This article addresses Theistic or Deistic religious Agnosticism - positions which acknowledge that God exists, yet do not adhere to any religion, or may not believe that God is active in creation. The article Why I'm Not an Atheist covers Agnosticism proper, which takes no position as to whether God exists at all.
The following chain of reasoning is why I reject Theistic and Deistic Agnosticism:
- Life could not arise by chance. The existence of the universe, the fundamental properties of the universe, the situation and composition of our galaxy cluster, solar system, and planet, and the fact that such a thing as life exists on a planet, is evidence that the God who created the universe intended for humanity to exist
- Human beings are moral creatures, who desire communion with God. Unique among all life, human beings are aware of the divine. God intended for this type of being to exist
- Since God intended for this type of being to exist, it makes sense that God would communicate with them. It is illogical to hold that God would create a being that desires to communicate with Him, and never fulfill that desire
- This communication does not happen sufficiently through nature. The natural universe can reveal that a Creator exists, but is does not answer the fundamental questions of:
- What does God think is "good"? That is, what are human beings supposed to do, and not supposed to do, according to God?
- What will happen to human beings if they are not sufficiently "good", i.e., pleasing to God?
These fundamental questions also cannot be answered through observation of cause-and-effect. Often, innocent people suffer, and abusers do not. Instead, it is often the case that lying, exploitation, and violence benefit the perpetrator, which is obviously not what God desires, as human beings were also created to desire justice, peace, and freedom from harm. Abuse and exploitation are therefore contrary to the design of humanity, yet, in the world, abusers and exploiters often prosper, and are never brought to justice. A cause-and-effect observation, therefore, does not reveal morality. Instead, if anything, it points toward a post-mortem judgment, where injustice is rectified
- This communication does not take place publicly and supernaturally from God. God does not appear to the world, every day at a certain time, and explain who He is and what He requires of us
- This communication does not take place privately and supernaturally for each individual. God does not appear to every person, and explain who He is, and what He requires of them
- It is possible that this communication does take place through select appearances of God, at appointed times, to appointed individuals. The remaining task would then be to figure out which purported communication from God is authentic. And, contrary to the claims of many, this search is not terribly complex, and reveals very compelling reasons to believe that God is both personal, and active in His creation
Conclusion
Agnosticism is not feasible, because the existence and nature of human beings logically demands the existence of special revelation from God.
Agnostics should also be aware that, by refusing to choose a religion, they have not remained "neutral" at all. They are in a religion that is actively anti-Christian, according to Jesus Christ:
Matthew 12:30
30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
There is no option of remaining neutral, as God sees it. By not believing in Jesus, a person has, either implicitly or explicitly, rejected hundreds of the claims of God and Jesus Christ, and is therefore anti-Christian.
Atheists and Agnostics both, then, have not traded in religion for no religion. They make the religious claim that Jesus was a false prophet, by refusing to believe in Him, according to Himself. If they reject they are doing so, they make the religious claim that Jesus Christ's assertion about this was a lie. Atheism and Agnosticism are therefore anti-Christian religions, their claims to apathy notwithstanding.