So, anyone that knows me knows that I love to talk about religion and philosophy. I’ve debated whether or not I should indulge those interests on this blog, but a New York Mag article by Sean McManus gave me the perfect excuse to bring it up.
The article is on atheists who are banding together to form churches. Apparently there’s a very old atheistic church here in New York called “The Society for Ethical Culture.” That’s not the part I had a problem with. In fact, I wonder if it’s the real-world inspiration for the temple Roark builds in The Fountainhead.
Anyway, here’s what got me going:
“…at one of their Sunday-morning meetings in January, their Senior Leader, in a very un-churchlike fashion, cited agnosticism as the only intellectually defensible religious position.”
“The only intellectually defensible position”? I’m calling BS on that. I’ll now attempt to explain, in less than 50 words, why that idea is absurd:
To say it’s “the only defensible position,” you have to be able to prove that no person has ever had or will ever have any intellectual or empirical evidence of a divine being. To be able to say that, you must be able to prove either: 1) There is no god; 2) Whatever god there is is incapable of giving us evidence of its existence; or at least never has and never will.
If you could prove any of that, you wouldn’t be giving a speech about “intellectually defensible positions.” You’d just give your proof.
95 words. Sorry. Here’s the REAL, 350-word argument, capped off with the REAL conclusion (that it’s a logical impossibility for agnosticism to be the only defensible position):
Assuming that “agnosticism” in this context means that the existence of a god is either unknown or unknowable, the argument boils down to this:
1). If this speaker’s idea of agnosticism is that the existence of a god is unknown, and he’s saying that’s the only intellectually defensible position, that means that either there is no god or that a god has never proven his/her/its existence to a human. If a god at any point made him-/her-/itself known to only one person in the history of the world, the argument turns to crap, because that person would have a different intellectually defensible position. So basically, this argument depends on the assumption that there is no god. And not only that, but it makes fools or liars out of every person who ever claimed to have had empirical knowledge of a god’s existence.
2). If the speaker used “agnosticism” to mean that the existence of God is actually unknowable (which I think is the traditional meaning of the word), that means either there is no god, or that any god that might exist is incapable of proving its own existence.
This is basically the opposite of St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument of the existence of God. Anselm defined God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” A god which exists is clearly greater than a god which does not exist, therefore, by Anselm’s definition, God MUST exist. He basically defined God into existence. Ah, the Dark Ages!
If, by saying agnosticism is the only defensible position, this guy’s saying that the existence of a god can’t be known, he’s (probably unknowingly) doing the opposite: defining God OUT of existence. If God’s existence CAN’T be known, that means either A) God doesn’t exist, or B) He/she/it can’t prove it to us. A god who isn’t all-powerful enough to prove his/her/its existence to us isn’t a god at all by any definition I can think of. Therefore, either God doesn’t exist or God doesn’t exist.
I’m not saying agnosticism isn’t intellectually defensible. It absolutely is. But saying it’s the “only defensible position” actually CAN’T be true, because to say that you’d have to be able to prove that God doesn’t exist, and then the position isn’t intellectually defensible anymore.
How about this as a “defensible religious position”: God might exist. If a god does exist, He/She/It might prove his/her/its existence to us, collectively or individually. Or the god might not. Or the god might be on a billion-year vacation, or otherwise completely unconcerned with the happenings of our little galaxy.



