UNIT 1 PROBLEM OF ATHEISM AND AGNOSTICISM

Contents

1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism
1.3 Forms of Atheism and Agnosticism
1.4 Arguments for Atheism and Agnosticism
1.5 Arguments against Atheism and Agnosticism
1.6 Towards Affirming the Existence of God
1.7 Let Us Sum Up
1.8 Key Words
1.9 Further Readings and References
1.10 Answers to Check Your Progress

1.0. OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this unit is to discuss the problem of atheism and agnosticism, the two
philosophical positions that negate the existence of God. After defining and differentiating both
these theories, the unit discusses the different forms of atheism and agnosticism. The unit then
goes on to elaborate how the proponents of these two positions argue in favour of non-existence
of God and of our inability to have certain knowledge about the existence of God. In the next
section, we examine critically the positions of both atheists and agnostics by posting arguments
against their views – atheism by showing some of its inherent contradictions regarding the non-
existence of God and agnosticism by pointing out the inconsistencies in maintaining the inability
of the human mind to have certain knowledge. Having examined the inadmissibility of the
positions of both atheism and agnosticism, section five arrives at possible ways of affirming the
existence of God. The rest of the sections are meant to help the students to understand better the
contents of the unit. All in all, the unit enables the student to take a plunge into the problem of

1
the existence of God from a philosophical perspective. Thus by the end of this Unit the student
should be able:

• to have a basic understanding of both atheism and agnosticism;

• to know the different types of atheism and agnosticism;
• to understand the positions of both atheists and agnostics regarding the problem of
affirming the existence of God;
• to appreciate the pitfalls of these theories; and,
• to arrive at a possible affirmation of the existence of God.

1.1. INTRODUCTION

Philosophy of Religion is a philosophical thinking or reflection on religion by applying the

philosophical method. It speculates about the origin, nature and function of religion. It also takes
up the basic problems relating to the existence, nature and attributes of God. The problem of
affirming the existence of God is one of most important issues in philosophy. Since time
immemorial, traces of disbelief in the existence of the Supreme Being are noticed among
philosophers. Every religion believes that the root reason for human dignity lies in human
beings’ ability to recognize the existence of one Supreme Being and their ability to commune
with God. From the very circumstance of his/her origin human being is already invited to
converse with God. For human beings would not exist were they not created by God’s love and
constantly preserved by it; and they cannot live fully according to truth unless human beings
freely acknowledges that love and devotes themselves to their Creator. But still, sadly, many of
our contemporaries have never recognized this intimate and vital link with God, or have
explicitly rejected it. Thus both atheism and agnosticism must be accounted among the most
serious problems that arise in Philosophy of Religion and hence, deserves a closer examination.

1.2. DEFINITIONS OF ATHEISM AND AGNOSTICISM

Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. It is the doctrine or belief
that there is no God. An atheist is a person who does not believe that deities exist. The term
atheism originated from the Greek ‘atheos,’ meaning ‘without gods,’ which was derogatorily
applied to anyone thought to not believe in the accepted gods, or to believe in false gods, no
2
gods, or doctrines that stood in conflict with established religions. Since its first coming into use,
the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against
any system that called in question the popular gods of the day. Thus while Socrates was accused
of atheism by the civil authorities in Athens and Diagoras called an atheist by Cicero,
Democritus and Epicurus were styled in the same sense impious (without respect for the gods)
on account of their new atomistic philosophy. In this sense too, the early Christians were known
to the Romans as atheists, because they denied their gods; while, from time to time, various
religious and philosophical systems have, for similar reasons, been deemed atheistic. However,
today the word ‘atheism’ designates the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Agnosticism could be seen as an attitude of the mind towards human’s knowledge of God;
namely, that God is humanly unknowable. The word ‘Agnosticism’ comes from the Greek word
‘Agnostos’ which means ‘unknowing’ or ‘a profession of ignorance.’ The word was first used
by T.H. Huxley in 1869 to designate anyone who denies human being knowledge of immaterial
reality, and especially of the existence and nature of God. An agnostic is not an atheist. An
atheist denies the existence of God; an agnostic professes ignorance about His existence.

Thinkers who belong to both atheistic and agnostic traditions hold that though we might not be
able to prove the existence of God, we might be able to disprove it. Many philosophers hold that
the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God can be empirically refuted by the
existence of evil and suffering. Of course, the existence of a creator God would not be so
refutable, and both atheism and agnosticism would have to depend on arguments other than that
of the mere existence of evil.

1.3. FORMS OF ATHEISM AND AGNOSTICISM

Atheism takes different forms. The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be the
positive and dogmatic denial of the existence of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause.
This is sometimes known as dogmatic or positive theoretic atheism. It may be doubted whether
such a system could ever possibly be seriously maintained. Still we can think of some advanced
phases of materialistic philosophy which profess to find in matter its own cause and explanation
and positively exclude the existence of any spiritual cause. A second form of atheism is based

3
either upon the lack of physical data for theism or upon the limited nature of the intelligence of
human being. This second form may be described as a negative theoretic atheism.

A third form is positive moral atheism, in which human actions would neither be right nor
wrong, good nor evil, with reference to God. Another form of negative practical or moral
atheism maintains that human intelligence is incapable of relating to an extra-mundane, spiritual
and personal lawgiver. Still a third form of moral atheism speaks of godlessness in conduct, quite
irrespective of any theory of philosophy or morals or of religious faith. All these forms of
atheism could be clubbed together under two heads: strong atheism and weak atheism.

Similarly, we can speak of different kinds of agnostics. There are those who deny that reason
can know God and make any judgment concerning that existence. Bertrand Russell is an
example of this kind of agnosticism. A second group of agnostics deny that reason can prove the
existence of God but nonetheless profess a belief in God’s existence. Immanuel Kant belongs to
this form of agnosticism. There is a third group of agnostics who because of their philosophical
commitments deny the possibility of knowing God. Some of these philosophical commitments
include nominalism, empiricism, Kantianism, Logical Positivism and Existentialism. These
philosophical positions have generated agnosticism of various forms and could be called as
nominalists, empiricists, existentialists, etc.

Check Your Progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit

1) Define both atheism and agnosticism.

…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
2) Briefly discuss the different forms of atheism and agnosticism
………………………………………………………………………………….

4
 …………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….

1.4. ARGUMENTS FOR ATHEISM AND AGNOSTICISM

When we discuss atheism, we think of the atheological arguments put forth by various
philosophers. These arguments are meant to prove the non-existence of God. The argument from
evil (sometimes referred to as 'the problem of evil') is by far the most famous of such arguments,
but it is by no means the only such argument. Indeed, in the 1990s philosophers developed a
flurry of atheological arguments.

There are two types of atheological arguments, namely, logical arguments and evidential
arguments. Logical arguments attempt to show that the concept of God is self-contradictory or
logically inconsistent with some known facts. These arguments attempt to demonstrate a
contradiction in the concept of God. If an argument of this type were successful, it would mean
that the existence of God is impossible; there is a 0% probability that God exists. Thus, for
example, Dan Barker in 1997 introduced the Freewill Arguments for the Non-existence of God.
He argues that two of the traditional divine attributes, namely, divine freedom and divine
foreknowledge are incompatible with one another.

Evidential Arguments attempt to show that certain known facts that are consistent with theism
nevertheless provide evidence against it. These types of arguments start with a known fact, such
as the amount of suffering in the world. The arguments then attempt to show that the fact in
question supports the hypothesis of atheism over the hypothesis of theism because we have more
reason to expect the fact to obtain on the assumption that God does not exist than on the
assumption that God does exist. Accordingly, the fact in question is more probable on the
assumption that atheism is true than on the assumption that theism is true, and hence provides
some evidence for atheism and against theism. By combining such facts, one can begin to
construct a cumulative case for atheism.

With regard to agnosticism, taking recourse to different philosophical positions such as

nominalism, empiricism, Kantianism, logical positivism and existentialism, the proponents

5
attempted to uphold their view, namely, we cannot have knowledge about the existence of God.
Thus, nominalism erases universality from being and holds it to be mere signification of words.
It holds that there is nothing in beings that allows the mind to transcend from them to God.
Hence we cannot know God with certainty. William of Ockham is the main proponent of
nominalism. Empiricism holds that all knowledge comes through experience, and as such, terms
such as ‘contingency’ and ‘necessity’ are impossible. Human mind can never reason with
certitude as human experiences are particulars in nature. Hence certain knowledge regarding the
existence of God is impossible. David Hume subscribed to such a view. With regard to
Kantianism, Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason, while tackling the problems of
necessity and universality of human knowledge posed by David Hume, maintains that human
knowledge requires both sensibility and understanding. The former is possible in both space and
time while the latter requires the twelve categories. Since God cannot be subjected to sensibility
as He does not come under the purview of space and time, Kant held that we cannot have any
direct natural knowledge about God. However, on moral grounds, Kant postulates a belief in
God, but such a belief in God has no cognitive content and does not guarantee His actual
existence.

The central principle of Logical Positivists is the principle of verifiability, which states that a
proposition is true if its language elements are reducible to or verifiable in terms of some direct
or indirect sense experiences. Thus those propositions which belong to empirical sciences are
factual and they are verifiable while formal propositions, such as those of logic and mathematics,
are true if they are consistent with themselves. However, statements about God are neither
factual nor formal. Hence they are not verifiable, neither are they true or false. They are merely
meaningless and non-sensical statements.

Finally, existentialism holds that the only essence of a human being is that which he/she freely
creates for himself/herself through the decisive realization of his/her human possibilities.
Human being in his/her existence is a free tendency. He/she makes himself/herself what he/she
is. To say that he/she possesses a stable and determined essence is to rob him/her of his/her
freedom and to make his/her being a fixed and formalized unfolding of a pre-determined pattern.
As a continual flux of existential tendencies, human being cannot grasp himself/herself through
any conceptual knowledge. From these, we can conclude that existentialism is essentially

6
agnostic in nature. It refused human beings any rational or conceptual understanding of God.
Even when some awareness of a ground of Being is suggested, one can never identify this
ground with God.

1.5. ARGUMENTS AGAINST ATHEISM AND AGNOSTICISM

Philosophers, especially those belonging to the theistic tradition, have proposed a number of
arguments to disprove the position taken by the atheists. As stated previously, atheism
presupposes the non-existence of any gods. There are many different offshoots of an atheistic
worldview although roughly we can speak of strong atheism and weak atheism.

Strong atheism is complete denial of the existence of deity in any form, which involves a
contradiction. A strong atheist must deny divinity by attributing human being with divine
abilities. Common atheistic observation concludes that human person is a finite being and can
only obtain knowledge through personal experience and application but for the theists knowledge
can also be received through divine revelation. The strong atheist needs to not only have all the
knowledge of every person ever but also all of the knowledge in the universe. It can be
concluded that a strong atheistic worldview, no matter how eloquently explained, is impractical
and illogical. Clinging to a strong atheistic view requires that one must reject scientific and
philosophical evidence currently known and yet to be known.

Weak atheism, however, covers a much wider range of atheistic beliefs. Typically, weak
atheism is attributed to those with any sort of non-theistic worldviews. It denies the existence of
God for various reasons. For some since God cannot be found through the uses of the senses, He
does not exist. But we know that the air we breathe, the force of gravity, emotions, values,
beliefs and thoughts cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelled or touched. Yet all these exist.
Similarly, God who is a spirit cannot be found by way of our senses. This does not mean that he
does not exist. Some atheists who hold materialism argue that matter and space just happen to
exist and always have existed. But we know that nothing can come from nothingness. Things
cannot exist by chance. For the religious, the universe and everything in it was created by God.

Similarly, one can also refute agnosticism proposed by nominalism, empiricism, Kantianism,
logical positivism and existentialism. To reject nominalism, we can say that nominalists failed to

7
recognize that while each being is indivisibly singular, the intellect has the power to consider one
aspect of the singular while leaving others out of consideration. Thus intellect can attain
universal notions, and subsequently, can have knowledge of God. The empiricists are guilty of
one-dimensional interpretation of human experience. To limit experience to what is directly
perceptible by the five senses is to eliminate large part of human experience, namely,
experiences through intellect. God’s existence is inferred intellectually rather than through the
senses. Kant erred in saying that perception through human sensibility is an absolute condition
for knowing anything. The Logical Positivists by proposing the principle of verifiability limits
human knowledge like the empiricists. Finally, the existentialists commit a two-fold error. They
fail to recognize that a finite being without an essence is a contradiction. For a finite existence is
always the existence of something, and this, from this very beginning. Human being without an
intrinsic limit or essence would be an act of infinite existence. Secondly, the existentialists fail
to recognize that unless human freedom is grounded in intelligence and dependent upon it,
humans cannot know the possibilities among which they can choose. Since essence is a potency
that can be realized through existence, these possibilities are really surreptitiously re-introduced
essences.

1.6. TOWARDS AFFIRMING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Believers in the existence of God automatically turn to scriptures to prove the existence of God.
However, unbelievers reject all arguments from scriptures saying that God’s self testimony is not
creditable for proving the case. They argue that one’s statements about oneself may be false.
While that’s true, self-testimony is still permissible in any court of law provided that other
witnesses agree. Non-scriptural arguments are therefore needed. These arguments are discussed
briefly here although some of them will be studied in detail in the coming units.

The intuitive argument, first presented by Augustine, is that humankind has a direct intuition of
the existence of God. This argument relies on two significant facts. First, all humanity,
throughout history and in all cultures, is incurably religious. Second, when people try to
comprehend the immensity and grandeur of the universe, they realize some great intelligence and
power is surely ordering the affairs of the universe.

8
The ontological argument, first presented by Anselm, asserts that the perfect being (God) must
actually exist because man can conceive of him. Anselm declared that God is that than which
nothing greater can be conceived. Since humankind cannot conceive of anything that does not
exist, and since humankind can conceive of the idea of God, then God himself must exist.

The moral argument is that within all people, there is an innate capacity to know right from
wrong. This capacity to discern right from wrong indicates the existence of a moral governor of
the universe, a moral creator whose goodness is absolute. That moral governor is God.

The cosmological argument, credited to Thomas Aquinas, is concerned with the laws of nature.
The central idea of this argument is that the existing cosmos is an undeniable evidence of a
creator. The natural law that supports this idea is that for every effect there must be an adequate
cause. Since nothing can come from nothing and since the cosmos is something, then something
or someone must have produced the cosmos. The cosmos is the effect.

1.7. LET US SUM UP

This unit discussed the problem of atheism and agnosticism, the two philosophical positions that
negate the existence of God. It defined and differentiated both these theories and pointed out the
different forms of atheism and agnosticism. The unit then elaborated how the proponents of
these two positions argued in favour of non-existence of God and of our inability to have certain
knowledge about the existence of God. We, then, examined critically the positions of both
atheists and agnostics and pointed out their inherent contradictions and inconsistencies. Having
examined the inadmissibility of the positions of atheism and agnosticism, the unit affirms the
existence of God. The unit, thus, enables the student to take a plunge into the problem of the
existence of God from a philosophical perspective.

Check Your Progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit

1) Discuss the various arguments in favour of atheism and agnosticism.

9
 …………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
2) Can we accept atheism and agnosticism as viable theories when we consider the existence
of God?
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….

1.8. KEY WORDS

Agnosticism: It is the doctrine that one cannot know the existence of anything beyond the
phenomena of experience. It is the belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that
God does not exist.

Atheism: It is disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Empiricism: It is the view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of
knowledge.

Existentialism: A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual
experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and
stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.

Kantianism: It comprises diverse philosophies that share Kant’s concern to explore the nature
and limits of human knowledge in the hope of raising philosophy to the level of a science.

Logical positivism: A philosophy asserting the primacy of observation in assessing the truth of
statements of fact and holding that metaphysical and subjective arguments not based on
observable data are meaningless.

10
Materialism: It is the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything,
including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical
phenomena.

Nominalism: It is the doctrine holding that abstract concepts, general terms, or universals have
no independent existence but exist only as names.

Philosophy of Religion: It is the branch of philosophy that studies key metaphysical and
epistemological concepts, principles, and problems of religion. Topics considered include the
existence and nature of God, the possibility of knowledge of God, human freedom, immortality,
and the problems of moral and natural evil and suffering

1.9. FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Alexander, Samuel. Space, Time and Deity. London: Macmillan, 1927.

Flew, A. and MacIntyre, A. Eds. New Essays in Philosophical Theology. London: S.C.M. Press,
1955.
Manson, Neil A. Ed. God and Design. London: Routledge, 2003.
Smart, J.J.C. and John Haldane. Atheism and Theism. 2nd Edn. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003.
Richardson, Alan. Religion in Contemporary Debate. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1968.
Fabro, Cornelio. God in Exile, Modern Atheism: A Study of the Internal Dynamic of Modern
Atheism from its Roots in the Cartesian Cogito to the Present Day. Tr. and Ed. Arthur
Gibson. New York: Newman Press, 1968.
Holloway, M. R. “Agnosticism.” New Catholic Encyclopaedia. Vol. 1. Ed. David I. Egenberger.
Washington D.C. McGraw Hill, 1981, 205-209.
Reid, J.P. “Atheism.” New Catholic Encyclopaedia. Vol. 1. Ed. David I. Egenberger.
Washington D.C. McGraw Hill, 1981, 1000-1003.

1.10. ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Answers to Check Your Progress I

11
1. Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. It is the doctrine or
belief that there is no God. An atheist is a person who does not believe that deities exist.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, could be seen as an attitude of the mind towards human’s
knowledge of God; namely, that God is humanly unknowable. An agnostic is not an atheist. An
atheist denies the existence of God; an agnostic professes ignorance about His existence.

2. Atheism takes different forms. The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be
the positive and dogmatic denial of the existence of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause.
This is sometimes known as dogmatic or positive theoretic atheism. A second form of atheism is
based either upon the lack of physical data for theism or upon the limited nature of the
intelligence of man. This second form may be described as a negative theoretic atheism. A third
form is positive moral atheism, in which human actions would neither be right nor wrong, good
nor evil, with reference to God.

Similarly, we can speak of different kinds of agnostics. There are those who deny that reason
can know God and make no judgment concerning that existence. A second group of agnostics
deny that reason can prove the existence of God but nonetheless profess a belief in God’s
existence. There is a third group of agnostics who because of their philosophical commitments
deny the possibility of knowing God. Some of these philosophical commitments include
nominalism, empiricism, Kantianism, Logical Positivism and Existentialism.

Answers to Check Your Progress II

1. With regard to atheism, there are two types of atheological arguments, namely, logical
arguments and evidential arguments. Logical arguments attempt to show that the concept of God
is self-contradictory or logically inconsistent with some known fact. Evidential Arguments
attempt to show that certain known facts that are consistent with theism nevertheless provide
evidence against it. Such arguments start with a known fact, such as the amount of suffering in
the world. The arguments then attempt to show that the fact in question supports the hypothesis
of atheism over the hypothesis of theism because we have more reason to expect the fact to
obtain on the assumption that God does not exist than on the assumption that God does exist.
Accordingly, the fact in question is more probable on the assumption that atheism is true than on

12
the assumption that theism is true, and hence provides some evidence for atheism and against
theism. By combining such facts, one can begin to construct a cumulative case for atheism.

With regard to agnosticism, taking recourse to different philosophical positions such as

nominalism, empiricism, Kantianism, logical positivism and existentialism, the proponents
attempted to uphold their view, namely, we cannot have knowledge about the existence of God.
Thus, nominalism erases universality from being and holds it to be mere signification of words.
It holds that there is nothing in beings that allows the mind to transcend from them to God.
Hence we cannot know God with certainty.

Empiricism holds that all knowledge comes through experience, and as such, terms such as
‘contingency’ and ‘necessity’ are impossible. Human mind can never reason with certitude as
human experiences are particulars in nature. Hence certain knowledge regarding the existence of
God is impossible.

With regard to Kantianism, Immanuel Kant maintains that human knowledge requires both
sensibility and understanding. The former is possible in both space and time while the latter
requires the twelve categories. Since God cannot be subjected to sensibility as He does come
under the purview of space and time, Kant held that we cannot have any direct natural
knowledge about God.

The central principle of Logical Positivists is the principle of verifiability, which states that a
proposition is true if its language elements are reducible to or verifiable in terms of some direct
or indirect sense experiences. However, statements about God are not verifiable, neither are they
true or false. They are merely meaningless and non-sensical statements.

Finally, existentialism holds that the only essence of a human being is that which he/she freely
creates for himself/herself through the decisive realization of his/her human possibilities.
Human being in his/her existence is a free tendency. He/she makes himself/herself what he/she
is. As a continual flux of existential tendencies, human being cannot grasp himself/herself
through any conceptual knowledge. Existentialism is essentially agnostic in nature as it refuses
human beings any rational or conceptual understanding of God. Even when some awareness of a
ground of Being is suggested, one can never identify this ground with God.

13
 2. Strong atheism is complete denial of the existence of deity in any form, which involves a
contradiction. A strong atheist must deny divinity by attributing human being with divine
abilities. Common atheistic observation concludes that human person is a finite being and can
only obtain knowledge through personal experience and application but for the theists knowledge
can also be received through divine revelation. The strong atheist needs to not only have all the
knowledge of every person ever but also all of the knowledge in the universe. It can be
concluded that a strong atheistic worldview, no matter how eloquently explained, is impractical
and illogical.

Weak atheism denies the existence of God for various reasons. For some since God cannot be
found through the uses of the senses, God does not exist. But we know that the air we breathe,
the force of gravity, emotions, values, beliefs and thoughts cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelled
or touched. Yet all these exist. Similarly, God who is a spirit cannot be found by way of our
senses. This does not mean that he does not exist. Some atheists who hold materialism argue that
matter and space just happen to exist and always have existed. But we know that nothing can
come from nothingness. Things cannot exist by chance. For the religious, the universe and
everything in it was created by God.

Similarly, one can also refute agnosticism proposed by nominalism, empiricism, Kantianism,
logical positivism and existentialism. To reject nominalism, we can say that nominalists failed to
recognize that while each being is indivisibly singular, the intellect has the power to consider one
aspect of the singular while leaving others out of consideration. Thus intellect can attain
universal notions, and subsequently, can have knowledge of God. The empiricists are guilty of
one-dimensional interpretation of human experience. To limit experience to what is directly
perceptible by the five senses is to eliminate large part of human experience, namely,
experiences through intellect. God’s existence is inferred intellectually rather than through the
senses. Kant erred in saying that perception through human sensibility is an absolute condition
for knowing anything. The Logical Positivists by proposing the principle of verifiability limits
human knowledge like the empiricists. Finally, the existentialists commit a two-fold error. They
fail to recognize that a finite being without an essence is a contradiction. For a finite existence is
always the existence of something, and this, from this very beginning. Human being without an
intrinsic limit or essence would be an act of infinite existence. Secondly, the existentialists fail

14
to recognize that unless human freedom is grounded in intelligence and dependent upon it,
humans cannot know the possibilities among which they can choose.

15