Home » Mind & Soul » Atheism » The agnostic fallacy

The agnostic fallacy

© Francois Tremblay

Agnosticism is mostly considered a vague middle ground in the debate surrounding the god question. Some people see it as the most rational alternative, given the sheer weight of debate going on from both theists and atheists.

Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the term agnosticism, defined it thus :

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Thomas Huxley, "Agnosticism"

Some people think he formed the word as a joke, a wordplay on the old gnostic sects. I can't really say.

At any rate, the definition above is enlightening, but is also a bad definition. It defines a process instead of a result. As such, it is a good rational guideline, in terms of following the objective evidence, but it does not tell us what agnosticism is as a position.

The modern definition of agnosticism turns around a lack of knowledge about the god question. The word a-gnosticism itself means not-knowing, just like a-theism means not-belief in god.

Graham Oppy distinguishes between strong and weak agnosticism. This is his thesis :

strong agnosticism, i.e. the view which is sustained by the thesis that it is obligatory for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question of God's existence. (...) weak agnosticism, i.e. the view which is sustained by the thesis that it is permissible for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question of God's existence.

"Weak Agnosticism Defended", Graham Oppy

It is important to note, at this point, that agnosticism is not in fact part of the atheism-theism gradient. Both atheism and theism are concerned about belief, not knowledge. The basic atheist proposition can be formulated as follows :

A1 : I lack belief in gods.

And the theist proposition as follows : T1 : I believe in gods.

Both are inherently personal propositions. We are talking here about what the person believes, not about reality itself. If we look at this ontologically, we can translate it in the following way :

A2 : I know that there is no god-belief in my mind.
T2 : I know that there is god-belief in my mind.

The atheist and the theist are not making statements about what exists in reality, only on what they believe. However, there are positions which pertain to knowledge about reality. Monotheistic religions, and strong-atheism (also called positive atheism) share this gradient. We can define them as follows :

The copyright of the article The agnostic fallacy in Atheism is owned by . Permission to republish The agnostic fallacy in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.