Note: This is a philosophical essay written by K.D. Ellis called "Why I Am An Agnostic." In the essay Ellis simply mentions essays written by Nagel and Daniel, I have inserted parts of both essays to make this essay more complete. This essay and the others are from the book, Philosophy: Contemporary Perspectives on Perennial Issues. Fourth Edition.
In discussions of the existence of God and related theological issues, it is customary to distinguish three main views or approaches. These are designated as 'theism', 'atheism', and 'agnosticism'. All three of these terms are used in a variety of senses. It would be tedious and pointless to catalogue all of them here. Since this is a philosophical essay, I shall select definitions which are in accord with philosophical inquiry. Further, I shall characterize the three views in terms of the main thesis held by each These are as follows:
Theism: There are good reasons for the belief in the existence of a God. Or at least: There is a good reason for the belief.
Atheism: There is no good reason for the belief in the existence of God.
Before I characterize 'agnosticism' there are two expressions in the theses that need to be explained. These are 'good reason(s)' and 'belief'. By 'good reason' I mean either reliable empirical evidence of sound rational arguments. By 'belief' I do not mean faith or blind trust or a feeling; rather I mean the acceptance of a claim as an item of knowledge. Thus to say "I believe X" is to say "I hold X to be true" or "I have good grounds to hold X to be true," or "I have knowledge that X is the case." Hence we could reformulate the main theses of (philosophical) theism and atheism as follows:
Theism: The existence of God is a truth which is known to be true on the basis of evidence of rational arguments(or both).
Atheism: There is no evidence or rational arguments capable of making the existence of God a truth which can be known - an item of knowledge.
To which most atheists would add:
The lack of such evidence or arguments is sufficient to entitle us to reject the belief in the existence of God.
That is:
Because there is no evidence or arguments, the non-existence of God is a truth which can be known - an item of knowledge.
I now turn to the thesis of 'agnosticism'.
Agnosticism: There are good reasons for the belief in the existence of a god, but none of there are compelling. Further, there are good reasons against belief.
Or if we reformulate this thesis in terms of knowledge or lack of it, then we have:
Agnosticism: It is impossible to know whether a god exists or whether a god does not exist. There may be a god; or there may not be one. No one is or can be in a position to know which is the case.
To which some agnostics would add:
Therefore we should suspend our judgement on this issue and neither accept nor reject the belief in the existence of a god.
Finally, there is one other term that needs to be explained, namely '(a) god'. By '(a) god' I mean: a being who is (deemed to be) omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, perfect, infinite, eternal, supernatural, and thus transcendent to the natural universe. In other words, by 'God' I mean the god of traditional theism.
Again, a (philosophical) theist holds that there are good reasons for the belief in God - that is, reasons which are sufficient to allow one to say that it is a fact that there exists a god and therefore that we are entitled to say that "God exists" expresses a truth which can be known.
More to come...
