QUANTITATIVE AGNOSTICISM

I have had many conversations with friends about religion. One friend whom I dearly admire considers herself an atheist. I respect her view because she has one -- which is more than I can say for those who sit on the fence and claim an “agnostic” view, which, in my opinion (and statistically), is impossible. For this post, we’ll look at religion to explore if agnosticism is statistically possible, and later, I’ll point to a study that digs deep into this topic in case you want to learn more.

The fact is, that quantitative studies reveal the statistical improbability of neutrality. And since this post uses religion as its example, I’ve included definitions of the terms “agnosticism” and “atheism” with the goal of getting more like-minded people to consider their actual stance on the belief spectrum. With regard to this article however, I am using a more modern definition of the term agnostic (or original meaning if you are Greek) as it refers to (in a non-religious context) having a doubtful or noncommittal attitude towards something.

Agnosticism

On Dawkins' 1-7 scale between hardcore atheists and true believers, only the folks at the far ends are sure of their stance. And even Dawkins doesn't call himself a level 1 atheist. This leaves most atheists as 2s or 3s and most believers as 5s or 6s. These are all degrees of agnosticism if you think about it. It makes sense to look at any claim and ask, "How likely is this to be true?" Whether it's a big religious question or something small and everyday, claims are either true or not. Since we've got plenty of experience with reality, we can get a feel for how probable something is, even if it's not an exact percentage.

I think most folks who call themselves agnostic about religion (and other things) do so because they want to avoid conflict. The "agnostic" label smooths over disagreements and keeps the peace. But sitting on the fence is a kind of BS that stops progress. In life, business, and society - picking a side moves us forward. That said, some agnosticism is healthy. As Dawkins says, it's logical to be unsure whether aliens exist or what wiped out the dinosaurs. We can and should remain open on things not yet explained. But the truth remains, waiting to be found.

Atheism

First, atheism includes denying gods exist anywhere (strong atheism) and lacking belief in gods or higher powers. You think you die, and that's it, end of story. The Philosophy Dictionary defines it as "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god." Note the first part - disbelief in. This matters. Many people cling to "agnostic" because they aren't 100% sure there's no god. But leaning towards belief in a higher power means you aren't an atheist.

Some say, "I don't believe in organized religion, but I'm spiritual." And those who blindly believe without even reading the bible? I guess they go to church to pray away their sins, only to start up again on Monday. Interesting way to look at it, right?

Conclusion

The truth is most folks lean one way or the other. Few are so perfectly in the middle that they can claim true agnosticism on anything. There are fascinating facts about this, too.

Those leaning towards nonbelief tend to be more curious and questioning and have higher IQs. More become scientists, doctors, mathematicians, etc. Believers are everywhere, too, I suppose. The sheep the Bible refers to. Everyone plays their part!