We are all born agnostics. Agnosticism, literally means, “without knowledge.” So, the answer to the question, “What is the meaning of life?” or “Is there a God?” their answer would be, “I don’t know.” Because we begin life not knowing and only later develop notions about the possible answers, usually from our parents, I consider agnosticism as the natural default position. Not only do we come into this world not knowing, for the first part of our lives, we don’t care to know. We have too many other things on our agendas, such as learning the basics of life functioning.

I suppose all religions and some of the non-religious views on the meaning of life, believe that their view is the natural default or primary position. I know for sure that Christianity and Islam do. I’ve heard atheist say that atheism is the proper default position and religion is an artificial, baseless answer to the big questions. I, however, characterize atheism along with religions as a secondary position, agnosticism being primary.

The Christians are taught that we are born with the notion of a personal God and that the evidence of that God is so overwhelming that you have to be an idiot or immoral to not see it. They see this position supported by such Bible verses as Romans 1:18- 20:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

This above passage was written around 58 AD. The world at that time was profoundly different from the world we live in today. Society, overwhelming believed in supernatural deities behind all the functions of nature. It was either the Jewish God, the Greco-Roman gods, or the new Christian God. It would have been very difficult to find an atheist at that time or even an agnostic. However, since then, plausible, scientific answers have been given for many of those phenomena. It is much easier today to be an atheist or agnostic than it was in 58 AD and God’s existence is no longer obvious. Unfortunately, the Church has engaged in denial or demonization of those in science who have supplied these answers, rather than celebrating these answers as knowing more about the creator via the stuff he as made.

The Church has also failed by not engaging those outside the faith who have been satisfied with the answers about nature that science gives. I have found most churches not being welcoming to us who value reason (God-given reason I may add), neither the conservative churches who see science as from the devil nor the progressive chruches who believe that God can ONLY be know through irrational spirituality.

The Christian however, and I suspect it is true with most religions, likes to continue thinking that their answer is the only one that intelligent, moral people would make. It is an ego-centric position that all cultural groups have, that their ideas are the best and those outside their ideas are evil idiots. But is simply not true. The answers given by the atheist are well thought out and are plausible. The atheists I know have reached their conclusions based on natural reason, not because of an immoral act. Many of them are more honest and have a love for truth more than myself or most of the Christians I’ve known.

Absurdities of Agnosticism

It is a little harsh to ascribe absurdities to agnostics because it has not committed to a position. You can only argue against that lack of commitment.

What is wrong with not committing to a position? I can only throw out two possible problems.

Missing a more meaningful life?

It is possible to think that living without a confident notion about the ultimate meaning to life, we being created by a higher being with a specific purpose, you will miss an important part of a quality life. Of course, the Christian and religious persons would assert this is as definitely true. However, you can make an reasonable argument that it is not. Do religious people have a better life here on earth? The atheists think not. Religion does not create an utopia here on earth as we would like to think. Don’t forget that religion has been the number one issue for strife and war for thousands of years. But a well-developed application of good religious views, in the case of Christianity, following the actual teachings of Christ (a lover of peace, all people, and truth) alone rather than subscribing the complex and often dysfunctional culture of Christianity, can offer a better life experience.

The Consequences of Non-belief

The Dogma of Damnation

Christianity for certain has language in its Bible that if you do not believe in God, and specifically in Christ as the messiah of that God, you will not enjoy eternity with God. As a matter of fact, there is language that you will have to otherwise, endure eternal punishment. This has been the main position of the Christian Church for the past two millennia. The Church (and king) also found a great advantage for itself, using a celestial carrot (heaven) and stick (hell) to control the masses. Most conservative Christians and Muslims hold this view. It seems consistent with their notion of a just God, because they also hold the view that the rejection of their God is an issue of moral depravity, deserving such punishment.

For many of us, we wrestle with this idea of eternal punishment for nonbelievers because it is hard to imagine a just God behaving this way. However, I’m sure there are many things that we don’t like or don’t make sense to all of us, which turn out to be true. Some of us like to think of a universal application of the redemption of Christ. The reason is, knowing that there are so many people who don’t believe in the Christian God, not for morally depraved reasons, but due to culture (they live in a non-Christian culture, or in place were they have not heard of our God), or through an honest search for meaning. How fair is that? If someone sincerely searches for truth, but still gets it wrong, they should be punished for that?

You can reap two interpretations from Christianity’s most famous Bible verse, John 3:16

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

In that verse you have God loving the entire world but you also have it singling out those who believe.

Now there is the possibility that condemnation by a just God could only apply to the morally depraved people, the Hitlers, Putins, TV evangelist manipulating people for money, and politicians who destroy a country with their lies for self-gain. The Bible also alludes to the fact that the people Christians think are good aren’t the same people that God sees as good.

When I was an evangelical, the way we rationalized a good God who loved all people but would throw those people he loved into eternal hell is because he had no choice. We believed (and was at the center of Campus Crusade’s “Four Spiritual Laws” evangelism tract) that there were these universal laws that God had to obey, which stated if people sinned (a long list of behaviors that we made up that went far beyond the Ten Commandments) God had no choice but to throw them into hell unless they “accepted Christ.”

The philosophical problem with this idea of laws that God would have to adhere to, is it puts us back into the same problem the Greco-Romans had. Their gods were too small. Their gods were similar to the Marvel super heroes, who had to submit to the laws that govern them. Then who is really God? God, or the laws that govern God? And, who gave those greater laws? Not God, or he could change them.

Pascal’s Wager

The philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) said the following, which has been called, “Pascal’s Wager.”

Pascal contends that a rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and actively strive to believe in God. The reasoning behind this stance lies in the potential outcomes: if God does not exist, the individual incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries. However, if God does indeed exist, they stand to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven in Abrahamic tradition, while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell. (from Wikipedia)

So, those are the honest conclusions I’ve made. This is personal to me. I became an agnostic at an early age, a closeted agnostic. I lived in the Bible belt and to say out loud that you were an agnostic, could get you hated if not killed. I retruned to agnosticism after I left evangelicalism in 1990. I found it to be an untenable position, a hard balancing act. My curious mind had to have more certainty than that. I then moved on to a serious consideration of atheism. Which I will discuss that next time.

I will rest my case on agnosticism.

Mike