I need help concerning the word Agnostic

jerkinabottle

There are so many different definitions of an agnostic, but one stricly applies to my sort of agnosticism.

Agnostic - one who believes that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

If that alone is what an agnostic is then clearly I am an agnostic. That description wouldn't exclude a lot of the Christians, Catholics, and other religious folks I know. Although they believe that such a God exists, they are unsure of his existence.

This is like me. I believe in God for no other reason then that I am hopelessly optimistic and desire for a God to exist. I also believe because I see order in this Universe and would like to believe that some higher intelligence made it. However, I do realize that order can be manifested out of chaos through pure chance and long intervals of time, without any need for posulating a divine creator.

However, I am a believer, who also realizes that he may be wrong in his belief. I guess you could say I'm an undogmatic believer.

Interbane

CrazySculptor, this is a fairly decent example of 'wanting to believe.':

I believe in God for no other reason then that I am hopelessly optimistic and desire for a God to exist.

jerkinabottle: "I also believe because I see order in this Universe and would like to believe that some higher intelligence made it."

You do see order in this universe. Whether or not you believe it is attributable to the Anthropic Principle or not is a good question to continue this debate, methinks.

jerkinabottle: "However, I am a believer, who also realizes that he may be wrong in his belief."

I respect that position. Personally, I am a non-believer who realizes he may be wrong. An agnostic worldview makes much more sense than other conflicting worldviews. Since, of course, you can't know either way whether or not god exists.

MadArchitect

You do see order in this universe. Whether or not you believe it is attributable to the Anthropic Principle or not is a good question to continue this debate, methinks.

I think a better question would be, how could you define order in any terms but those posed by the cntext of your universe? In other words, if the universe were fundamentally disordered, would we recognize it as such?

That doesn't negate jerkinabottle's faith, however. What matters is not that he recognizes order, but rather that he feels compelled to attribute it to something outside of that order.

As for realizing that you may be wrong, any faith that does not permit of doubt is fanaticism.

Eric Hagelin · Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 10:12 am Post subject: reply

Interbane types: "An agnostic worldview makes much more sense than other conflicting worldviews. Since, of course, you can't know either way whether or not god exists."

What if knowing God only comes through the path of faith? In that case, those with faith know He exists, and those incapable of taking such a "leap" of faith remain unknowing...

dictionary.reference.com/search?q=know

If you are using the word "know" interchangeably with "prove", then I might agree with your second sentence that I quoted.

"...I beg of You to take away my freedom to displease You..."

~ St. Therese of Lisieux ~

Eric Hagelin · Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 10:21 am Post subject: reply

MadArchitect types: "As for realizing that you may be wrong, any faith that does not permit of doubt is fanaticism."

There is no doubt in my faith. That makes me a "fanatic"? That's a pretty charged word.

I hope, at least, you are willing to doubt what you've written about doubt and fanaticism. Otherwise, you're the pot and I'm the kettle, so to speak.

I greatly enjoy your posts, by the way. I'm following with interest the "God Scientifically Analyzed" thread.

"...I beg of You to take away my freedom to displease You..."

~ St. Therese of Lisieux ~

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 10:56 am Post subject: Fading Myths

I will add that ANYONE who does not doubt what they believe they know upon being presented with sound evidence that may compromise that previously held belief is a fanatic.

I respect jerkinabottle because it shows an openess many thiests are not willing to show. The position thiests hold is weak (IMHO), what with many past beliefs and ideas being explained away through science, so they feel that showing any doubt is a sign of weakness.

Does anyone disagree that our natural progress and scientific growth tends to show all the religions to be mere myths? Does of faith on this board really believe that THEIR god is the ONLY CORRECT god?

From Virgins in a slice of toast to Padre Pio...these are all symbols made up by followers of a certain myth, clouded by their upbringing and experiences. Jesus is not the caucasian man we usually see...it is OUR (well, male) ego. Yes I lean toward the Catholic/Christian god, because that is my upbringing.

If there is a god, it is laughing at us all.

Mr. P.

Eric Hagelin · Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 2:00 pm Post subject: reply

Mr. P types: "The position thiests hold is weak (IMHO), what with many past beliefs and ideas being explained away through science, so they feel that showing any doubt is a sign of weakness."

Funny, I have a parallel perspective about atheists and agnostics... that they turn to science and rigidly appeal to reason and rationality with no allowance for any quotient of truth (in mystery), because to allow for such (truth in mystery) might mean a "real-world" change - from being a person involved in a self-serving and ego-feeding humanistic worldview, to one of submission and humility before a mighty and majestic God who can be pleased (and displeased) by the way one behaves, thinks and speaks.

But that's just IMHO.

Mr. P. types: "Does anyone disagree that our natural progress and scientific growth tends to show all the religions to be mere myths? Does of faith on this board really believe that THEIR god is the ONLY CORRECT god?"

Yes and yes. But I'll be perfectly honest and up-front with you on this... I have absolutely no desire to defend my position (on either question) on a board that actively promotes atheism and is comprised of mostly anti-Christian and/or anti-religious people.

You're welcome to classify my silence on the issue(s) as fear, avoidance, denial, inability, or whatever other reason you may think motivates my unwillingness. That's your privilege. The real reason is boredom. I simply don't have anything to prove to you or anyone else here at this forum, nor do I desire to debate these things. (And my faith isn't shaken by cultural shifts in worldviews. I believe there is truth to be found in mystery, through faith. Pretty simple, really.)

Mr. P. types: "If there is a god, it is laughing at us all."

Or maybe He's just laughing at you. (Or me.) In all seriousness, I actually do believe He has a pretty good sense of humor.

"...I beg of You to take away my freedom to displease You..."

~ St. Therese of Lisieux ~

Dissident Heart · Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:02 pm Post subject: Faith, Hope and Love

The position thiests hold is weak (IMHO)

Any position that seeks peace, acts justly, loves mercy and walks humbly in the world is weak...founded upon highly contradictory evidence, lots of contrary examples, and whole histories of failures in the opposite direction. I mean, those who support universal human rights, democratic principles of social organization, equal access to the law, and protection of civil liberties...all of this rests upon severely weak positions.

Unless, and until, you apply Faith. Even then, it's still weak, but at least it is alive. And, with enough Faith, what was once seemingly impossible can become radically real. It's all about trust, and hope, and love.

Trust that your fellow humans can manage the risk of sharing power and be willling to sacrifice their own immediate gain for a larger common good.

Hope that the current state of wretched affairs are not the last word on the matter, will not last forever, and can be changed towards a better tomorrow and more promising present.

Love that keeps you connected to the struggle even when it hurts and gets darker and the goal seems to move further and further ahead...it is love that says, "it's worth it, I care enough about this to do whatever it takes to do whatever I can...it means that much to me- I love it enough to do it"

Faith is the radical trust that connects this audacious hope to loving deeds that matter.

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:13 pm Post subject: Re: reply

Quote:
Or maybe He's just laughing at you. (Or me.) In all seriousness, I actually do believe He has a pretty good sense of humor.

Do you really believe god is a "He"?

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Eric Hagelin · Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:35 pm Post subject: reply

I do. Inasmuch as the physical embodiment of God is Jesus, and He is a man (yet somehow "God", too). Wow, that last sentence was right out of the Department of Redundancy Department. God "Himself" is Spirit, therefore sexless. Sounds good to me, at any rate. I can't explain it (the trinity). Others better equipped and more learned than I have tried, and they can't either.

Seriously, if you are truly interested in exploring the concept of the Trinity from a Christian perspective, I would suggest reading Sheed's "Theology and Sanity". He devotes an excellent chapter to the whole idea.

But it's not a "stickler" for me. If I could explain Him, I doubt I'd want to worship Him. My adoration, submission and obedience has to extend into the unexplainable. The explained just isn't worthy.

"...I beg of You to take away my freedom to displease You..."

~ St. Therese of Lisieux ~

Mr. Pessimistic

Getting back to the point of this thread, I refer you all to this:

Semantics on X-theism and Xgnostics

In this thread, Chris posted a nice chart in hopes of helping classify the differences in (non)belief...I was looking for this and finally found it!

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Dissident Heart · Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:58 pm Post subject: Re: reply

Eric,

I know you've called yourself a Christian, but when I examine the the values you support and the kind of world you think we should work towards...I can't for the life of me see anything Christian about it.

Well, actually, I see a great deal of what Cornel West calls "Constantinian Christianity" in what you say, but very little of the "Prophetic Christianity" that got Jesus, Paul, Peter, the early Christians executed by the dominant military and economic power of the day.

This refers back to a comment I made describing your God as an "Imperial God", as opposed to the "Crucified Revolutionary" that serves as the way, truth and life for Christians.

You still worship at the Altar of Constantine, of an Imperial Church, where what matters is economic dominance, military prowess, and political hierarchy...light years away from the Rabbi in Nazareth who washed the feet of his disciples, gave bread and fish freely to the masses, highlighted the sacrifices of poor widows over the donations of wealthy dignitaries, blessed the peace makers, the impoverished, the meek, and promised a great feast for those who hunger and thirst for justice.

Edited by: Dissident Heart at: 11/22/04 2:03 pm

Eric Hagelin · Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:35 pm Post subject: quick reply to DH

All I can say in response to this is:

Some hunger and thrist for righteousness and justice, but do nothing. Some hunger and thirst for righteousness and justice, and act.

Some of us act in ways that others don't agree with. If I understand you correctly, you see "economic dominance, military prowess, and political hierarchy" as evils in our world. On a purely theoretical Christian level, so do I, and wish that things were different. On a very concrete, adult, rational level, I recognize that the world has never been without those evils and never will be, at least until God intervenes. So with that in mind, I am left to pick and choose between conflicts in ideology, philosophy, culture, etc. Because, as the good book says, we are in the world, but not of it. Since I'm here, I have to, in some ways, react to it. Inaction can be equally as evil as some actions. James 4:17 comes to mind.

I see some benefits to living in (and raising a family in) a society that has:

a) a stronger, more advanced protective military force than any other - (and one that's not afraid to act with aggression in the face of danger, or act with aggression to secure its "leverage" on a hostile geopolitical level);

b) a strong heritage (comparatively speaking) of promoting peace, equality and justice for its people - notwithstanding that it has made its share of mistakes; and that it has made and continues to make progress in those areas, albeit slower than many would like;

c) an economic system which rewards one's labor and effort;

d) a healthy respect for indivduality...

...etc. I could think of a few more, I'm sure, but it's not necessary.

And trust me, I see *plenty* of wrongs in American politics and society. It's not all rosy, from where I sit. But you and I disagree on the problems and the problem-makers, that's for sure.

But we're off-topic. They'll have to give us our own little corner to 'scrap' in, if we're not careful.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill

edited to add:

Dissident, I find it very revealing that you cannot make a judgment call concerning ideologies, but you're pretty quick to make a judgment call on my faith. I suspect it's because, in both areas, your view is ignorant, in the literal definition of that word. There. Now you can add "ignorant" to the ongoing assessment I've made of your views - cowardly, leftist-drivel, etc. I will relent in one regard... I genuinely think that you mean well. Your heart's in the right place. I just think you're naive.

Can we call impasse and polite truce at this point?

"...I beg of You to take away my freedom to displease You..."

~ St. Therese of Lisieux ~

Dissident Heart · Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 5:00 pm Post subject: One Christian Approach

Calling me a cowardly naive ignorant deliverer of leftist drivel is not anyway to call a truce.

I don't see the value in drawing distinctions between "which is terror is worse- ours or theirs?", nor do I recognize much of the Gospel in what you call Christian faith.

I think the first issue is tantamount to debating which is worse: rape or incest?; and I think the second issue is a valid challenge to what you mean by Christian faith.

Edited by: Dissident Heart at: 11/22/04 5:33 pm


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT