The Agnostic is the Closet Pansophist

The law of excluded middle states that something either is or it is not. An object cannot be and not be at the same time, we are forced to choose one option or another. For example, God either exists or He does not exist. There is no other option to choose from.

That, I think, leads us to a question for the ages: Does God exist?

There are a few responses that can be said about it. We can respond that God does exist, that God does not exist, or that we cannot know if God exists. The first is theism, the second atheism, and finally we have agnosticism.

The answer I wish to look at is the answer of agnosticism. There are many types of agnosticism. There is the type that says "I just don't know right now", and that is respectable as long as the person is still searching. What I cannot respect is the person who says that they don't know and that it doesn't really matter.

If God exists, then not only did He create everything and continues to sustain it all, but He might also require something of cognizant creatures. I think for the sake of prudence and common sense that this is something that matters above everything else. You get it wrong with God and I don't really know of any place left to turn.

If God does not exist, then that's the end of the story and conversation. There is no point in worrying or thinking about something that doesn't exist. I guess we can write some stories about the gods, but when it comes to our lives we don't base them on objects that don't exist. God's non-existence is of no importance whatsoever.

Therefore, if God exists then it's the most important issue before man, and if God does not exist then the issue doesn't matter at all.

Through the law of excluded middle we can see that there is no other option left before us. The question of God cannot be of moderate importance. The question must be answered by everyone.

There is another breed of agnosticism which argues there is some epistemological barrier between us and God. God is outside of the realm of knowledge; it's something we can't even begin to know because our mind and/or vantage point is not capable of grasping the infinite. This of course is self-defeating. It pulls the rug out from under its own feet. If we cannot know anything about God, then we could not even know that God is unknowable, and therefore knowledge of God is on the table.

And then finally there is the type that argues that knowledge is possible but that no one knows it. This is supposed to be open-minded and tolerant I guess. It comes in the popular form when the agnostic answers "do you really think you know the truth about God?" It makes theists sound like fools. How dare they actually think that they know the truth. Every sensible person should just realize that they don't know if God exists.

The problem here is that this position claims to be even more dogmatic and omniscient than the one which claims that God exists.

Take the teleological argument from DNA. Within every living creature on this earth lies a code written in their DNA. This code predetermines everything about your physical body. Now from this the argument goes that codes only come from a mind. Natural events and impersonal objects do not produce codes or information, only a mind does. Therefore, you were created by a mind and that mind is God. Before someone freaks out please realize that I'm not actually making the case for this argument here, I'm merely using it as an example. For the sake of argument suppose that it's true.

I have to ask, what's so insane about this and believing in God's existence from it?

If the premises are true (I am made of information and information only comes from a mind) then the conclusion (I was made by a Mind) follows.

There is nothing being asserted here that presupposes that I have some special knowledge or vantage point that allows me to see the world as others cannot. I claimed to know two things. That is hardly some special knowledge.

Back to the agnostic. The agnostic claims that no one can actually know if God exists. Yet to make this claim the agnostic has to know every reason for why God exists or does not exist and understand why every single one of them fails. I spend most of my time thinking and reading about the philosophy of religion and I don't know every reason for and against God's existence. Yet, the agnostic somehow does, and more than that, they know the arguments so well that they can see why all of them fail. It doesn't matter when, where, or who the idea sprang from, according to the agnostic, it's wrong and they know exactly why.

That is just not possible.

So let's get back to the question.