Agnosticism

I would love to call myself an agnostic, and rationally, that is my opinion, but practically, I'm closer to an atheist. Perhaps calling myself an "unconvinced atheist" would be most accurate. If you asked me what you thought was the best, most rational stance on the existence of ultimate beings, I would answer agnosticism. But practically, I lack faith, and so I can't honestly call myself an agnostic, since a true agnostic would answer "I simply don't know," to the question "Is there a God?" My answer, on the other hand is a hesitant "I don't think so," along with some good arguments as to why there could be one. But my lack of faith means that my practical opinion is that of an atheist, whatever my philosophical opinion might be, so I can't honestly call myself an agnostic.

On the other hand, I hesitate to call myself an atheist, because that position is so often associated with the ridiculous claims that belief in any sort of God is irrational and that atheism is the only rational opinion. These claims are also generally accompanied by assertions that things like Occam's Razor are logical statements that only an irrational person would object to. I find such positions ill-informed, hypocritical, and unfortunately widespread. Within the realm of logic, there is no reason not to believe in a God, and appeals to Occam's Razor and the like are acts of faith just as extra-rational as faith in the existence of a divine being. If one were to admit a strict interpretation of Russel's Principle ("Give to any hypothesis that is worth your while to consider just that degree of credence which the evidence warrants") and claim that it is irrational not to reserve judgement when evidence is absent, then in fact, the "only rational position" would seem to be a strong agnosticism (barring, of course, the presence of evidence one way or another, although I don't see how logical evidence could exist one way or the other). Thus, to me, atheism is philosophically unacceptable. However, as stated above, my practical beliefs are not in line with my philosophical beliefs, preventing me from honestly claiming to be an agnostic.

Does this conflict between my practical and philosophical opinions make me intellectually dishonest? Perhaps, but William James has put forward some interesting ideas regarding the rationality of choosing without evidence when such a choice is forced that hint that my practical belief may be compatible with my philosophical opinion. Basically, he claims that when one cannot reserve judgement due to a forced decision (which the decision about belief in a God appears to be), if there is no evidence for either choice, one is within one's rational rights to make a choice based on factors other than evidence. His argument is of course considerably more nuanced than that, but that basic form seems reasonable to me. Of course, his argument is also very frightening. After all, there are an infinite number of hypothetical forced decisions, starting with the decisions to believe in each different human religion, and moving on to more exotic forced decisions like believing in specific types of aliens. James doesn't argue that one must make all available forced decisions as soon as one admits to his argument, in fact, he takes pains to make it clear that this is not the case, but I am somewhat unsettled by the fact that at some level, because the decisions are forced, I have already made them. So while James' argument is persuasive to me, I am not without reservations on that front.

My opinions on agnosticism are strong to a point, but as you can see, there are some loose ends lying around. If you have reading to suggest, or even if you're just interested in discussing the issues outlined here, don't hesitate to email me at pmawhorter@gmail.com.