An Agnostic Manifesto (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Saturday, August 07, 2010, 12:12 (5005 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George has drawn our attention to Ron Rosenbaum's Agnostic Manifesto, and wonders how far I would endorse it. Probably about 90%. The remaining 10% boils down to generalization and the inadequacies of language, so that's what I'll dwell on here.-ROSENBAUM: Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith [...] that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. -When this website opened, I was quite rightly taken to task for such generalizations, and quickly learned that, as with theism, there are many degrees and kinds of atheism and agnosticism. Rosenbaum's statement is true of some atheists ... very often the most strident and aggressive ... but it is perfectly possible for someone to be convinced that there is no such thing as God (= atheism), and at the same time to acknowledge that science does not have all the answers and may never have them. There is a myth about Eskimos having scores of different words for 'snow', but that is what we really need for atheism and agnosticism (whereas theism does have a vast range of terms to cover its different forms).-Rosenbaum takes up Wilkins' suggestion that agnosticism is concerned with just two questions: whether God exists or not, and whether we can know the answer, and he talks of "the courage to admit we don't know and may never know what we don't know." Although he says this is "complicated", in my view it's an over-simplification, but perhaps again this is a matter of language. A common definition of agnosticism is "the belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not", but in epistemological terms, this would make us all agnostics. Even Dawkins admits he doesn't "know". Whether you are a theist or an atheist, you have taken your decision on grounds of probability (weighing up the evidence), of inner conviction, of upbringing, of personal experience etc. It would be absurd to talk of these grounds as "knowledge", since every one of them is geared to subjectivity. And so I would argue that agnosticism is equally geared to subjectivity: we weigh up the same evidence, but find it too inconclusive to make a decision; we have no inner conviction and have had no personal experience to create one; our upbringing has not planted any enduring faith. It is therefore not a matter of "whether we can know the answer" ... no-one can ... but whether we can reach a subjective decision. This argument has two ramifications: firstly, it emphasizes the subjective component of both theism and atheism, and secondly it demands a new definition of agnosticism (or a new term) as an inability to believe that God exists or does not exist. -Rosenbaum praises "the less eye-catching attractions" of agnostic humility, and says: "Humility in the face of mystery has been a recurrent theme of mine." This doesn't quite fit in with "Cue James Brown chords: Say it loud! We're agnostic and proud!" and I would hate to think of agnostics turning as aggressive as the fundamentalists on each side of the divide. Humility should extend to tolerance of other people's decisions, so long as these do not in themselves lead to intolerance. I would have liked at least a suggestion of this in the Manifesto. But otherwise, I would endorse it with enthusiasm. Once more, my thanks to George for yet another extremely stimulating reference. It would be interesting to know, George, how far you yourself would endorse it.