Refuting Religious Agnosticism

[Charlemagne_III]

What’s your best refutation of religious agnosticism, the view that we cannot know whether or not there is a God?

Here is Chesterton’s:

“…we don’t know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable.”

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

What’s your best refutation of religious agnosticism, the view that we cannot know whether or not there is a God?

Here is Chesterton’s:

“…we don’t know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable.”

The problem with using the Chersterton quote is that it’s talking about a theoretically possible future. As things stand right now deities are both unprovable and unfalsifiable. It is perfectly reasonable for a person with both the knowledge and lack of knowledge we have to be religiously agnostic.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As things stand right now deities are both unprovable and unfalsifiable.

Unprovable and unfalsifiable perhaps to a materialist.

But to a person who has encountered God both in his mind and in his heart, the experience of God must be a great deal more convincing and real than it could be to a person who denies the experience of God for the reasons you allege.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Unprovable and unfalsifiable perhaps to a materialist.

But to a person who has encountered God both in his mind and in his heart, the experience of God must be a great deal more convincing and real than it could be to a person who denies the experience of God for the reasons you allege.

So far we don’t have any evidence of an immaterial world. It too is unprovable and unfalsifiable.

Also if we accept the assumption that there is an immaterial world, we don’t have any evidence that immaterial things can affect material things. It too is unprovable and unfalsifiable.

Then if we accept both the assumption that there is an immaterial world and that it can affect the material world, we don’t have any evidence that this means there are one or more deities. It too is unprovable and unfalsifiable.

 

[Vonsalza]

You hit the nail on-the-head when you mentioned materialism.

From a material perspective, every Christian on the planet (all 2.2 billion of 'em) need to understand that there is no material proof for the existence of God.

The best defense for continued belief is that “if other non-material things can be believed in without meeting the scrutiny of materialism, then why must god?”

Examples of these non-material things are legion. Love, beauty, consciousness, irony, rhetoric, mathematics. The list is nigh endless.

This defense, however, cannot be weaponized. It is only a reliable bulwark against those who attack belief in god on the basis of non-materiality.

---

To the original question, you can only refute agnosticism with practically indisputable proof that god does or does not exist.

Their view is the religious equivalent of the “null hypothesis” in hypothesis testing. It is the same as the “undefined” in rhetoric. You must have proof to move away from those default assumptions.

“There is no god” and “there is a god” are both, so far, unprovable. The atheist and the theist are both unproven in their faith.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Also if we accept the assumption that there is an immaterial world, we don’t have any evidence that immaterial things can affect material things. It too is unprovable and unfalsifiable.

Catch 22?

A thing is only provable if it is material. Spirit is not provable because it is not material.

There is nothing to prove that spirit does not exist. Therefore materialism is not provable.

Those who experience God have the proof. Those who deny God do so because they have no experience of God and therefore no proof.

 

[Vonsalza]

Catch 22?

A thing is only provable if it is material. Spirit is not provable because it is not material.

There is nothing to prove that spirit does not exist. Therefore materialism is not provable.

Those who experience God have the proof. Those who deny God do so because they have no experience of God and therefore no proof.

Clever

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

You hit the nail on-the-head when you mentioned materialism.

From a material perspective, every Christian on the planet (all 2.2 billion of 'em) need to understand that there is no material proof for the existence of God.

The best defense for continued belief is that “if other non-material things can be believed in without meeting the scrutiny of materialism, then why must god?”

Examples of these non-material things are legion. Love, beauty, consciousness, irony, rhetoric, mathematics. The list is nigh endless.

This defense, however, cannot be weaponized. It is only a reliable bulwark against those who attack belief in god on the basis of non-materiality.

The things you listed are abstract concepts. That’s not the same thing as something like a soul that exists within us and allegedly interacts with our mind and body or a god/gods that manipulate the universe for our benefit.

And regarding the amount of Christians, we know from history that large numbers of people can be wrong about things. Some people belived in phrenology. Others didn’t understand that stars aren’t little lights in our sky that can fall to Earth. Around 200 million people bought Celine Dion albums

To the original question, you can only refute agnosticism with practically indisputable proof that god does or does not exist.

Their view is the religious equivalent of the “null hypothesis” in hypothesis testing. It is the same as the “undefined” in rhetoric. You must have proof to move away from those default assumptions.

“There is no god” and “there is a god” are both, so far, unprovable. The atheist and the theist are both unproven in their faith.

I dread this because it comes up every time that the word agnosticism comes up but I can’t let the idea of “atheist” and “faith” go unchallenged. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. For some atheists they will say with absolute certainty that there are no gods. You will find that most atheists don’t speak with such certainty on the matter because we know there is more that can be known. In other words, there is no evidence for a god or gods but we’re not ruling it out. It’s not faith that makes an atheist but a lack of it.

And agnosticism is not the middle ground between theism and atheism. The latter two terms describe belief, while the first term is a statement on whether we can know for certain. I am an agnostic atheist.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Catch 22?

Good book and good movie.

A thing is only provable if it is material. Spirit is not provable because it is not material.

There is nothing to prove that spirit does not exist. Therefore materialism is not provable.

If we can show “spirit” interacting with the material world then we could prove it. The problem is there are many claims as to what “spirit” can due to the material universe and yet the proof is utterly lacking. It is also unfalsifiable because of the nature of these numerous unproven claims.

If I say that I helped my favorite hockey team by suiting up there is all sorts of evidence that can be used to falsify my claim. If I say that I helped my team spiritually then my claim is not falsifiable. A person deciding whether to believe my claim or not can provide numerous reason why it’s likely false but can never ever prove I’m wrong.

Those who experience God have the proof. Those who deny God do so because they have no experience of God and therefore no proof.

We know there are people just as sure that their concept of a detiy or deities who are as absolutely sure that what they believe is true as any Christian. You and I would also agree that these people are incorrect in their beliefs. This shows that a confidence in a belief is not evidence in its truth. It most certainly is not proof. Proof is demonstrable and faith (Christian or one of the many others) simply is not.

If people believe what they believe that’s fine, but allowing that those beliefs might not be true (agnosticism) is a very reasonable position to take.

 

[adamhovey1988]

What’s your best refutation of religious agnosticism, the view that we cannot know whether or not there is a God?

Here is Chesterton’s:

“…we don’t know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable.”

I like to use the argument of morality for atheism, since, whether many atheists know it, they DO use some form of morality, and it has to come from somewhere. I think the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists is a cop out. At least the atheist (even if he is wrong) knows which stance to take.

 

[Vonsalza]

The things you listed are abstract concepts. That’s not the same thing as something like a soul that exists within us and allegedly interacts with our mind and body or a god/gods that manipulate the universe for our benefit.

Of course it is the same thing. You just need to make a distinction because you’re “cool” with the existence of those other abstractions.

And regarding the amount of Christians…

I was merely referring to how many people we’d have to educate and what a huge task it would be. And Celine Dion has the voice of an angel.

…Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods… …It’s not faith that makes an atheist but a lack of it.

From Oxford:
Agnostic - A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Atheist - A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Theist - Belief in the existence of a god or gods

“Faith” was just used as a shorthand for “religious view”, as it can be used. But since we’re here, all unproven assertions require faith for belief. Even supposedly proven assertions require a degree of faith, like learning a population statistic. You didn’t do the count, you just trust who did. “Trust” is often given as a synonym.

And agnosticism is not the middle ground between theism and atheism. The latter two terms describe belief, while the first term is a statement on whether we can know for certain. I am an agnostic atheist.

Respectfully, it is. Agnosticism asserts pure ambiguity that goes both ways. Theism and atheism do not.

A commonly found definition for an adherent of your belief is “I lack belief in a god or gods, but there may be a god or gods I am unaware of.” It provides absolutely no innovation not already encapsulated in agnosticism.

 

[dahbeegs]

I think that I would try to argue that we can know God in two ways, and that both are His revelation.

First, I would agree with the agnostic to a certain extent. I would say that if all we have to go on is our own knowledge and perception, then we would not be able to know anything beyond the natural world that we can sense and interact with.

I would then try to have them agree that, in theory, it is possible that a supernatural being could, if it so chose, give its creation a way of knowing it. The issue then would be not that it’s just impossible, period, to know God or anything about Him, but simply a disagreement on whether in our current situation we can.

Finally, I would present the facts as Catholics understand them. That God has indeed chosen to reveal Himself to us. First, we have His Word, holy Scripture, which has captured the events of history, revelations from God and angels, and the messages of His prophets. I would also present the Catholic view that, through reason alone, we can come to see God and understand something about Him by examining His creation, The universe itself points to God.

At this point, the agnostic will likely disagree that either of these things “prove” God. However, I think that if you take the conversation to this point, you can now start discussing specifics. If they think that the Bible is just a collection of myths with no basis in historical truths and no different from any other religion’s books or the myths of antiquity, we can begin an apologetic work to expose why that’s false. If they don’t see how nature points to God, we can explain that as well.

I just think that such a viewpoint really comes from not actually examining the evidence before us. It seems nonsensical to believe that we can’t know anything about God. There’s a lot of assumptions implicit in that statement; for example, we can’t know anything about God because He hasn’t told us anything about Himself, or if He has we can’t know it. As Catholics, we have evidence to the contrary of both those assumptions. So, we just have to move the conversation along to get to those unstated assumptions, and answer them.

It may also be worthwhile at some point to address what proving God means. They may have some vague idea that this proof of God would be overwhelming and irrefutable. No person alive could argue with it, it wouldn’t have to discussed or wrestled with, it would simply be manifestly true! However, there are people today who don’t believe that the world is a globe. There is no truth so true that people can’t choose to deny it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If people believe what they believe that’s fine, but allowing that those beliefs might not be true (agnosticism) is a very reasonable position to take.

Not my understanding of agnosticism.

Agnosticism says belief might be true or not true, but we cannot be certain either way.

So the agnostic would be technically as critical of atheism as of faith, since he regards neither as provable.

Yet this is weasel-thought.

As Jesus said, “He who is not with me is against me.”

That would apply both to the agnostic and to the atheist.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It may also be worthwhile at some point to address what proving God means. They may have some vague idea that this proof of God would be overwhelming and irrefutable. No person alive could argue with it, it wouldn’t have to discussed or wrestled with, it would simply be manifestly true! However, there are people today who don’t believe that the world is a globe. There is no truth so true that people can’t choose to deny it.

Agreed.

I’ve know of too many people who can talk their way out of belief for reasons entirely and obstinately illogical. The “show me a miracle” people are mostly the same people who would comment that the miracle you had just shown them was delusional or fake or could be explained by science either now or some day in the future. If the conviction is that miracles are impossible because there is no God, no event offered as a miracle would ever be convincing. Even the Creation of the universe has to be viewed as a natural event rather than the intersection of the natural with the Supernatural.

As to faith, as Pascal observed, many people do not allow their heart to reason along with their head, as if only the head could reason and the heart could not have a valid path to truth.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That like sounds like support for being agnostic.

Since Chesterton was not an agnostic, it is difficult to see how he could be defending agnosticism.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Of course it is the same thing. You just need to make a distinction because you’re “cool” with the existence of those other abstractions.

Things like souls, gods, demons are entities not abstract concepts. Equivocating the two doesn’t put them on equal footing.

I was merely referring to how many people we’d have to educate and what a huge task it would be.

No one is attempting to educate Christians that there is no material evidence for their god. Many know this. Some don’t care. The ones that don’t know this will come up empty when they try to provide said evidence.

From Oxford:
Agnostic - A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Atheist - A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Theist - Belief in the existence of a god or gods

Right there, in the definition you provided, it shows that agnostic is about not knowing. The definition uses the word belief in whether we can know or not about a god. The definitions for atheist and theist use the word belief in whether a god does or doesn’t exist.

Believing in a god (or not) is independent of believing whether we can know if there is a god (or not).

“Faith” was just used as a shorthand for “religious view”, as it can be used. But since we’re here, all unproven assertions require faith for belief. Even supposedly proven assertions require a degree of faith, like learning a population statistic. You didn’t do the count, you just trust who did. “Trust” is often given as a synonym.

Stating that one has not been provided evidence of any god is not a faith. I have no evidence that peace in the Middle East will be solved this year. I have no evidence that there is a dragon living in your garage. I have no evidence that Kate Beckinsale will be calling to ask me out for a romantic weekend. None of these is based on faith, just evidence (or more precisely, the lack thereof).

Respectfully, it is. Agnosticism asserts pure ambiguity that goes both ways. Theism and atheism do not.

A commonly found definition for an adherent of your belief is “I lack belief in a god or gods, but there may be a god or gods I am unaware of.” It provides absolutely no innovation not already encapsulated in agnosticism.

Again, knowing (saying with certainty) and believing are two different things.

Agnostic atheist = I don’t believe in a god(s) but don’t know if there are any.
Agnostic theist = I do believe in a god(s) but don’t know if there are any.
Gnostic atheist = I don’t believe in a god(s) and I know there are none.
Gnostic theist = I do believe in a god(s) and I know him/them to be real.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Not my understanding of agnosticism.

Agnosticism says belief might be true or not true, but we cannot be certain either way.

So the agnostic would be technically as critical of atheism as of faith, since he regards neither as provable.

Yet this is weasel-thought.

Please read what I wrote just above. There are two scales involved: Knowing and believing. Agnostic/Gnostic relates to the knowing scale. Atheist/Theist relates to the believing scale.

As Jesus said, “He who is not with me is against me.”

That would apply both to the agnostic and to the atheist.

Let’s get back to the topic at hand as to attempting to refute religious agnosticism. Here’s what has been provided so far to refute it:

1. A quote from Chesterton saying just because something is unknown now doesn’t mean it will be unknown in the future.

As I noted, that’s true, but a person trying to determine whether we can or can’t know if there is a god has to factor in that currently it is unknown. We can leave the door open for future positive evidence, but at the same time we have to acknowledge that we may later get future negative evidence or no evidence at all. Until we achieve enough positive evidence agnosticism is a very reasonable position.

1. You noted that those who have accepted the Christian god are not agnostic. I would agree with that. That doesn’t mean it’s true, just that believers are convinced. This is line with believers of other sorts, including ones that we might think are a bit off the deep end. Conviction of a position isn’t proof.
2. The quote above, which is really nothing more than a threat from the Bible. Cast aside your doubts or feel God’s wrath. That also is not evidence, just a demand that fear overcome a lack of evidence.

Is there anything else you can add? Is there anything you can say why it is wrong to be agnostic on religion?

 

[meltzerboy]

That like sounds like support for being agnostic.

.

Is it because if “we don’t know enough about the unknown to know it is unknowable,” then we also don’t know enough about the unknown to know it is knowable?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is there anything else you can add? Is there anything you can say why it is wrong to be agnostic on religion?

I’ve already a few things above which you don’t address in your post.

Conviction of truth is what matters most with respect to truth. This conviction is only possible if one opens one’s heart as well as one’s head to the reality of God. Since the agnostic, like the atheist, does not do this, persuasion is impossible. Neither the atheist nor the agnostic can experience the reality of God because of deliberate shut-down of all but the material avenue to experiencing God. No one of faith is so absurd as to say that God is a physical being or a mere personal being like you or me.

So there is a Catch 22. They demand proof but they refuse the experience of God which is the only proof that convinces.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is it because if “we don’t know enough about the unknown to know it is unknowable,” then we also don’t know enough about the unknown to know it is knowable?

The salient point is that the agnostic knows the unknown is unknowable.

Interesting paradox?