The Agnostic Question

- Lachlan Kent

Atheism is increasingly viewed in the media as an extreme position on the existence of God. Some have even gone so far as calling us atheists (whoever “we” are) religious fanatics. Not surprisingly, I differ on that account of atheism, as probably do you if you are one, and here’s why.

I am not just an atheist; I am also an agnostic. That might sound at first like the kind of garbled language used by religious adherents to justify their position on any number of contemporary issues (my current favourite being the Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane’s claim that his “sexuality” is expressed as “self giving”, another example of how the Catholic Church distorts normal sexuality); but I assure you it is a sound position if you take into account that there is a difference between the “facts” and the evidence”.

I, like everyone else on this pale-blue dot, am agnostic about the facts. God may exist. Jesus may be the Son of God, whatever that means. Mohammed may have received the last and final revelation. The Jews might have a Covenant with Yahweh. Durga might indeed have eight arms. None of these things are impossible in my world and I accept that I am agnostic about them because, to my mind, there is no evidence either way. I don’t know and neither do you, whether you’re religious or not.

On the other hand, it is on the evidence brought forward by religion that I am staunchly, sternly, stoically, and extremely atheist. I do not accept the gospels as either the literal or lateral word of God. I do not accept the contradictory and cobbled – together – after – the – fact testimony of people who claim to have seen Jesus reanimate and then ascend unto Heaven. I do not accept that Muhammad was channeling the Creator simply because he said so. I do not accept that Moses conversed with God despite what he may have believed at the time.

I have degree in psychology and instead accept the very real and disturbing possibility that all the so-called evidence for God can be more parsimoniously explained by, firstly, the psychopathology of individuals and then, secondly, the normal social psychology. If I were to act as judge or jury in the case for God, not only wouldn’t I use scriptural or even current testimony to inform my judgment, I also wouldn’t accept them as evidence in the first place!

However, being extreme on the evidence for God does not make me extreme on the facts as they stand. Creation exnihilo is as mysterious today as it was 2000 years ago and I cannot discount the possibility that intelligence or consciousness may have played or continue to play a role, for two reasons; firstly, scientists can’t explain consciousness and so don’t really know what it is; and secondly, scientists are still only guessing whether there was a time before the big bang or universes beyond. The good scientific evidence for a conscious-less creation remain inconclusive, and so I remain agnostic. “Not guilty, your honour!” And not because God didn’t do it but because there remains reasonable doubt.

Of course, that reasonable doubt is exploited by monotheism to the point of becoming “unreasonable undoubt”, i.e. faith, but atheists are in no position to deny that doubt exists, no matter how anti-atheist their leanings. Doubt is in fact one of the hallmarks of atheism, is it not?

And so it is on this moderate middle ground that atheists, I believe, can extend a warm, conciliatory hand to the professed agnostics by safely admitting that we’re all agnostic about the facts. God may have done it but, based on the evidence, we have to acquit him of creation at this stage of the trial.

And saying “not guilty” makes you an atheist whether you call yourself an agnostic, an atheist or (like me) both.

Courtesey : The Australian Atheist