Agnosticism is the view that knowledge of whether or not God exists
is unattainable, that we cannot be justified in believing either that
God does exist or that he does not. There are two approaches to arguing
for this view: first, it can be argued that knowledge of God’s existence
is unattainable because no evidence could ever justify religious
belief; second, it can be argued that knowledge of God’s existence is
unattainable because evidence of God’s existence is unattainable. One
argument of each kind is considered here.
The Argument from Uncertainty
The
argument from uncertainty
takes the fact that we cannot achieve certainty as to whether God
exists as justification for agnosticism. Whatever evidence there is for
theism and for atheism is fallible, the argument suggests, and therefore
ought to be rejected. Of course, we accept fallible evidence as
sufficient justification for many of our beliefs, so this argument will
only be persuasive if there is some reason to require better evidence
when answering religious questions than we require in these other cases.
One possible reason for so doing is the importance of being right
concerning the existence of God.
The Argument from Incomprehensibility
An alternative approach to arguing for agnosticism is the
argument from incomprehensibility.
Theists have often been content to say that we are unable to comprehend
God, that his being transcends our mundane experiences and that our
concepts, which are derived from such experiences, cannot be used to
describe him. If true, then this might be thought to count in favor of
agnosticism; if we cannot comprehend God, then how can we reason with
any confidence concerning his existence?
Comments
Post a Comment