In defence of agnosticism, not apathy

Does agnosticism leave the most room for tolerance?

An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing can be known about the existence of God. And to me this has always been obvious. How can we know that God exists? We might have strong views one way or another, and I think about such views all the time – yes, agnostics do think about religion. Arguably they’ve thought about it more than anyone.

I was not encouraged to be religious from an early age, and neither was I encouraged not to be. But I’ve always taken an immense interest in religion and religious studies was one of my favourite subjects at school. My sister, having barely mentioned the idea, chose to be confirmed into the Anglican Church. I chose agnosticism. My parents, themselves fairly apathetic towards religion, are baffled by us both.

Agnosticism is not an apathetic stance. People who are apathetic on the subject of religion might say, "Well, I guess religion is a nice idea, but I haven’t really thought about it, so I don’t know if I have a faith or not." Whereas people who label themselves agnostics have simply had the courage to say, "I don’t know if God exists. No-one can know that. But I see many people with strong faith, and just because I personally don’t share it, that doesn’t make it less valid."

"Yes, that’s all very well," you might argue, "but you’re just sitting on the fence; you’re too cowardly to make up your mind." But I argue that agnosticism is the bravest stance that one can take in the religious debate. In a modern world plagued by doubts in both science and religion, and still wrestling with the immense problem of evil and suffering, to stand up and say, "the evidence doesn’t look promising, but ultimately I just don’t know," is surely a brave thing to do.

Many, not all, are driven to accept religion through fear – to them the alternative of living in a world without certainty, without the faith that there is something better to come, is simply too ghastly to contemplate. Similarly, others take refuge in science, with a capital ‘S’ – ‘Science’, they claim, has all the answers and if we don’t know them today we will do tomorrow.

In a modern world plagued by doubts in both science and religion, and still wrestling with the immense problem of evil and suffering, to stand up and say, "the evidence doesn’t look promising, but ultimately I just don’t know," is surely a brave thing to do.

But science doesn’t have all the answers: as philosopher David Hume argued, just because the sun rose yesterday and the day before that and the day before that, as far back as we can remember, makes it extremely likely that it will do the same tomorrow, but by no means certain.

I attended a talk earlier this term by the Reverend Lord Richard Harries. He began by stating that intolerance was arguably implicit in any serious world view, and while acknowledging the benefits of engaging in dialogue with people of other beliefs, he did not answer the question which was the title of his talk: "Can religions learn to be tolerant?" I think that religious individuals can be tolerant, and I have plenty of time for agnostic theists, but unfortunately I think that there will always be intolerant people in any society, whether religious or atheist. The reverend considered both religious and atheistic viewpoints, but not agnosticism, a serious world view that leaves most room for tolerance.

After this talk, a friend and confirmed atheist asked me whether I thought the tooth fairy might exist. I said no, I didn’t think so. So, he said, God doesn’t exist either – we have no more evidence than for the tooth fairy. Millions of people don’t believe in the tooth fairy, but there are millions of religious people in the world. I’m not saying that just because millions of people believe in something necessarily means that they are right (and the nature of their beliefs vary tremendously) but I am saying that we can’t just dismiss every religious faith outright, especially as some are so incredibly strong and even more have at least been seriously considered. If I’ve seriously considered something and so have you, but we’ve come to different conclusions, then we both must be prepared to discuss and defend our views. That’s tolerance. Bringing up the tooth fairy is funny, but irrelevant.

I think that religious individuals can be tolerant, and I have plenty of time for agnostic theists, but unfortunately I think that there will always be intolerant people in any society, whether religious or atheist.

When people ask me about my religious views I tell them that I’m an agnostic. I’ll probably go on and waffle about the inherently flawed logic in arguments for the existence of God, or about the problem of evil, or about how incredibly fascinating I find Tibetan Buddhism. But they’ve probably shrugged their shoulders and walked away. After all, you can’t have a discussion with an agnostic, can you?

In a group debate somebody once asked me whether I held strong views about anything. Slightly taken aback and not much of a public speaker, my answer was probably incoherent. But I do believe in tolerance and I do think that agnosticism is itself a strong view - in my opinion, the strongest.

In '‘Why I’m not a Christian’', Bertrand Russell concludes:

"We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world — its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it."

This is what I try to do every day, and when I look fair and square at the world I see tremendous complexity. And I’m not afraid to admit, after spending much time in thought and discussion, that I just don’t know – I don’t have all the answers and neither do you.

Add Comment

You must log in to submit a comment.