In epistemology (i.e., the theory or study of knowledge), one’s relationship to knowledge includes an understanding of one’s degree of certainty to a particular item of knowledge. If you were to gather all of your items of knowledge about reality, you could theoretically create a pecking order of the things you are more certain about than not.
For example, Descartes’ well known statement, “I think therefore I am”, was to him the item of knowledge that he had the highest degree of certainty. “Think” in this context was a reference doubt. He went on a journey to find a pure item of knowledge by doubting all that he knew. His conclusion was that all he really knew for sure was that he existed since without existence, he could not be in a state of doubt. He then attempted to build up his view of reality and truth from that foundational point of knowledge.
I personally hold to the Correspondence Theory of Truth that states that truth is that which corresponds to reality. For example, if I believe that it is raining outside and in fact, it actually is raining outside, then I hold a true item of knowledge. The difficulty is that in most cases of knowledge, there is no way for me to know 100% that something I hold to is absolutely true.
At an everyday level, all of us make decisions based on items of knowledge we feel most certain about. For example, we bring together past experiences, our reasoning, and the testimony of others to make the best informed decisions possible about reality. Whether I acknowledge it or not, my mind is processing all that I have experienced and know to doing something as simple as sitting on a chair. Am I 100% sure the chair I am about to sit on will keep me from falling to the ground? No. Am I 100% certain that no one loosened all the screws of the chair as a joke? Absolutely not. Nevertheless, I sit because it is more reasonable to believe that the chair in front of me will hold me up based on my experiences and reasoning through the context (e.g., my friends are not around).
I think it is wise and practical to make decisions based on the best option, even when you are not 100% sure of something. For me, my certainty of belief in God is no different.
Although I am not 100% sure of his existence, given my ability to reason through evidence, experiences, and the thoughts of others, my belief in him and his existence is more certain than the alternative option of not believing in his existence. Does this make me an agnostic? Not really.
I disagree with T.H. Huxley who coined the word (i.e., agnostic) that it refers to someone who does not profess to a belief in something unless it can be proven. I personally don’t think life could really function as a pure agnostic. In this worldview, I would not be able to make a statement about anything including the statement that I do know anything for certain. This would be self-refuting. Some agnostics will limit their agnosticism to certain kinds of knowledge (e.g., religion). Nevertheless, they often do end up in an infinite regress without the ability to function with any kind of confidence in our world.
Alternatively, I think it is more reasonable for me to believe in something or someone (e.g., God) until there is greater evidence against his existence. I’m definitely open to being reasoned out of my belief. Until then, it makes more sense to believe in God (even if I am not 100% certain).
This is why I am not an agnostic even though I have some percentage of doubt about God’s existence.
Thoughts?
