Agnostic Atheism

I do not believe in any deity and can therefore be properly called an "atheist," but like many others before me, I intend to maintain the descriptor "agnostic" because I cannot yet claim particular knowledge as to the non-existence of deities. So my pen name here of Non Sicuro Pensatore is still adequate because while I quite plainly do not believe that any gods exist, I also do not have any need or desire to assert the non-existence of gods with certainty.

Presuppositional Apologetics

Surely the first step in winning an argument is to believe that one is arguing the “right” view . It seems also that step two for some people is to think, talk, and act with a confidence bordering on arrogance…suggesting that being right is a foregone conclusion and that the process of arguing is mostly a formality simply to demonstrate the idiocy of the opponent for thinking there is a legitimate alternative to one’s view.

If you sense that someone is attempting to subject you to this sort of argumentation, proceed with caution. For instance, take it as a red flag if you hear someone with an opposing viewpoint say something to the effect of, “you are borrowing words and ideas from my worldview in order to construct your own.” This is a sure sign that you are dealing with what is popularly known as “presuppositional apologetics,” the method of argumentation which seeks to reduce an opponent’s platform down to its most basic words and ideas and then suggest that those foundational tenets are actually borrowed from the “right” platform.

Someone using these tactics is capable of making an unsuspecting opponent appear rather dim-witted. I would liken it to two teenage boys who agree to “trade punches,” but one of the boys is holding a roll of nickels in his fist without disclosing the advantage. In other words, the notion of presuppositional apologetics may not be “bad” on its own, but if one participant is not familiar with the method, and the advantage is not disclosed to him, there is a certain dishonesty in the situation and a presuppositionalist might win the argument based on method alone without having the upper hand in terms of actual substance.

In fact, it’s important to note that some presuppositionalists may not be attempting to produce any sort of substantial argumentation in favour of their own position. If the first two steps of argumentation mentioned above are executed well, the inadequacies in actual argument might be overcome simply through deconstructing an opponent’s platform.

Wikipedia has some interesting tidbits regarding Presuppositional Apologetics, including this: "The goal of presuppositional apologetics is to argue that the assumptions and actions of non-Christians require them to believe certain things about God, man and the world which they claim they do not believe. This type of argument is technically called a reductio ad absurdum in that it attempts to reduce the opposition to holding an absurd position; in this case, both believing in facts of Christian revelation (in practice) and denying them (in word). So in essence, evidential apologetics attempts to build from a common starting point in neutral facts, while presuppositional apologetics attempts to claim all facts for the Christian worldview as the only framework in which they are intelligible." - Read the rest HERE.

Insoluble Problem, Fundamentally Unknowable

"When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took."

This excerpt is believed to be the writing of Thomas Huxley in his Collected Essays.

What Can We Know?

I found an interesting piece yesterday in the Catholic Encyclopedia about the definitions and degrees of "agnostic" thought. Being fascinated with word origins and real meanings, I was quick to pick up on the fact that the modern tendency in many Christian circles to consider an "agnostic" to be the sworn enemy of all things good and right, especially God, is misguided.

My pen name here, in fact, is very similar to the term agnostic in meaning. Non Sicuro Pensatore means uncertain thinker, and the word agnostic literally translates to "without knowledge", and more practically means that there are some things about which it is not possible to possess certainty, such as the nature of God, or even the existence of such a supernatural reality, etc.

So it is not at all impossible or unlikely that one could readily grant that "faith" in God and afterlife with Him is fine, while at the same time stating that people should not presume to have any sort of certainty about what God is like, how a person should be "rightly related" to God, what God would require of man, etc.

The link to the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia is here:
NewAdvent.org