Agnostic - Hanson


In Keeley’s article “God as the Ultimate Conspiracy Theory”, he describes Norwood Russell Hanson’s argument that he calls the Agnostic’s dilemma. This dilemma according to Hanson is the idea that upon closer inspection, it is not a logically stable position to support agnosticism. In short, agnosticism is when a person does not claim belief or disbelief in God. Hanson argues that the support in agnosticism and the evidence to support God not existing and the lack of evidence to support God existing, is not as good as supporting Atheism. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Hanson is arguing that the evidence that supports God not existing, and the lack of evidence to support the existence of god actually supports atheism better. Agnostics agree with atheists the there is not enough evidence to support the existence of God. On the other hand, Agnostics also agree with theists in that there isn’t enough evidence to support the idea that God does not exist.

Hanson then goes onto explain the inconsistencies with agnosticism by saying, “He [the agnostic] begins by assessing ‘God exists’ as if he were a fact gatherer. He ends by appraising the claim’s denial not as a fact gatherer, but as a pure logician. But consistency demands that he either be a fact gatherer with both the claim and its denial, or else play logician with both” [1]. Hanson is arguing that agnostics have different ways for arguing for and against the existence of God. For consistency reasons, agnostics must treat both arguments in the same way.

The way out of this dilemma, Hanson argues, is by believing in Atheism. The reason for this is because when there is no good evidence to support a claim, that in itself is enough to support the idea that the claim is false. If we used the argument that having no evidence to prove that something does not exists means that that claim must be true, then we are left with many outrages possibilities. For example, since there is no evidence to prove that there is not a blue monkey living in Atlanta, therefore a blue monkey lives in Atlanta. This is exactly the same argument that theists use when arguing for the existence of god.

In relation to conspiracy theories, the Agnostic’s dilemma can be applied to conspiracy theories too. As said before, when there is no evidence to support that a claim is true, it is best to believe that the claim is false. In terms of conspiracy theories. The same logic should be supplied. If a conspiracy theory has no evidence to support that the theory is true, then it is in our best interest to believe that the theory is false. It is not the case that if there is no evidence to support that a conspiracy theory is false, then the theory is true.

Bibliography
1. Keeley, Brian L. “God as the Ultimate Conspiracy Theory.” Episteme, vol. 4, no. 2, 2007, pp. 135–149., doi:10.3366/epi.2007.4.2.135.
_a
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License