Agnostic, Agnostic, or Agnostic?
People become agnostic for many different reasons. Read this previous post from a few days ago. 1) Because they are intellectually convinced that there is no evidence for God's existence or that he is unknowable. 2) Because they are too lazy or too busy to examine possible evidence. 3) Because they are caught in a cycle of immoral behavior allowed under an agnostic moral code. 4) Because they fear being labeled intolerant if they settle on a theistic viewpoint.
There is a fifth reason I have observed. Sometimes people choose agnosticism because they hear Christians (or other religious people) saying stupid things or they see them doing stupid things. I'll admit, I was a little bit offended by the movie Saved, that mocks Christian teenagers. But that might have been the world's way of saying, "If this is the way you all act, we do not want to be a part of the group." Very often, we must admit, we do things that we think please God, but that are not commanded in Scripture. (Crusades would be a big example, but we have plenty of modern examples too). So often people are agnostic because they refuse the social stigma of being a believer.
It also seems clear that #2 above is a very common reason for agnosticism. Many folks have looked for God, found evidence lacking and have then ceased looking for him, or have gotten busy with other things. It isn't that they disregard the possibility of God's existence, they are just tired of looking for him.
To these folks I would throw out a thought. Is it possible that if the "evidence" were a snake it would have bitten you? Is it possible the evidence that God might exist is right in front of you? It is possible that some have so heavily bought into naturalistic presuppositions, where everything that exists must have a natural explanation, that even the most obvious hints of a divine being are missed or explained away.
Just the fact that there is life is a big hint for me. Sure, naturalism postulates abiogenesis and sure, that is a possible explanation for life (though as I see it, this is a hard package to buy from any perspective). But it is weak at best and certainly just as unprovable as theism.
Not only this, but it also seems wise to construct a theory giving God the benefit of the doubt (afterall, we are dealing with agnostics not atheists). For example, I might reason this way: If God did create the universe, I might deduce certain things about him. Namely, he is eternal (assuming cause and effect relationships), he is powerful, he apparently has a purpose, and so on. Given these things I might also assume that he would want to communicate to mankind. This seems to be a logical inference. If he created me and I am a communicating being, then it is certainly possible that he is a communicating being as well.
Thus, it makes sense from an agnostic perspective to examine possible communications from a divine being, assuming the divine being exists. In other words, if a person needs to be scientific about this, and assumes that it is possible that God might exist, then a good place to start would be to examine all persons who have ever claimed to be God or to be a prophet who speaks for God.
This task sounds daunting, but really its not. There are not all that many, or least not all that many categories of people who have claimed such things. For example, one need not examine every single god in the Greek and Roman pantheons. They can either be accepted or rejected as a group.
If you are agnostic or know an agnostic, here is the challenge. Don't be too lazy or too busy to do the research. It is possible that God exists. In that case it is of utmost importance that we spend our lives looking for him, afterall, we need to know to what degree we are accountable to him and / or what he wants from us, given that he exists.
There is a fifth reason I have observed. Sometimes people choose agnosticism because they hear Christians (or other religious people) saying stupid things or they see them doing stupid things. I'll admit, I was a little bit offended by the movie Saved, that mocks Christian teenagers. But that might have been the world's way of saying, "If this is the way you all act, we do not want to be a part of the group." Very often, we must admit, we do things that we think please God, but that are not commanded in Scripture. (Crusades would be a big example, but we have plenty of modern examples too). So often people are agnostic because they refuse the social stigma of being a believer.
It also seems clear that #2 above is a very common reason for agnosticism. Many folks have looked for God, found evidence lacking and have then ceased looking for him, or have gotten busy with other things. It isn't that they disregard the possibility of God's existence, they are just tired of looking for him.
To these folks I would throw out a thought. Is it possible that if the "evidence" were a snake it would have bitten you? Is it possible the evidence that God might exist is right in front of you? It is possible that some have so heavily bought into naturalistic presuppositions, where everything that exists must have a natural explanation, that even the most obvious hints of a divine being are missed or explained away.
Just the fact that there is life is a big hint for me. Sure, naturalism postulates abiogenesis and sure, that is a possible explanation for life (though as I see it, this is a hard package to buy from any perspective). But it is weak at best and certainly just as unprovable as theism.
Not only this, but it also seems wise to construct a theory giving God the benefit of the doubt (afterall, we are dealing with agnostics not atheists). For example, I might reason this way: If God did create the universe, I might deduce certain things about him. Namely, he is eternal (assuming cause and effect relationships), he is powerful, he apparently has a purpose, and so on. Given these things I might also assume that he would want to communicate to mankind. This seems to be a logical inference. If he created me and I am a communicating being, then it is certainly possible that he is a communicating being as well.
Thus, it makes sense from an agnostic perspective to examine possible communications from a divine being, assuming the divine being exists. In other words, if a person needs to be scientific about this, and assumes that it is possible that God might exist, then a good place to start would be to examine all persons who have ever claimed to be God or to be a prophet who speaks for God.
This task sounds daunting, but really its not. There are not all that many, or least not all that many categories of people who have claimed such things. For example, one need not examine every single god in the Greek and Roman pantheons. They can either be accepted or rejected as a group.
If you are agnostic or know an agnostic, here is the challenge. Don't be too lazy or too busy to do the research. It is possible that God exists. In that case it is of utmost importance that we spend our lives looking for him, afterall, we need to know to what degree we are accountable to him and / or what he wants from us, given that he exists.
4 Comments:
Please stop saying that people choose agnosticism. And to add to your "reasons" why people "become" agnostic, how about because they simply do not have the answers yet??
I'm 31. I've studied with Protestants, Born-again Christians, Jehova's Witnesses, Wiccans, various pagans, and Buddhists. I've looked up Gnosticism, Atheism, LDS, Scientology, and Islam to name a few. Now I may be missing some Christian or Catholic offshoots, but please don't tell me that I'm choosing not to know, am too lazy or busy to find the answers, biased, unintelligent, or immoral.
Why do you have such a problem with agnostics anyway? Why do you care? And if you care about the salvation of my soul or what have you, then please pray that I find SOMETHING to believe in, instead of attacking me for not knowing!
Brandi, these posts on agnosticism are not attacks, but attempts to understand how and why people become agnostic. If you read all the posts carefully, I think you will see that I have a high respect for agnosticism, and would be one if Christ were not so convincing.
Notice that I gave 4 (or 5) reasons why I observed that people choose agnosticism. I did not say all agnostics were lazy, but that some of them were too lazy or busy to do the necessary research. Notice that at another point I said some people become agnostic because they have done all the research and in fact find it insufficient for belief in a particular religion.
I really think I am being fair and respectful here.
As to the "choosing" of agnosticism, I respectfully disagree. People indeed do choose what they believe. To not have this choice is to not be human. We are not programmed as robots, but rather have our own volition, emotions, desires, and belief capabilities. And we are in control of these. We each set our own standard of what constitutes evidence and so forth...
So anyway, I do appreciate your posts to the blog. I noticed you commented in several places, but I will let this response stand for all your comments.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posts.
For now, I will only comment on the "choosing" of agnosicism. Yes, people DO choose what they believe, but agnosticism, by definition, is the absence of belief. Given that, it shouldn't even be classified as a belief system. I see it more as a condition of unknowing.
Obviously humans have the power to choose other things in life, but the absence of belief is not a choice. Having a higher standard of evidence does not make the absence of a conclusion a choice.
Respectufully, I don't understand why you don't see that. Please feel free to explain.
Brandi,I would like to take the time to tell you that sometimes the fear of not knowing and not understanding blows our minds.In either way we are still making a choice. Jason was right saying that we are not programmed as robots,and so on.We are ALL born with a natural yearning for meaning and purpose.We all look for it in many ways.We are all looking for something to believe in.It is normal to be afraid of the truth,but not normal to claim that you do not have a belief system,or absence of belief.That does not happen.Everyone believes in something in some way or another,even believing that you do not have a belief system-it is a choice.
Post a Comment
<< Home