Agnosticism

Some say: "I don't believe in anything except the probable lack of anything to believe in." This kind of thinking, along with all of its implications, has become quite popular over the last century or so, especially in the Western world. It has taken on all the characteristics of a movement or school of thought, in spite of the pride its adherents take in claiming they "think for themselves".

In fact, it has almost become a profane religion, having its prophets (seminal thinkers and writers), its belief or value systems, its priests (professors), its temples (university classrooms), its followers (growing millions, both east and west), and even its mission (to scoff at anything and everything anyone else believes in, without advancing anything better to take its place, perchance it might be scoffed at in turn).

It even has its own sport, as its adherents often take pride in their ability to wrestle other people's ideas into deadly lockholds just for fun. I have found many to be just as closed-minded and "fundamentalist" as the believers they ridicule, adding fuel to the flames of sectarian strife they so disdainfully scorn. It is easier and less challenging, in this age of unrestrained individualism, to espouse this self-complacent tendency, than it is to bold the rapids of true search.

The way is as broad and level as an immense, sandy desert, although I dare say as dry and sterile, too. Most will secretly admire one’s cool detachment, one’s nonchalance, one’s modern thought, not knowing what its basic assumptions are, much less how to confront them. What are they, historically speaking, and how and why has such a large chunk of the world's population come place such blind, unquestioning faith in them?

However, an agnostic's beliefs are just as ‘religious’ as anyone's, and their thinking is by definition just as dependent on an historical dialog as anyone else’s. To ignore important recent developments in that global dialog means to dwell on earlier stages in that collective thought process, which have since been heavily questioned and mostly rejected by much of the more recent thinking. Far from being backward, many ideas that a modern agnostic might poo-poo are actually supported by many of those ‘important recent developments’.

Now, if you believe that thought is an entirely individual matter, like one’s choice of consumption items in a store, then the above will make no sense. But if you believe, as I do, that thought is an eminently social activity, such as the building of a termite mound or the construction of a science, then I think you will understand where I am coming from.

Some have gone from "atheist" to "agnostic", from rejecting the Unknown straigh out to accepting that unknowns are an essential aspect of human life. The original agnostics stepped beyond primitive beliefs that Absolute Truth or Absolute Reality could be known by humans, a misconception apparently still running rife in our days. They did not reject the concept of an Absolute Truth or Reality, for if Truth / Reality exists it is necessarily One. Rather, they realized that the human mind is frail and limited, and thus is incapable of ENCOMPASSING or CONTAINING that Absolute Truth / Reality.

This implies that any truth or reality we humans are able to comprehend is by definition relative and not Absolute. To accept this necessary relativity of our understanding is to adopt an attitude of humility regarding opinions or interpretations differing from ours, and of openness towards the possibility of learning from them. It means sharing freely and mutually the fruits of our search, but admitting from the start that no matter how sure we are now of the rightness of our thought, tomorrow we will have to admit how limited it really was in comparison to what we will know then, and so on. Interestingly, this view is now held by much of the scientific community, having had to go through several soul-searching changes in paradigm itself over the past century.

As a Bahá’í, I too consider myself to be an agnostic in the above sense, which has nothing to do with the modern-day "don't know and don't care" use of the term. Rather, I believe that an Absolute Truth exists, that we may gradually approach it, but never quite reach it, and that this inability to encompass the Absolute results from our limitations as human beings, which is in harmony with the truest agnostic tradition.

I also believe that this would include the truth about ‘God’ as well as what we call ‘science’, since an ‘Absolute Truth’ would necessarily include both and would answer questions of science and belief at the same time. The only caveat about putting God and Science in the same basket is to make sure not to confuse an object of knowledge (God) with a method for knowing it (science). It might be better to say that all objects of study (God, the world of spirit, the material world, etc.) can be studied using different methods (science, philosophy, religion, etc.).

Bahá’u’lláh says that truth / reality can be read in two different "Books": that of "Creation", which includes this unlimited universe and maybe even other planes of existence as well, and that of "Revelation", which includes all the Sacred Scriptures revealed to humankind from the beginning that has no beginning to the end that has no end. (For my fellow-scientists, by the way, these two Books are considered mutually complementary, not contradictory.)

How can anyone claim to have encompassed the entirety of even a small portion of either one of these Books? Especially considering that there is far more to both of them than first meets the eye. I guess not knowing, and admitting it – accepting to face squarely and unflinchingly the gaping chasm of doubt – is a very difficult thing to do. So we tend to either cover it up quickly with whatever is at hand and then cling to that same answer for the rest of our lives, or we turn our backs on that unsettling, uncomfortable hole and try to pretend it just isn't there.

Einstein said that the secret of genius is the ability to resist this temptation until something really novel and useful appears. I think it is in the best interest of all humanity that we learn to replace these two habits pertaining to our collective childhood with new, more mature patterns of true seeking. I personally expect to be spending the rest of eternity in the fascinating quest and exciting discovery of truth / reality, without ever actually coming to the end of that journey. There is always so much to learn!

(June 21, 2003)