Religion: The views of an agnostic

Alligatorob said:
You have more faith in Science than I do. I kinda think we will just keep getting closer and closer, but never really there to the biggest questions.
Click to expand...
I guess I do. It won't be today that we are going to have an answer about any question (remember it's the weekend) but I'm pretty positive that at some point we'll make it (if we don't kill ourselves first).
 
Good post #96 raybar but it's my belief that Scripture may be misinterpreted, but it will never be wrong. When fallible science does not correspond with fallible theology, I don't blame the Bible. The scientific assumptions may be wrong, or the biblical interpretations may be wrong, or both, but the Scriptures never are in my belief. An unfortunate tendency in atheism is to compare science to a single interpretation of the Bible, then declare science has “proved” the Bible incorrect. This, in my opinion, is illogical. At the most, all that might be disproved is that particular interpretation of Scripture.

I have faith that God’s written Word is the final authority in all matters that it addresses. Yet it's not always specific on all points. The exact age of the earth and the minute details of how God created it are among those issues left vague in Scripture.

There are reasons to doubt prevailing views of the fossil record. The fields of paleontology and fossils are highly prone to error. In the last century, we have witnessed countless examples of “groundbreaking” discoveries that have ultimately been proved misleading.
 

Lara said:
Good post #84 raybar but it's my belief that Scripture may be misinterpreted, but it will never be wrong. When fallible science does not correspond with fallible theology, I don't blame the Bible. The scientific assumptions may be wrong, or the biblical interpretations may be wrong, or both, but the Scriptures never are in my belief. An unfortunate tendency in atheism is to compare science to a single interpretation of the Bible, then declare science has “proved” the Bible incorrect. This, in my opinion, is illogical. At the most, all that might be disproved is that particular interpretation of Scripture.

I have faith that God’s written Word is the final authority in all matters that it addresses. Yet it's not always specific on all points. The exact age of the earth and the minute details of how God created it are among those issues left vague in Scripture.

There are reasons to doubt prevailing views of the fossil record. The fields of paleontology and fossils are highly prone to error. In the last century, we have witnessed countless examples of “groundbreaking” discoveries that have ultimately been proved misleading.
Click to expand...

And that's the beauty and bravery of Science. That it's not afraid to admit that a hypothesis is wrong, based on evidence, and start over.

On the other hand the (man-made) scriptures are "infallible" having people take the blame for their faults by admitting "wrong interpretation". Despite the fact that there is historical evidence about how the "Holy Bible" was put together by men for specific reasons.
 
Forerunner said:
When I was 2, my earliest memory was, "I was aware that a short distance in front of me was a bright light. All around it was darkness." When I was 14, someone read from the bible book of John, 3:16. Somewhere, I saw a sword, held by a hand, as it thrust through curtains and plunged into my heart. I knew it was true.
For me, God is a reality. His Spirit lives in me. I'm not propped up on the theories of others. :)
Click to expand...
Road to Damascus experiences are possible, even for atheists and agnostics. I attest to this as a former atheist who was called out of darkness at the age of 33. Not in a church, nor by any evangelist. Nor by reasoned argument, but by a voice that called to something deep inside me. It called me by name and it required a response. I could have responded with Yes, No or Go away. I chose Yes and my life changed from that day forward.

Materialism and cold logic take us only so far in the understanding of all things. To understand more we must embrace mystery. Mystery opens the door to understanding what the words "life in all its fullness" are pointing to.
 
Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics are not akin to Newton's Laws of Motion.
Although they sound very logical and perfectly reasonable, they are a work of fiction.

Einstein's theory general relativity (Einstein's theory of general relativity | Space) did not sound very reasonable when he first announced it and even he doubted his proposition.
However, long after his death scientists have found the evidence that supports general relativity.

Perhaps, at some future time when sentient robots are a reality, Asimov's laws may become real. Wisdom is the ability to leave room for uncertainty and doubt. Know-it-alls are seldom open to having their minds changed even when experience slaps them in the face.
 
Warrigal said:
Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics are not akin to Newton's Laws of Motion.
Although they sound very logical and perfectly reasonable, they are a work of fiction.

Einstein's theory general relativity (Einstein's theory of general relativity | Space) did not sound very reasonable when he first announced it and even he doubted his proposition.
However, long after his death scientists have found the evidence that supports general relativity.

Perhaps, at some future time when sentient robots are a reality, Asimov's laws may become real. Wisdom is the ability to leave room for uncertainty and doubt. Know-it-alls are seldom open to having their minds changed even when experience slaps them in the face.
Click to expand...

That's why I chose the agnostic path instead of that of an atheist... ;)
 
Agnosticism is a cop out. You have chosen a path that leads nowhere because it asks for no commitment. You could be the lukewarm person that this passage refers to:

Revelation 3:15
‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot.

To what are you committed? Where, beyond yourself, does your passion lie ?
 
Warrigal said:
Agnosticism is a cop out. You have chosen a path that leads nowhere because it asks for no commitment. You could be the lukewarm person that this passage refers to:

Revelation 3:15
‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot.

To what are you committed? Where, beyond yourself, does your passion lie ?
Click to expand...

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion! I don't consider agnosticism to be a cop out. I consider it to be the responsible position of a scientist. If I have no clear evidence to make the assertion "God does not exist" I simply cannot make it. The best I can do with what is available to the scientific community is the agnostic statement "We don't have any evidence proving that God exists.". But the journey does not stop here. As with any other scientific hypothesis the work continues until it is proven or disproven. For one to commit oneself to an assertion, either way, "God exists" or "God does not exist" is one being a... know-it-all.

If all of the above sounds "lukewarm" to you so be it.
 
Until this thread I considered myself to be an atheist. I think I lean more to agnostic.

As science pushes forward with exploration it's science that will give humans a verifiable answer if some form of life exists other than here on earth.

But if discovered that won't answer the question of creation or evolution. Did a creator create other life too? This as a subject to discuss is interesting to me mostly because it has no right or wrong just opinions.
 
Knight said:
Until this thread I considered myself to be an atheist. I think I lean more to agnostic.

As science pushes forward with exploration it's science that will give humans a verifiable answer if some form of life exists other than here on earth.

But if discovered that won't answer the question of creation or evolution. Did a creator create other life too?
Click to expand...

I don't think that a "Creator" would create Earth and the life on it and stop there. Life elsewhere, probably, exists and it's either following the same or a similar evolution path as we do or has been given its final form by the "Creator" depending on which hypothesis you support.

Even if accidental randomness was the explanation of life beginning on earth, the vastness of the universe makes the odds of the same randomness to have happened somewhere else too.
 
Final form, that is the mystery. Made in our image is the popular understanding. I question because I don't know exactly what that image is. I doubt I'll live long enough to ever find out.
 
CAKCy said:
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion! I don't consider agnosticism to be a cop out. I consider it to be the responsible position of a scientist. If I have no clear evidence to make the assertion "God does not exist" I simply cannot make it. The best I can do with what is available to the scientific community is the agnostic statement "We don't have any evidence proving that God exists.". But the journey does not stop here. As with any other scientific hypothesis the work continues until it is proven or disproven. For one to commit oneself to an assertion, either way, "God exists" or "God does not exist" is one being a... know-it-all.

If all of the above sounds "lukewarm" to you so be it.
Click to expand...
Luke warm is exactly the right word for agnosticism. It does not imply moral judgement but it does describe the midpoint between an atheist and a theist.

I am reminded that it is a Jewish saying that a man can be with God or against God but he can never be without God.

I repeat my question. To what beyond yourself, have you dedicated your life ?
With dedication comes an inevitable amount of commitment, service and possibly some personal sacrifice. And as a supplementary question, what drives your commitment?

You don't have to put your answer into words but it is a question worth some private meditation for all of us.
 
Last edited:
Warrigal said:
Luke warm is exactly the right word for agnosticism. It does not imply moral judgement but is does describe the midpoint between an atheist and a theist.

I repeat the question. To what beyond yourself, have you dedicated your life ? With dedication comes come an inevitable amount of service and possibly some personal sacrifice. And as a supplementary question, what drives your commitment?

You don't have to put your answer into words but it is a question worth some private meditation for all of us.
Click to expand...

Then lukewarm is the way science chose for this and other matters. When there is no clear answer on anything, science has a hypothesis which can be strong or not.

I dedicated my life to improving my corner of the world. By trying to make myself a better person and sharing my personal experiences, mistakes and lessons with others. And yes it has included personal sacrifices. When I was younger idealism drove my commitment. When getting older and wiser, pure idealism gave its place to idealism mixed with pragmatism.

Do I get the job? :)
 
Knight said:
Until this thread I considered myself to be an atheist. I think I lean more to agnostic.

As science pushes forward with exploration it's science that will give humans a verifiable answer if some form of life exists other than here on earth.

But if discovered that won't answer the question of creation or evolution. Did a creator create other life too? This as a subject to discuss is interesting to me mostly because it has no right or wrong just opinions.
Click to expand...
I think the question of evolution is firmly established as a real, observable phenomenon. I can see no reason why life could not arise beyond earth provided the necessary conditions are present. Most likely to be carbon, hydrogen and oxygen based but there are other chemical possibilities. Iron, silicon and sulphur are other possibilities. It's all about being able to access energy.

However, even such discoveries won't have much bearing on the question of whether the universe is an accident, a fluke, an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics or the gift from something that is not of the universe. Something that we label God (by many other names) and which we can only begin to relate to with another gift - the gift of imagery and imagination.
 
CAKCy said:
Then lukewarm is the way science chose for this and other matters. When there is no clear answer on anything, science has a hypothesis which can be strong or not.

I dedicated my life to improving my corner of the world. By trying to make myself a better person and sharing my personal experiences, mistakes and lessons with others. And yes it has included personal sacrifices. When I was younger idealism drove my commitment. When getting older and wiser, pure idealism gave its place to idealism mixed with pragmatism.

Do I get the job? :)
Click to expand...
No, because science is not a person.

Scientists on the other hand are some of the most committed people on this planet. They are committed to increasing the knowledge and understanding of the material universe. They dedicate themselves to this chosen field, sometimes at peril of their own safety. They are never lukewarm about their work but they are able to be atheists, theists or agnostics. They can also, in one lifetime, convert from one of these categories to another.

It seems that we are talking at cross purposes.

In my case I have always been interested in science. This interest led me to reject the idea of a personal saviour that I had learnt about during my childhood. I would have liked a career in chemistry but had to settle for teaching for lack of money.

I have never lost my fascination for science but faced with some of life's painful tragedies I found myself an empty shell unable to offer comfort to myself (forgiveness) or to others (compassion). That changed when I had my epiphany age 33. The emptiness was filled, compassion and forgiveness were released and I realised that teaching was my true vocation, the thing I was made for. My commitment to God is to feed his lambs, something I have done ever since and continue to do to this day. There are some sacrifices but compared to the joy experienced, they are miniscule.
 
Last edited:
Warrigal said:
No, because science is not a person.

Scientists on the other hand are some of the most committed people on this planet. They are committed to increasing the knowledge and understanding of the material universe. They dedicate themselves to this chosen field, sometimes at peril of their own safety. They are never lukewarm about their work but they are able to be atheists, theists or agnostics. They can also, in one lifetime, convert from one of these categories to another.

It seems that we are talking at cross purposes.

In my case I have always been interested in science. This interest led me to reject the idea of a personal saviour that I had learnt about during my childhood. I would have liked a career in chemistry but had to settle for teaching for lack of money.

I have never lost my fascination for science but faced with some of life's painful tragedies I found myself an empty shell unable to offer comfort to myself (forgiveness) or to others (compassion). That changed when I had my epiphany age 33. The emptiness was filled, compassion and forgiveness were released and I realised that teaching was my true vocation, the thing I was made for. My commitment to God is to feed his lambs, something I have done ever since and continue to do to this day. There are some sacrifices but compared to the joy experienced, they are miniscule.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your personal experience.
 
Warrigal said:
No, because science is not a person.

Scientists on the other hand are some of the most committed people on this planet. They are committed to increasing the knowledge and understanding of the material universe. They dedicate themselves to this chosen field, sometimes at peril of their own safety. They are never lukewarm about their work but they are able to be atheists, theists or agnostics. They can also, in one lifetime, convert from one of these categories to another.

It seems that we are talking at cross purposes.

In my case I have always been interested in science. This interest led me to reject the idea of a personal saviour that I had learnt about during my childhood. I would have liked a career in chemistry but had to settle for teaching for lack of money.

I have never lost my fascination for science but faced with some of life's painful tragedies I found myself an empty shell unable to offer comfort to myself (forgiveness) or to others (compassion). That changed when I had my epiphany age 33. The emptiness was filled, compassion and forgiveness were released and I realised that teaching was my true vocation, the thing I was made for. My commitment to God is to feed his lambs, something I have done ever since and continue to do to this day. There are some sacrifices but compared to the joy experienced, they are miniscule.
Click to expand...
It's great that you found your calling. Teaching can be enjoyable. I taught a class at a continuing education school for several years and it was a kick, although it was just a two session class that I taught every other month or so. I probably wouldn't be able to handle teaching every day since I agree with Jean Paul Sartre that "hell is other people." Before long, I'd pass judgement on myself and become self-conscious. By the end of the first week, I'd be a total mess and have to quit.

One of my neighbors is a professor of religion at a fairly prestigious university in Denver. I was talking to him about it several years ago and he said he felt "blessed" to be able to talk about what he wanted to talk about all day. I'm not sure if he's deeply religious or he's just really interested in religion, but I'm sure it does feel like you're blessed if you get to earn a living doing what you're passionate about. It's also a blessing to be passionate about something. I can't say I've ever felt that way about anything.
 
Absolutely. I used to say "Don't tell anybody but I would be happy to do this for nothing". Since I was a teacher of teenage girls many people thought that I was out of my mind.

Since I have retired, that is exactly what I do, although as the years roll on I do it less now. During the Covid lockdown I have had no contact with any children, not even my little great grand son.

I put up with the strictures of lockdown for the sake of the children and consider the sacrifice to be tiny.
 
Sunny said:
To deny that something exists, one does not have to prove that it doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion that something does exist.
Click to expand...
I agree.

"That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens
 
Jennina said:
I agree.

"That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens
Click to expand...
That's kind of a double-edged sword. While Hitchens solved the problem of the assertion "God exists" by dismissing it (since it's without proof) the atheist will find a trouble proving their assertion "God does not exist" which can similarly be dismissed.

Though it's a play of words or semantics it's important to follow the sequence of events. If a believer makes an assertion first, that assertion can be dismissed as per Hitchens. But if an atheist makes the assertion first he/she will find him/herself in deep waters.

It is a lot safer to assert that "We don't have enough evidence to prove God's existence" since this can be proven scientifically and cannot be dismissed.

Makes sense?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top