Document Type : Original Research

Author

• Gholamhossein Javadpoor

Assistant Professor, Department of Kalam, The Iranian Research Institute of Philosophy, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Agnostics maintain that one cannot/should not arrive at either an affirmative or negative belief regarding the existence of God, and the correct epistemological approach on this matter is suspension of judgment. This approach typically emerges within an evidentialist framework, where the epistemic validity of a proposition depends on the proofs and supporting evidence. If the available evidence fails to decisively affirm or deny the proposition, then the appropriate response is silence. From the agnostic perspective, the theism/atheism dichotomy is problematic for three reasons: (1) Theistic and atheistic beliefs are neither presuppositions nor basic and self-justifying propositions; (2) There is insufficient evidence to support either position, and all purported evidence is flawed or invalid; (3) Even if the evidence is considered successful, the arguments on both sides ultimately balance out, leading to epistemic equivalence. Consequently, all epistemic paths lead to the suspension of judgment, and neither theism nor atheism can claim valid epistemic justification. However, the agnostic position may be excessively stringent. The wholesale rejection of all evidence and the claim that the arguments are perfectly balanced risk leading to a form of radical skepticism. Moreover, by refusing to acknowledge the approach of the believers, agnosticism disregards the rationality of theists and atheists alike, failing to recognize the intellectual virtues that may underlie their respective positions.

Keywords

• agnosticism
• evidentialism
• epistemic equivalence
• basic beliefs
• theism
• atheism

Main Subjects

• Religious Epistemology