Thursday, August 4, 2011

A - gnosticism = "Without Knowledge"

It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” 

                                             - William Kingdon Clifford

When the issue of God's existence is on the table someone usually says something like this. The atheist is confident that God does not exist. The theist is confident that God does exist. But the agnostic simply says, “
the evidence is insufficient, so I will not make a judgment.”

What the agnostic often fails to realize, however, is that the judgment not to make a judgment is in itself a judgment—and it is a judgment that stems from a deep, moral sense. The agnostic, whether or not he states the fact explicitly, believes that it is wrong to make a judgment without sufficient evidence.

It. Is. Wrong.

 But the concept of wrongness is purely subjective in an uncreated, unintended universe. There is no way that things are supposed to be (or not supposed to be) in a world that has developed from nothing for no reason. In this kind of world, it is no more wrong to accept an idea without sufficient evidence than it is to reject an idea without sufficient evidence, because the category of wrongness is ultimately an illusion.

The agnostic makes a judgment based on a moral premise, the moral premise being what Clifford says: it is
wrong to make a judgment about something when the evidence is insufficient. The agnostic judges that the evidence for God's existence is insufficient, takes for granted the moral premise that it is wrong to draw a conclusion without sufficient evidence, and then decides to remain undecided. What the agnostic fails to realize is that his argument for his agnosticism rests on a moral standard that cannot be true if God does not exist. If there is no God, there is no wrong.

No comments:

Post a Comment