It’s not been uncommon in history for agnosticism and agnostics to be denigrated for their position. Both theists and atheists have alleged that agnostics are just “sitting on the fence” and refuse to commit themselves on an issue of vital importance. Such attacks have, by and large, been the product of ignorance as to what agnosticism really is. If people better understood it, more people might recognize that technically they qualify as agnostics as well.
- I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure — that is all that agnosticism means.
- Clarence Darrow, Scopes Trial, Dayton, Tennessee, July 13, 1925
In this quote, Clarence Darrow turns things around on the critics and implicitly challenges them to defend their assumptions rather than simply attack his. He doesn’t consider the label “agnostic” to be an insult because, as he explains, it’s an eminently reasonable and rational position: don’t claim to know things that you don’t really know. What could be more reasonable? What could be more realistic in a world where there is so much to know and so little time to learn it?
The implicit challenge arises in the way he tosses back at critics the idea that they don’t merely claim to know things he doesn’t, but in fact pretend to know things that they are in reality ignorant of. That’s not the sort of assertion that most people will take kindly to, but any substantive response will require that they defend their claims to knowledge — prove their assertions, in other words.
If they cannot mount a good defense of their claims, then by implication they manage to vindicate the agnostics whom they had been attacking. They demonstrate, in other words, that they have only been pretending to know and do not, in fact, have knowledge on the question at hand. If they can mount a good defense, then they provide the agnostics with exactly what they had been seeking: solid, reasonable grounds for adopting the belief in question.
Either way the interests of agnostics and agnosticism are served. Why, then, don’t more critics of agnosticism accept this challenge? Do they simply not recognize that as claimants they have a burden of proof and obligation to demonstrate that they know something? Do they understand what the implications of the challenge are and realize that if they aren’t up to the challenge, then they should accept the label “agnostic” for themselves?
If we define knowledge as “justified, true belief,” then people are agnostic about lots of things — they may have strong beliefs, but they recognize that their beliefs may not be true and/or they may not have strong justifications for their beliefs. This is also true about the existence of gods: they have faith, but faith by definition isn’t knowledge. Having faith precludes having knowledge, especially in religious systems where faith is emphasized as an important virtue.
