J. Budziszewski wrote about an exchange that took place between him and one of his students. The student claimed to be an agnostic, but Budziszewski helped him see that while he may not have an intellectual commitment for or against God’s existence, he cannot avoid a practical commitment to one or the other.
Every agnostic tilts one way or the other in practice: towards theism, or towards atheism. How can you tell where they tilt? Look at how they live their lives. Every agnostic lives his life in one of two ways: (1) as though God does exist; (2) as though God does not exist. To quote Budziszewski, “Commitments are reflected in movements of the will.” If they do not pray and/or are unconcerned about the moral quality of their actions, then they are betting that God does not exist—a “practical atheism” of sorts. If, however, they do pray and/or demonstrate concern for the moral quality of their actions, they are betting that God does exist.
Check out the exchange here. It’s an informative and enjoyable five minute read.
Thinking to Believe 
October 29, 2013 at 6:32 pm
Perhaps the word sceptic is better than atheist or agnostic, because the sceptic never closes all avenues he only states what is more or less likely and leaves it at that. This is the scientific way.
LikeLike
October 29, 2013 at 6:50 pm
Nelson,
The problem with that suggestion is that the word “skeptic” has nothing to do with the question of God’s existence. It’s more of an epistemological methodology. So it is not informative in the context of discussions of God’s existence insofar as it does not tell you anything about one’s position regarding the question, Does God exist? But I do think it is fine for people to use skepticism when approaching the question. But using a skeptical methodology does not lead to atheism, per se. A person using a skeptical method of inquiry could end up affirming theism as well.
A skeptic who can never come a conclusion is not to be praised, but lamented. While there are some issues for which the evidence is indecisive, not everything is that way. A skeptic should only be skeptical about matters for which the evidence is not compelling one way or the other.
As for skepticism being the scientific way, I would grant that to an extent. It may be the ideal, but it’s not always practiced. Scientists can be just as dogmatic and closed-minded as the next guy.
Jason
LikeLike