PJ, welcome to the blog. You're right; when I looked back at those two thoughts they do seem a bit confusing. I suppose that since I don't actually believe in any God that it was (and it was) a little difficult for me to paint the picture of what I thought that God might be. With that said, let me say thanks for inadvertently pushing me to learn a little more about Pantheism, a school of thought which I've heard of before but never really looked into. It seems very interesting.
As for my agnostic belief, I'll try and explain some of my reasoning for believing this. At heart, I view myself as a very scientific person and not a person who's easily swayed towards relying on faith. I'm a skeptic. To keep this as short as possible, I would say that there are three main reasons (among others) for my belief. 1) Science studies the natural world, the empirical world, all that can be observed and tested. Therefore, I believe that science cannot study the supernatural or spiritual realms, assuming they even exist. So, as I see it, there can't be any scientific test to either prove or disprove God because God does not fall within the boundaries of what science attempts to do, which is to study the empirical world in order to find the truth. 2) With the numerous amounts of Gods and religions followed throughout the world it is impossible for me to fathom that there is one "true" faith. I could spend my life believing in Christianity, or some other faith, only to die and (assuming there is a God) find out that I was wrong and that I am now going to Hell, or whatever "bad place" the true God puts those who stray from the correct belief. Or I could take an agnostic view and realize that the information I'm given in life will never be enough for me to say that one God is the right one, hence I will not choose one God and instead believe that all are equally likely as well as unlikely. 3) Thomas Jefferson once said, “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” I hope that quote speaks for itself.
Why should anyone believe what I do? Well, if believing what I do makes someone happy or at peace with life, then by all means, they should believe in it. But if believing what I do doesn’t add anything positive to someone’s life, then they shouldn’t believe in it. Let me just say this though, I don’t intend or aspire to change or influence anyone’s beliefs through this discussion of my own, or yours, or Joes beliefs. If anything at all, I view these discussions as a chance to learn, a chance to do some self-exploration and occasionally a chance to reaffirm ones own views.
Finally, PJ in reference to agnosticism you wrote, “What reasons can you give to support this statement, which is very strong precisely in its claim to KNOW that one cannot know whether or not there is a God?” Yes, saying that there is no way to know whether or not there is a God is a very strong statement. But it is in no way stronger, or possibly any different, than one saying that, “Yes there is a God”, or “No there isn’t a God”, or even that “Yes Jesus was the son of God.” What do you think, and if I may, what do you believe?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Hey Zach,
Thank you for outlining some objections for believing in the existence of God. You start out your arguments by saying, "I view myself as a very scientific person and not a person who's easily swayed towards relying on faith. I'm a skeptic." There are 2 distinctions of skepticism that need to be made: one is a permanent attitude that should be avoided at all times, and the other is skepticism as a fitting response to a particular situation. Since I do know you, I feel it is safe to say you do reserve skepticism for those moments when you do not have enough information to make a sound judgment. D.Q. McInerny, in "Being Logical," says, "We should be reluctant to accept the conclusion of an argument whose premises, for one reason or another, are questionable. This kind of healthy skepticism is preserving of sound reasoning." But, skepticism as a permanent attitude, as McInerny says, is "deadly." This kind of skepticism undermines the reasoning process before it even gets started. And briefly, there are two types of permanent skepticism that need to be considered, both equally detrimental to logical thinking. One is the extreme skeptic who proclaims, "There is no truth." However, this statement is self-contradictory since if there were no truth, how could that statement be true? The other type of skeptic is the moderate skeptic, who says that there, may or may not be truth, but the human mind is incapable of realizing it. However, if you think about this statement a little, a truth that the mind is incapable of attaining or is theoretical in nature is quite frankly, nonexistent. Lastly, I believe skepticism can be a healthy thing, because it can safeguard us against quick or costly judgments. I believe we, as "rational animals," should be skeptic at times - even in things we have always been "sure" of. But to overstep and take a permanent attitude of skepticism is very irrational.
That being said, I think you do affirm more with agnosticism, because you do believe in truth and finding it out. You said it when you said, "So, as I see it, there can't be any scientific test to either prove or disprove God because God does not fall within the boundaries of what science attempts to do, which is to study the empirical world in order to find the truth." And agnosticism isn't just a term in regards to religion. A more informal definition that I use is “a person who lacks enough information to make a decision on a particular claim.” Though I do not think that science is the only way to find out truth, I think finding out the truth is very reasonable. I think you would agree that ignorance is the only thing stopping us from finding out truth. Again, McInerny points out, "The agnostic, unlike the skeptic, neither denies the existence of truth nor it's attainability. He simply claims ignorance as to the truth of a certain matter." I think you identify more with this than anything, in terms of religion – please correct me if I’m wrong.
So, in regards to your first argument against God, you say, “1) Science studies the natural world, the empirical world, all that can be observed and tested. Therefore, I believe that science cannot study the supernatural or spiritual realms, assuming they even exist.” In theory, your statement is true, but as John said, only by definition. All you are really saying is that science cannot test God. It would be like saying science cannot test for justice, love, morality, or any such concepts. But I think there are strong arguments that the truth of these concepts do exist and can be “tested” for, though not empircally.
Secondly, your argument that because there are, “numerous amounts of Gods and religions followed throughout the world it is impossible for me to fathom that there is one "true" faith,” is a logical fallacy. Your argument goes something like this:
If there are many ideas of God, none of them can be the true one.
There are many ideas of God.
Therefore, none of them can be the true one.
I believe philosophers call this a “false premise.” A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism (wikipedia.org). Though the syllogism of your argument is logically valid, it’s premise is false. One could make an argument that because the world does have so many concepts of God, there may in fact be a supreme being. Therefore, we may need to discuss more in depth the truthfulness of your premise at hand. Lastly, in my opinion, I could understand your argument – we’ll call it the argument of many gods – a little better if you had used the word ‘difficult’ rather than ‘impossible.’ For I feel it may be difficult to fathom the idea of one supreme God, but not impossible.
And thirdly, I’m sorry, but the Jefferson quote does not speak for itself, atleast to me. I think I know where you’re going with it, but can you put it in your own terms as to how that is an argument for your agnostic belief?
Well, it is late and as always, I am thoroughly enjoying our board so far. I hope to see other people on here soon. Also, I will be picking up Sam Harris’ book, just to see what he has to say. Thanks Zach, for the recommendation. I will give you a call soon.
Blessings Always,
Joe
Post a Comment