28 C
Awka
Sunday, February 9, 2025

Trumpet With Certain Sound

A Journey to Agnostic Theism: Seeking God Amid Confusing Evidence

Must Read

The Risen and the Chosen

The Risen and the ChosenBy Chudi Okoye(First draft: Jan 13, 2025)The tone of the Tanakh tells...

In the Historic Contest of Early Christianities, Did Gnosticism Lose Unjustly?

To grow and consolidate, the early Christian Church vehemently suppressed any deviations from proto-orthodox theology, with Gnosticism...

African Spirituality and the Peculiar Promise of Quantum Entanglement

The final installment in a trilogy on existence, God, and religion, this essay examines the prospects for reviving African...

God isn’t a phantom, nor can He be fully fathomed.

By Chudi Okoye

If you ask Richard Swinburne, the British philosopher who has devoted his career to pondering the divine, he would say—with scarcely a pause—that it is far more probable that God exists than not. His compatriot, physicist Stephen Unwin, in his book The Probability of God, even ventures an audacious Bayesian estimate of 67% for the likelihood of God’s existence. Yet their fellow countryman, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, counters this with a starkly different view: in The God Delusion, he rhetorically places the probability as low as 2%. Christopher Hitchens, another British thinker, spent his life passionately arguing along similar skeptical lines.

These contrasting positions reveal a decision-theoretic dilemma akin to a cosmic Prisoner’s Dilemma: should we embrace the common belief in God in pursuit of everlasting bliss, or seek skeptical autonomy (freedom to reason independently) and risk eternal damnation? Blaise Pascal, the 17th-century mathematician and philosopher, articulated this tension masterfully in his famous Wager, contending that belief in God is the safest gamble: it offers infinite gain if God truly exists and only finite loss if He does not; while disbelief risks infinite loss or, at best, offers finite gain.

The polarized perspectives on God highlight a profound tension between belief and doubt—between faith and reason—that has intensified in contemporary times due to the advance of science and modernization. This dichotomy has led to increasing secularization in affluent parts of the world, juxtaposed with the persistence and even intensification of religiosity and desecularization elsewhere. Agnostic theism seeks to navigate this tension by affirming the possibility of God’s existence while acknowledging the inscrutability of the divine.

As a layperson (a cradle Christian and fervent adherent in my youth) who has long pondered this matter, particularly to clarify the basis for my Christian faith, I find myself increasingly attracted to—or, at least, curious about—this philosophical position. It maintains a firm belief in God while recognizing ambiguity about His attributes and role in nature. On balance, I believe accessible evidence points strongly toward a transcendent reality and a Supreme Being we call God (my Igbo name—see byline—asserts this very claim). Yet, while affirming this belief, I cannot presume a high level of certainty about the true nature of God, His intentions, or methods—or whether these are accessible to human cognition. Consequently, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with religious dogma, preferring to show intellectual humility in my belief as I revel in—and try to unravel—the wonder of existence. I embrace science as a glimpse into the divine order but recognize its limits in addressing ultimate metaphysical questions.

The late theoretical physicist, Steven Weinberg, once said that science “doesn’t make it impossible to believe in God, but it makes it possible not to believe in God.” I would rephrase this slightly by saying that although science doesn’t make belief in God impossible, it offers natural explanations for phenomena once attributed to divine action, thus diminishing the necessity of invoking the divine while still leaving room for transcendent wonder. By staking out this position, I honor the search for truth—chiefly through science and philosophy—while accepting the profound mystery of being.

My approach here also mirrors that of the French essayist and mystic, Romain Rolland, who described an intimate alliance between the pessimism of intelligence piercing every illusion, and the optimism of will sustaining belief. This perspective, later popularized by the Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci in his prison chronicles, captures the tension I navigate between intellectual agnosticism and willful theism.

In this essay, I will make the case for agnostic theism as an intellectually honest and philosophically coherent position, one that rejects the sometimes hubristic claims about divine knowledge made by fideists who favor faith over reason, among them some fervent proselytizers of world religions in Africa.

Debates About God’s Existence
The question of God’s existence has been a perennial focus of human inquiry, producing a rich tapestry of arguments both affirming and denying the divine. Among the most influential are the cosmological arguments, which contend that the universe must have an ultimate cause, conceived of as God. Classical thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas emphasized the necessity of a “first cause” or “unmoved mover” to explain existence itself, in what we might today categorize as cosmological arguments. Aquinas also distinguished between the preambles of faith, which are rational truths accessible through reason (such as the existence of God), and the articles of faith, which transcend reason and must be accepted through belief (such as the Trinity or the Incarnation). The Kalam Cosmological Argument, traced back to the 9th-century Muslim polymath Al-Kindi and more fully developed by the 11th-century Persian philosopher Al-Ghazali, has been revitalized in contemporary discussions by William Lane Craig. This argument posits that since everything that begins to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist, it must necessarily have a transcendent cause, which is God.

Supporting these contentions are the teleological arguments, which point to the apparent design in the universe. From William Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy to contemporary discussions of fine-tuning, proponents like Richard Swinburne argue that the precise conditions necessary for life suggest the hand of a designer. These arguments align closely with the so-called strong anthropic principle (SAP), which posits that the universe’s laws and constants are not merely conducive to life but deliberately configured to ensure it. For teleological proponents, this intentionality points to a designer and a divine purpose underlying existence, although the principle itself does not explicitly claim the existence of God.

Meanwhile, the ontological arguments, originating with Anselm of Canterbury and later developed by René Descartes and Gottfried Leibniz, seek to prove God’s existence through reason alone, asserting that the very concept of a greatest conceivable being necessitates its existence. This is a more abstract argument which uses logic and reason to deduce the existence of God. In the 20th century, logician and mathematician, Kurt Gödel, proposed a formal, mathematical proof for the ontological argument, utilizing abstract reasoning and modal logic (the study of logical ‘necessity’ and ‘possibility,’ used to differentiate ‘necessary’ truths from ‘contingent’ or ‘possible’ truths).

However, for every theistic argument, there has emerged a counterpoint. Central among these is the ‘problem of evil,’ which challenges the coherence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good deity in a world rife with suffering. Philosophers such as J. L. Mackie argue that such a God is incompatible with the reality of evil, although Alvin Plantinga’s ‘Free-Will’ defense of God posits that moral freedom justifies suffering as a necessary byproduct.

Critics of the design argument appear, however, unpersuaded by such defenses. They point, in response, to natural evils and cosmic indifference, including the eventual destruction of Earth during the Sun’s Red Giant phase (which even the Bible, at 2 Peter 3:7, 10, and 12, anticipates), questioning why a benevolent God would create a universe where life seems fleeting and fragile against vast, impersonal forces.

Empiricists and logical positivists, including A. J. Ayer, dismiss metaphysical claims about God as meaningless, insisting that only empirically verifiable or falsifiable propositions are valid. Similarly, natural explanations offered by evolutionary biology and the weak anthropic principle (WAP) present alternatives to teleological claims, arguing that apparent design can arise from natural processes without invoking a designer. The WAP asserts that we observe fine-tuning because only a universe with conditions conducive to life could produce observers capable of noticing it. In this view, the fine-tuning is not a sign of purpose but a necessary condition for our existence. Thus, while the SAP emphasizes intentionality and implies a “designer,” the WAP reframes the issue, arguing that the universe’s life-supporting conditions are unremarkable given that only such a universe could allow life to arise.

Amid these intellectual tensions, some arguments transcend traditional categories, focusing on subjective and cultural dimensions of belief. Moral arguments, notably advanced by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Practical Reason, propose that belief in God is a rational postulate necessary for the ultimate reconciliation of virtue and happiness, although the foundation of morality itself rests in human reason and the capacity for autonomous moral judgment. Others highlight the profound impact of religious experiences—transformative events that believers perceive as encounters with the divine. Critics such as Sigmund Freud, however, interpret these experiences as projections of psychological needs rather than evidence of an external deity. Finally, sociological perspectives explore how religion evolves as a human construct, shaped by societal and historical forces, further challenging its metaphysical claims.

The richness of these debates underscores the complexity of the divine question. For agnostic theists, they serve as reminders of both the plausibility of belief and the humility required in its pursuit. While arguments for God reveal profound mysteries pointing toward transcendence, counterarguments challenge believers to grapple with ambiguity, fostering a worldview that respects both faith and reason.

Reason and Religion
In the 19th century, building on the intellectual foundations laid by the Renaissance, scientific revolution, and Enlightenment in the preceding centuries, social theorists like Émile Durkheim, Max Weber, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud anticipated a steady decline of religion as societies modernized. Their secularization thesis, rooted in Enlightenment rationalism, posited that science and reason would supplant religious explanations. This view seemed plausible in industrializing societies, where technological advances and human development provided greater existential security, offering increased control over survival, health, and prosperity.

These luminaries were largely focused on Western societies, where their predictions have proven partially correct. However, they profoundly influenced later theorists who extended these expectations globally. Scholars such as Talcott Parsons, Daniel Lerner, Gabriel Almond, and Francis Fukuyama, drawing from modernization theory, argued that industrialization, urbanization, and the rationalization of governance and institutions would inevitably diminish traditional religious structures worldwide. Yet the persistence—and resurgence—of religiosity in many non-Western regions, such as the Middle East, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, complicates these assumptions.

This interplay between secularization and desecularization underscores the global complexity of religion in the modern world. In affluent societies with high existential security, religion has often receded from the public sphere, retreating into private life or commodified as a “product” in a competitive religious market. As theorists Rodney Stark and Roger Finke argue in Acts of Faith, in these contexts, religion functions more as a rational choice; it is consumed for social, psychological, or cultural benefits rather than out of fervent belief.

Yet globally, the influence of religion persists and even intensifies. In The Desecularization of the World, Peter Berger highlights striking religious revivals in the 20th century, including Islamic resurgence, the expansion of evangelical Christianity in the Global South, and the re-emergence of faith in post-communist societies. He observes that “the world is as furiously religious as it ever was,” attributing this to the growth of developing societies where existential insecurity remains high. Similarly, Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart argue in Sacred and Secular that religiosity thrives among economically vulnerable populations because it provides meaning, hope, and community in the face of uncertainty.

Thus, the global proportion of religiously affiliated individuals has grown, not so much because of widespread conversions but largely due to the rapid population growth in developing regions where religiosity remains strongest.

Role of Agnostic Theism
Agnostic theism offers a compelling framework for navigating this complex religious terrain. Unlike traditional theism, agnostic theism does not claim definitive knowledge of God’s essence or role in nature, although it affirms a strong plausibility of God’s existence. This perspective aligns with the insights of John F. Haught’s concept of God as “depth” and “future,” described in his What Is God? How to Think About the Divine—a transcendent horizon that eludes full comprehension yet imbues life with meaning.

This humility also resonates with Thomas B. Sheridan’s What Is God? Can Religion Be Modeled?, which argues that while religious practices can be scientifically modeled, the essence of God cannot. Sheridan distinguishes between denotative (precise and empirical) and connotative (metaphorical and interpretative) models, thus underscoring the limits of human understanding of the divine. For agnostic theists, this distinction is crucial: God is seen not as measurable or wholly scrutable entity, but an ineffable and awe-inspiring mystery.

Sheridan’s framework of denotative and connotative models presents an intriguing inversion of the approaches taken by Aquinas and Gödel. While Aquinas’s preambles of faith and Gödel’s necessary truths seek to establish certainty about God’s existence through rational proof, Sheridan’s denotative models focus solely on the empirical realm. In contrast, his connotative models, which explore metaphorical and existential dimensions, offer a plausible basis for belief in the divine. This approach aligns more closely with Aquinas’s articles of faith or Gödel’s possible truths, emphasizing interpretive meaning over empirical certainty. Ultimately, this inversion reflects Sheridan’s agnostic stance, where the divine emerges as a mystery to be interpreted rather than a certainty to be proven, resonating with the intellectual humility central to agnostic theism.

In affluent societies, where religion operates in a marketplace of choices, agnostic theism appeals to those like me seeking faith without excessive dogma. It presents God as a metaphorical ‘algorithm’—a guiding principle for the laws of nature rather than an interventionist deity. This perspective bridges secular rationalism and spiritual longing, embracing the concept of a divine source while acknowledging human epistemic limits.

Haught’s view of God as depth complements this metaphor, emphasizing the inexhaustible mystery of existence. Sheridan’s critique of traditional theology encourages a reimagining of God not as a personified being but as a foundational principle that fuels belief without demanding certainty.

Stephen Jay Gould’s concept of Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA) offers another perspective on the interplay between religion and science. Gould argued that science and religion occupy distinct domains: science focuses on facts about the natural world, while religion addresses questions of purpose, meaning, and morality. By delineating these boundaries, Gould suggested that each contributes to human understanding without encroaching on the other.

Critics of the NOMA concept, like Richard Dawkins and the philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris, argue that the magisteria often overlap—particularly where science informs moral and ethical dispositions; and when religion adapts its doctrines in light of scientific discoveries or, more controversially, claims scientific facts as miracles or divine intervention. Despite critiques, however, NOMA provides a useful lens for agnostic theists by framing religion as a repository for questions science cannot resolve, distinct but at the same time complementary to science. As Gould later conceded, faith and reason are in some ways ‘interdigitated’ (i.e., interlocked).

In an era of secularization and desecularization, agnostic theism provides a nuanced path for reconciling faith and reason. It acknowledges the validity of religious belief while addressing the challenges posed by modernity, science, and skepticism. By recognizing God as a profound mystery—one that cannot be fully known but can still be meaningfully pursued—agnostic theism honors the enduring human quest for transcendence. It invites believers and skeptics alike to embrace the depth, future, and complexity of existence, seeking God amid the clutter of confusing evidence.

It is a journey on which I am now embarked, as a Christian rationalist.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisement -

Latest News

The Risen and the Chosen

The Risen and the ChosenBy Chudi Okoye(First draft: Jan 13, 2025)The tone of the Tanakh tells...

In the Historic Contest of Early Christianities, Did Gnosticism Lose Unjustly?

To grow and consolidate, the early Christian Church vehemently suppressed any deviations from proto-orthodox theology, with Gnosticism a prime target. Despite centuries...

African Spirituality and the Peculiar Promise of Quantum Entanglement

The final installment in a trilogy on existence, God, and religion, this essay examines the prospects for reviving African spirituality—long overshadowed on the continent...

A Journey to Agnostic Theism: Seeking God Amid Confusing Evidence

God isn’t a phantom, nor can He be fully fathomed. By Chudi Okoye If you ask Richard Swinburne, the British philosopher who has devoted his career...

A Persistent Question for Humans: Why is There ‘Something’ Rather Than ‘Nothing’?

A philosophical meditation on existence. By Chudi Okoye The question of why our universe (and possibly other universes) came into existence, specifically why there is something...

More Articles Like This