Well, here goes....I'm about to "jump off the deep end" as Pastor Chad likes to say. Let me preface this by saying that this is only a thought, which I suspect a lot of people may have, and I would really value some opinions, etc. about it.
It's certainly a wonderful time of year. The air is cooling, a little snow (ice) on the ground, Christmas lights, music, family....all the usual stuff for Christmas. And I'm really trying to remember the real reason we're doing all of this celebrating. We're limiting the gifts and trying to explain to the children WHY we exchange gifts in the first place. And all the while, there's this little voice in the back of my head saying "Are you sure about this?"
WHAT?! Where did that come from?! Let me explain. I spent a large portion of my life not believing in any of it...Yes, I was a bona fide agnostic. And yet the entire time there were signs, events, and thoughts that led me to start to wonder. And then with the help of a friend, I started to investigate. It's funny (now that I look back) how easy it is to be agnostic when you don't read about the subject...and safe. But once I started reading, well , there went my safety bubble. I started with the philosophical angle (actually a great place to start) and I was hooked. Step one completed....I believe in a powerful force that is present in our lives and was able to create the universe from nothing and we're going to call it God. (that was a huge step)
Next, I decided it was time to read the Bible. Isn't this where it all began? Shouldn't it answer my questions? And I wasn't going to do it alone...that is pointless. You definitely need people to bounce ideas off of, someone who knows what is going on and can answer (correctly) what it is supposed to mean. Now I'm still reading it (it does take awhile) But, now Step two is completed. I believe that God is there for me (and everyone else) that I AM supposed to follow some rules (commandments), I AM supposed to try and better myself so that I CAN have a life after death.
So where is this voice coming from? It only shows up now and then. Is it just this time of year when there is such an emphasis on the birth of Jesus, who is supposed to be God on Earth? Is it just that I'm over-thinking it all? Let's be real...is it really possible for a human mind to truly comprehend this? Our science certainly can't explain it and our minds our suited for accepting that which we can see, touch, taste, and smell. I'm trying to remember that even in the Bible the stories keep saying over and over and over again that people of God kept forgetting and not believing. So I guess that after all of these years, we really haven't changed that much. I guess sometimes you just have to say, "I believe", live your life as if you do, and move forward. And I do want to believe...I feel as if this is the answer to everything.
So, I jumped in the deep end....I can't touch the bottom (too scared to go under the water).....not sure if I see the shore.....anybody?....anybody?
8 comments:
Karen, your thoughts are so well put, and so common to all of us. Anyone who has never doubted faith hasn't really thought about it. I get so alarmed by the faction that seem to think that Christianity is about one moment of saying "I am saved" and then everything else is taken care of. I went through many years of doubt despite having been a regular church-goer since I was a baby, but I attended church persistently through my years of doubt, hoping that I was wrong and there would be some sign that would restore me to my faith. I tried the "I accept Jesus as my Savior and therefore I am saved" bit and that lasted about 15 minutes (oh I so envy those people who can make that last for at least an hour). Then when I was least expecting it, the signs of Christ's divinity and presence in my life began to show up. I basically stopped looking for God, and God found me instead. Instead of asking questions I heard answers. When I was just a child, I loved the hymn "Through the Night of Doubt and Sorrow". I principally loved it for its tune, but now as I think of it, I love it for its words too. Its in our hymnal - number 327.
Through the night of doubt and sorrow,
Onward goes the pilgrim band,
Singing songs of expectation,
Marching to the promised land.
Clear before us through the darkness
Gleams and burns the guiding light;
Pilgrim clasps the hand of brother
Stepping fearless through the night.
Karen and Richard
Don't think you are the only ones with doubts who has put on a facade.
I learned "religion" in Catholic elementary school back in the days of The Baltimore Catechism.
In those days The Baltimore Catechism was to Catholics what The Bible is to fundamentalist Christians.
In fact it went one step further - not only did it have all The Answers, it had all The Questions. Any Question not in The Baltimore Catechism was obviously heretical - if it were not heretical it would have been in The Baltimore Catechism. QED.
Little David: "Sister I have a question."
Sister: "Hold out your hand"
Whap with the ruler!
Sister: "Any other questions"
Little David: "No Sister"
Just like Pavlov's dogs I learned to memorize the Questions and Answers and to regurgitate them at will.
I learned to march of to confession once a month, even if I had to make up sins to confess.
Maybe God could punish me for what I was thinking or not thinking, but the Sisters could not, and as long as I maintained a politically correct facade I could avoid Sister's ruler. And this religious politically correctness carried over long after I had ceased being a Catholic. I'd go to Adult Sunday School (cause I had to take the kids to Sunday School anyway) and sit through the most inane discussions. We had one Bible Study where we discussed the significance of these really really sappy paintings. And no one ever, ever asked any of the really hard questions, and neither did I. After all, the preachers all seemed so earnest and so sure in there sermons they left no room for doubts or questions.
Except for Chad. At the Thursday night services he seemed to really want to engage all of us in a dialogue, and he seemed to be taken aback when the good obedient Lutherans maintained their stoic silence. We didn't need to be challenged - we didn't want to be challenged - it was much more comforting to fall back on rituals and liturgy and maintaining the "purity" of the worship service. To say nothing of the ponderous, soporific, endless organ music. So what if the Sunday service droned on and on and on - I had grown up with the Latin Mass so I was enured to meaningless ritual. And if I dropped to deep into "Battery Saving Mode" and started to snore, well Sandy would just poke me in the ribs.
So anyway after Chad left I found myself spending less and less time in "Battery Saving Mode" cause I had just quit attending church altogether. Chad had officiated at the wedding of one of my sons, and I heard from him that Chad was quitting the ministry, so I looked Chad up on the internet and found him listed as interim Pastor at Abiding Savior. So I attended one Sunday. And it was rewarding. The music was not ponderous, the service was relaxed, and the atmosphere was "You are welcome here cause God loves you"
So to get back to Karen's and Richard's concerns, do I now have a child-like acceptance of faith? No! Do I still have doubts and questions? You bet your a## I do! What has changed is I now feel comfortable voicing those doubts, questions and issues. I'm still a bit reserved cause I do not want to offend someone unintentionally - when I offend someone I'd prefer it to be cause I wanted to offend them! And I feel that the faith of some really good people is based on some really rigid, brittle foundations, and it would be cruel to challenge them - ritual and blind faith can be comforting, even when (in my opinion) misguided. Personally I take more comfort that Karen is willing to "jump off the deep end", and Richard is willing to admit "I tried the "I accept Jesus as my Savior and therefore I am saved" bit and that lasted about 15 minutes (oh I so envy those people who can make that last for at least an hour). ", than I do in anyone's claims that they have all the answers and that their salvation is assured.
Karen
Now that you have “Jumped into the deep end” I’d like to throw some ideas at you – you will have to decide whether they are a life preserver or a boat anchor.
You said you used to be agnostic, as if that were a bad thing. To my mind there are far worse states of mind than agnosticism. At least an agnostic knows what he doesn’t know.
Other people, both devout Christians and atheists are, in my opinion, far worse off. Not only do they not know what they do not know, they do not want to know, indeed they are afraid to know, because what they do not know may challenge their faith. For these people, Faith is a synonym for Ignorance. There is a good reason The Age of Faith is also known as The Dark Ages. For example some fundamentalist Christians are so convinced that The Bible is the inerrant Word of God that they believe that anything that is not explicitly stated in The Bible is, at best, suspect, and in all likelihood not only Wrong but Evil. The earth is 6000 years old, no matter what the geologic layers of stone in the Grand Canyon may indicate. And the Theory of Evolution is just unproven speculation that should not be taught in the schools. There is no purpose in engaging such folks in dialogue, for they are completely incapable of rational thought on the subject. After all, if you already have The Answers, what is the point in asking The Questions. And it is probably cruel to challenge their mind-set, because their Faith is the only comfort in their lives.
On the other hand an agnostic, as contrasted with an atheist, understands not only are there Questions to which he has no Answer, but also there are Questions to which man will never have the Answer. Nevertheless the Agnostic continues to trudge along on his journey towards faithfulness, while both the fundamentalist Christian and the uncompromising Atheist are dead in the water, both self-assured that they already have all the answers.
To my mind the fact that both you and Richard still have questions is an indication that neither of you is spiritually dead yet.
Comments?
Well, Dave, you never disappoint. Lots of good stuff in there to talk about. So I'm going to go thru it point by point, if I may, so that I don't leave anything out. First, I myself, don't have a problem with agnosticism, but I felt that others might or might be surprised that I was at some point. I feel that everyone should go through a period where you question all the beliefs that you have been taught from parents and the church. It's a natural way to come to terms with your own beliefs and find out who you are. Otherwise, you will turn out to be a serious fundamentalist or atheist and not accept anything but what you KNOW to be true. I'm not going to reiterate what you wrote because it hits the nail on the head. Now I do know someone who is VERY firm in her faith, but she is not a fundamentalist nor does she close her eyes to others thoughts and opinions.
But I think that we must also define the word agnostic to make sure we are talking about the same thing. OR maybe say that there are stages to being an agnostic. A true agnostic (as I understand it) will NOT go looking for answers in faith and the church. While they might believe in a higher power, it is not for them to worship this power. However, they might go searching for answers in philosophy and science, and in the process find that maybe it's time to leave agnosticism behind. If they choose to believe in a religion (and here we will only talk about Christianity) then they will keep their previous tendencies and constantly question and look for more answers. Hopefully this will further ingrain them in their chosen faith, but in a good way. They should be able to handle a serious conversation with someone who doesn't believe and be able to provide the arguments (?) that helped them to change their reasonings. So I think what we're both getting at here is that being agnostic is more a state of mind that allows one to continue to question rather than to allow oneself to stagnate in their religion.
Okay, so now I have to thank you for that life preserver. You have helped me to understand something that I already knew, but didn't know that I already knew. I think I'll stay out here in the deep for awhile now that I'm not drowning. I might run into some really cool things, eh?
It's very interesting to read this stuff! I've been away too long from here!
Hi, I'm Chad and I'm an agnostic!
Hi Chad!
YOU'RE AN AGNOSTIC?????
In a sense yes. Sound pretty wild that a Pastor would be an agnostic?!?! Actually I say this partically in jest, and patially seriously.
I'm an agnostic in the sense that I do not know all the answers. I know there is SOMETHING out there (or in there, depending on how you look at this God stuff) that is the creative and divine force in the universe.
I do not believe there is ONE RIGHT way to believe, or ONE RIGHT faith.
I believe that God is VERY REAL and VERY PRESENT... yet I don;t necessarilly believe that how things are recorded in the bible are the way they might have "really" happened. You have to rememeber that people interpret their experiences from a variety of perspectives; their culture, their previous experiences, their personal beliefs, etc. I would call all these thigns and more, their Frame Of Reference. So when they saw things happening, or when they did certian things... they were interpreted through this Frame of Reference.
Does this mean God doesn't exist? No, it just means they expereienced this God through thier frame of reference. Does this mean Jesus wasn't real? No, it just means what Jesus said or did might have been interpreted through their particular frame of reference.
Yet the power of God, the power of Jesus is none-the-less real.
WHat about the rituals or beliefs that we have as Christians (or even Lutherans)... are they real? Is it troubling to hear that the pagans had a religious festival around Dec 25th that celebrated the birth of the Sun-God... and that the Christian tradition incorporated it into itself to celebrate the birth of their God-Man?
I suppose it could be, if you looked at it from a particular angle; that what we have is supposed to be unique, that OUR experience is supposed to be FROM GOD (un-mediated--in the sense that it came directly from God).
But what about this angle... Maybe, this idea of celebrating the coming of LIGHT (around Dec
25th in this case) is something that is part of the human experience. Maybe this is something that God has placed in our souls, in our human/spiritual DNA... to seek and celebrate the light. Maybe it's because God is in some way light (perhaps more than just a metaphor), and we are people of light (also perhaps more than just a metaphor).
Is this real? About 15 years ago in church down in TX, I remember a woman saying she didn't believe in "man-made" religions and rules, just God's religion and rules. SHe was saying that she believed that the religion she believes in is in some way "authentic" or "real". Today I think, what the hell does that mean??!?!?! You live in a country full of man-made laws and rules!!! And no matter where you live, there have to be some form of rules and laws to provide some sort of order! Otherwise Chaos...
But about the "Man-made" religion piece- It is my opnion that there is no such thing as a "100%, genuine, direct-from-God" religion. But that's okay. They are all authentic in the sense that they were developed by people to help them make sense of the mysteries of life, and it helped them answer the deeper questions of life.
And... around these things, religious rituals and actions may have developed as a means of making their actions stand out from "regular daily life". But that can also occur in a personal way too. There was a movie called "The Legend of Bagger Vance" where the main character, played by Matt Damon, uses golf (of all things) as a means of personal and spiritual development. In fact, his golfing becomes more of a meditative act as the movie progresses. Much of Eastern thought is like that; anything you pay attention to, anything you dedicate time to, can be used to help you develop into a better person. It's just that the Buddhist perspective of God is one I have a hard time buying into, particularly because you there isn't a sense of a personal God. They have every right to believe this, it just doesn't work for me.
Truth be told, we in Christianity don't have anything that hasn't appeared earlier somewhere else. The birth of the God-Man, God coming down to earth in human form, eating the flesh of the God, having sacred texts-and reading from them, a cleansing ritual through water, etc. The difference is we've linked these things with different theological understandings than the others might have.
Yet, are our religous understandings "not real" because of this? Not at all! Do they not help us transform, be better people? And while being in the midst of the rituals, could they not help us focus so we might be able to "tune in" to God in the midst of the moment.
See, here's the beauty of it all... The stuff God created, the stuff we use - sometimes even on a daily basis (water, bread, wine?, the idea of LIGHT in our lives,) -can be used to help connect with God, can be used to help be present with God. What's more real than using real-life stuff as a means of being present with God, of making God more real, more present to us in our lives?
Is it "real"? Is it made up? Did it come straight from God? It came from us... but there is something about us that came straight from God, and we use what we know to connect, to make life more sacred. THAT came from God, no matter what religion we're in.
Religion is culturally dictated of course, and that comes with cultural trappings (both good and bad), and so we may say that some religions are healthier than others.
There's my 2 cents...
...any thoughts?
Welcome, Agnostic Chad!! :) Nice to hear from you.
You know, whenever someone brings up how we are all essentially loving the same God but in different ways, it makes me remember something.
"Divide and conquer".
I don't know how much Lutherans belief in Satan, the Devil, evil, whatever you want to call it. But it certainly seems to be out there. I mean if we have free will then we can choose good (God), but that also means there must be some other choice, evil(Satan?). And if I were Satan, I certainly would not want to take on the entire world at once. Way too difficult. So I would break this large group up into smaller groups and then make them hate each other and war against themselves. That way, they couldn't unite and fight me properly. They would be so interested in making everyone believe the way they do, they would forget to practice their own beliefs. They're too busy browbeating others to remember to better themselves.
How to do this? Easy, make them quibble over stupid stuff:
The name of God, whether or not God is He or She, how many times a day to pray, what to eat/not eat, how to treat women, sexuality, rituals, and on and on and on!
It's obvious to anyone who stops and thinks for even a second that it is the same God, but we live in different areas, we have different cultural upbringings, we follow writings from THOUSANDS of years ago (I think things may have been a little different then),and so we have little differences in the WAY we worship God. This is the frame of reference PChad is talking about.
Like I said, if I were Satan I would take advantage of this fact and make sure that I could break these humans into as many small groups as possible. So now Satan is chaos, hate, and intolerance. If we let others live and worship as they want and let God take care of the right/wrong, then Satan diminishes. And then guess what?......we're practicing that forgiveness/grace thing that we've been hashing away at!!!
Now I'm not stupid (I hope), and I do realize that not everyone in the world (or even this state) will do this. So we're still going to have these small groups refusing to accept others. But if we can get enough people in the larger group that preaches the LOVE of God for EVERYONE, then we're getting closer to winning.
The issue I think is when people have their experience of God, their experience of the divine/holy... coming from their lfe experience, from their cultural point of view, from all the things that make up their reference point... and then think it should apply to ALL people.
I have no problem with there being other religions out there. I remember hearing people asking why there are so many religions out there, and the assumption is there really should be only one religion... this idea of the ONE TRUE religion...
There are so many, but ONE of them has to be right!
That's faulty logic! The assumption is false... there doesn't HAVE to be ONLY ONE religion. There is something unique about Christianity that it can offfer the world, the things it emphasizes, the way it looks at the world, etc.
It's like saying only ONE country or culture should be right. And there are people that believe that too.
I go under the assumption that all religions (or better said- the healthy parts of all healthy religions) have something to offer, and that there are certain religions that attract different people due to their personal proclivities, experiences, psychological make-up, etc. And that's okay.
Listen, in the end... God is God! Another assumption I make is that I do not know it all, and no human can. God, however, has a bigger picture, and a bigger plan. So... God can deal with this.
A Seminary Prof of mine said... If we beieve in a God that encompasses all, and knows all, then what do we have to fear about other religions and cultural expeiences, etc. We'll just learn about God MORE perhaps.
C-
Amen Brother…
And It may not be a bad idea to post this. Want me to do it?
I’ll be getting to doing some work on a number of things tomorrow. I might jump this into the blog then.
I’m not sure how many people here might be interested in this, but we’ll see if it might be others out there in the ether that might have an interest in these kinds of thoughts and questions, like we are!
It’s worth a shot, I think.
But if you want to get it out sooner, that’s fine. I’ll just add to it with other thoughts as well.
Thanks,
C-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David W. Dudich [mailto:dwdudich@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:04 PM
To: Chad Kline
Subject: Re: Agnes
I think you put it very succinctly.
And I would like to add that I think those whose faith is based on "uninformed" opinions, i.e. the known, unquestioned, and unquestionable theology, have boxed themselves in to a comfortable but ultimately self-restrictive position - e.g. only the "orthodox" who think exactly as they think will be in heaven. Could it be that when they get to heaven they won't like their neighbors?
Those of us who are seeking the unknown but knowable , the pro-active "agnostics", may just be "truer" Christians than the orthodox and the fundamentalists, because we are seeking the Spirit of God, and not just content to comply with The Law.
As for knowing the unknowable, well you're never going to know if you have won the lottery unless you actually by a ticket.
Can I have an "Amen!" to that?
P.S. What do you think about posting this discussion to the ASLC blog?
----- Original Message -----
From: Chad Kline
To: 'David W. Dudich'
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 4:34 PM
Subject: RE: Agnes
I’d agree.
In my opinion (and I must add that when we talk about God, it ultimately comes down to opinion- however there are “informed” and “uninformed” opinions) there are three aspects to God:
1- the known- that which we know
2- the unknown- that which we do not yet know, but can
3- the unknowable- that which we will never be able to know… at least not here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David W. Dudich [mailto:dwdudich@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 3:43 PM
To: Chad Kline
Subject: Re: Agnes
Chad
It appears that the somewhat long-winded discussion of agnosticisam pigeonholes us as "Agnostics Theists" - we recognize that our ability to prove the existence of God with absolute certainty is not a reflection on the totality of God, but is instead a rflection on the limitations of our humanity.
Agnosticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Agnostic)
Jump to: navigation, search
Certainty series
Nihilism
Agnosticism
Uncertainty
Probability
Estimation
Belief
Justified true belief
Certainty
Determinism
This box: view • talk • edit
Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without", and gnosticism or gnosis, meaning "knowledge") is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.
Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism. Some agnostics are termed agnostic theists since, while they do not claim to know any deity exists, they do believe (with varying degrees on skepticism) in, at least, one.
Qualifying agnosticism
Enlightenment philosopher David Hume proved that meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt.[4] The fallibility of human beings means that they cannot obtain absolute certainty except in trivial cases where a statement is true by definition (as in, "all bachelors are unmarried" or "all triangles have three angles"). All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin "I believe that ...." are simply shorthand for, "Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the prevailing evidence, I tentatively believe that...." For instance, when one says, "I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy," one is not asserting an absolute truth but a tentative belief based on interpretation of the assembled evidence. Even though one may set an alarm clock prior to the following day, believing that the sun will rise the next day, that belief is tentative, tempered by a small but finite degree of doubt (the sun might explode; the earth might be shattered in collision with a rogue asteroid or that person might die and will never see the sun rise.)
What sets apart agnosticism from the general skepticism that permeates modern Western philosophy is that the nature of god is the crux of the issue, not whether god merely exists. Thus, the nature and attributes of god are of foremost concern, not whether God is merely "out there."[dubious – discuss]
Agnosticism maintains that the nature and attributes of God are beyond the grasp of man's finite and limited mind; those divine attributes transcend human comprehension. The concept of God is just too big a subject for a person to wrap his or her mind around. Humans might apply terms such as those found in the Catholic Encyclopedia that attempt to characterize god, terms such as "infinitely perfect spiritual substance," "omnipotent," "eternal," "incomprehensible," "infinite in intellect and will and in every perfection"[5] but, the agnostic would assert, these terms only underscore the inadequacy of our mental equipment to understand so vast, ephemeral and elusive a concept.
Many mainstream believers in the West embrace an agnostic creed. As noted above, for instance, Roman Catholic dogma about the nature of God contains many strictures of agnosticism. An agnostic who believes in God despairs of ever fully comprehending what it is in which he believes. But some believing agnostics assert that that very absurdity strengthens their belief rather than weakens it.[6]
Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:
Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of an omnipotent God and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say "I can't know, and neither can you."
Mild agnosticism (also called weak agnosticism, soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. A mild agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe you do."
Apathetic agnosticism—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, but since any God or gods that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway. An apathetic agnostic would say, "I don't know, and who cares anyway?"
Pragmatic agnosticism—the view that since there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, the question is largely academic anyway, so it is a waste of time and effort to discuss it and people should be doing something useful with their time. A pragmatic agnostic would say, "I don't know, pass the chicken"
Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence. A model agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe it can be figured out."
Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of God or gods, but still believe in such an existence. An agnostic theist would say "I don't know, but I think so." (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)
Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, and do not believe in them. An agnostic atheist would say "I don't know, but I don't think so."[6]
Ignosticism—the view that a coherent definition of God must be put forward before the question of the existence of God can meaningfully be discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of God is meaningless or empirically untestable. It should be noted that A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. The ignostic would say, "I don't know what you're talking about when you refer to God. Unless we first figure that out, debates over whether god exists are meaningless."
Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist is one who views that the truth value of certain claims, in particular the existence of god(s) is unknown or inherently unknowable but chooses to believe in god(s) in spite of this. There are contrasting views of the term.
Theism as belief in God or gods, agnosticism as don't/can't know
Agnostic theism is Belief but without Knowledge, as shown in purple and blue(see: Epistemology).
Theism is the belief that gods or deities exist, while agnosticism is the belief that the existence of gods are unknown or inherently unknowable. Belief is defined as a conviction of the truth of a proposition without necessarily any proof. Agnosticism does not violate this, and this definition of theism does not violate agnosticism, implying that it is possible to be both theist and agnostic.[1]
The classical philosophical understanding of knowledge is that knowledge is justified true belief. By this definition, it is reasonable to assert that one may hold a belief, and that belief may be true, without asserting that one knows it. Agnostic theism could be interpreted as an admission that it is not possible to justify one's belief in God or gods sufficiently for it to be considered known.
According to fideism this logic statement was used:
· Christian theology teaches that people are saved by faith in the Christian God (i.e. trust in the empirically unprovable).
· But, if the Christian God's existence can be proven, either empirically or logically, to that extent faith becomes unnecessary or irrelevant.
· Therefore, if Christian theology is true, no immediate proof of the Christian God's existence is possible.
see also Sola fide
According to Faith: "Faith, by its very nature, requires belief outside of known fact."[1]
According to Existence of God: Agnosticism "Agnostics may or may not still believe in gods based on fideilistic convictions."
----- Original Message -----
From: Chad Kline
To: 'David W. Dudich' ; 'Karen'
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:59 PM
Subject: RE: Agnes
I know there’s something out there…
I actually know something about this God, which is good. These to me are the “beliefs”. But I can’t quite put my finger on the rest of this God. It’s the ol’ you-know-what-you-know…and-you-don’t-know-what-you-don’t-know, but you know enough of the “don’t know” part to know there’s way more there that you don’t know… if you know what I mean. And in the long run, that may actually be a good thing.
Would that make me a “believing Agnostic”?
C-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David W. Dudich [mailto:dwdudich@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:34 PM
To: Chad Kline; Karen
Subject: Agnes
Post a Comment