I'm Agnostic Now?

Author’s note: This Essay is me thinking out loud – or, on paper, I guess. This is just an idea I have. Feel free to disagree with me if you have a different opinion. If you’d like to share your thoughts, please leave a comment (it's not public; only I see it).

Let’s cut right to the chase:

What if “agnosticism” is true, but none of us are agnostic?

Before you call me crazy… hear me out.

According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, an agnostic is “a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.” Furthermore, they are “not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.”

So, essentially, we have two central statements about agnosticism here:

1. Ultimate reality is unknown or unknowable.

2. Agnostics are not committed to a worldview which includes or excludes God (or gods).

Let’s start by discussing point one: Ultimate reality is unknown or unknowable.

Is this true?

From my experience, I think it is safe to say that nothing is 100% percent certain in life. When I start my car in the morning, I assume it will not blow up, but I don’t know for sure. When I buy a sandwich at the store, I assume the ingredients are all listed truthfully on the package, but I don’t know for sure. I have no reason to believe it is any different with God. I cannot, with 100% certainty, KNOW He or any other gods exist or don’t exist.

In essence, we all live by faith and actually know very little.

So, on what do I base my life?

I see two different ways to grow my understanding of reality and thus move closer to the Truth and a basis for my life:

1. Scientifically – so, through repetition.

   I could do my own scientific study on those sandwiches I buy at the store. If I compare the ingredients between the breads to the ones listed, I can say, “They’re all here. My second sandwich might also have all the ingredients in it.” If I buy 50 sandwiches and each one has all the ingredients, I will be a lot more confident that they are indeed well-made lunches.

   BUT, I cannot say that EVERY sandwich will ALWAYS have all the ingredients. Science observes repetition and tries to give an accurate prediction of the future based on patterns. It is not perfect.

2. Evidence-based – some things are difficult to test repeatedly in this scientific manner. In these instances, I must look at the evidence provided. For obvious reasons, I cannot repeatedly test whether Alexander the Great existed like I can by tasting a sandwich. However, I can examine the written accounts of his life and observe the archaeological remains of his conquests. I will then be able to make a decision based on the evidence provided whether I believe he was a real historical figure or a character of legends.

   Again, here, I must remain aware of the fact that the conclusions I draw from my observations are never beyond dispute.

Both of these approaches require me to be as honest as possible in my pursuit of Truth. I must remain as unbiased as possible in the new understanding I gain. And I must constantly apply logic during my search.

I could, for instance, deny Alexander’s conquest of Persia. I could claim that he was a fictional hero, and that all the historians who wrote about him planned to deceive others into thinking Alexander was real. And... that theory could be correct, but it would be illogical to observe the evidence and then spin it in ways to fit that narrative.

So, back at the beginning, statement number one was: Ultimate reality is unknown or unknowable.

Based on the arguments I have made, I think this is true.

For sandwiches, this is of little consequence, but what about the important things?

What does this, for instance, say about God?

- It says that He cannot be proven.

God cannot be proven? What does that mean for me?

All I can do is observe the world and myself.

Does reality point toward a creative creator who breathed life into us and has a purpose in mind for us?

Or is our world a 1-in-700-Quintillion kind of place, where matter and life developed from nothing?

(Yes, I know both options are more complex, and I know there are also other arguments regarding the origin of life)

All I can do is look at the evidence provided.

Does the evidence contained in historical writings point toward Jesus being a fictional character or perhaps even a real man who was a charlatan and deceived the crowds?

Or does the evidence point toward Him being the Son of God?

These are the important questions. These are the ones we must wrestle with.

In conclusion, according to the first half of the definition of agnosticism, I think I am indeed an agnostic. As a human being, I simply CANNOT know things with complete certainty.

BUT there is more to a man’s worldview and faith than 100% certainty, and it hides in plain sight:

In his actions.

Click here to read part two and find out why none of us are truly agnostic.

'Yes, I caught it' - looks like I outran the foto quality in this one