A few days ago my son, Nathan, and I were engaged in a conversation. At one point we were exploring the difference between ‘surety,’ ‘belief,’ ‘doubt’ and ‘faith’ and the difference between an ‘agnostic,’ an ‘atheist,’ a ‘deist,’ a ‘theist’ and a ‘Trinitarian.’ Simple stated: we were engaged in a conversation about the philosophy of religion. We are both searchers and seekers and so our conversation was not rooted in ‘having to find.’
This morning I found myself reflecting upon our conversation so I thought I would put finger to key and share some of what emerged for me this morning. I will, this morning, focus on ‘Agnostic’ and ‘Atheist.’
An Agnostic is a person who believes that God’s existence cannot be proven given our current evidence AND at the same time the agnostic will not deny the possibility that God exists. The agnostic is, at times close to the deist, theist and Trinitarian and at other times the agnostic is close to the atheist. The agnostic embraces ‘doubt’ and shuns ‘surety’ when it comes to the ‘God-Question.’
An Atheist considers the case of ‘God’ to be closed; the ‘God-Question’ has been answered: God does not and has never existed! The atheist is rooted in ‘surety’ – like ‘God,’ ‘doubt’ does not exist.
Let us say that an agnostic and an atheist were walking along the edge of a lake together. They were engaged in a heated debate about the ‘after-life.’ They rounded a bend and saw twelve men on their knees; their arms were outstretched and their faces radiated immense joy. Our two wanderers then noticed a man walking on the water. They asked one of the twelve ‘who’s the guy walking on the water?’ The man replied with great joy and enthusiasm that the water-walker was God.
Our two wanders continued on their way. They walked in silence for some time. Then the atheist asked the agnostic what he thought. The agnostic appeared lost in his thoughts. The atheist asked him again, ‘Do you think that guy is really God?’ The agnostic replied, ‘Could be – but I don’t have enough evidence.’
The agnostic then asked the atheist what he thought. The atheist replied: ‘No way. That guy was walking on water because he couldn’t swim!’
Philosophers don’t always agree (now there is an understatement). However, there appears to be at least one thing they have agreed upon (and post-modern philosophers continue to agree with): It is fruitless for ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’ to argue with each other. Why? Because they interpret things differently. In order to argue (in the classical sense of argument), there must be some common ground, so that one of the participants might say, ‘Aha! If you concede ‘x,’ then you must also concede ‘y!’ Believers and non-believers never find an ‘x’ they can agree upon. Thus, the argument can never begin – each sees everything from his or her own point of view.
The fundamentalist (whether atheist, deist, theist or Trinitarian) is rooted in ‘surety’ – there is no ‘doubt.’ The searcher-seeker (whether, agnostic, deist, theist or Trinitarian) is rooted in ‘doubt.’ The father of the child (Mark 9:23-25) is a great role-model for we doubters: ..I believe, help my unbelief!’ A role-model for an agnostic might well be Thomas. Thomas did not believe the other apostles and wanted ‘evidence’ that Jesus had risen. When Jesus presented Himself and only when Thomas was confronted with the living evidence did he move from being an agnostic to being a believer.