by Gerhard Adam

Created on: July 15, 2008

While one author has indicated that agnostics are often referred to as "Chickens*t atheists", there is a sense that somehow the agnostic takes a more reasoned position by suggesting there isn't sufficient proof for either position; religion or atheism.

However, this is misleading, since as has been indicated in other discussions, these two sides don't have the same requirements of probability or proof, there really can't be any "sitting on the fence". There are many things which lack absolute proof, but I seriously doubt the agnostic would embrace them as legitimate, such as Santa Claus, ghosts, vampires, or the tooth fairy.

The underlying issue with agnosticism, is that it appears to represent a position on an issue that the individual doesn't have much concern over. In other words, it doesn't really matter whether A or B is true, so therefore the individual feels content to be "agnostic" about either suggestion.

In effect, agnosticism is a close cousin to apathy.

This may seem a somewhat radical interpretation, but I find it virtually impossible to conceive of an individual that is so neutral that their perspective on the world is constantly held in reserve since they "lack evidence". Since religion requires a fair amount of faith, it would seem that the agnostic can never truly be comfortable with such a position, since faith is the state of believing without proof.

In addition, religion isn't a quest for proof, so effectively the religious perspective cannot be a real consideration with respect to agnosticism.

In effect, the agnostic appears to not want to be dragged into the debate. It is easier to claim that there isn't sufficient proof, despite knowing that no proof is likely. So the agnostic takes the view that theirs is the only reasonable position and by being non-comittal they have the true perspective.

The simple truth is that the vast majority of choices people make are based on personal beliefs, and certainly not by proof. It would be impossible for each piece of information to be validated before it was accepted, so to suggest that this is a reasonable approach begs the question. It cannot work in normal life situations, unless the outcome is fundamentally insignificant. This should not be confused with gathering evidence in solving a problem, but rather the day to day grind of information we are exposed to which must often be processed immediately without the ability for reflection.

In reality no two claims are ever equal despite the appeal of agnostics in suggesting that they are "reserving" judgement. While there are many topics on which I am agnostic, in reality it simply means, I don't really care which way it turns out.

Learn more about this author, Gerhard Adam.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.