Humble Progress

I think that the temptation with any shift of thought is to characterize your new position as being better than any prior position held, and then to reflect on all prior experiences as having some way or other contributed to this ultimately positive “progression”. I seem to have thought that way at least over the last ten years with each step. But of course, I’m not too proud to acknowledge that this may be simply the result of a self-serving and flawed review of the actual data.

Being "right" about the meaning of life and the existence and character of God was not really part of my thought processes while growing up. I was a Christian and attended church, but it was not really a "fundamentalist" denomination...liberal-traditional is probably an appropriate term. My religious affiliations simply didn't occupy much of my brain space in those years and there was not a whole lot of practical day-to-day "fruit" of my Christianity. So, when I went to college, I sort of just dropped it completely initially...not intentionally choosing to be agnostic or atheist, just not practicing my religion.

But within a couple of years, I started sensing that "hunger" or "itch" to nail down what this life is supposed to be all about. Who is God? What is required or desired of me? What about afterlife? What is it that I really believe? How do I make decisions relating to morality? Etc.

I met a man who was a young baptist pastor. We became very close friends and he was very willing to converse with me about all of my ponderings. And of course, he had all the answers. I, not really having been trained to be a critical thinker in this realm, bought everything he was selling....hook, line, sinker. And of course, I was quite convinced that I was now..."right".

With everything I learned, I continued to "grow" and become more and more "right". When I encountered people who disagreed, I was taught to view that as even further confirmation of my rightness.

Then my wife got pregnant and we started looking into the matter of infant baptism. I wanted to believe in it, so lo and behold, all of the arguments for it made sense to me. I became presbyterian. And while all of my old baptist friends and experiences had been immensely helpful, I was now more..."right" and looked on those people and experiences as having been lacking.

Then I ran across some folks who were writing and conversing about infant communion. I wanted to believe in it, so lo and behold, all of the arguments for it made sense to me. I became a version of presbyterian that encouraged paedocommunion. And while all of my regular presbyterian friends and experiences had been helpful, I was now more..."right".

Then I was exposed to some perspectives on the Catholic Church which seemed to warrant consideration. I did not want to be Catholic, but I looked into the arguments, and in spite of my resistance, I was won over by the argument from priestly succession and legitimate authoritative tradition. I became Catholic. And while all of my old Protestant friends and experiences had been immensely helpful, I was now more..."right".

It had all been part of "maturing" and "progressing" because that way of looking back made my shifts seem okay. I was able to rest easy knowing that I was becoming more wise, more right...leaving behind ignorance and misunderstandings.

I suppose all of that posturing was okay. I suppose we do that in other areas besides religion as well.

But I know for sure that I could have sprinkled in way, way more humility with all of my "progressions".

I am certainly trying to do that now, with my shift completely away from supernatural faith. I want to think that my atheism is the result of more maturity and progress of thought, but I have to reserve a bit of skepticism about my progressions in light of my past experiences with "progress".

Agnostic Atheism

I do not believe in any deity and can therefore be properly called an "atheist," but like many others before me, I intend to maintain the descriptor "agnostic" because I cannot yet claim particular knowledge as to the non-existence of deities. So my pen name here of Non Sicuro Pensatore is still adequate because while I quite plainly do not believe that any gods exist, I also do not have any need or desire to assert the non-existence of gods with certainty.

Who Did This For Me?

Surely it is not unjustified for some people to believe that Christian faith is an institution of imagination and theories rather than reality, when the reality-based “evidence” for God seems either non-existent or even contrary to his existence (seriously, check the grapes in that vineyard), while the readily available “evidence” for God seems to justify belief in any imaginary being. For instance, answered prayer never was a reliable source of assurance for my faith when I was a Christian. An applicant for a job prays that God would grant that job, and lo and behold, he does. Someone grows weary of their cold symptoms and prays that God would heal them, lo and behold, on the third or fourth day after getting a cold, the person starts to feel better. A car breaks down and the owner puts their name on the prayer list at church for needing financial assistance to get it fixed, lo and behold, God inspires a generous parishioner to help out. A difficult decision is stressing someone out so they pray for the Holy Spirit’s help and then they get “peace” about it. There are so many examples of “answered prayer” that could either be (a) more easily explained by ordinary means, or (b) explained via the existence of an extraordinary being other than God, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Theists Need Religion

Arguing against religion is an unwise path for the theistic apologist, because the claims of theism benefit from religion and conversely, are harmed by individualism.

Allow me to remind you that I am agnostic and was formerly a Christian. Ironically, this post is written for the benefit of a theist who has recently indicated in my comment boxes that "religion" is to blame for some atheists and agnostics either giving up on the Christian faith or refraining from trying it in the first place. The commenter's position generally is to say that Christianity is about "relationship", not "religion." I think this person is hurting her own endeavor by opposing a vital part of the theist platform. So...keep in mind that I am not in favor of religion and am not an adherent to Christianity or personal walks with Jesus, etc. I am an agnostic, benevolently writing to help a Christian stop arguing against herself.

If only one Creator God exists and wants to convert people to follow him and wants these converts to follow him in a particular way (such as having a personal walk with Jesus and turning from sin and obeying his commands and principles, etc), then he is highly unlikely to be in favor of a disorderly and haphazard message about who he is and what he requires of his followers. Instead, he is likely to provide a means of unity among his people.

Unity among Christianity is supposed to be one of the sure signs of legitimacy since God is supposed to be One in Three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Jesus is reckoned by the Bible to have desired that his followers be unified just as he was unified with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

So, what is required for unity? Follower A says that all they need to have in common is Jesus, but then also mentions that he doesn't believe in the Resurrection. Follower B says that belief in the Resurrection is a fundamental tenet for unity, but then also mentions that he believes women can be pastors. Follower C says that only men can have the role of pastor because Jesus was a man and chose men to be apostles not women, but then he also mentions that homosexuality is not a sin. Follower D says that no one who condones homosexuality can be a Christian, but then he also mentions that there are a few books which belong in the Bible which didn't get included. Follower E says that the Bible is God's complete Word and nothing can be added or taken away. And so on and so on and so on and so on.

So, what is required for unity? Historical Christian Answer: Faith in Jesus of course...but also Faith in a God-ordained and God-preserved religion which serves as an objective point-of-reference for properly discerning God's intentions throughout historical events and through the God-breathed Bible. Since the time that Jesus lived 2000 years ago, the vast (and I mean vast) majority of Christians have believed that Jesus chose his apostles to ordain leaders and to preserve the true faith throughout every generation by handing-on (see the latin "traditio", where we derive "tradition") right doctrine (orthodoxy) and right practice (orthopraxy) through faithful leaders who appoint faithful leaders who appoint faithful leaders, etc.

According to the historical Christian belief, after a few generations of faithful handing-on, the legitimate successors of the apostles began to deliberate about formally declaring certain religious writings as having been inspired directly by God. These successors (within the very clear context of formal religion...not loosy-goosy every man for themselves individualistic warm-fuzzy Christianity) debated and discussed and finally settled on what is known as the "canon". Christians believe that this process was guided by the Holy Spirit (otherwise it would just be the opinions of men). But some Christians believe that the Bible is essentially a very direct gift to Christianity from God...forgetting that the Bible is actually a product of formal, orderly, traditional religion.

These Christians who think that religion is bad for Christianity do not see how much worse individualism is for Christianity.

Here is the result of the individualistic rejection of the traditional, God-ordained, God-preserved religion of the successors of the apostles: there are well over 20,000 Christian denominations world-wide with many, many, many variances on who God is and what he requires of his followers. And here is how that happens:

Pastor A: God is XYZ and desires XYZ.
Follower A: The Bible says that is not quite right, pastor.
Pastor A: This is the traditional way of understanding the Bible on this point.
Follower A: But here are a few verses that contradict that teaching.
Pastor A: You are taking those verses out of context and not interpreting them correctly.
Follower A: But I prayed about it and the Holy Spirit confirmed that I'm right.
Pastor A: The Holy Spirit confirms interpretations of the Bible through the teachers of the Church, not through your private prayers.
Follower A: No, the Holy Spirit works in my heart and helps me directly. I'm going to the church down the street that sees this the way I do.
[then onto the new church, same situation, multiple times, various issues...then lo and behold]
Follower A cannot find the ideal church which agrees with his view on every point all the time, so Follower A calls a few friends to start meeting at his house on Sunday mornings, and shortly thereafter becomes a pastor teaching followers and encountering the same individualism among them that started this never-ending hoorah in the first place.

So my advice to all people who can't figure out why they should abandon the whole practice of Christianity is to do this for the sake of your Christian cause: adhere to an historic religious structure within Christianity that will give you some slight appearance of unity at least, instead of blatant do-what-you-want-to-do individualism which is a clear indicator that God (if he exists at all) does not exist in the way, shape, and form that Christians think that he does.

Religiosity Not The Problem

I am considering, when time permits, writing a brief treatment of why a Christian should not blame “religion” for an atheist’s or agnostic’s departure from the Christian faith. First of all, in my own story, I know that “religiosity” is not the problem. I know this because I’ve “been there and done that” with this line of evangelizing…"Christianity is about relationship not religion; it’s not about what church you go to or what rules you follow, it’s about your personal walk with Jesus.” Believe me, I really have been there and believed that sort of line and used that sort of line on others. I understand the point, completely.

But in the end, I can argue quite well from the Christian standpoint, that this angle is seriously flawed as an approach to “communicating the reality of Christ.”

Exposing the Limitations

Please find time to read a humble and interesting article by Mark Vernon titled "How To Be Agnostic" (LINK) in which he points out that, "Socrates came to understand that the key to wisdom is not being able to prove beliefs, but understanding the extent of your ignorance. He was agnostic in not assenting to philosophical systems, and instead went around ancient Athens asking awkward questions. For him, the importance of reason was not that it could potentially understand all but that it exposed the limitations of all our understanding. Hence the word philosopher was invented for him; he was a lover of wisdom that is desired precisely because it is lacked."

Open Letter To All "Concerned"

Dear Christian Concerned About My Agnosticism,

You recent letter expressed that you are concerned about my loss of faith. It seems to you that I have lost my grip on truth or possibly that I never fully understood it in the first place. You suggest that we should both be open to dialogue about these things because this path I am now on is self-contradictory, as I can’t help but presuppose the existence of the Christian God even as I suggest that he may not exist at all, and is highly unlikely to exist in the way that Christians imagine that he does. And you want me to know that you are not trying to bully me back into a personal relationship with Jesus; you just want me to hear your heart and open my own heart to that God who is knocking on the door for me to invite him in.

Thank you for your concern. Allow me to assure you that I really am quite familiar with “truth” from the Christian’s standpoint. And I “know your heart” because my own “heart” was also very much consumed with following and serving Jesus Christ as my lord and savior for years before my recent de-conversion. I could almost write every word of your side of any conversation for you and have you give a hearty amen (including giving appropriate biblical footnotes).

Your sincerity and honesty are admirable insofar as they go, but the Christian “truth” prevents you from being completely intellectually honest. You do not recognize that your self-perceived openness to dialogue is not actually very open. Your apologetic methods force you to hear the words of atheists and agnostics with impenetrable incredulity. This does not make for a productive use of time and energy.

People generally want to spend time in conversation with other people who will at least reserve some inkling of some percentage of a possibility that the opposing view might be right. But when one person in the exchange presupposes something as grand as the existence of God (and not just any notion of a God, but the Biblically presented Christian God), then it is difficult to avoid rather immediate exasperation.

By all means, don’t let this letter squelch all semblance of conversation between us, but please be aware of my propensity toward frustration if you intend to continue coming to me with the posture exhibited in your recent letter.

Peace,
Non Sicuro Pensatore

Uncertain about Certainty

How do we know what we know? What does it even mean to "know" something?

I ran across an interesting book title today that provoked curiosity...

On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not by Robert Burton MD

Amazon's product description includes this note: "In On Being Certain, neurologist Robert Burton challenges the notions of how we think about what we know. He shows that the feeling of certainty we have when we "know" something comes from sources beyond our control and knowledge. In fact, certainty is a mental sensation...an increasing body of evidence suggests that feelings such as certainty stem from primitive areas of the brain, and are independent of active, conscious reflection and reasoning. The feeling of knowing happens to us; we cannot make it happen."

Two helpful commentaries led me to the book:
Skeptical Monkey
Science-Based Medicine

Here are two pulled quotes from those commentaries:

"...many people, especially religious fundamentalists, can’t deal with uncertainty. They demand absolute answers and cling to their certainties even in the face of contrary evidence. Why are people so different in their need for certainty? We know there is a gene associated with risk-taking and novelty-seeking. Burton makes an intriguing suggestion: could genetic differences make individuals get different degrees of pleasure out of the feeling of knowing?"

"If science and religion could both accept that all our facts are really provisional, absolutism could be dethroned and a dialog might become possible. ...I have long thought that absolutism was one of humanity’s greatest problems. There are implications for politics, religion, and every sphere of human activity."

In this find today, I am reminded of a recent debate which was referenced on this blog, where one participant declared that "certainty surely is the biggest threat to rationality, and to science."

Chicken or Egg on Offense?

My wife and I had an interesting conversation last night about an editorial in our local paper. A book reviewer blasted Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris for being bullies in their writings as they seem to want all people to adopt an anti-religion worldview.

I pointed out that Hitchens and Harris are probably better described as being pro-non-religion in their writings, and that anything perceived as ranting or bullying may likely be attributed to having been provoked.

So which came first? The atheist who feels bullied by the religious, or the religious who feels bullied by the atheist? Who is on offense and who is on defense here?

It's a tricky question. I would submit that particularly in America, there is a social / cultural pressure to be religious. Religion is the norm. So when unfaithful Christians carry on in a manner which is hypocritical and offensive, or when a faithful Christian carries on in a manner which is overly-zealous and socially harmful, the minority group (atheists) are prompted to speak out in opposition. But we all know that any time the minority raises its voice, all sectors of the majority jump at the opportunity to shout them back down. And then the minority is further alienated and given cause for further speaking out. Etc, etc.

So what is the root problem here? Too much certainty and not enough humility.

Humorous Buzzword

"Apatheism—a disinclination to care all that much about one's own religion, and an even stronger disinclination to care about other people's—may or may not be something new in the world, but its modern flowering, particularly in ostensibly pious America, is worth getting excited about.Apatheism should not be assumed to represent a lazy recumbency, like my collapse into a soft chair after a long day. Just the opposite: it is the product of a determined cultural effort to discipline the religious mindset, and often of an equally determined personal effort to master the spiritual passions. It is not a lapse. It is an achievement."

Article is "Let it Be" by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic magazine.
CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE ARTICLE.

Anti-Labelist

I have used the word "agnostic" to describe my present thoughts because it is a nice, neat word which adequately sums up my belief that nothing can be known with certainty about the existence of God. However, in general, I'm concerned that labels in this realm of belief/non-belief may not be a great idea. Words like agnostic and atheist have connotations which likely prevent some people from even listening to anything such a person might have to say.

I read an article in the Washington Post which was actually an edited transcript from a talk given at last year's Athiest Alliance conference by Sam Harris. He is a prominent voice in the "atheist" community and argues very well for dumping that label and all similar labels. Harris and apparently this Athiest Alliance are all about a sort of activism, in terms of spreading the good news of disbelief and hoping for a world in which religion fades completely away.

I have no truck with activism at this point. I'm just trying to get my own thoughts straight. But I thought that this article was very interesting and certainly worth the read, though it is long. Here is an excerpt and the link:

I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “bullshit” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.

Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn’t really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as “non-racism” is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.

Read the rest of this article by clicking here to redirect to the Washington Post website: Sam Harris - The Problem with Atheism

Free to Think

This is an excerpt from a recent email to my Dad:

It was roughly 10 years ago when I "got serious" about my Christian faith. During these 10 years, I have had varying degrees of doubt for various lengths of time about various related issues. But I was always pretty good at concealing all of that, and of course, I had bought the line that I should wrestle doubtful thoughts out of my head by praying more and reading the Bible or Christian books more.

But the doubts don't just quit, and over time, they have become more sophisticated and harder to avoid. And frankly, I recently realized that I'm not really wanting to avoid the doubts. I want to actually think through "issues", and maybe even have some sense of objectivity. I don't want to "condition" myself to only approach things from a Christian set of presuppositions. I want to feel like I'm being honest with myself.

I've recognized that faith is essentially a resolution to be certain about things which cannot be known with certainty. I no longer have that resolve.

Why don't you believe?

I had an "aha" moment today with regard to my newly acknowledged religious disbelief.

One of the first conditioning drills a new Christian is supposed to do is become familiar with basic arguments or reasons for his faith (apologetics), and become comfortable sharing these (intermingled with personal testimony) with friends, family, and strangers. Surely, the primary reason for this early drill is so that the new convert won't be easily persuaded to abandon his newfound faith. I think a secondary reason for this is so that when a Christian begins to express doubts, a mentor can quickly gain leverage for reigning him in by pointing out that the doubter has not spent sufficient time reflecting on the Truth. In other words, the person has not equipped himself properly to answer his own internal question of "why do I believe?"

Well, surely I don't have to point out that this method is rather generic and can be applied to any number of varying sects, religious or otherwise.

My "aha" moment today came when I thought back on a "conversion" experience in college. I had been baptized as an infant and was raised attending church, but I didn't have a very serious Christian faith and so when I went to college, I abandoned religion in general. During college, for a variety of possible reasons, I began pondering "the meaning of life" and instinctively turned to what was most familiar...Christianity. Only this time, I was ready to really "dig in" and invest myself, taking on the mantle with full vigour. This experience resulted in ten years of rather active Christianity which in my life is ending before your very eyes in this journal.

As I thought back on that conversion experience, it occured to me that the reason I was so ready to be persuaded by Christianity was that I had not spent enough time familiarizing myself with the basic arguments or reasons for my lack of faith. I was not ready to defend myself when I was confronted with a nice-sounding alternative.

It seems that I abandoned my agnosticism because of ignorance.

Some Christian friends might want to offer this answer when asked why I have "de-converted": "He didn't pray enough, or read the Bible enough, or understand his faith enough." But "aha", I should have been answering challengers to my Christian faith all along by saying, "I am a Christian because I did not spend enough time reflecting on the truth."

For what it's worth, scientists have offered a real explanation for "aha" moments:

CLICK HERE: It may not appear in the shape of a light bulb above your head, but researchers say "Aha!" moments are marked by a surge of electrical activity in the brain.

Resources

I seem to be finding that agnosticism is often just lumped in with atheism as a term, even when discussions of "atheism" are actually more about "knowledge" and "certainty" rather than being opposed or against God.

Here are some interesting resources on the web:

De-Conversion: A popular blog with multiple contributors and lively discussions of many topics aimed at "skeptical, de-converting, or former Christians".
CLICK HERE: http://de-conversion.com/

University of Cambridge, faculty of Divinity: The Investigating Atheism project is designed to stimulate interest, thought, and debate on this important topic.
CLICK HERE: Investigating Atheism

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Epistemology of Religion. This encyclopedia offers alot of helpful information on alot of topics. This particular link will take you to the study of knowledge with regard to religion.
CLICK HERE: Epistemology of Religion

Catholic Encyclopedia: Agnosticism. This encyclopedia also offers alot of helpful information on alot of topics...from the Catholic viewpoint. This particular link will take you to the entry on Agnosticism.
CLICK HERE: Agnosticism

Debate on Religion

Tufts University Professor Daniel Dennett and British Lord Robert Winston have very recently engaged in a public debate utilizing the statement, "Religion is the greatest threat to scientific progress and rationality that we face today." Dennett agrees, Winston argues against.

Both gentlemen make fine points, but I was most interested to note that as Winston argued in favour of religion, he was quite ready to concede that certainty can be dangerous. Instead of taking the predictable angles on why religion is right and good, the pro-religion participant argues that instead of religion being the threat to rationality and science, it is actually certainty that threatens.

Here's Winston:
"....the more we use science to explore nature, the more we find things we do not understand and cannot explain. In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty. Perhaps the paradox is that certainty, whether it be in science or religion, is dangerous. ... With inflexible positions on both sides, certainty surely is the biggest threat to rationality, and to science."

And a noteworthy thought from Dennett:
"Other institutions or traditions may encourage a certain amount of irrationality - think of the wild abandon that is often appreciated in sports or art - but only religion demands it as a sacred duty."

Links of interest:

The Guardian posts the argument summaries
Daniel Dennett's website
Lord Winston on Wikipedia

Not Anti-Religion

To say that there can be very little certainty in regards to religion in general and theology in particular, is not to say that one is opposed to religion or God.

I think it could be argued from general observation throughout history that to some degree, people are inherently religious, and that there are easily discerned benefits for people through an appropriate use of religion and/or faith.

Devotion to held beliefs plays an important role in many spheres. Elections of leaders for democratic societies, disputes in the Middle East, Salah prayers of Islam, Catholicism in Mexico and Spain, etc. Such a list could go on and on. Billions of people in the world today claim Christianity or Islam, and there are plenty of other religions as well.

It would be unreasonable for a thinking person in 2008 to adopt a worldview which opposes religion. It is not however, unreasonable to accept that very very little can be known with certainty about God, hence reducing dogmatism and certainly extremism to a chosen and unsubstantiated way of life.

It seems obvious that one should not pity or ridicule those who choose to utilize faith and religion for the various positive effects it has in their lives and the lives of others around them. However, in my limited experience of the world, there are many religious people who may set out with good intentions, but then fall victim to various negative effects...possibly most commonly dogmatism accompanied by hypocrisy.

While I may cease formal religious affiliations soon, I do not intend to oppose religion or faith.

Robert Ingersoll

Was Robert Ingersoll an atheist or an agnostic?

In his "Why I Am An Agnostic" lecture from 1896, he has this absolutely brilliant, agnostic expression:

"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know."

But within the same lecture, he also says some things which are rather more like a very certain atheist and less like an agnostic notion of "without certainty or knowledge":

"For the first time I understood the dogma of eternal pain --appreciated "the glad tidings of great joy." For the first time my imagination grasped the height and depth of the Christian horror. Then I said: "It is a lie, and I hate your religion. If it is true, I hate your God."

Insoluble Problem, Fundamentally Unknowable

"When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took."

This excerpt is believed to be the writing of Thomas Huxley in his Collected Essays.

What Man is Your Faith Based On?

Whose version of religion do you trust and why?

No religion is magically revealed to us; it is presented to us by someone…a friend, teacher, parent, “evangelist”, etc. So, are you a Catholic? You have trusted the presentation of a Catholic. Are you a Baptist? You have trusted the presentation of a Baptist. Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, etc? Same story.

When I left Prostestantism, my elders at the time took measures to make sure I understood clearly that I had been duped by the Catholic presentation of the history of the Christian Church. In other words, it was suggested that I was becoming Catholic because of a particular presentation of facts which was opposed to the beliefs of my Protestant elders, and therefore of course, opposed to the “truth”.

This raises the ever-important question, “So who is it that possesses the reliable version of the truth?” In becoming Catholic, I trusted the Catholic version. If I had chosen to remain Protestant, I would have been trusting the Protestant version. In the end, adopting any system of religion would require me to trust someone’s particular presentation of the “truth”.

My Christian friends would be quick to jump in here with the claim that they put their trust in no man…they trust Christ…they trust the Holy Spirit…they trust the inpired Word of God in the Holy Scriptures. This is a nice idea, right? No one wants to put too much stock into a fallible fellow man, a religious person wants their trust to be based on the “truth” which has somehow been communicated to them by the ultimate source of their faith…the Christian’s Triune God, Islam’s Allah, Israel’s Yahweh, etc.

But how is the truth communicated? Through fallible man, always. And so, faith – strong or weak – must be placed first in the messenger and only then can be transferred to the subject of the messenger’s message.

And we all know that there are thousands and thousands of messengers with conflicting messages, resulting in thousands of Christian denominations, and various accusations of fundamentalism and liberalism (or general extremism) in Islam and Mormonism and other faiths as well.

Who do you believe? Aren’t you tempted to believe that there can be no certainty about such things? Be careful…lest you be accused of the dreaded agnosticism!!!!

What Can We Know?

I found an interesting piece yesterday in the Catholic Encyclopedia about the definitions and degrees of "agnostic" thought. Being fascinated with word origins and real meanings, I was quick to pick up on the fact that the modern tendency in many Christian circles to consider an "agnostic" to be the sworn enemy of all things good and right, especially God, is misguided.

My pen name here, in fact, is very similar to the term agnostic in meaning. Non Sicuro Pensatore means uncertain thinker, and the word agnostic literally translates to "without knowledge", and more practically means that there are some things about which it is not possible to possess certainty, such as the nature of God, or even the existence of such a supernatural reality, etc.

So it is not at all impossible or unlikely that one could readily grant that "faith" in God and afterlife with Him is fine, while at the same time stating that people should not presume to have any sort of certainty about what God is like, how a person should be "rightly related" to God, what God would require of man, etc.

The link to the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia is here:
NewAdvent.org