Agnosticism as a form of moral cowardice

The position agnostic (it is not possible to establish whether God exists or not) has sometimes been accused of being a form of atheism (denying its existence), which in turn has been rejected by the agnostics as unfair. In this little entry we will defend that accusation is, in fact, correct, and that there is no difference between the position of ‘we can do nothing to respond’ and the position ‘does not exist’.

Specifically, that there is no practical difference, and that is only a mere difference in verbal without any consequences (or to the action or to the understanding). In fact, in any other context, it is the position of it is not possible to know for certain, in practice, makes it equivalent to a position of assertion or denial. In a trial the position of ‘we know that he is innocent’ and ‘we can’t decide if he is innocent or guilty’ are equal to each other in their consequences-in both cases the person does not receive a penalty. In other cases if we do not know whether a danger is real or not, prudence will make us act as if it were real. Then, the position of doubt -as I have to get a result from it should be assimilated to one of the positions more clear.

In our case, and I think that in this there is no doubt possible, the practical consequences that the agnostic gets it from his position are the same that an atheist gets his. In both cases it is not used of God in the life: the decisions that are made do not believe that God exists, but rather that it acts as if it did not exist. Are atheists practical in their statement they don’t want to deal with it. But if the only difference between the two is that of a statement while in all of the activities that difference does not mark any distinction, then it does the position that we have already said: That is a mere difference verbal without consequences.

And if this is so, then there is no more to the initial statement: That agnosticism, that the need of declaring as relevant (enough to mark a distinct position) something that has no consequences, is nothing more than a way of not having the courage of one’s own beliefs (and yes believing that a question you cannot answer is a belief about that question). And, then, is a form of moral cowardice.

NOTE I. it is Not necessary that the position of an agnostic in practice is equivalent to the atheist. Someone could declare that in the face of doubt better believe, based -for example in something like the famous bet pascaliana. Beyond the problems that has a similar type of argument, it is a possible position. What we propose is that, as an empirical case, most agnostics behave just like atheists.

NOTE II. For what I do, in fact I believe that the questions about God, given as it defines God in these times, could not be answered by human beings. Already enough is that a set of entities with something least 1,300 cm3 of brain to understand the world to think that at the same time give him to even understand what it means to be a being without any limitation. To call atheism a position as that seems to me the more natural: I do Not step for life using the idea that God exists to decide anything.

NOTE III. If we use the practical criterion (how you use your belief in X in some way in your life?) it should be acknowledged that an amount not less than alleged believers are in fact atheists.