No word sets atheists to foaming at the mouth more than
agnostic—not evangelical, not born-again, not even Baptist. To the avowed
atheist, the mere agnostic is a lily-livered, weak-kneed and spineless specimen
of infuriating indecision.
Besides a fundamental misunderstanding of what an agnostic
is, and a possible ignorance of the fact that almost all their cherished and
oft-quoted icons considered themselves agnostics and not atheists, self-proclaimed
atheists may be confused on another point: Their attitude toward the
non-nonbeliever.
First, the misunderstanding:
While an atheist rejects all religions, and denies the
existence of God (and so flaunts the same certitude as the devoutly religious),
the agnostic admits that he does not know.
There might not be a God: Science alone can explain the
universe, for example, all except for how something can arise out of nothing,
and if we need an explanation for that, why bring in God?—why not say that if
something always had to exist, it might as well be the universe as God?
There might not be a God, which might explain the random
nature of life and death, the prevalence of misery and suffering, the apparent
predominance of evil.
Yet again, there might be a God, which might account for our
intimations of something greater than ourselves, for our apperception of
mystery and beauty in the universe, for our love and fellow-feeling, for our
sense of individual and collective purpose and destiny.
There may be a God we can apprehend and explain, but none of
the world’s religions have yet apprehended and explained Him to the atheist’s
satisfaction. The agnostic doubts all the explanations, but admits that he
can’t be certain they’re all fallacious. It may be highly unlikely that a God
of love will one day roast me like a peanut forever and ever for dancing on
Sunday, but the agnostic, while doubting it, admits that it is not impossible.
Atheism is a belief; agnosticism is based on knowledge (or,
rather, the lack of it).
Now, for the attitude:
Many an atheist is put out by the agnostic’s “gutlessness,” and
his scorn implies that he himself is genuinely gutsy. Why is the agnostic
gutless?-For not avowing something he’s not sure of? And why should the atheist
see himself as courageous?—just for avowing something that most people don’t
agree with, even if it’s unprovable?
The atheist proclaims that there is no God, standing up to
ridicule and censure from those people whose judgments he doesn’t value in the
first place. The agnostic says he doesn’t know, incurring no one’s wrath but
everyone’s pity.
The atheist basks in the novelty and daring of his opinion,
while the agnostic cowers in the corner with his uncertainty.
The atheist forms his conclusions based on the puerile or
pathetic beliefs of the religious; the agnostic concedes the value and
sometimes the power of belief.
The atheist insists that his certainties are more certain
than the believer’s; the agnostic suggests that there are no certainties.
The atheist scoffs, openly or to himself, at the religious
impulse, seeing it as weak-minded or deluded. The agnostic is confounded by the
fact that so many people—including people far more intelligent than he—are
religious.