Q&A: Agnostic atheism — the default?
Agnostic atheism — the default?
Question
Hello Rabbi Michael Abraham.
In discussions of theism and atheism, the question always comes up: what is the default position? This is a substantive question, because as long as no arguments have been presented, the default position is the one that “wins.”
At first glance, it would seem that this position should be agnosticism. Before the discussion, when no arguments have yet been raised either way, we do not know whether God exists or not, and we have no position one way or the other. Therefore, it would seem that one should choose this path until arguments are brought for or against.
A believer, too, can argue this way. The default really is agnosticism; however, there are good arguments for the existence of God, and therefore the conclusion is theistic. And likewise on the atheist side.
And after this introduction: perhaps there is actually room to challenge this view, according to which agnosticism is specifically the default position in the discussion. There is another option: agnostic atheism. By definition: denial of God’s existence without intellectual arguments.
And why deny His existence? Because it contradicts our human intuition. After all, if I were to present you with the possibility that some non-physical entity exists, you would usually reject it even though you have no argument for doing so. If I tell you that there exists some invisible being, imperceptible in any way, hovering above your head—would you say, “It can neither be disproved nor proved, so I’ll remain doubtful—maybe such a being exists and maybe not”? Clearly not. There is no doubt that you would dismiss it and not take it as a serious possibility. Maybe you would not deny it with certainty, but you would still reject it.
I’d be happy to hear your opinion.
Answer
I completely agree. Moreover, the default position is that there is no God not only because of our intuition (for intuition is part of thinking, and therefore should not be seen as a default), but mainly because the existence of something is the claim that requires proof, not the claim of its absence. The assumption is that without proof, the thing does not exist until it is proven or justified otherwise.
But as you wrote, there are good arguments in favor of His existence, and therefore despite the default position, in my view it is much more plausible that He does exist. I discussed this at length in the notebooks here on the site.