What is Agnosticism?

What is

Agnosticism?
Examining the Truth Claims of Agnosticism

www.confidentchristians.org

A Brief Definition of Agnosticism

“A person who holds that
the existence of the
ultimate cause, as God,
and the essential nature
of things are unknown
and unknowable, or that
human knowledge is
limited to experience.”

A Brief History of Agnosticism

Thomas Henry Huxley was
an English biologist who
was nicknamed “Darwin‟s
Bulldog” for his staunch
support of Darwin‟s theory
of evolution. Huxley is also
credited with coining the
term “agnostic”.


A Brief History of Agnosticism
Following in his footsteps, his grandson
Julian Huxley wrote the following about
when a person should assume a position of
agnosticism:

“I believe that one should be agnostic when
belief one way or the other is mere idle
speculation, incapable of verification; when
belief is held merely to gratify desires,
however deep-seated, and not because it
is forced on us by evidence; and when
belief may be taken by others to be more
firmly grounded than it really is, and so
come to encourage false hopes or wrong
attitudes of mind.”

Two Forms of Agnosticism

1. Hard Agnosticism
2. Soft Agnosticism


Hard Agnosticism – Impossible to Hold

The hard agnostic says that one can‟t know anything for sure.
However, this is a self-defeating position as the hard agnostic
says that they know for sure that they can’t know anything
for sure. Hard agnosticism simply has no container that can
keep its universal solvent, and therefore it becomes an untenable
position to hold and must be discarded.

Soft Agnosticism – How Can I Know?

In contrast to hard agnosticism, the soft
agnostic says he/she doesn‟t know
anything for sure. At issue is not the lack
of human ability for knowing a particular
truth, but rather the agnostic struggles
with how a truth claim can be verified or
shown to be true. It is the ancient pursuit
of what in philosophy is called
epistemology – how do we know, and
how do we know that we know? When
the issue of determining the existence of
the Christian God is added to the mix,
things get even stickier.

But What If…?

But perhaps that doesn‟t need to be the case. What if a person truly follows
and applies Julian Huxley‟s criteria for determining when to be agnostic
about a particular truth claim? What would be the end result when Huxley‟s
measures are applied to the claims of the New Testament, and specifically
its account of Jesus Christ? Let‟s find out…

Huxley’s First Condition

Huxley‟s first condition is that a belief
cannot be mere idle speculation or be
incapable of verification. This first
standard seems reasonable as pure
conjecture or hearsay should not be a
basis for committing oneself to a belief.
The second part appears logical also
and is sometimes termed the principle
of falsification, which was used by
philosophers such as Anthony Flew in
his initial writings on religion.


A Look at the New Testament

How do the claims of the New Testament and Christianity hold up
under Huxley‟s first criterion? When the legal/historical methods for
determining truth are applied to the New Testament, it stands very firm
under Huxley‟s standard.

Eyewitness Accounts
The writers of the New Testament never state
that their beliefs were based on hearsay or
were events that could not be authenticated.
Quite the opposite, apostles such as Peter
say, “For we did not follow cleverly devised
tales when we made known to you the power
and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we
were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter
1:16). The disciples recorded occurrences
that happened in actual space/time, saw
these events with their own eyes, and
recorded Jesus‟ life, death, and resurrection
so that others would know the truth of what
happened.

How to Easily Falsify Christianity

In terms of falsification, the apostle Paul gave the enemies of Christianity a
single truth claim that, if proven untrue, would crumble and destroy
Christianity in an instant: “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not
even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our
preaching is vain, your faith also is vain” (1 Corinthians 15:13–14).

How to Easily Falsify Christianity

Paul says if the resurrection of Christ did not occur, then the Christian faith
is literally “empty” (vain). That, Paul says, is how Christianity can be
falsified: find the body of that Jewish carpenter, and the Christian faith is
undone.

More Eyewitness Accounts
But earlier in that same chapter, Paul actually
challenges his readers of that day to go check for
themselves that the tomb of Jesus was truly
empty: “He appeared to Cephas, then to the
twelve. After that He appeared to more than five
hundred brethren at one time, most of whom
remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
then He appeared to James, then to all the
apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born,
He appeared to me also” (1 Corinthians 15:5–8).
Paul is literally asking his readers to verify his
claims with many others (over 500) alive at that
time who saw Christ and could act as witnesses to
validate the fact that Jesus‟ resurrection actually
occurred in space / time history.


But wait a minute…!

But, given that we cannot talk to
any eyewitnesses today, how
can modern day people know
that Paul and the other apostles
were telling the truth?


The Apostle’s Answer

The apostles answer that question through their grave markers. All except
John were martyred for their testimony. People may be deceived and die for
a lie, but no one dies for what they know is a lie. All the apostles had to do
to save their lives was recant their testimony, and say they didn‟t see Jesus
alive, but none did. Greater evidence for believability cannot be had.

Huxley’s First Condition – Passed!

Huxley‟s first condition was: “I believe
that one should be agnostic when belief
one way or the other is mere idle
speculation, incapable of verification”.

Because the New Testament accounts
of Christ are not speculation and can be
verified, it passes Huxley‟s first test.


Huxley’s second/third Conditions

Moving on from Huxley‟s first criterion brings
the discussion to his second and third
standards, which are nearly identical in
nature. Huxley says that a belief should be
discarded if the sole purpose is to satisfy
some psychological desire, and if the belief is
not well-grounded from a reality perspective,
and thus produces false hopes in its target.
This benchmark measure for a belief is
certainly rational as the only reason to believe
anything is because that particular „thing‟
(truth claim) is true.


Sigmund Freud’s Views

Oftentimes, the psychiatrist Sigmund
Freud is quoted to show how religion
fails such a test. Speaking of religious
beliefs, Freud said: “They are illusions,
fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and
most urgent wishes of mankind. We call
belief an illusion when a wish-fulfillment
is a prominent factor in its motivation,
and in doing so we disregard its relation
to reality, just as the illusion itself sets no
store by verification.”


Freud’s Double-Edged Sword

However, Freud‟s criteria do nothing to prove or disprove God as Freud‟s
sword cuts in both directions. Could it not be true that the atheist has
wishes and urges of their own? Perhaps a wish that a God does not exist
who will call them to account one day for their actions? Such a desire can
be very motivating and drive a person to hold an atheistic position. So in
reality, Freud‟s words have no power whatsoever to determine if the truth
claims of Christianity are valid or not.

A Look at the New Testament

Freud‟ thoughts aside, how does the New Testament stand up against
Huxley‟s second and third standards? As it does with Huxley‟s first
measure, the New Testament does extremely well.

The Criteria for Judging Historical Works

First, from a legal/historical perspective, no
document from antiquity comes even close
to the New Testament where passing the
general criteria for judging the validity of a
historical work is concerned. The New
Testament passes the bibliographical test
(manuscript reliability and early dating),
internal evidence test (multiple key
testimonies all of which match), and the
external evidence test (outside evidence that
corroborates the document‟s testimony) with
flying colors.


Not Written like a Lie

Second, as many have said, the New
Testament is not written like a lie. The
New Testament writers would not have
invented accounts such as Jesus
being buried by a member of the
Sanhedrin, women being the first
witnesses of Christ‟s resurrection, and
other such things.


Strong Commitment to Accuracy
Rather, what is found is a strong commitment
to accuracy no matter where the evidence led
them. Such dedication is seen in the pen of
Luke: “Inasmuch as many have undertaken
to compile an account of the things
accomplished among us, just as they were
handed down to us by those who from the
beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of
the word, it seemed fitting for me as well,
having investigated everything carefully from
the beginning, to write it out for you in
consecutive order, most excellent
Theophilus; so that you may know the exact
truth about the things you have been taught”
(Luke 1:1–4).


The Ultimate Testimony

Lastly, as has already been pointed
out, the New Testament writers died
for their testimony. As theologian and
professor Peter Kreeft points out:
“Why would the apostles lie? . . . If
they lied, what was their motive . . .?
What they got out of it was
misunderstanding, rejection,
persecution, torture, and martyrdom.
Hardly a list of perks!”


Huxley’s 2nd/3rd Conditions – Passed!

The treatment Kreeft lists certainly is not
desirable from a psychological
perspective, and would produce no false
hopes in the disciples as they would
obviously know their claims were false if
they were lying. Adding this to
arguments above, we see that the New
Testament accounts overcome Huxley‟s
second and third hurdles for being
agnostic.


Conclusions

In the end, a person who claims to be agnostic about Christianity,
but uses Julian Huxley‟s own criteria for determining whether one
should be agnostic, will have to seriously reconsider their
position.

Conclusions

With the hard agnostic position
being ruled out as self-defeating,
and the soft agnostic position
being challenged by the
compelling evidence of the New
Testament, the more reasonable
conclusion for the agnostic to
reach once everything has been
examined seems to be that
Christianity is true.


For More Information


What is Agnosticism?

What is Agnosticism?

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to What is Agnosticism?

More from Robin Schumacher

Recently uploaded

What is Agnosticism?