The Antichristian Phenomenon

Agnosticism seems very popular at the moment. I think it is mostly so for the wrong reasons. I get the feeling that a lot of people who identify themselves as agnostics are doing so only to take a kind of moral high ground that, to them, equivocates with a neutral position on the issue at hand. I have seen many agnostics say something like this:

You can’t prove that God exists, nor that God doesn’t exist, therefore both theism and atheism are wrong and you should be agnostic

I find three things at fault with this position,  which I will elaborate on in the following paragraphs. I will sometimes refer to above position as “popular agnosticism” to distinguish it from actual agnosticism. I will end with what a proper application of agnosticism might be, but also argue why I think it’s pretty useless all-round.

• Agnosticism is not a position on the existence of God

It seems that agnosticism has been snuck in to form a trilemma on the issue of God’s existence. To many people, the possible positions on this issue are either atheism, theism, or agnosticism. This is a false trilemma for two reasons. Firstly, because no ground is left over for agnosticism. You either believe God exists (theism), or you don’t (a-theism – I emphasize on purpose). So what is left over? Nothing! This has to do with the second reason that it is a false trilemma, namely the untrue notion that agnosticism even is a position on the existence of God. It simply isn’t, as it is a position on what knowledge is attainable. Going a little bit into etymology, “gnosis” means “knowledge” which means that “agnosticism” can be roughly translated to the position that something is not knowable. Agnosticism can be compatible with both atheism and theism – I don’t accept theism but I don’t claim to know that theism is false: I am an agnostic atheist.

Agnosticism isn’t somewhere in the middle on the spectrum between atheism and theism. I would even argue that there isn’t a spectrum at all on this level of the issue. There is a simple proposition: “God exists”, and you can either agree (theism) or not (atheism). There are no other positions, by virtue of the logical principle of the excluded middle. Both theism and atheism are positions that one can have, and it doesn’t matter how good or bad the reasons are for you having them.

• Popular agnosticism is used for dodging the question

So now that we have established that agnosticism isn’t even a tenable position in regards to the existence of God, it will become increasingly difficult to critique the position because the original paraphrase I gave is making less and less sense. At the moment, we can substitute the definition of agnosticism into the citation and read:

You can’t prove that God exists, nor that God doesn’t exist, therefore both theism and atheism are wrong and you should have the position that it is unknowable whether God exists or not

But that shows another flaw, because (a)theism isn’t necessarily the belief that God’s existence is (dis)proven. It thus misrepresents the positions of theism and atheism, and shows perhaps a reluctance to commit to either theism or atheism. I do not believe anyone can be exactly on the fence between the two possible positions. Even if it is just a gut feeling, you can choose between the two. It is childish to say “no, I won’t choose either of the possibilities”. And of course there is no proof, as I have previously written and explained that proofs only exist in formal systems. Personally, I think a lot of people who identify themselves as agnostics because they are reluctant to bear the stigma of the atheist. Though I understand this, I still think it is a form of cowardice.

• Popular agnosticism is special pleading

Popular agnosticism is also a form of special pleading, as it is only used with reference to the issue of God’s existence. You don’t hear about faerie agnostics, or Santa Clause agnostics. Popular agnosticism is used uniquely for the God-question. But why is it so? There are no grounds on which the question “Does God exist?” is different from the question “Does Santa Clause exist?” other than the subject of the inquiry. You can’t prove Santa Clause exists, or that he doesn’t exist any more than it is the case with God. Why then still reserve this for God? It is blatantly a case of special pleading.

Proper agnosticism

So when is it useful to have a position of agnosticism? First of all, we have to have a decent definition of when something is considered knowledge - before we can say whether something is possible to be an item in what we consider knowledge. What is knowledge is is a question home to the philosophical field of epistemology, and very briefly I can ambiguously suggest that knowledge is the product of empirical investigation and rational discourse of the empirical results. Knowledge doesn’t even have to be complete – as long the knowledge fits whatever observations have been made so far, and are reasonably not the antithesis of other knowledge that is “better established” – and it can even turn out after more observation that prior knowledge is false and that it requires to be superseded with new knowledge: a new set of ideas, rules, or paradigm (knowledge isn’t necessarily true). It is perhaps shortest to say that knowledge is produced by science, the best application of the aforementioned methodology.

This is different from the stricter requirement in the original paraphrase, which demanded proof and not mere evidence. If we were to say that knowledge needs proof to be established, then we are agnostic about everything outside of formal systems. To me, such a requirement of knowledge renders agnosticism as a useless term that communicates nothing because it can be applied to (almost) everything. So if we were to take my understanding of knowledge, we can say that agnosticism can apply only to things that fall outside of the scope of science: outside of empirical investigation. If we can not empirically pursue a question then we can’t produce knowledge about it: we are agnostic about it.

An example of proper agnosticism is when “God” is defined as something that would prohibit scientific inquiry. If God is a being who is omnipotent, it is immediately outside the scope of science, because this God can play with the empirical evidence all it wants. Anything and nothing can be indicative of the existence of such a being. Hence, we are inherently agnostic about it. Parallel to agnosticism about this, I have never heard any argument that would make such a being logically necessary to exist, hence I am also atheistic towards it. But when you would suggest that “God” is a bearded man living on clouds in the sky, it is open to scientific inquiry. There has never been seen such a man, thus I am a gnostic atheist about this particular concept.

Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.

I often come across statements like the following: “Prove x” or “Prove not x” – most often in the form “Prove God exists” or “Prove God doesn’t exist” (I will be using this example throughout the article). I get a bit tired about this because people do not seem to understand when something can be proven, when it can’t be, what the restrictions of evidence are and when something is a scientific question or not.

Proof yields certainty within a formal system

There is no such thing as proof in the context of every-day life. A proof is something by which we can say something is definitely so, or definitely not so. This means 100% certainty. So how does one get 100% certainty? The history of epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge, seems to indicate that such a thing is impossible with one exception (See Descartes’ meditations) and that in all other cases there is always room for doubt. If that is the case, how can proofs exist, as they should be things by which we attain absolute certainty?

Proofs do exist, but you have to keep in mind that these proofs are derived in the context of a certain framework. Such a framework assumes basic rules and basic truths, from which more truths are derived. We call this framework a formal system (or a logic(al) system). More formally, we say that a formal system has a deductive system, consisting of the basic truths (axioms) and the basic rules (rules of inference). The formal system also has a formal language.

Mathematics as an example of a formal system

This may sound vague, so let’s just take the best example: mathematics. Mathematics is a formal system. Mathematics has a language: it has symbols (e.g. x), numbers (e.g. 1), and operators (e.g. +) and grammar in which these components can occur (e.g. 1+2=3, but not =12+=). Note that 1+4=6 is a mathematical statement, even though it is untrue (which can be proven!) – analogous to this is that “I eat ideas until I am born.” is a grammatically correct sentence, even though a non-sensical one. Mathematics also has a deductive system. This deductive system has axioms (ground truths) such as Peano’s axioms, which describe the ground truths for arithmetic. The deductive system also has inference rules; rules by which other truths can be derived from the ground truths. Note that the ground truths are assumed to be true; they can not be proven within the formal system.

Chess as an example of a formal system

A different and perhaps more appreciable example of a formal system is a game like chess. Chess has a language: these are not symbols like in mathematics, but the chess pieces themselves, and the playing board. The axioms correspond to the starting positions of the pieces. It also has rules for what movements are allowed for what pieces. A configuration of chess pieces can be said to be “grammatically correct” if it can be reached using the movement rules for the various chess pieces. If a configuration is found that can not be reached using the rules for chess, you can say that it is not a chess configuration, just like we can say that =12+= is not a mathematical statement. In this regard chess puzzles are completely equivalent to mathematical problems. Chess being a formal system is the reason a chess game can be described with a string of coded chess notations, and the reason why computers can play chess.

Back to the weird statements people make. When you read that somebody has “proven that God (does not) exist(s)”, you should immediately think the following things:

1. This person is talking about proof, so this person is using a formal system.
2. In this formal system, “God” is a formally defined concept
3. In this formal system, “existence” is a formally defined concept or attribute for formally defined concepts
4. Using the deductive system of the formal system, this person has shown that “God” has the attribute “existence”

But of course, that is never the case. These people confuse the context of the formal system with the context every-day life: e.g. the “God” concept within the formal system with something that exists outside of that formal system. When you are not talking mathematics or logic, chances are small your use of the word ‘proof’ is correct. That also means that somebody who is trying to convince you that God exists, you must not ask him to “prove it”

Evidence never yields certainty, but does not require a formal system

Evidence is very different from proof. Whereas proof gives you certainty about something within a formal system, evidence can never give you any certainty. It only assigns more certainty of the truth to that which it is evidence of. If there is a lot of evidence in favour of a particular idea, and little or no evidence to suggest the opposite, we should assign a large certainty that that idea is true. David Hume communicates this idea concisely in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding when he writes “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”.

Scientific evidence

In a pursuit of understanding the universe, we are quickly moved toward scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is evidence for a scientific concept, and which is in accordance with scientific requirement. Eyewitness testimony is considered important evidence in court, but it is of no value in the scientific community, for reasons of possible bias and the shortcomings of human perception. Therefore, eyewitness testimony is not scientific evidence. This is largely understood, but that it can only pertain to a scientific concept is often forgotten. How often have you heard atheists demand for scientific evidence for God? I even asked for this myself, until I better understood the concepts I am trying to explain in this article.

“Scientific evidence for God” implies that “God” is a scientific concept. This is certainly possible, but depends entirely on what “God” means. I have never seen a clear definition of God, but I do often encounter attributes of this “God”. One of these attributes is omnipotence: the ability to do everything. There are various degrees of omnipotence that are argued over by theologians, but I’ll overlook this for the sake of clarity. I ask you: if God can do anything, what then can count as scientific evidence of God? The answer is either everything or nothing. In both cases, we can learn nothing at all. Omnipotence is an attribute that the domain of science can not deal with. If God has this attribute, then there can exist no scientific evidence for God, and it is therefore ignorant to ask for it.

Recommendations

So what to do? In short, this article argues that if people want to prove God’s existence, they must first define what “God” and “existence” are within a particular formal system. You can safely disregard any so-called proofs that do not explicitly offer this information. I have also argued that there can exist no scientific evidence for any being that is omnipotent. You can safely disregard any so-called scientific evidence for omnipotent beings. What are we left with? That is something for theists to solve. It seems that “God” is such an obscure concept that, if it possibly exists, it bears little to no resemblance to the entities described in various holy books. Until new information is released, I shall remain an unimpressed non-theist.

Aristotle was one of the first philosophers to really try and tackle the field of causality. In Metaphysics, Aristotle proposes four different causes. These are the causa materialis, the material cause; causa formalis, the formal cause; causa efficiens, the efficient cause and the causa finalis, the final cause. For this essay, it is not important to go into the first two. Also note that our current, every-day use of the word “cause” is only one of these four, namely the efficient cause, which denotes the agent that brings something about. If A necessarily leads to B, A is the efficient cause of B. The remaining cause which is of importance in this essay is the final cause, which denotes the purpose or intended end of a certain action. If A is a necessary step to achieve B, B is the final cause for A.

It may be apparent that these causes are different, yet related. The most important aspect is the directionality these causes imply. It is this directional property that I will be focusing on a lot. One could say that the efficient cause looks from the past towards the present, whereas the final cause looks from the present towards the future. You could say that the efficient cause is the answer to the question “how”, and that the final cause is the answer to the question “why”. Another important aspect in which these two causes are different is intentionality. In case of the efficient cause, no goal is necessarily implied, whereas in the case of the final cause there is. A conscious entity is required for a final cause, as actions result from being a necessary step towards a goal.

Having said that, I assume bells have already started ringing. This description of two particular Aristotelian categories of causality will remind many of how the relationship between science and religion is often perceived: science answers the “how” questions whilst religions answers the “why” questions. In other words: science provides efficient causes, whilst religion provides final causes. The way science provides these answers is through the scientific inquiry: a method applied to a domain in which causal homogeneity and methodological naturalism are assumed. Therefore we find a directionality from past to future in science, as well as an absence of intentionality. This is why God can never scientifically be said to be a cause of anything, because an agent with a mind does not necessarily behave the same way the next time (this is also why creationism is inherently unscientific). Science is constrained, but progressive; assuming that the accumulation of information is higher than the loss of data, and assuming that there are people with novel ideas once in a while, we can expect more accurate models of reality emerge from science over time. In other words: For more accuracy, look later in the scientific archives.

Religion is different; as it (though not exclusively) provides answers to questions concerning final causes. The idea that religion is closely connected to this category of cause are supported by often invoked sayings such as “God has a plan for us all” or “God works in mysterious ways”; but also by concepts of “the greater good” and “God’s will”. The intentions of a deity for the future are the most important factor for providing an answer to the “why” of the events that occur in the present. Therefore we find a directionality from future to present in religion, as well as a clear presence of intentionality. The method that religion uses for discerning the answers it provides are wholly contingent upon interpretation of the “revealed truths” contained within “sacred books”. This means there is no epistemological basis for answers stemming from religions: they are wholly contingent upon an assumption of authority. Unlike science, religion is not progressive, but static. The prevailing method for one who wants to analyse religious answers is to look at the original texts. The earliest manuscripts are more authoritative than later ones, because these might contain alterations introduced by scribes. In other words: For more accuracy, look earlier in the religious archives.

There is also something else going on, because religious answers do not have to be constrained. Ideas spawned from religion do not even have to be consistent with logic. Such examples are abundant in theistic religions. Take for example the position of Descartes about the omnipotence paradox (“Can God create a rock which He cannot lift?”): he posits that God has absolute omnipotence, being above logic and able to do even that which is logically self-contradictory. The other attributes the Abrahamic god is often accredited with also result in logical paradoxes. These are the coexistence of God’s omniscience and free will, and the problem of evil (the coexistence of God’s omnibenevolence and suffering). Luckily, not all theologians are as drunk on God as Descartes was. They acknowledge logic as a constraint on God, as well as on the answers religion provide. As such, there exists room for debate, which is wholly absent with those who side with Descartes.

One has to wonder, though: if God is constrained by logic, is he then not also constrained by the natural laws that humans discovered through the application of logic and the epistemological toolbox we call the scientific method? And if that is so, why not recognize the basis to religious answers is logically fallacious to start with? This is one of the important questions in examining the relationship between religion and science. Though both give answers to different Aristotelian causes in principle, religion often moves beyond it’s turf. This may be evident in religiously inspired pseudo-science, such as creationism; but also in writings by philosophers who drank the God poison. On the other hand, science has been conquering land from religion on the battlefield of ideas. Questions that were previously unanswerable by science were answered by religion. In the light of the ever-improving scientific models of reality, ancient religious doctrine is approaching the absurd. Where the constrained light of science does not shine, religion stands rooted in it’s usual method: mere guesswork.