As I understand it in a very broad sense, there are two types of agnostics. One is the weak agnostic, or those who when asked, “do you think God exists?” answer, “I don’t know”. The position of these agnostics can be explained (as I see it) by two things:
-
They don’t know enough about the academic arguments or evidence to decide one way or the other. Since they cannot make an informed decision, they choose to remain neutral.
-
They don’t see how or why the question should affect or change their day-to-day activities. This is in terms of functionality and daily operation. For example, a weak agnostic may feel that in order to feed their children cornflakes in the morning, it does not really matter whether there is or isn’t a God. This can even extend to moral/ethical decisions. Whether there is or isn’t a God shouldn’t affect your perception of good or evil. Or, put more squarely, you shouldn’t stop being a good person simply because there is no longer a God.
Now I can respect both these answers. 1) IMO is admirable, because you do not simply act as a drone and listen to the rest of the (more well-informed) colony. You reserve judgement till you’ve examined the facts/arguments yourself.
While I don’t really advocate 2) as being much of an answer, I can see the logic in it. If it isn’t a question that particularly concerns you, then why take up your time with it? Why bother taking an entrenched position yourself on the matter when you do NOT see the relevance?
But now things get (for me at least) more tricky. Because you have the second group of agnostics – the strong agnostics. As I figure, these folks aren’t nearly as nonchalant as the weak agnostics. They are firmly entrenched in their opinion. It is not simply to answer “I don’t know the answer, therefore I cannot take a fixed opinion on the matter” but rather, “the answer is unknowable, and you could not prove or disprove it either way”.
For this group, their uncertainty rests on the unanswerability of the question. For them, you could not posit sufficient evidence one way or the other, so ultimately you cannot provide a certain answer.
You can probably deduce from my language that I have great difficulty in understanding this position. Surely even with this (strong agnostic explanation) in mind, you still have an opinion on the matter? Even if a test cannot be devised that would truly settle the matter, surely you are more predisposed to thinking one way or the other?
I think I can better appreciate a weak agnostics position because it isn’t so deep-rooted. After all, I can hardly argue with the position, “I don’t know, therefore I have no real comment on the question”.
However, it’s the inclusion of un-testability in a strong agnostics argument that I have such difficulty getting my head around. As the name suggests, their position is far more solid. If you state, “I don’t know”, then who am I to argue?
However, if you state, “ultimately, you cannot know the answer”, then what kind of response is that? I’d have to reply, “but what are your personal feelings on the matter? Do you think God is likely or probable?”
Of course you could ask the weak agnostic the same question, however given that he/she doesn’t really have an answer for anything, it’s not likely to enthral you.
So by now you’re probably asking, “well, what the heck DO you wanna ask a strong agnostic?”
Well for starters, where you (directed at ALL strong agnostics) have come to the conclusion that it is an unanswerable (or untestable) question. For example, does this come from a scientific viewpoint (the idea that you cannot conduct a scientific experiment to prove/disprove the existence of God)? And if so, could you elaborate on that please?
Secondly, whether or not you tilt in any particular direction. Do you think it is likely that an entity such as God exists?
I won’t accept the sort of apathy that I get about this question from weak agnostics. You strong agnostics take a more powerful, specific approach and thus I am interested in your views. I would think that any self-described “strong agnostic” who doesn’t have well-thought and heavily staked views is really a weak agnostic in disguise.
As a firm atheist I simply cannot understand why someone wouldn’t have an opinion on the question. I really don’t understand the agnostic approach. In many ways I prefer the theist perspective because at least we have something definitive to engage ourselves in (or argue about). But it seems to me that being an agnostic is like saying, “well, don’t worry yourself about it”. Which is fine, but you must still surely have an opinion on it?
As always, if I have made any errors in my assumptions, please let me know, and correct them. For the strong agnostics out there, explain your positions as thoroughly as possible, especially with respect to the two mentioned above.
Oh, and knowing this to be the SD, I’ll rest my definition of God upon the Oxford English MiniDictionary which states:
(snipped and edited)
The superhuman creator of the universe
Or if you like, I’ll let you define Him/Her/It, so long as you give definable characteristics (i.e. some sort of intelligence), as opposed to the “God is nature and everything” pantheistic approach.