Atheist/Agnostic Conundrum

Some atheists (Christopher Hitchens) have suggested that atheism need not be a developed worldview. Instead it can function as a merely negative position, setting itself up against theism as a kind of gadfly.

But of course this raises the inevitable question: Why should atheism enjoy so privileged a position? Why should it be the case that in debates everyone should make a presumption of atheism? And who doesn't really want to know what the atheist has to offer by way of an alternative to Christianity?

So the Christian presses on this, and rightly should. Tell me, Mr. Atheist, why I should abandon my Christianity in favor of a godless worldview? What is entailed in a godless worldview? What is the source of authority? What are the rules by which we are supposed to live? Am I any different than animals and why? Develop for me an alternative worldview and then I can make a positive comparison between two robust systems of thought. Don't come at me with mere criticisms of developed worldviews and think such an approach can win the day in the long run.

Now when the Christian takes this line, the atheist can possibly retreat to Agnosticism. He will become a skeptic. He doesn't know how the universe began. He doesn't know what the source of morality should be. He can't assure us of free will, or human dignity, or unity and diversity. He can't tell us how life came to be on this planet and he can't be sure there is really any purpose to anything that is happening in the universe. But he knows those annoying religionists can't be right!

Perhaps the best response to this is merely to say that if he doesn't know anything, then he probably shouldn't debate anything. One can be the gadfly, the parasite, only for so long until people start demanding some answers. And not to provide answers is to provide an answer--namely, skepticism or postmodernism or some odd marriage of the two. The agnostic wants to be left alone to critique everyone from a safe distance. But I don't think it is acceptable to be a worldview critic. Perhaps one can get away with being a movie critic, but a worldview critic? Agnostics disingenuously and presumptuously preside over worldviews, as if some oracle proclaimed them to be modern neutral Socratic agents, condescendingly vetting the various philosophical positions without needing to commit to any one of them. I think I'm just bored with people like this, even the witty ones. Don't we have enough critics who contribute nothing?

And so the atheist/agnostic conundrum is simple:

If one is to choose to be an atheist, one should be prepared to defend a positive worldview rather than merely attacking theism. But such worldviews are indefensible (materialism, naturalism, Marxism, existentialism, postmodernism), and that is why they are more comfortable defining themselves as merely against theism.

If one is to choose to be an agnostic, and claim he doesn't know anything of philosophical import (after all, what is the truth?), then he should be prepared for us to yawn at him and move on to someone who has something to say.