The unofficial psychology blog from Paul Hutchings

Let’s hear it for the (temporal) agnostics

I have read the works of several atheist writers who appear to pour scorn on ‘agnostics’ for not having the courage of their convictions to go all the way in holding an atheistic view of there being no God – no real surprises there. However, what came as a real surprise was when I attended a theology lecture a few months back and found that the religious view on offer was even more damning of agnostics than it was of atheists. It was almost as if they could understand and debate the atheist position, but the ‘agnostic’ position confused them, and so it was easier to belittle than debate the issues.Am I ‘agnostic’? Yes and no – I am in the broadest term, but agnosticism is not a catch-all term which should be used. It is akin to taking a Hindu, a Christian, a Scientologist, a Muslim, a Mormon, and a Jew and treating them as a unified religious group. There are many types of agnosticism, yet this is rarely acknowledged by either the religious or atheist sides of the argument. I believe that this is largely because some forms of agnosticism are actually far more healthy, and realistic, than the alternatives.

I consider myself to be a temporal agnostic (otherwise known as empirical agnosticism). Quite simply, I am open-minded about there being a ‘God’ or higher power, haven’t been convinced by the evidence available so far, but would like to find out one way or another. That is extremely different to the common assumption of agnosticism as a ‘we cannot know’ viewpoint (varying between a ‘strong agnostic’ and ‘agnostic atheism’ stance). I don’t mind others having a belief, I won’t go off suing people if they try to bless me or say a prayer for me (although I might put my point of view to them!), I don’t want Christmas changed to ‘Winterval’ or some rubbish like that. If anything, I would quite like to learn more, on all sides, in order for me to continue to learn and explore.

So why is it that both of the (relative) extremes of the argument are so anti this form of agnosticism? They can’t say they are not, as they are both guilty of stereotyping of all forms of agnosticism into this one-size-fits-all category which does not encompass the depth of belief within the group. The cynic in me feels that there is almost a complicit agreement between the two sides that they actually need to encourage the rift between agnosticism and atheism in order to sell books and tickets, and agnosticism stands as a mid-ground which benefits neither. At all of the theology and atheistic lectures which I have been to, it has been striking how little evidence is presented in support of one’s own side of the argument, and how much time is devoted to attacking the opposing view without viable alternative explanations.

It seems to me that the temporal/empirical agnostics need to stand up for themselves against both groups and say ‘ok, convince me – not by attacking the opposition, I’m not interested in them. Show me what you’ve got’. We are in the position to do this, but rarely do it – we let the extremes continue a futile argument which can never be won. If they won’t come to the middle ground, we have to take the middle ground to them… and define our own middle ground, not let them define it for us.


1 Response »

  1. I enjoy and appreciated your framing our similar belief as I would change it to be a little more pro-theist like this for myself

    “I am open-minded and highly optimistic about there being a ‘God’ or higher power, but haven’t been convinced by the evidence available so far and I would very much like to find out.”

    My own wording seemed less succinct

    “I don’t know whether any deities exist or not, but one day, when there is more evidence, we can better explore the existence more meaningfully. Meanwhile I choose to assume he/they likely does exist in some form, but presently appears unconcerned for humans on earth rendering the topic trivial until more evidence surfaces.”

    The problem is the Theists all point to scripture mostly regarding Jesus as evidence of God – he healed, he turned water to wine he walked on water. This could be evidence of time travel where anyone from today with a surfboard, pocket full of koolaid and some CPR or antibiotics could perform pretty much all of that MAGIC in an afternoon and awe-drop the goat herders to their knees.

    Same goes for Hindu bibles that discuss snake gods who had exploding arrows that flew like a snake clearly very effectively describing modern laser guided seeking or heat seeking type path correcting rockets and missiles using primitive words terms and definitions. Again time travel or otherworldly visitors with advanced technology very easily scientifically explains these events.

    Thus I await more evidence. Some of the best evidence we have of higher powers (from above), from afar (other worldly) or from beyond (other dimensions) were the well documented Edgar Cayce transcripts. More people who wish to push the theist theory need to explore and properly document these types of events where people know the unknowable. Where people manage to contact and bring direct communication from these higher powers to a place where we can all establish our own relationship with these higher powers.

    The scam is up. Modern man has evolved beyond being scammed by the premise that FAITH in things without proof is a requirement for salvation. I for one do not wish to be saved, I wish to know and have a relationship with the holy spirits. please stop telling me to keep my hands behind the rope line. I plan to find God and give God a hug.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: