America Needs an Agnostic in the White House

First, let's clear up some misconceptions and clearly define agnosticism. There are varying degrees of agnosticism, which confuses the debate when used interchangeably. For instance, "strong agnostics" -- such as philosopher David Hume -- say the existence or nonexistence of God or the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable. "Atheistic agnostics" believe, based on logic, that God and the metaphysical world definitely do not exist.

But, it's not logical to say we can never truly know if there is a God, because as our scientific knowledge and investigative powers increase, our concepts of the universe constantly evolves. We discover new concepts that change our reality of the Universe: the lights in the sky are starts, the world is round, the theory of relativity, etc.

Scientists, theists and metaphysicians has all proposed various unproven theories of why we exist (in the spiritual, not physical sense) and what caused the beginning of the Universe (the "first mover"). But it's all conjecture and, as such, can simply be adapted to various political and social structures.

The best president would be one who believes in "weak agnosticism," which states that even though there is currently no evidence for the metaphysical or God, that does not mean evidence won't be discovered tomorrow. In other words, people can continue to be rationally justified in believing in the metaphysical until there is positive evidence to the contrary. Simply not having proof of the metaphysical or a "creator" is not enough empirical evidence to the contrary. An omnipotent God is unlikely, but we don't know for sure.

An agnostic president would respect all views, take them into account and than propose the best solutions. His/her values and beliefs are based in reality, logic, evidence and the present moment. Unlike theists that believe in some mysterious realm beyond time, physics and space.

Part of the mess in Iraq is due to Bush believing that this is a holy war pitting Muslim "fascism" (he uses the term incorrectly) versus Christian democracy. Instead of weighing the facts and expert advice about the situation, Bush went to war with God on his side against the "evil doer." The attacks of 9/11 and the response on both sides, have had as much to do about religion as oil.

More lives have been lost in religious wars than for any other reason in human history because religion can stir the soul to justify and rationalize heinous acts. Agnostics are less likely to go to war since they are ultimately pragmatic and usually resorting to violence is not pragmatic. Religious fundamentalism around the world would be met with cool reasoning.

An agnostic will take religion out of the equation, except when dealing with religious people and how their beliefs might affect various outcomes. Agnostics believe anything is possible and will respectfully acknowledge the religious beliefs of others, but will only act with evidence.

"So, you theorize that gay people are sinners and, thus, require punishment? That could be possible, but no one has proven it yet. Since it has not been proven, let's keep it in the very distant realm of possibility, but not act on that theory. Instead, let's continue with policies that assume gay people are simply an expression of biodiversity, requiring no unequal treatment. But, I will remember that you believe this since it affects the way you behave and communicate."

Political decisions are made with the common good in mind. In many ways, agnostics conduct their lives as humanists do: a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. He/she holds that people should think out questions of conduct for themselves. In addition to reason, agnostics also rely on emotion, feeling and desire and are usually very empathic to others.

Contrary to what religious folk say, agnostics are not nihilists or "wishy washy" in any way. Just because they are not bound by religious morals does not mean they "do whatever they please." They are concrete, scientific and rational. They are bound by "man's laws" and follow our innate social and biological axioms that help us to live in harmony (thou shall not kill, steal, etc.).

You don't need to believe in life after death or a higher purpose to cherish and value life. In fact, since Agnostics are truly rooted in the present and short of time, life if even more precious now. Agnostics are not marking time or blowing off mistakes by justifying that they can do better next time around or hoping for a "do over" to get to a good place in the afterlife.

Plus, since agnostics believe that anything is possible, there are always those nagging metaphysical possibilities at the back of their minds. We certainly could appear at the pearly gates after death...or return to this world as Paris Hilton's next Chihuahua...or this world could be another planet's hell... or we are all living in a giant computer generated animation... or life is just a big test in God college. We can speculate all we want and there are an infinite number of spiritual theories we humans can create.

Theists and atheists seem to have less respect for human life than agnostics. Not only do agnostics believe that there could be life after death, karma, retribution, etc. but they also believe this world, right now, might be all we have. This makes this life even more precious than for atheists, whose rationale for life is more materialistic. Agnostics have to walk a thin line: live for the moment but also for the future, just in case there is more.

Atheists cannot know for certain that the metaphysical does not exist. Do atheists really think they know that nothing will ever will be discovered beyond our current, physically knowable world? That's just as naive as theists blindly believing in Gods without any proof. While atheists might have a slight upper hand over theists since there is currently is no credible proof of a God or supernatural world, agnostics sit back and ask both groups: "Prove your belief!"

One thing we all know is that the universe and our very existence is extraordinary. The world filled with wondrous things still undiscovered. It seems to be important for our psychic health to explore these issues and take us beyond the mundane into the creative realm.

An agnostic president combines the best of both atheism and theism: they would recognize all the possibilities and empathize with the faithful, while at the same time focusing on the realities of human existence and acting for the common good. Unfortunately, it seems most dogmatic Americans are leery of the "unfaithful" and are not ready for an agnostic leader anytime in the near future.

Comments

[Doofus]

It's said that 85% of Americans are 'faith-based' people. Unless 35% are Unitarians, there is no chance that a non-believer is going to be elected President. Young folks, you wanna be the President, you better be an episcopalian or a presbyterian, which worked for 50%. Better be white & male, while you're at it. Be the President? Who do you think you're fooling?

[Merin]

I used to ascribe to the conceit that atheists were as deluded as theists - each dogmatically believing they were right no matter what.

But that is far too simplistic.

I know there are theists who BELIEVE there is a god, but acknowledge that they could be wrong.

I know many atheists who do NOT BELIEVE there is a god, but acknowledge that lack of proof doesn't mean something isn't true.

The distinction is, I believe, that when someone decides that they are atheist it means that they do not believe because they have no reason to believe. Seriously, I have no way of knowing if an invisible, undetectable purple polka-dotted gorilla follows me everywhere I go - if it is invisible, undetectable, I can never prove it - but it COULD be there. You know what, though - if I can't prove it, if it has not demonstrable existence, it may as well NOT EXIST and therefore I don't leave myself open to "it could be there, I guess since I can't disprove the undisprovable I'll just say I don't know."

Otherwise, I still think this was a good article.

[HeevenSteven]

The fact that the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable is meaningless when it comes to our own pragmatic realities. The fact remains that there is not a single shred of evidence for an intelligent creator, and especially one who is aware or cares about human affairs. There is plenty of evidence that gods have been created by the human mind. We're on our own; that's the reality. It's also reality that you don't have to prove a negative; the burden of proof for the existence of something rests with the claimant.

Now as to your certainty that the uncertainty of the agnostic position makes it's holder a more capable leader, I say ridiculous. And as to your position that agnostics, have more respect for human life than theists or atheists, I say even more ridiculous. If a theist respects human life for fear of what comes to him in the next life, then that brand of theist is THE most contemptible. Ditto the agnostic who fears the possibility of divine retribution or bad karma. If you have some research that shows persons of any of these positions to be more respectful of other humans lives or rights, you should have cited it.

[ricchase]

As a suggestion, take the time and have the patience and keep an open mind long enough to view this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&hl=en

You may have an easier road to understanding what is and what is not. And why, after watching it.

[HeevenSteven]

Warning: Video Rated T.F. -- Tin-Foil hat strongly advised.

[VillyVal]

""Atheistic agnostics" believe, based on logic, that God and the metaphysical world definitely do not exist."

I stopped reading after the above line. Your error here is so fundamental as to be inexplicable. Existence and/or nonexistence cannot be "definitely" proved or disproved with logic.

Atheists (should) say that there is NO REASON and NO EVIDENCE to believe that a God exists. Free inquiry leaves open the possibility that unavailable evidence or unheard argument may alter the most certain of hypotheses. The circle of asking and answering is never (ought not be) closed.

Every single argument for the existence of God has been refuted. (I recommend "Why I Am Not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell.) There is more evidence for flying saucers than for the existence of a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being. Still, a 30-foot-tall Thor MAY descend from the sky wielding his hammer any day now. I do sincerely and profoundly doubt that it will happen, but I do not DEFINITELY know that it can't or won't happen. And neither do you.

[Lon]

There is an exception to this rule about existence. It is possible to logically prove that things do not exist if they are contradictory or impossible. So for example there is no highest prime number, and there is no possible evidence that would make it reasonable to believe in such a thing.

In the case of a benevolent, omnisicent, omnipotent being, the concept would have to be spelled out to know if such a thing was actually coherent. Does being a "being" involve features like changability which are inconsistent with being omniscient and omnipotent for example.

[wondering]

And Santa Claus MAY deliver toys to good girls and boys every Dec 25th. Should we leave open the possibility of evidence appearing some day that proves such?

The "neither side will ever know" argument implies that the positions on both sides are logically equivalent in some way. Is that your position?

Lacking empirical evidence, "god" (or any other aspect of the supernatural) is a pure invention of the human imagination. It should carry no more weight as an item of discussion than dragons or fairies.

[Gibbons]

Great post but religion has become so much a part of politics thanks to people like the late Jerry Falwell and of course George W. Bush that an admitted agnostic could never be elected. I was raised in the south but was never in the deep south until I retired and moved to Florida. It seems that people down there carry their bible to church but rely on the preacher to tell them what's in it. I had a neighbor who said she guessed God also created the blacks. Her preacher had never read her the part about Moses' Ethiopian wife. People like this follow a leader like sheep which makes it a great political weapon. It is believed by some that King Constantine got religion for this reason.

[Veri]

MEANINGLESS DRIVEL

This article is pointless. The solution is simple. Separation of Church and State. The United States does not need an agnostic or a Christian or Muslim. What the U.S. needs is a leader willing to forgo their religious beliefs and leave them out of government.

Stop filling up the blogosphere with meaningless drivel such as this. Agnostic, my ass. I would vote for a hardcore Christian if he or she would base decisions on The Constitution and not what was dictated to them in the Bible while at the same time respecting all rights.

While an agnostic might fit the bill, I do not care. Neither should your readers. The simple reality should be separation of Church and State, period. Write about that

[ricchase]

No proof = No God. Simple as that. Really.

[Lon]

I suspect that an agnostic could make a good president, as could an atheist, or the right religious person. But it is silly to think that there is something magic about being an agnostic which will be a great advantage.

After all, the person who believes that agnosticism is the only reasonable position and that everybody else is too dogmatic or too quick to believe is someone who has a largely negative view of most of the people in the world.

I have argued in that other thread, that agnosticism can be a reasonable position to take. But it also can be a position that people take because they falsely believe there is some strength of character in not committing themselves. And it can be the position someone takes because they are too lazy to fully consider the various arguments available.

What is worse, is this attempt by people on various different sides to try to claim that one belief about what we should believe about God shows some best level of reasoning based simply on the conclusion reached, and not the actual arguments that the person finds convincing. Ironically whichever side one is arguing for in this way, one is showing a misunderstanding about the nature of reason.

[laurelnyc]

-- "Theists and atheists seem to have less respect for human life than agnostics. Not only do agnostics believe that there could be life after death, karma, retribution, etc. but they also believe this world, right now, might be all we have. This makes this life even more precious than for atheists, whose rationale for life is more materialistic. Agnostics have to walk a thin line: live for the moment but also for the future, just in case there is more." --

I disagree with the assertion that atheists have less respect for human life than agnostics. If anything, atheists respect life MORE since they believe this life is all we have. Instead of living in some fantasy future, an atheist lives purely for the present life. To suggest that agnostics must "walk a thin line...in case there is more" follows the same absurdity that one must obey religious laws to avoid future punishment. In other words, being moral is merely a result of fear of eternal damnation. Atheists believe in human morality (rather than religion-dictated morality) just as agnostics do. Evolutionary psychology and neuroscience provide many explanations as to how human morality most likely developed.

Btw, I'm an atheistic agnostic in that I believe that anything could be possible, but I see no need for speculating on something that could easily be a mere fantasy. Just as I don't spend my time searching for unicorns, I don't waste my present life hoping that god exists. I do not walk a thin line "in case there is more" because I believe that living for the present, which we can know for sure, is the sanest way to live.

[laurelnyc]

I agree 110%!!! I am continually amazed when I read polls saying that an atheist/agnostic would be most certainly rejected as Presidential material. Why does a President need to believe in god? Being free of religious bias would enable a President to be truly fair minded for all people, regardless of their beliefs.

[Lon]

Why are you amazed that people who hold a particular view about God would feel that people who don't hold such a view about God are less suited to being president?

That is an unfortunate belief. But it does not seem to be a surprising one. Above we have an agnostic who thinks that agnostics would be superior to theists and atheists. In another thread we have an atheist who thinks that agnostics have no rational basis for existing. It appears that people of all stripes place to much importance on their own reasoning about God, and so favor people who think like themselves.

As I said. Sure this is nonsense. But it is unfortunately not surprising.

[Merlin7]

Your argument is strange. Atheists don't deny that dimensions may exist that are not currently known and perhaps are unknowable, but we prefer to concern ourselves with the universe we find ourselves in. Thumb-sucking about realms that might or might not exist is a waste of time. Your assumption that human existence is so important that even "supernatural" -- i.e., currently unknown or unknowable dimensions -- somehow relate to our life here on this tiny speck of a planet reflects the same towering egoism that caused our ancestors to assume that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Besides, no agnostic or atheist could get elected to any substantial public office in America. Such candidates must lie to appease the masses, whose primitive religious ideas and attitudes have been carefully nurtured by the very leaders who oppress them. Keep sending your Social Security money to those TV evangelists, ya'll, and don't forget to vote Republican. Yee-haw!

[wondering]

Yes, well said.

Belief in the supernatural is the ultimate form of navel-gazing. It amounts to saying, "I am so special that god (uber-mind, the Force) must care about me!" True Believers fail to acknowledge what tiny blips in space and time we truly are.

[Merin]

Thank you.

I couldn't agree more.

[DemandTruth]

Okay, so you say athiests are materialistic and don't have as much respect for life as agnostics? Well, another poster says there's no such thing as an agnostic. You're either a theist or an athiest, and if you doubt then you don't absolutely believe and therefore you're an athiest too.

I say I'm tired of labels. I believe in the physical and metaphysical worlds and I believe that the cosmos is miraculous in itself. And that's enough for me. I don't need the threat of judgement hanging over my head to be a good person and respect life. Truly, the world and everyone and everything in it is ultimately unknowable. We barely even know anything about ourselves (ie: our own brains). If you want to believe a particular version of a particular book or nothing at all - it's fine with me. But keep your opinions and your moralistic judgements to yourself and don't force your dogma on me or into my life in any way.

The golden rule and the Constitution of the United States and my conscience are all I need.

[GoreyFantod]

I agree completely with your second paragraph and I also choose to define myself as an agnostic. My agnosticism is about more than theology for me.

It's an expression of humility in the midst of the unknowable nature of existence and one that doesn't require self-abasement or flagellation. It's also a way of being in the world; a willingness to say, "I don't know," despite enormous pressure to keep the game going. Could this tiresome human merry-go-round of hubris and submission have been maintained without the belief that everything is mechanistically knowable?

I'm no fan of labels, but that has never stopped others from placing them on me anyway, so I'd at least like to choose for myself which ones apply. Simply using the word agnostic carries with it the burden/benefit of a "teachable moment," wherein you have a window of opportunity to say and expand on all the things you said in your post.

If nothing else, being "The Agnostic" in a discussion with people who believe they "know" gives one license to tip over all sorts of sacred cows. Our authoritarian world could use a lot more open irreverance.

[desmirl]

Agnostic--synonym for wishy-washy on theology. Almost as bad as Pascal's Christians who base their religion on the idea of not losing. Who cares what a president believes, as long as he doesn't bring his religion to work?