THE WORLD'S MOST DANGEROUS IDEA

Agnosticism

Neutrality is impossible. One must choose.

Have you ever heard of the famous wager of the 17th century mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal? "Either God is, or he is not. But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance [death] a coin is being spun that will come down heads [God] or tails [no God]. How will you wager?" The agnostic says, "The right thing is not to wager at all." Pascal replies, "But you must wager. There is no choice. You are already committed."

As Pascal points out, we can't not choose. Agnosticism is not really an option, for we must act, not just think, in this life, and all action is either for or against God. All actions either are oriented to and motivated by love, or they are not. (I mean voluntary, deliberate, and significant actions here—sneezing or putting on one's socks in the morning might be safely considered neutral!) If God is love, then there can be no real neutrality. Of course, Pascal's wager is only a rough start for those who have little else than their self-interest to motivate themselves. One must go deeper.

It's pretty simple, really. If you choose to live as if love does not exist, then you will have to accept the consequences: a loveless life and a loveless afterlife. Whether life ends in this world or goes on, you ain't gonna have love either way, for unconsciousness surely isn't love, and if there is indeed life after death, well, you reap what you sow—why would you choose love in the afterlife if you rejected it in this one?

So, agnosticism is just a bad idea, for it is the most foolish of choices. Atheism, I think, might be the more noble gesture, perhaps, if it meant something like a protest against seemingly unnecessary suffering, in the spirit of Ivan in The Brothers Karamozov. But, then again, it’s a spiritually dangerous protest if it doesn't eventually resolve into the “good atheism” of rejecting all idol-worshipping religion and belief (which is what much of contemporary "religion" amounts to), and finally into a robust belief in the living God who ultimately transcends our human concepts and practices (though one must not discount the possibility of beliefs and practices that are divinely authorized and provided to us as spiritual lifelines to an otherwise ineffable and unapproachable divinity).

So, both agnosticism and atheism are ultimately disbelief in love, whatever their more ennobling aspects. But agnosticism is a worse idea than atheism, as I say, for it would seem that there is more mercy available for the hot-blooded atheist than the lukewarm believer—Jesus talked about vomiting the latter, not the former, out of his mouth. Though of course, “The Fool says there is no God.” Perhaps some morally good atheists are actually rejecting a false notion of God that they do not realize is false, and hopefully the love of truth that motivates this rejection will eventually turn into a recognition of the true God before the end. The same cannot be said for the agnostics, who believe and reject nothing. I seem to remember Dante suggesting that neither heaven nor hell wanted them.

One only believes in what one has a nature akin to. So, if one disbelieves in love enough to remain unmoved by it, as the agnostic does, it means his soul is lacking in love. Deliberate, conscious agnosticism, then, is really a moral, not primarily intellectual, decision—to live without love. The will is in charge in all belief, for it is not totally bound by the intellect that informs it. These mutually influence each other. Thus, real, deliberate and conscious agnosticism is a grave sin, not to be excused by ignorance, though invincible ignorance is a legitimate excuse. But this does not excuse a lack of love, just a lack of true belief. The agnostic has no excuse.

To demand proof of love, of God, as the agnostic does, is to reject love and to reject God. This is what Adam and Eve essentially did in distrusting God's love. They had no "reason" to reject it. This is why the consequences of their actions were so grave—and all of us are mysteriously bound up in their original distrust. We sinned with them. They were the first agnostics.

The seemingly unnecessary suffering of innocents is the best reason, if there actually were one, to reject God's love, whether in agnosticism or atheism. This is the best argument for disbelief or neutrality, in my opinion.

But it ultimately fails. One must never stare into the abyss that our sins have created, else risk damnation in despair, for evil is not there for us to solve with our clever minds or condemn God for as if he were somehow ultimately responsible. We must, instead, keep our eyes fixed on the suffering and death of Jesus Christ and hold on to him for dear life in the midst of the evils that would otherwise suffocate our souls and eclipse all the beauty and love that this world still contains.

Agnosticism is the ultimate stupidity and wickedness because it doesn’t so much reject God as ignore him. If I were God, I’d be more angry at indifference than anything else.

Thaddeus J. Kozinski is assistant professor of humanities and philosophy at Wyoming Catholic College and the author of The Political Problem of Religious Pluralism: And Why Philosophers Can't Solve It.