In the context of God, the term “agnostic” is often misunderstood. Unless this is something that a person has really thought about extensively, one might think that it means undecided, uncommitted, or unconcerned. To compound the difficulty in understanding this term, we must accept that the meaning of language is determined by usage. Nevertheless, I am going to proceed with a definition which personally suits me, as I am anything but unconcerned about God. Agnostic comes from the Greek prefix a-, meaning without, and the Greek gnōsis, meaning knowledge. The term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 to describe his position on God and metaphysics.
Dictionary.com defines it as, “a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.” Clearly, anyone of significant intelligence would accept this position, right? Either a person has witnessed God with sufficient sensory experience to know that he exists or that person should admit that God’s existence is unknown to him.
So, what do the studies tell us about intelligence and religiosity? Surprisingly, quite a bit. In 2016, Pennycook, Ross, Koehler, and Fugelsang published their results of four separate studies and a meta-analysis combining these four with thirty-one other studies. They found intelligence to be significantly negatively correlated with religious belief. They asked study participants to rate their belief in God on a seven point scale from strongly pro-believing (theist) to strongly non-believing (atheist). They then measured participants’ performance on a full battery of cognitive tests. Although they found negative correlations on every cognitive test performed, they uncovered the strongest correlation between religiosity and analytic cognitive style. This demonstrates that agnostics and atheists are more analytic and reflective in their thinking styles than believers. The results are summarized in the table below:
So does this mean that atheists are more intelligent than agnostics? The data seem to suggest so, but I think there is more to it than that. Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s most famous atheists, admits that even he is agnostic. In an interview with John Horgan for Scientific American in August, 2017, Dawkins said,
This is a semantic matter. Some people define atheism as a positive conviction that there are no gods and agnosticism as allowing for the possibility, however slight. In this sense I am agnostic, as any scientist would be. But only in the same way I am agnostic about leprechauns and fairies.
First of all, props to Dawkins for admitting a superior intellectual point (agnosticism), but I do not agree that this is merely a semantic issue. To compare God to fairies and leprechauns is absurd. God, if he exists, is the creator of the universe. I am simultaneously composed of the universe and observant of it. When have I seen or felt or experienced anything at all that is the purported work of leprechauns? Never. Am I agnostic about leprechauns? Of course, but absolutely not in the same sense that I am agnostic about God.
Atheism is a tenuous position. Atheism is more a fashion than an actual philosophy. It probably arose as a vitriolic backlash to religious intolerance and fanaticism. So for that, religious people can thank themselves. Agnosticism is the scientific position to hold. Let’s look back to Thomas Henry Huxley who said,
Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.
In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration… Do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
As a child, I often thought that if I had to believe in the god of such or such a person, I would choose to be an atheist instead. I would prefer an atheist ten thousand to one over someone who claims to know much more than he could possibly know, and many more times than that, an atheist over someone who feels the necessity to impose their delusion upon me. Agnosticism is merely about being honest with ourselves and others. I think if pressed, most atheists would admit that they are agnostic, and I think most intelligent people would also, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. Atheism is not the antithesis of religion, agnosticism is. It’s the antidote, also.
This experience that we call life is beautifully deep and meaningful. The universe is full of mysteries and wonders that we have only begun to uncover by the power of our intellects. I thrill at the quest for understanding. Therefore, every night, so long as I live, I will bow before the God of the universe, whether real or imaginary, and pour out my heart in gratitude for our capacities, our dear associations, and this stunning existence. I can’t imagine rendering anything less.
Ariel Hammon
Author of JACK
An interesting read. And when I say interesting, I am speak from the ego mind, which is where the interest comes from. Because there is interest in relation to the ego. What makes something of interest, is the ego mind reflecting, in order to compare and contrast. Spirit/consciousness/enlightenment do not observe in these terms.(“a new earth”-Eckart Tolle).
I rather enjoy your breaking down of the terms. I have always been much more fond of the term agnosticism than atheism. From the point of reason atheism is as limiting as theism, is that it blocks out potential learning and possibility.
I do, however, have a knowledge of God. I have personally experienced him from a double blind sensory experience. Which has been the basis of my theistic commitment. That knowledge compounded with faith and reason should be the basis of all theistic commitment. When a scientist finds a breakthrough in knowledge, he is more directed in his studies. This is how I feel about myself in relation to this study.
Thanks for commenting, Jacob. I’m unclear on what you mean by “double blind sensory experience.” Are you using the term in the same way as a double-blind study? If so could you elaborate?
Yes I am. It is hard to illustrate how the double blind (co-experienced with my wife) happened over text. It will have to be saved for a verbal encounter. However, it happened in a way that discouraged any possibly of it being a grandiose delusion. The context of gaining knowledge through an experience, would have myself as the experimenter, and my wife as the experimentee. Visa versa.
Interesting blog. So, when applying this agnostic lens to life. It can be said we are agnostic about everything… Well everything except that we exists (“I think therefore I am”). If the agnostic lens deals with knowledge, we really only know one thing. Is that very helpful? Having this outlook on our ‘reality’? Take for instance gravity. We don’t know what it is. We see the effects of it, and can garner ‘laws’ about those effects, but we don’t know that gravity is even a thing. Would you say that you are agnostic about gravity? God is the same way, we can see the effects of him, but we don’t know Him.
Yes, taken to an extreme, we could say that we are agnostic about everything. The difference is, I have had exhaustive sensory experience with many things. Whether our thoughts are real or we are merely a living a dream, can’t be determined, obviously. However, I have never seen, heard, or otherwise experienced God in a sensory way. Therefore, to say that I am agnostic about the universe in the same sense that I am agnostic about God would be silly. I can’t say exactly what gravity is, but I can measure it, I can experience it, and I can make powerful predictions about it. Furthermore, any one who wishes to take the effort, can duplicate any and all of my results. This is not so with God. So, yes, I’m agnostic about gravity because I can’t say for certain what it is, but again, absolutely not in the same sense that I’m agnostic about God.
I would describe what Ariel is saying a little differently. I understand it this way. I am agnostic as long as I do not have knowledge. This does not mean i doubt or have a lack of faith. It just means I do not have knowledge. I wish every “Agnostic” would see what Ariel is saying and stop letting it stop them from belief. But unfortunately it leads to indifference. It is, “oh I am agnostic. I dont know what I believe.” Sad. Really it is I dont know what I know. Which is a humbling thought, rather than a lack of faith. I dont know and I am nothing compared to this being that I love more than life. But the real idea I get from Ariel is plea to our Father to show himself. And with my brother Ariel I to plead to God to come out of your hiding place and make know you wonderful love, life, and power. Show all of us unworthy children Who is who and who is not. I put it here only to let you know that I feel the same. I want him. I want him bad even if I burn up.
You need and edit button. I just reread it and realized I made some mistakes.
Isn’t there an edit link next to the time stamp on your post?
Ariel, I appreciate the thought that went into this blog. I do wonder if we limit our study of intelligence to the just the academic intelligences thus limiting our understanding of the human condition. Will Rogers made a quip that has always tickled me, “Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.” I feel that there are people who are extremely intelligent in the “left brain” areas, (Asperger’s syndrome) but totally lacking in social skills, I have worked with Down’s syndrome children who had such a capacity for love that amazed me. Could it be that those who have a capacity to understand God are higher on one of these un-measured intelligence scales?
Yes, I get your point, but the tests had to do with basic thinking styles and cognitive abilities. Therefore, I don’t think that the studies should be dismissed by merely suggesting that religious people are higher in some unmeasured intelligence. It is possible that some people have a higher intelligence or ability to understand God, but I would expect that to be connected to the basic intelligence that the studies measured. If someone can understand God better than I, I would certainly hope that he or she could exert their intelligence to demonstrate it to me of lesser intelligence. If not, their intelligence is not very beneficial to anyone but themselves.