.

[smh]

Several comments on the above: Those I denominate "seekers" are believers, for the holy promise is that those who seek shall find. Obviously this does not apply to the numerous varieties of false seeking that go by that name. All who seek God are believers and all who believe in him are seekers.

Which brings us to Ian's response: What about the agnostic who seeks and wants to know but still admits every morning that he doesn’t? How very different is his situation than that of most Christians? The difference, it seems to me, is simply that one still claims a personal acquaintance with the divine, while the other doesn’t.

The problem here is that of the honest agnostic. It is true that in a manner of speaking his situation isn't different than that of the believer in that he is always, like the believer, faced with the problem of "not knowing." (Remember what I said about misunderstanding the knowing that believers in God profess. Read the laments of Job or Mother Teresa.)

While I have never heard of a believer who in his seeking has not been given enough to sustain the faith required to continue it (ad coelum)--if he will receive it--I have heard of self-professed agnostics who claim to have received nothing in the way of "personal acquaintance." I do not know their souls, but sense they are lying, the real problem being that what they are being offered by way of acquaintance is not what they want, not what they are willing to receive, and they justify themselves by saying they have not been offered it.

It is only the greatest of the saints whose faith is able to survive on starvation diets of "acquaintance with the divine." Frankly, I do not believe "agnostics" who tell me they are in the same situation. They seem to be starving in the midst of plenty. Their problem is not that they cannot eat, but that they will not, and they need to ask themselves why.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Deacon Michael, I think we're venturing here very close to the dangerous and interminable internecine battles that plauge MC, so I'll not comment too much on who is the actual doer of good works, when good works happen to get done. But, yes, we all must, in some very real sense, cooperate with God's grace in order to do any good work. I would go as far to say that this is so whether we know it or not. Thus I'd suggest that, when the atheist performs a truly good work (in contradistinction to a work that only appears to be good), he is actually cooperating with God's grace, in spite of his steadfast refusal to acknowledge it. And, just as good works ordinarily follow from true belief, both being a response to God's grace, good works, even for the athiest, can be a path toward the Kingdom of God. Which is to say that it is at least possible (I'd say not improbable) that true faith can naturally, if not necessarily, follow from good (truly good) works.

[Bob Srigley]

Romans 1:20 states that creation, or natural revelation, is sufficient to convince man of God's "eternal power and divine nature." And yet the witness of creation is ambiguous because it also reflects the Fall with its imperfections and evils --what scripture terms vanity. Special revelation, especially the first 11 chapters of Genesis provide the "rest of the story", assigning the blame for all that is wrong, all that is out of joint, not to God, but to us. This is often the stumbling block for the atheist/agnostic --the unwillingness to accept the blame, to allow the pride of autonomy (self law) to sustain such a blow. Not that this realization is entirely dependent on an encounter with scripture. All one need do is look within and honestly assess one's heart to arrive at the same conclusion. And here is where thrives the lie which enables unbelief to persist. Instead of crying "mercy" the unbelieving heart demands that God justify himself.

Thanks be to God that he does much more than justify himself. An honest pagan, a Jew or even a Muslim might come this far, but if he does come this far he is within sight of the cross, and if he will look upon it, all the arguments of apologetics and theodicy will be unnecessary, or at least reserved for a future time when they prove useful. But for now the mystery of suffering joined with glory and all for love will answer the soul's deepest need.