It is the habit of human beings to find comfort in the familiar. Therefore it should be no surprise that whether geographically, intellectually or theologically, the law of inertia takes effect and causes most to “stay”. But is staying really safer? Or more to the point is it even logical? I would argue that it is anything but. Atheism may seem more dangerous because it carries with it the weight of the decision. But Agnosticism is in fact much more dangerous and far more illogical.
Think upon the deer which freezes in the headlights of an oncoming vehicle. When faced with the decision of which way to run to save its life, the deer becomes overwhelmed and chooses to do the one thing which ensures its death…ie stay. While there may be great argument amongst men about religions, creeds, and what lies beyond the grave, one fact remains; SOMEthing exists, even if that something is an eternal nothing. The atheist chooses a course that may prove false, but the agnostic chooses a course that they know to be false. Their refusal to make a choice IS their choice. By refusing to acknowledge anything as truth, the only thing the agnostic ensures is that their belief will prove wrong.
Atheism is more Logical
Furthermore, Atheism is more logical in that it is a choice that stands up in the light of its inherent consequences. The atheist believes there is no God, higher being, creator etc. Therefore the atheist need not fear judgment from that creator or any set of standards that he must attain in order to meet that judgment favorably. It is logical for the atheist to hold no allegiance to any creed because his lack of allegiance holds no possibility of consequence according to the rules of His belief.
Agnostic is Another Story
By acknowledging the possibility of God, the agnostic then becomes responsible for that acknowledgment. Therefore he lives in a state in which He knows very well he may be judged, but makes no effort to meet the standards of that judgment, whether through faith, action or both. It is the fundamental instinct of all living things to preserve and perpetuate life. If one acknowledges the possibility of death (even in a spiritual sense) it is logical to take all measures possible to prevent it. If unsure of which choice is the correct choice, it is still a mere statistical fact that to choose one option which may or not prove to be truth has a greater probability of being correct than making no choice. The odds may be one in ten or one in a million, but the odds without choosing are zero.
Let me illustrate this point by a somewhat far fetched example.
Imagine you were stranded, shipwrecked in the middle of the ocean with no land for hundreds of miles in any direction. Now imagine that five boats surround you. You are well aware of the fact that these waters are frequented by drug traffickers and pirates, although occasionally an official and safe vessel come along. It is a high-pressure situation in which hesitation can be well understood. In making a choice to get on any ship, you run the risk of being killed. But the mere act of making that choice dramatically increases your odds of survival. To remain in the water (ie make no choice) ensures your death short of a miracle.
There is no safety of a shore on which to waiver. That shore is the safety the atheist may at least entertain. But to the agnostic, it does not exist. The agnostic’s indecision is purely illogical in the light of self-preservation and contradicts the basic human instinct to survive when taken to its logical conclusion. In the end, the decision is always more logical than indecision, if only for the fact the mere act of deciding exercises logic.
