The Cowardice of Agnostics

It is probably necessary to first clearly differentiate "agnostics" as a noun and group identity from "agnostic" the adjective.  When used in terms of religious or spiritual belief, "agnostic" generally means a person who cannot know for sure whether a particular deity exists or not.  Some see this as the most reasonable approach, since we have never been able to prove the existance of any god, and, as is often said, absence of proof is not proof of absence, so the deity in question is not disproved either.  The Agnostic takes the description as a label, and a mark of pride.  It represents the rationality that many see as a high-level achievement in the face of blind belief.  Without proof, it is sheer folly and risk to proclaim a belief.  And here the trouble begins.

While agnostics and atheists agree that no god has been proved to exist, atheists take the step of living their lives under a moral code with no need of any god.  They accept the existence of reality as a necessary given in order to interact with their own existence and others'.  Agnostics must remain "unconvinced" of reality, since anything we could use to prove it still hinges on the acceptance that something does exist.  We make a leap of faith for the sake of convenience, even without any faith to go with it.  Believers follow what they assume to be the rules laid out by their deities for good living; atheists keep the rules that they have been taught and have seen to be useful, throwing out the harmful ones; what kind of morality can Agnostics have?  They might put themselves in the atheist camp, saying their moral code is based on observation and utility.  However, why would they not use a religious moral code, for the sake of convenience?  Of course, many probably do, but deny its origin when pressed.  If one really is not sure of the existence of a law-giving deity, or lack thereof, Pascal's Wager seems like the most reasonable thing to latch on to.  If you truly cannot be sure that some god is not looking over your shoulder and counting your sins, why would you pretend not to care?  The veneer of rationality wins no divine friends.  As David Silverman has said, the Agnostic is really an atheist, but does not want to say so.  There might be real psychological reasons to do so, but it still looks like a person fooling themselves.

So, when it comes to doing what we want, Agnostics follow the atheist example.  But, when it comes to social regulations, are they similarly unconvinced?  It seems, and I am sorry to say this is purely anecdotal, that Agnostics will always stand with theists when push comes to shove.  When the debate arises, the majority tend to favor a religious background for applying and proposing laws.  While I argued that Agnostics would do better acting as if they believed for their own convenience, I find it irritating that they pretend to have no debt to religion in their personal life, but are happy to assign debt to others.  I assume - yes, a dangerous thing to do - that the Agnostics' agreement with theists in the public sphere has to do more with the sheer numbers of theists than with any arguments they might have.  Hiding under the not-quite-atheist wing in one's personal life is only to avoid any labels of superstition, but if religion has anything over rationality, it is the power to control.  Of course, there is no philosophy of agnosticism that requires a code of conduct, but believer or not, a great many people want nothing more than to control those around them.

Finally, I come to my great accusation.  Because Agnostics do not honestly say how they come by their morality or how they propose moraity for others, they are liars.  Because they do not accept the reality that openly doubting a deity is tantamont to atheism, and they hide under their cloak of "impossible to know", they are cowards.  An agnostic person is rational in the lack of knowledge we have may not be remedied.  An Agnostic wants only to parade a lack of decision as a virtue.