Radical Agnosticism

A few times I’ve referred to my view about “the God question” as “radical agnosticism.” I thought it might be fun to work through what this means.

For the purposes of this discussion, by “God” I shall mean follow Hart’s definition of God as “the one infinite source of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things” (The Experience of God, p. 30).

Next, I shall stipulate that our assertions about the world fall into two classes: those that take a truth-value in all possible worlds and those that take a truth-value only in the actual world. This is a contemporary version of “Hume’s Fork”: there are “relations of ideas”, “truths of reason”, analytic a priori claims and then there are “matters of fact”, “truths of fact,” synthetic a posteriori claims. (There are some reasons to be skeptical of this neat distinction but I’ll leave that aside for now.)

Whether or not God exists would therefore seem to be either a “truth of fact” or a “truth of reason”.  I shall therefore now argue that it cannot be either.

Truths of fact are either directly observable phenomena or they are posited phenomena. (Though the boundary is strictly methodological and shifts over time.)  But there are many presumptive truths of fact — claims with truth-value about the actual world — which we know have turned out to be false. And we know that because of empirical inquiry, and in particular, in the collection of techniques of inquiry called “science”. (I shall not insult anyone’s intelligence by assuming that there is a single thing called “the scientific method”).

Central to disciplined empirical inquiry, including and especially the sciences, is the act of measurement: intersubjectively verifiable assignments of quantitative variation across some interval of spatio-temporal locations. (It might be said that “the Scientific Revolution” is the historical period during which measurement slowly becomes the dominant conception of objectivity.)

But with that notion in place, it is perfectly clear that it is not even possible to take measurements of a perfectly transcendent being. A being that transcends all of space and time cannot be measured, which means that no claims about Him can be subjected to the tribunal of scientific inquiry. And hence no matters of fact about God can be verified one way or the other.  That is to say that all claims about God that are restricted to the actual world have an indeterminate truth-value: they cannot be determined to be true or false

The epistemic situation is no better when we turn from a posteriori to a priori claims. In a priori claims, the tribunal is not science but logic, and the central epistemic concept is not measurability but provability. Can the existence of God be proven? Many have thought so!

But here two things must be pointed out: a proof, to be deductively valid, consists of re-organizing the information contained in the initial assumptions. One can generate a logically valid proof of the existence of God. (Gödel, for example, has a logically valid version of the Ontological Argument.)  The process of proof-construction is not going to give you more information in the conclusion than was present in the premises.

Logic is limited in another important way: there are multiple logics. What can proved in one logic can be disproven in a different logic. It depends on the choice of logical system. Once you’ve chosen a logical system, and you’ve chosen some premises, then of course one can prove that God exists. But neither the premises nor the rules are “self-evident”, inscribed on the very face of reason or of reality, etc.

Hence we cannot determine that God exists or does not exist on the basis of logic alone, since provability is no more reliable here than measurability is.

On this basis, I conclude that it is not even possible for beings such as ourselves to assign any truth-value at all to the assertion that God exists. This yields a radical agnosticism. Whereas the moderate agnostic can accept the logical possibility of some future evidence or reasoning that would resolve the issue, the radical agnostic insists that beings with minds like ours are completely unable to resolve the issue at all.

Radical agnosticism is at the same time compatible with either utter indifference to the question of the existence of God (“apatheism”) or some quite definite stance (ranging from theism to pantheism to deism to atheism). All that radical agnosticism insists on here is that all definite stances on the God-question are leaps of faith — no matter what direction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

739 thoughts on “Radical Agnosticism

  1. Hey KN

    Very interesting.

    Suppose for the sake of argument Christianity is true.

    In such a case could the second person of the Trinity (the incarnate Son) know that the other persons of the Godhead existed in your opinion?

    peace

  2. fifthmonarchyman,

    Sure. Once you start off with the assumptions of Christianity, a lot of further inferences can be drawn. That’s what theology is!

    That doesn’t affect the point I was making, which is that it is irrational to begin with Christianity (or any organized religion). It is also, for parallel reasons, irrational to begin with atheism.

    In other words: if one restricts one’s assertions to what is even in principle knowable (whether a posteriori or a priori) to beings with minds like ours, then radical agnosticism is the only viable position.

  3. Again assuming for the sake of argument that Christianity is true.

    Would our union with Christ and ineludible deification void your argument?

    like I said very interesting

    peace

  4. Kantian Naturalist: Once you start off with the assumptions of Christianity, a lot of further inferences can be drawn.

    So you would agree that If Christianity is true we can know God exists?

    Kantian Naturalist: That doesn’t affect the point I was making, which is that it is irrational to begin with Christianity (or any organized religion).

    I don’t think it rational to start with us at all. Organized Religion, Atheism and Agnosticism all make that mistake.

    On the other hand it is perfectly rational for God to start with himself and if he chooses to reveal himself to us.

    peace

  5. fifthmonarchyman: Again assuming for the sake of argument that Christianity is true.

    Would our union with Christ and ineludible deification void your argument?

    like I said very interesting

    peace

    No, I don’t think so.

    If one begins with the assumption that Christianity is true, then one is already assuming that my argument is invalid. From the assumption that my argument is invalid, showing that my argument is refuted doesn’t actually accomplish very much.

    Put otherwise: there’s a difference between refuting my argument by accepting its premises and showing where the conclusion is unwarranted and simply refusing to start where I think one should start. Refusal is not refutation.

  6. Kantian Naturalist: there’s a difference between refuting my argument by accepting its premises and showing where the conclusion is unwarranted and simply refusing to start where I think one should start.

    Right now I don’t see a flaw in your argument.
    If Christianity is false I don’t think you can know if God exists or not.

    Then again I don’t think you can know anything if Christianity is false so your argument would be a truism in that case.

    peace

  7. fifthmonarchyman: If Christianity is false I don’t think you can know if God exists or not.

    And if one cannot know if Christianity is true or false, one cannot know if god exists or not.

    So we might as well assume our conclusion and be done with it.

    Saves a lot of work.

  8. petrushka: And if one cannot know if Christianity is true or false, one cannot know if god exists or not.

    Right

    But if (since) Christianity is true we can know God exists as well as a host of other things.

    Apparently KN has acknowledged this. Do you not agree?

    petrushka: So we might as well assume our conclusion and be done with it.

    No I would not advise doing that except for the sake of argument.

    KN’s argument has assumed his conclusion (that one can not know if Christianity is true) and low and behold he finds that to be the case. That knowledge nugget was never in doubt given his starting point.

    A much better approach IMO would be to look at various worldviews and ask ourselves what would be the implications if they were true instead of trying to find some sort of mythical neutral ground from which to begin.

    There is no epistemological neutral ground.

    peace

  9. Here’s my thought experiment:

    Maybe there’s a teenage programmer sitting in front of a computer, running a simulation of the entire world. We (but not that teenager) are all part of the simulation.

    People would ordinarily agree that the teenage programmer is omnipotent and omniscient in our simulated world, but perhaps not in his own world.

    It seems entirely plausible that the teenager would not actually know anything about us or our categories or our thoughts, because it’s entirely possible that none of those is actually specified anywhere in the program (much like Conway’s game of life program does not anywhere specify gliders or glider guns).

  10. It seems possible to be omnipotent without being omniscient.

    As in the example of programming. The program doesn’t have to be particularly complex, just not understood by the programmer.

    Douglas Adams might speculate that this has already happened, and describes our existence.

  11. fifthmonarchyman: But if (since) Christianity is true we can know God exists as well as a host of other things.

    Is there a reason why, if [enter religion] was true, we should not know if [enter corresponding god] exists?

  12. fifthmonarchyman: A much better approach IMO would be to look at various worldviews and ask ourselves what would be the implications if they were true instead of trying to find some sort of mythical neutral ground from which to begin.

    There is no epistemological neutral ground.

    I don’t see how this could work — if there’s no epistemologically neutral ground, then there’s no neutral ground from which the implications of any worldview could be evaluated. Without an epistemologically neutral ground, then any worldview can only be evaluated according to its own criteria or internal logic. That’s as true for Christianity as it is for any other metaphysical system (naturalism included).

  13. If dazzism is true, then I can reveal myself to you all as your creator and overlord. Now send me money or pray forgiveness

  14. Neil Rickert: It seems entirely plausible that the teenager would not actually know anything about us or our categories or our thoughts, because it’s entirely possible that none of those is actually specified anywhere in the program

    I agree,

    The only way that we could be sure that the creator knows about us or our categories or our thoughts is if he incarnated himself into our reality and became one of us.

    Again it turns out that Christianity has a ready made answer every time a question like this comes up.

    Quite a coincidence is it not 😉

    peace

  15. dazz: Is there a reason why, if [enter religion] was true, we should not know if [enter corresponding god] exists?

    It depends on the religion. I don’t know of any religion besides Christianity that has an answer for KN’s dilemma. If you have a suggestion for one that might work please bring it forward and we can explore it

    dazz: If dazzism is true, then I can reveal myself to you all as your creator and overlord.

    How can you do that given KN’s argument?

    peace

  16. Kantian Naturalist: Without an epistemologically neutral ground, then any worldview can only be evaluated according to its own criteria or internal logic. That’s as true for Christianity as it is for any other metaphysical system (naturalism included).

    I agree,

    That is why I ask for folks from other worldviews to justify themselves so much.

    I know explaining where you are coming from can be annoying but I need to know what criteria or internal logic you are using so that I can evaluate your claims.

    peace

  17. GlenDavidson: That you have a cliche for everything?

    Not surprising or coincidental.

    I don’t understand

    Please explain how my answer is a cliche. It seems to me to be the only solution to Neil’s dilemma and I’ve actually put a lot of thought into it.

    The incarnation is a core doctrine of Christianity it’s philosophical implications have been pondered for millennia I’m not sure how you can possibly conclude it is a cliche.

    What am I missing?

    peace

  18. fifthmonarchyman: It depends on the religion. I don’t know of any religion besides Christianity that has an answer for KN’s dilemma. If you have a suggestion for one that might work please bring it forward and we can explore i

    OK, so…

    Is there a reason why, if christianity is true, we should not know if the christian god exists?

    fifthmonarchyman: How can you do that given KN’s argument?

    I can because that’s just how dazzists roll. Where’s my money tho?

  19. dazz: Is there a reason why, if christianity is true, we should not know if the christian god exists?

    If Christianity is true it would be up to God whether you could know he exists.

    He has revealed enough of himself so that you are with out excuse but that does not necessarily imply that he has revealed himself fully to you or that he ever will.

    dazz: I can because that’s just how dazzists roll.

    If you want to be taken seriously you are going to have to be more specific. How will exactly does the mighty Dazz reveal himself given KN’s argument? How could he possibly do so?

    When it comes to the Christian God I can give you further specifics to explain his revelatory ability if you like. Just ask.

    peace

  20. dazz: Evaluate claims under what criteria?

    Under the internal criteria of your worldview.

    peace

  21. fifthmonarchyman: If Christianity is true it would be up to God whether you could know he exists.

    He has revealed enough of himself so that you are with out excuse

    This is clearly contradictory. If I’m without excuse, then I should know for sure. If I don’t then it’s my fault (or else I would have an excuse). If it’s my fault it’s not up to God whether I can know if he exists

    And of course, if it’s not up to god whether I could know if he exists, then christianity is false

  22. fifthmonarchyman: Again it turns out that Christianity has a ready made answer every time a question like this comes up.

    Quite a coincidence is it not 😉

    Pushy salespeople always have a ready answer for anything that comes up while they are peddling their goods.

  23. dazz: Under dazzism you’re always wrong. By definition

    OK as I have repeatedly said I believe that revelation is possible.

    So by your own standards and definitions according to your own statement, if dazzism is true revelation is impossible and therefore given your own criteria the great dazz can’t reveal himself to us as God.

    That is what I mean by evaluating claims by your own internal criteria

    Peace

  24. fifthmonarchyman: OK as I have repeatedly said I believe that revelation is possible.

    So by your own standards and definitions according to your own statement if dazzism is true revelation is impossible and therefore given your own criteria the great dazz can’t reveal himself to us as God.

    That is what I mean by evaluating claims by your own internal criteria

    Peace

    I was being facetious, was it really that hard to catch?
    Speaking of being internally inconsistent, your own propositions are contradictory as exposed above. Will you just ignore that?

  25. dazz: If I’m without excuse, then I should know for sure.

    Do you think certainty is necessary for any knowledge whatsoever?

    dazz: If I don’t then it’s my fault (or else I would have an excuse)

    I would agree, Your ignorance is your fault.
    But the Christian God can still grant you knowledge as an unwarranted gift.

    dazz: If it’s my fault it’s not up to God whether I can know if he exists

    Sure it is, You have forfeited your right to knowledge and now God can if he chooses grant you knowledge based solely on his sovereign grace.

    Think of a child who has forfeited his right to an allowance. At that point it is up to the parent whether he will show mercy and give the allowance anyway. But the child is still responsible if he does not get it.

    peace

  26. I prefer to start with the presumption that there is a real world, and that we can gain genuine if limited understanding of it. And if this presumption is accepted, then we can say that what is evidenced can be studied and perhaps understood, and what is not evidenced, we can’t say anything about except that there’s no evidence.

    Claims about gods fall into two categories – empirically testable, and not empirically testable. Those claims in the first category have failed all tests. And while we can’t say anything about non-testable claims, the track record for all claims is strongly suggestive.

  27. Flint: I prefer to start with the presumption that there is a real world, and that we can gain genuine if limited understanding of it.

    how do you know that this is the case given your worldview? Could you not possibly be part of the matrix for example? If you were how would you know it?

    What about the possibility that you are a boltzmann brain alone in your own thoughts?

    peace

  28. fifthmonarchyman:Your ignorance is your fault.
    But the Christian God can still grant you knowledge as an unwarranted gift.

    For some reason, I’m reminded of the soldier who saw everything twice in Catch-22. The doctor held up one finger, the soldier saw two. The doctor held up two fingers, the soldier saw two. The doctor held up four fingers, the soldier saw two. You see your god this same way – context need not apply.

  29. fifthmonarchyman: how do you know that this is the case given your worldview? Could you not possibly be part of the matrix for example? If you were how would you know it?

    I can’t know this, which is why I said it’s a presumption. However, over the course of time it has shown itself to be a very compelling and consistent presumption. It needs no magical underpinnings.

    What about the possibility that you are a boltzmann brain alone in your own thoughts?

    We all have exactly that same problem. I’m not going to lose any sleep over it, and I doubt you will either.

  30. Flint: You see your god this same way – context need not apply.

    Could you elaborate a little.
    I haven’t read the book. Chalk it up to poor public schools.

    It seems to me that what you are describing is an indictment of your own worldview. If your knowledge depended on your own cognitive ability how could you possibly know you aren’t the solder you speak of?

    peace

  31. fifthmonarchyman: now God can if he chooses grant you knowledge based solely on his sovereign grace

    Cool, so I have an excuse for not knowing that he/she/it exists then.

  32. Flint: I can’t know this

    Cool thank you for that

    Flint: However, over the course of time it has shown itself to be a very compelling and consistent presumption.

    how do you know that you were not created 5 minutes ago with memories that make you falsely believe that there has been a “course of time”

    Flint: We all have exactly that same problem.

    I don’t have that problem.

    peace

  33. dazz: Cool, so I have an excuse for not knowing that he/she/it exists then.

    what would that excuse be?

    “I didn’t know enough about you because you did not choose to give me what I did not deserve and did not want?”

    Is that a valid excuse in your opinion?

    peace

  34. Every worldview is internally consistent by its own criteria. If there is no epistemologically neutral baseline (and perhaps there isn’t) then relativism is the human condition.

  35. fifthmonarchyman: I know explaining where you are coming from can be annoying but I need to know what criteria or internal logic you are using so that I can evaluate your claims.

    If you must assume Christianity is true to evaluate any claim and therefore have prejudged all but one claim as being false, what exactly are you evaluating?

  36. Hey all,

    I don’t want to derail KN’s fascinating discussion of radical agnosticism so after I respond to a couple comments directed at me I’m going to step back to see if anyone here can refute his argument.

    Please take the time to give it a go. He is claiming that it is not rationally warranted to be an atheist but that agnosticism is the only option for people like us given his starting position.

    what say ye?????

    Kantian Naturalist: Every worldview is internally consistent by its own criteria.

    I would vehemently disagree. I believe every non christian worldview is inconsistent at some point. Often that point is unexamined but dig enough and you will find it. Right now you are looking at whether atheism is a rationally consistent position given your worldview. I think you have demonstrated that it is not. We shall see

    newton: If you must assume Christianity is true to evaluate any claim and therefore have prejudged all but one claim as being false, what exactly are you evaluating?

    I’m evaluating whether a claim is consistent with the criteria and internal logic of the worldview it originated from.

    There are lots more claims to look at besides the truth of Christianity. For instance KN has one on the table right now that I find to be very interesting

    peace

  37. fifthmonarchyman: I believe every non christian worldview is inconsistent at some point

    I’ve been trying to point out the inconsistencies of your argument, but you’re immune to logic, like most fundies.

    You agree that I don’t know god exists or at least that it’s possible to not know, and you claim it’s my fault. That must mean that it’s not up to God whether one knows or not, and in turn, that your epistemology is false.

    You can’t have your cake and eat it

  38. dazz: You agree that I don’t know god exists or at least that it’s possible to not know, and you claim it’s my fault.

    I absolutely do not agree with this. I have said often and repeatedly here that everyone knows God exists. I’m not sure how you could have possibly missed this. Where have you been?

    What you are (possibly) ignorant about is not God’s existence but some of his character traits.

    dazz: That must mean that it’s not up to God whether one knows or not, and in turn, that your epistemology is false.

    No I’m sorry but you have apparently misunderstood what I said. You know that God exists so that you are without excuse. God has chosen to reveal himself to you. (Romans chapter one)

    On the other hand you (possibly) don’t know all about God and your ignorance is your own fault. You have forfeited your right to knowledge.

    I hope that helps.

    peace

  39. fifthmonarchyman: You know that God exists

    You are, as expected, projecting your epistemology on me.
    No, I don’t know that any “gods” exist, and in fact, all evidence points to the fact that the christian god can’t exist, which makes my epistemology totally consistent with atheism.

    Or you mean to tell me I just don’t know that I know?
    It doesn’t make a difference either way, it still means that your epistemology is false.

  40. Fifth:

    Click…whirrrr…ticka ticka ticka ticka…*spoink*

    “how do you know that this is the case given your worldview?”

  41. Also you said:

    fifthmonarchyman: If Christianity is true it would be up to God whether you could know he exists.

    But if everybody must know god exists (you again, beg the question to avoid the blatant contradiction) then it’s not up to God whether one could know he exists or not.

    So you contradict yourself again, and if it’s not up to god, then (Modus tollens) it follows that Christianity is false.

    QED

  42. fifthmonarchyman: evaluating whether a claim is consistent with the criteria and internal logic of the worldview it originated from.

    Which you are unable to do without causing the logic of your worldview to be inconsistent.

    There are lots more claims to look at besides the truth of Christianity. For instance KN has one on the table right now that I find to be very interesting

    Yes,it seems very reasonable.

  43. @ Kantian Naturalist

    Your logic is unsound as you are guilty of a false dichotomy.

    You seem to conflate all non-science (including religious experience) with pseudo-science. You are in fact (very subtly indeed) guilty of begging the question.

    You and I touched on this topic earlier when discussing Popper’s contention that non-scientific statements could still be meaningful.

    Religious experience could still be meaningful even when not meeting the criterion of “verification” – a criterion that Empirical Positivism also fails to met, I may add, and which (to me) seems remarkably similar to your thesis.

    I direct your attention to
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#NonUnPse

    I also remind you of your own frequent citation of the solopist quandary when attempting to address such questions.

    best regards

  44. Kantian Naturalist:
    That doesn’t affect the point I was making, which is that it is irrational to begin with Christianity (or any organized religion). It is also, for parallel reasons, irrational to begin with atheism.

    I disagree. Atheism, as I may have mentioned a time or two recently, is simply a lack of belief. Unless and until evidence is provided for a claim, the rational position is that one should not believe it. That’s not to say one should positively assert that the claim isn’t true without evidence. Lack of belief is the rational default.

    In other words: if one restricts one’s assertions to what is even in principle knowable (whether a posteriori or a priori) to beings with minds like ours, then radical agnosticism is the only viable position.

    It seems to me that you are giving some god concept a privileged position simply because it’s a common belief. Are you equally radically agnostic about the Loch Ness Monster?

  45. fifthmonarchyman:
    . . . I don’t think you can know anything if Christianity is false
    . . . .

    You’ve asserted this a number of times but have yet to support it with a logical argument.

    Note that asking other people how they know things is not a logical argument in support of your claim.

  46. dazz:
    If dazzism is true, then I can reveal myself to you all as your creator and overlord. Now send me money or pray forgiveness

    If I send you money will you stop revealing yourself?

Leave a Reply