A couple of my articles (1, 2) have touched on the issue of atheism as belief, objecting that if someone is truly neutral on the existence of god(s), s/he is actually agnostic (a better word for this being ‘apistic’), neither theist, nor atheist. However, these articles also note that there is a point at which apisticism amounts to bad faith. This article will focus on this, adding that one can only be apistic about the existence of god(s) if one does not ‘claim’ to be either atheist, theist or apistic. Once one makes a claim, one is no longer neutral.
Theists who have reasons for their belief say that there is enough good evidence that atheists and skeptics fail to critically examine, and claim that it is therefore atheists and skeptics who have blind faith.
Skeptics have blind faith? you ask. It is good to be skeptical and examine all of our beliefs and evidence, but to maintain a skeptical (agnostic, apistic) position is deciding not to decide what we believe. One can say “I am apistic” (or agnostic, or skeptical) if one is not claiming it as a position—if one is in the process of examining the evidence and has not rendered a verdict. But, if one is done examining, one only claims neutral ground in bad faith. Why?...
The evidence for God is in, or there isn't going to be any. This is especially true if one’s God concept includes goodness and love, because either there has been a demonstration of that good love by now, or there isn’t going to be one. To stick with "I don't know" is about as honest as choosing not to choose, which Sartre rightly termed "bad faith". It is like voting using the “eenie meenie miney” method, or the “what s/he said” method, without ever doing any real research.
Comments
A very interesting article. It's a shame that it's so brief--I feel like you could expand on your claim much more.
While I do agree that agnosticism--or apisticism--is a perspective grounded in some belief (and no belief can be completely neutral), agnosticism is, relatively speaking, the most neutral of the options presented.
I, however, take issue with two of your assertions. First, agnosticism is not necessarily a decision not to decide. For some, this may certainly be the case. For others, it is simply that not enough evidence can or does exist, or the corpus is incomplete, and thus any verdict must be postponed . . . indefinitely.
Second, I believe you have slightly misunderstood Sartre's concept of Bad Faith. For Sartre, Bad Faith is to trick oneself that the world and roles we inhabit are immutable and in-themselves. So, if an agnostic believes they are an agnostic as a thing (an in-itself, such as a rock is a rock), then they are indeed engaging in Bad Faith. Conversely, Good Faith is the realization that one is constantly immersed in a world and must play certain roles--and that one is not truly the role they play. For example, a student is such not because he/she must be, but because they choose every moment to moment to be one. To deny this, and believe that they must be, is to engage in Bad Faith; to accept this, and continue being a student on one's own accord, however, is to engage in Good Faith.
(I ran out of room above.)
From the discussion above, I would make the claim that agnostics are the only group that can possibly achieve Good Faith. They are the only one's who acknowledge a lack of knowledge and determinacy, while the others are resolute in their positions--that we are either creations of God with set purposes, or that we are determined by our genes (or what have you) could both be understood as instances of Bad Faith.
Paul, thanks for your reply and sorry for the delay. I am somewhat familiar with what Sartre meant by bad faith, but found your review very enjoyable. Choosing not to choose, or choosing not to examine evidence so one does not have to decide, is choosing in bad faith, given that if there were going to be evidence of a loving God (by way of demonstration) it would be available for examination by now. The only good agnostic if one in the process of examining the evidence--if they have decided there isn't enough to decide, they've settled on a god concept unworthy of the title. As far as the 'set purpose' thing goes, to 'be' love and to 'do' love (the ultimate 'end') is a choice...no room for bad faith there. I expand upon that elsewhere. So sorry for the delayed reply.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!