Agnosticism is starting to become quite popular these days; everyone seems to be seeking refuge in it. Its perceived to be the safest route for the secular man. For those unfamiliar with it, agnosticism is basically the belief that there is no way to know whether or not there is a God. The agnostic therefore neither believes nor disbelieves in God, since both the theist and the atheist fail to conclusively prove the existence of one. There are different forms of agnosticism with varying definitions (e.g. ignosticism); but at the end it boils to the agnostic being someone who refrains from taking a stand and defends his ignorance.
Here’s the problem with the entire agnostic world view. It is based on one fundamentally flawed precept; and that is the assumption that the proof for God is an empirical one. It rests on the belief that if there was to be a proof for God then it would be very much like a philosophical or scientific proof which could be repeated by any one at anytime and would always yield the same result. Since nothing like that exists, the agnostic ignorantly yet confidently says, ‘There’s no way to know’.
What the agnostic fails to realize is that empirical proofs exist for things that are confined to the material world; things to which the laws of nature apply, things that are within the realm of human comprehension. God by definition is far beyond all this. How then does one expect to find an empirical proof for something that is metaphysical? How then does one apply science to the One that created science?
Furthermore, the demand for a proof for God begs the question, ‘What would qualify as a proof’? If you demand to “see God”, how would you recognize him? Were you to wake one day and see some holy figure hovering above your head, or a miraculous wonder happens before your eyes…would you take that to be ‘proof’ for God? Of course not – you would dismiss it as a hallucination and go see a physiologist. The reality is, most people don’t know what they are asking for when they ask for a ‘proof’ for God.
The proof for God is not an empirical one but is experiential and logical. It is not like a mathematical proof that is based on fundamental axioms rather it is an experiential proof like the proof for love. How do you prove that you love your parents or your spouse? Certainly not by running scientific experiments and by debating with philosophers. We all know that love exists since it is a phenomenon that we’ve all experienced.
In addition, the proof for God is one that is logical. How does one prove that their great-great-great-great-great Grandfather existed? We don’t have any empirical evidence for that. However, we know this to be true because our existence is contingent on theirs. Similarly, anything that begins to exist has a cause and creator. The universe began to exist and it thus also has a Creator. It would be absurd to believe anything else.
As Imam Al-Ghazali once said, faith in God doesn’t come about by abstract proofs and speculative theology . Faith is something that is realized through contemplation and experience. The phenomenon of faith and the issue of finding God simply can’t be treated as a mere philosophical problem to which an abstract proof is sufficient.
Hypothetically speaking, let’s say I was to give you a concrete proof for God’s existence right now. Assume that I’ve told you what it was and you see no way of arguing against it. It’s foolproof; flawless. Would you all of a sudden start believing in God just because of an argument you can’t rebut? Would you change you entire lifestyle and live in accordance with God’s will just because of one argument? Most people won’t. You believe in God when you realize that He exists, not when you are told He exists.
The issue of faith is directly related to experience. Finding faith and God is a journey that is ought to be undertaken; it requires a combination of the mind and the heart. Its not about blindly following faith or relying entirely on your brains; it’s the convergence of the two in perfect harmony.
There are numerous evidences of God all around, the greatest proof for the Creator is creation itself. Not believing in God implies the universe had no creator and came out of nothing; an illogical and unscientific belief. The only ones who will see these evidences and accept them are the ones that will sincerely seek God, those who look for the truth.
God in the Quran constantly pushes the reader to ponder over the world around him and to realize the beauty of God’s creation. He further says in a hadith qudsi, “Take one step towards Me, I will take ten steps towards you. Walk towards me and I will run towards you.” Those who ask God to guide them are the ones that will be guided. God is to be found where he claims to be, He doesn’t claim to be in books of philosophy but He does claim to be in the Quran. so I encourage you to read it.
“Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth;
in the alternation of the night and the day;
in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind;
in the rain which God sends down from the skies,
and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead;
in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth;
in the change of the winds,
and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;
(in all this) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise” (Quran 2:164)
BloomingPeaches - Sit. Think. Imagine 
September 10, 2010 at 10:55 pm
I came across the following verse of the Quran one day.
“Wahuwa allathee anshaa lakumu alssamAAa waalabsara waalafidata qaleelan ma tashkuroona” (23:78)
Translations for this verse vary. The one I read first was “It is He Who has created for you (the faculties of) hearing, sight, feeling and understanding: little thanks it is ye give!”
This verse moved me. Just reading it in Arabic stirred emotions that I can’t quite describe and then, reading the meaning provoked many thoughts so I did a little bit of research.
Here, the word “afidata” has been translated as “feeling and understanding”. Looking up the root letters (fa-alif-da), however, I found that this word is the plural of “heart”. Like all roots, this root had a number of implications. But before I try to summarize those, I’d like to mention that the general word for heart in the Arabic language is “qalb”. Fa-aa-da is the verb for burning, and so, fu’aad, this particular word for heart, is used when there is a need to connotate the strength of emotions felt by the heart, i.e. burning emotions, etc. The dictionary also indicated that “putting in motion” is another primary meaning of the verb. “Tawaffud”, which means ardor, is derived from the same root, and the relationship between ardor and the motion of the heart can be easily seen. What struck me most strongly out of all of this, is the fact that fu’aad captures so beautifully, the feeling that this verse invoked.
In the Arabic language, fu’aad also has implications of thought and intellect that are not necessarily associated with qalb which is why many translators have translated the word in way that it captures these implications. Ibn Kathir’s tafsir mentions “understanding” when explaining this verse. Interestingly enough, the mind is also something that is “ignited”, a fire that is “lit” and this imagery has been a part of poetry and literature across the centuries.
Picktall translates the verse as “He it is who hath created for you ears and eyes and hearts. Small thanks give ye!”
This verse is one that comes in response to the mocking that the Prophets (peace be upon them) received when they presented the message of Islam. Reading it reminded me of the tools that are available for me to use; reminded me that blind faith is not expected of me for I have been given ears, eyes, a heart and a mind.
Ears are mentioned first, and perhaps one of the greatest proofs for the people of Mecca and Medinah who accepted Islam as it was emerging, was listening to the recitation of the Quran. These people, who had achieved an unprecedented mastery of language, were completely dumbstruck by the eloquence of the Quran and also the message its words contained. Eyes are mentioned next, in reference, perhaps, to the visible signs of the existence of a Creator; signs in nature, in our bodies, in other people. Underlying patterns in mathematics, for example, that indicate that there is order to this world, brought about by a Creator. And lastly “afidata”, hearts. The mention of hearts is so important, I think, for it makes this verse an appeal, not only to our intellect but also the emotions that are invoked in us, as we search for the truth. We receive empirical information through eyes and ears and process it through our minds, our intellects. We also receive information from our hearts and I think this verse reminds us to pay attention to it. Emotions may arise from the mind, but it is their effect on our heart that moves us to act on some of them. Guilt, for example, originates in the mind, through the knowledge that what we have done is wrong, but the unease felt because of it is very often the driving force to make amends.
And so, the use of fu’aad, encapsulates, in my opinion, the connection between the heart and the mind and this entire verse ties together the importance of our use of intellect and the importance of the voice of our inner conscience.
September 13, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Beautiful exegesis Zainab! I never would have realized the meaning to that verse went so deep. I love how you mention the connection of our empirical senses with that of our hearts. Very thought provoking and smart.
April 26, 2011 at 1:19 am
This article and subsequents comments shed important light on the heart factor. But that isnt enough to tackle agnostics. There seems to be a contridiction in your statement:
“God cannot be proven through abstract proofs and speculative theology as Imam Al-Ghazali once said.”
with
“There are numerous evidences of God all around, the greatest proof for the Creator is creation itself.”
Isnt the abstract and speculative the way in which the greatest proof “creation” is studied ? So why critic the method ?
April 26, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Good point Ahmed. However, by avoiding speculative theology and philosophical proofs I don’t mean to suggest abandoning reason. In the case of Imam Ghazali, I believe he was referring to heretical groups like the Mu’tazzila. Groups like these gave preference to intellect over revelation and relied so heavily on philosophy that they were lead astray.
Philosophy is generally isolated from experience and thus even if you end up logically concluding God exists then it practically has no effect on you and you’d arrive with some absurd understanding of god as did Aristotle. The God of a philosopher or mathematician is very different than that of the believer.
So when I am critiquing abstract proofs and speculative theology, I am critiquing a methodology of approaching metaphysics which ignores the light of revelation and relies entirely on abstract philosophy. By no means do I mean to abandon reason for revelation is to be understood with a rational mind.
Hope that clarifies my argument.
April 27, 2011 at 4:11 pm
nice. Jazakallah khair.
But do you know of how muslim philosophy gets around the problem of skepticism, relativism, uncertainity, etc which is also a central issue of agnostics ? Descartes put himself into a box trying to figure out.
Even if we put Revelation as our starting/mother book to viewing the world, we still need to prior establish validity our intellect, reason & senses using which we come to accept the mother book. And how is that possible ? As long as that is not established, a valid excuse remains, no ?
And then there always ignorance and hence every conclusion could be considered as “fallacy of ad ignorantum”. The famous examples of one Elephant viewed by many blind men in diverse ways.
Do you have material that tackles this ?
April 28, 2011 at 11:47 pm
Ahmed,
The philosophical issues you’ve mentioned are examples of the very thing I meant by abstract proofs and their likes. Solving these logical paradoxes and fallacies won’t really cause anyone to sincerely believe in God for the most part.
Skeptics will continue to be skeptical no matter what; the Quran in numerous places talks about them. For example they say, “Why do you not bring angels to us if you are of the truthful ones?” (15: 7), “Why is not a Sign sent down to him from his Lord…. ”(6:37) ,“O Moses! We shall never believe in you until we see God manifestly….”(2:55).
This attitude is a sign of arrogance and a disease in the heart. God says, “Those who behave arrogantly on the earth in defiance of right ― them will I turn away from My signs even if they see all the signs, they will not believe in them; and if they see the way of right conduct, they will not adopt it as the way; but if they see the way of error, that is the way they will adopt; For they have rejected Our signs, and failed to take warning from them” (surah 7, verse 146)
and,
“Even if We opened out to them a gate from heaven, and they were to continue (all day) ascending therein, they would only say: ‘Our eyes have been intoxicated: nay, we have been bewitched by sorcery’.” (surah 15, verse 15 )
The point here is, those who want to reject God will do it no matter what; there is thus no point in trying to solve philosophical problems. The proofs for God are abundant and his blessings are plenty. If you get stuck on philosophy then you won’t get past proving your own existence…you have to believe you exist and that’s about it.
As for reading material regarding these issues by Muslims, the only thing I know of would be the ‘The Incoherence of the philosophers’ by Imam Ghazali and its refutation ‘The incoherence of the incoherence’ by Ibn Rushd. I haven’t read the books but I know Imam Ghazali deals with some of the problems of the ways of the philosophers. Ibn Rushd’s response hasn’t been accepted by Muslim scholars.
April 3, 2013 at 5:29 pm
It’s called language, or rather in the case of the arabs in the desert, several centuries of language and literary accumulation.
May 4, 2013 at 3:57 pm
I honestly don’t understand why people have such a problem with us agnostics. All we are trying to do is stay away from the unnecessary conflict that comes from total faith/disbelief. It is obviously unjustified to be a total atheist. You can’t disprove any religion, so why act like religion is a lie? At the same time, you can’t prove any religion.
Now I understand your point. You are saying that there is no physical proof of God, but that you can know with certainty that he exists through faith. This argument is baseless. As a child, up until about the age of 12, I was a devout christian. I had absolute faith in God. However, He never revealed himself to me, or even tried to, as many Christians have told me he will if I have faith. If He does exist, how can he blame me for having uncertainty in faith?
Others tell me that I might as well believe in God, because if He doesn’t exist, no harm done, but if He does, than I will be allowed into Heaven. I cannot bring myself to practice this. Part of believing in God is following the teachings of the Bible, many of which I heavily disagree with (for example, the whole being-gay-is-an-abomination thing. Why would God make people gay through DNA if he thought homosexuality to be a sin?) Even if I was sure God existed, I would not follow the teachings of such bigotry. Not to mention that the Bible was written by people. People do not speak for God.
At the end of the day, you have not refuted agnosticism. You simply have presented your own points on why you think it is wrong. If there was a way to find true certainty in God, other religions would have never existed. I am trying to live my life and be a good person without having to be in conflict with gnostics on either side. I don’t appreciate being criticized for this.
May 4, 2013 at 4:17 pm
the point of the post was to deconstruct the agnostic argument and outline some of its flaws. i am sure you can appreciate a good argument.
my point was that you can’t know about God’s existence through empirical evidence. Rather God’s existence is to be realized upon reflection. Not believing in God implies the universe came out of nothing and it has no creator. A rather illogical belief to hold.
in addition, believing in God doesn’t mean following the bible. God’s existence can be realized independent of any scripture. Which scripture one believes in a personal choice based on which message resonates with a person. I am Muslim, so I encouraged reading the Quran.
as for doubts, we all have those. Moses, a Prophet, had doubts and wanted to ‘see’ God but he was unable to. It’s hard for us to look at the sun…what then about God who is the creator of it? Yes, God has veiled himself and it requires a leap of faith to believe it. But not believing in God also requires a leap of faith as you have to believe that we came out of nothing (scientifically impossible) and are going no where.
December 18, 2013 at 8:19 pm
Agree with everything until you said the Quran. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the light
January 31, 2014 at 5:47 pm
“… anything that begins to exist has a creator. The universe began to exist and it thus also has a Creator. It would be absurd to believe anything else.”
This section is false dichotomy. The entire post is riddled with fallacy. It is not necessary that the existence of all matter has some creator(s). By this false argument, “God exists, therefore God must have a creator,” should follow.
So tell me, Waleed Ahmed, who created god?
January 31, 2014 at 10:13 pm
You should read more carefully..it says, ‘anything that begins to exist…’ that is, things that have a beginning need a cause. God is outside the constraints of time, has no beginning or an end; thus the argument you make can’t apply to HIm.
March 17, 2014 at 12:22 pm
I suppose I’m an ignostic at this point in time.
My two questions for God believers:
what is your definition of God? what is your definition of “real” and “existence”(with respect to God)
If your definition of God is physical such as the ocean, the planet or the universe, then its existence is obvious. If your definition of God is metaphysical, such as love, then it’s existence is also obvious. If it is something in the metaphysical but not widely seen in the physical realm such as a proverbial “flying spaghetti monster”, then I would say its metaphysical existence is obvious as it exists in our minds. But when it come to its physical existence, I would propose a hypothetical mind experiment. Suppose we go back the the beginning of homo sapiens era, the proverbial “caveman era” and we are able to communicate with them. We then describe to them the iPad and all its functions. We even draw it for them on the caves. They would think its most likely not possible and categorize it not unlike the “flying spaghetti monster” to the metaphysical realm but not the physical realm. But the seeming impossibility in their minds of such an object’s physical existence did not prevent such an object from existing through the advent of technology and the passing of time. Thus wouldn’t this analogy be similar to the way we view the “flying spaghetti monster” at this point in time and technological advancement? And if your definition of God is something metaphysical but not widely seen in the physical realm like the “flying spaghetti monster”, then would it not to keep an open mind of its future existence?
May 11, 2014 at 3:00 pm
Hello, thanks for the comment. sorry for the late reply
As for God, as Muslims, we believe that God is the creator of the Heavens and Earth, He is One – without any partner or co-sharer, He is eternal beyond space and time, absolutely unlike anything in creation. That’s our understanding in a nutshell…a lot more can be said about His attributes but I will be concise.
As for the definition of ‘existence’ and ‘real’, that’s largely a philosophical discussion about ontology and beyond the scope of this blog. For simplicity we assume the world exists and is real; it follows the creator of such a world is also real and exists – though His existence is nothing like our existence for He is transcendent beyond any similitude.
I am afraid I can’t respond to your question about the spaghetti monster as I am confused about what it means and don’t quite follow it. Sorry..but I hope the above helps a little.
May 8, 2014 at 4:08 am
I am very impressed by the effort you put into this post. Were you thinking about your rewards in the afterlife as you created it?
When you said, “Hypothetically speaking, let’s say I was to give you a concrete proof for God’s existence right now.”
I thought, “awesome, there is a God”. Of course, once your hypothetical speculation wore off, my excitement was gone and your entire statement had zero value.
There might be a God, but I doubt it. As a struggling Agnostic surrounded by unyielding religious friends, I’m hoping that you will clarify the discussion Mr Ahmed.
May 11, 2014 at 3:16 pm
Hi Jon..thanks for the comment.
I am sorry I wasn’t able to give you the concrete proof you’d hoped..my point was that at the end of the day, one who is reluctant to believe can reject pretty much any proof. Even if the angles somehow appeared to them, they would dismiss it as hallucination and trickery.
If you are in fact looking for it, I will give you a basic proof which is based on Islamic scripture. It goes as following:
a) all things that begin to exist have a creator. We accept this logically based on the understanding that things don’t come out of nothing and can’t create themselves.
b) we also understand that the universe began to exist. It’s not an eternal entity beyond time…as has been shown both logically and scientifically
c) it therefore follows the universe should also have creator. This creator, which we call God, has to be eternal, beyond time, without beginning…or else he too would need a creator. If we ask ‘who created the creator’ we run into the absurdity of an infinite regress which would mean the universe couldn’t have existed in the first place. It is thus logically necessary for God to be eternal, beyond time. God has power over all things as He created the heavens and the earth and is all-Willing; for he chose to create and bring us out of non-existence.
Much more can be said, but I will suffice. I hope this clarifies things a bit.
January 8, 2016 at 2:15 am
I am a Christian and thought your argument well worded and thought out I would like to add an example from the bible in Luke 16:19-31 to reinforce what you said regarding the need for proof as to the existence of God. This is the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.. The rich man being in torment asks Lazarus to send someone from the dead to warn his family of impending judgement for their ways. The response from heaven is that the man’s family has the words of Moses and the prophets. The rich man insists that they need to see someone come from the dead in order that they should believe. The response from heaven is that if they do not heed Moses and the prophets neither will they believe even if someone should be raised from the dead. Of course this forshadows the bodily resurrection of Christ but also serves to strongly illustrate the sufficiency of scripture for faith in God. Those who do not believe see themselves as “good people”. Yet there is not one who is good among us nor is there the possibility of good in us without the redemptive work of Christ on the cross to reconcile sinners with the most high and Holy God
March 7, 2016 at 8:34 pm
You believe any theory that contradicts your own is ignorant and unscientific, a failure to consider ones theory, some how isn’t, many consider the universe without a beginning therefore with out creation and therefore without a creator, you can tell me “their is not sound evidence” is a statement based in ignorance, but we have no way to conclusively claim there is a god, love can be proven as oxytocin driving an impulse to mate, that humans put a label on, are ‘great great great’ grandfather could be discovered with DNA replication or recovery of fossils, you say God can’t impeircally be proven because of our simplicity of comprehension, so your argument is you cannot show any proof to back up a claim there is a creator other than figuratively which boils down to personal preference, if you choose to believe I’m ignorant for not believing in a divine, great you cannot tell me that you HAVE the correct awnser nor can you prove it, same goes for an atheist if he makes his claim great believe what you will but you have nothing to justify your claim. You did nothing to disprove agnostic’s you just said what every child eventually asks “where did we all come from” a question still not awnsered just ignorance of a solution filling in the blanks