Ask(Or Witness To) An Agnostic Anything!

[MomoAdachi]

Alright, first of all I'd like to thank RadicalDreamer(I hope you don't mind me mentioning ya, sorry if I embarrased you) and the other mods for allowing me to start this possibly controversial thread.
Anyways...it's always been important to me to listen to other peoples' opinions, even if I disagree, and also be open and honest in asking others' questions.
So, this thread is really two in one:
(1) Ask me any questions you have about agnosticism, what I believe, etc.
(2) I'd like to do my best to listen respectfully if you choose to tell me why I should accept Christ/become a Christian

Looking forward to hearin' from y'all!:thumbsup:

[Esoteric]

Okay then, I'm curious. What exactly is the definition of an Agnostic?

[MomoAdachi]

Whoa, a reply already, thanx!
An agnostic is someone who believes that the existence of God and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable.

[K. Ayato]

So, you're saying as an agnostic you believe in the possibility that God exists, but you're unable to find out?

[MomoAdachi]

K. Ayato, yeah, I guess that's a way of putting it.

[LadyRushia]

What prevents you from believing that God exists?

[MomoAdachi]

Good question, Rushia!
I guess I just have a hard time believing things on faith alone(for that reason, I can't be an atheist, either; I don't like to completely rule out the possibility).

[goldenspines]

What influences you to believe certain things(not necessarily religious things)? Must there be solid proof for something to be believable to you?

Sorry, that's two questions. ^_^;;

[SnoringFrog]

So, if you don't like to take things fully on faith...what do you consider not needing full faith? Cause honestly, the way I see it, virutally everything at all requires faith to believe, of course, that's really if you just trace it back to if you can't be sure how it was made, you can't be sure it is...which makes things unusual...but yeah. So what, other than God/lack thereof, do you not believe for that reason?

[chibiphonebooth]

When did you decide to become an agnostic?

[GhostontheNet]

What kind of evidence would be sufficient to warrant belief in God? What is faith?

[Ingemar]

Is it simply the apparent lack of evidence that you are agnostic?

[Raiden no Kishi]

Well, to start, I'd like to say that I definitely identify with your reluctance to accept things on faith. To be quite honest, that is one of the biggest stumbling points in my own life, although I would readily describe myself as a follower of Christ. Some might ascribe it to being a firstborn, but I'm a perfectionist, so when I am asked to allow there to be some things that cannot be necessarily proven empirically goes against my thought processes entirely. I have to admit that nothing would make me happier than to find a way to exhaustively prove every last word in the Scriptures.

That said, I take you for an intellectually honest person, so let me ask you this question. I think it's similar to previous questions, and if you answer it before I post, my apologies. I'm sure you notice our ever-present requirement to make decisions based on trust, which I have understood as similar if not analogous to faith. What do you consider an appropriate level of this trust/faith in one's life? Perhaps I could put it this way: what level of trust or faith do you accept in your own life?

If I need to clarify something, please ask - I have to admit that sometimes I don't always make sense, even to myself! ^_^

.rai//

[MomoAdachi]

GoldenSpines: Well, I guess secular humanism is an influence on my value system, as well as philosophy, etc., kinda hard to explain. And, yeah, I guess solid proof is important for me to accept something.
SnoringFrog: I think for something to not require full faith is to have tangibility. For example, I can see the sun, moon, and stars, so I know they're there. If you can see, touch, hear, etc. something clearly and provably, then it doesn't require faith, at least that's how I see it. As for what I don't believe in other than God/lack thereof, well, other than the obvious answers(Santa Claus, etc.), well, I really don't accept any other religious, spiritual, or occult concepts as true
ChibiPhoneBooth-Well, I started officially calling myself agnostic when I was 16 or 17, but I never really was a Christian either. As a child, I attended a Pentecostal church with my parents, but I always, even as a little kid, never really believed in or embraced what I was taught there.
Ghostonthenet-Um, I dunno exactly, but it would have to be something that would be easily verifiablesp?), whether that would mean scientifically or what else. And what is faith? Hmm, well faith is believing in something based on trust and personal belief rather than exidence, which I actually think is a very admirable stance, but, as for myself, I've always been too practical and inquisitive to take that leap, not just towards Christianity or atheism, but any other religion or spiritual belief system as well(in my teens I "shopped around" a bit for spirituality, but nothing really stuck with me, until I heard about the agnostic position)
Ingemar-Yeah, I guess that's the "gist" of it. I suppose agnosticism is, in and of itself, a very simplistic position, especially for such a big word.

Arigato for the Qs! I appreciate them. Also, not every ? on this thread has to be deep or theological. Feel free to ask me more lighthearted on-topic stuff like "Do you like any Christian music or books?", too, for those answers may surprise you.

[LadyRushia]

Have you read any apologetics books? My D-team leader told me about this one book; I think it's called The Case For Christ. The guy who wrote it set out to disprove God and all that. I haven't read it, but it sounds interesting.

What made you want to join CAA?

[Peanut]

And, yeah, I guess solid proof is important for me to accept something.

We have something in common. In recent years, solid proof has been something that has become increasingly important for me and at the same time has sent me on a quest that at times has been more of a stumbling block for me then anything else.

And now for my question, tell me, why is murder wrong?

[Shao Feng-Li]

Do you go on faith that the stars in the sky are hot and that we've been to the moon? The only evidence we have these days is video footage and we know what special effects can do. Really, if you didn't see it for yourself, we go by faith on pretty much everything.

Seems to me that being agnostic is trying to be rather... practical. Christianity is meant to be practical, only morality and law comes from God, rather than unmoral and naturally lawless man.

*forces herself to stop typing* XD

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Similar to Peanut's question: Where do your moral values stem from?

[jaems-kun]

IMHO, you should stay agnostic. Assuming that's where your heart is at. Personally, I don't think faith can be blind, I consider that ignorance. Obviously you can't be 100% sure of everything, but I think your faith should be rooted in something. If christianity is true then there should be something tangible to give you faith in it. I'm sharing this opinion because I believe it is possible. I'm a christian because I've received tangible evidence through a personal experience with God. I can't share this evidence with anyone else, but I can recommend that they search for it. It does exist, and God does love you enough to share it.

I think the most important thing is to be honest, you owe it to yourself to believe the things you believe with your whole heart and not have that constant gnawing "could this be wrong?". I think God respects that kind of honesty. Besides, christianity has enough people who like to pretend that they believe in God.

[Taliesin]

Why do you think that something needs to have proof in order for you to accept it? Whats wrong with blind faith? (I am not a strong advocate for blind faith myself, I just want to hear the reasoning you have for it) And do you ever try to convert anyone to agnosticism? And quoting the questions that you answer will make your posts easier to read.

[Fish and Chips]

What is your personal take on the major religions? Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Atheism, Pagan/Wicca, etcetera.

[GhostontheNet]

Ghostonthenet-Um, I dunno exactly, but it would have to be something that would be easily verifiablesp?), whether that would mean scientifically or what else.

This is a striking admission. In the fields of philosophy and science alike, one major element of being able to say one's systems of belief are justified is to work out what kinds of evidences would make them much more philosophically improbable. Much as Paul himself points out in 1 Corinthians 15, Christianity as a justified belief system would collapse like a house of cards if Jesus had not resurrected from the dead. So, for example, I would turn out to be completely unjustified in being a Christian if Jesus' bones were to turn up and be archeologically verified as his. Your own agnostic position that says that one cannot know whether or not there is a God becomes much less meaningful if you cannot concieve of any possible line of evidence that would render God's existence likely. If science or other fields could provide support for belief in God's existence, what kind of evidences from these fields would constitute evidence for God's existence?

And what is faith? Hmm, well faith is believing in something based on trust and personal belief rather than exidence, which I actually think is a very admirable stance, but, as for myself, I've always been too practical and inquisitive to take that leap, not just towards Christianity or atheism, but any other religion or spiritual belief system as well(in my teens I "shopped around" a bit for spirituality, but nothing really stuck with me, until I heard about the agnostic position)

I think in my own personal experience this definition of "faith" is woefully inadaquete. Certainly, as I spend more than a few hours every week (as I have for a number of years) in intense study and deep contemplation to determine whether my own faith is rationally justified, it seems a bit silly to think I've merely been going on trust and personal belief without any evidence. And then, I know firsthand that Philosophy of Religion, the branch of philosophy that deals with whether religious belief is rationally justified or unjustified has produced volumes and volumes of literature. Certainly, this would be quite strange if there was nothing to discuss and faith was always just a matter of blind trust fabricated out of whole cloth.

The only area I will really accept this kind of definition of faith is in areas of discussion that concern what the future holds for myself and for humanity because the future is mostly unknowable. Although the present time often yields evidence of pain, confusion, tragedy, oppression, and death, I do not think this means that we are unjustified in trusting in God that he will set things to rights and lead us into better things to come. I think this is what the author of Hebrews was getting at when he wrote "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) Certainly, this would explain why he went to such lengths immediately after this utterance to recount the long legacy of heroes of the faith that courageously defied the temporary and superficial evidence of the hopelessness of their current situation to allow God to rescue and vindicate their lives. I think there is sufficient evidence within the past and the present to justify the belief that God exists and that he was and is faithful and hence worthy of faith. As concerns the future, however, because only God knows it, the only way we will know whether God will remain faithful in the future is to directly experience it while trusting in his everlasting faithfulness. I think this kind of bold leap of faith into an uncertain future is what Kierkegaard was really getting at when he describe faith in terms of a great risk.

[Tyrel]

I do not mean to so rudely intrude on what may now be an already dead thread, but I cannot help myself from contributing what I feel I ought to have contributed to this thread. This is a rant, which I do not intend to come of in any particularly pretentious way. I simply saw this thread, and decided to rant away. I apologize not for what little sense the following post contains, but rather that it contains so little sense which is easy to make sense of.

I, not long ago, entertained a great discussion with a true agnostic. He had intellectually pushed his agnosticism so far that even Descartes' "cogitos ergo sum" simply didn't suffice, for, as he realized even before I had pointed it out, he would be required to accept inductive reasoning and/or reason itself as sound in theory, in order to accept that he had reason enough to believe that he existed.

An interesting thing happened about and hour or two in. He came to the conclusion that we cannot intellectually establish anything at all using an empiricist approach, for even empiricism which is only established by inductive reasoning and argumentation, cannot by it receive due justification, as Hume has pointed out, for inductive reasoning can only be argued for using inductive reasoning, which, of course, is circular. In fact, it is only when we accept empiricism on faith that we find the world begins to be interpretable in a seemingly adequate way.

Here's the interesting part. I came to argue that there are two ways in which we recognize truth. The first is naturally or subjectively, and the second is intellectually. These, at least, are the titles I gave. Now, on an intellectual level, he rejected that he had any sound grounds to believe that he or I existed. After all, in order to come to that conclusion at all, he'd have to think, and there is of course no guarantee that what seems naturally right to us by reason of what we would be lead to think if we did think, would actually be right. Certainly it cannot be right simply because we would be lead to think it conclusively/definitively so.

He recognized something which far too many people who aren't ardent students of philosophy often miss. This person freely admitted that he didn't believe in his own existence, in order to uphold his agnosticism, which he so proudly flaunted as the greatest world view, primarily because it cannot be proved to be in err. I argued with him, however, that while he doesn't concede his existence intellectually, he is conceding it naturally. This took a while for him to understand, but what I meant was very simple. He didn't accept that he existed, and yet, he was breathing, eating, bathing, sleeping. His very heart was beating as his fingers typed in his responses. He, naturally, conceded his existence, regardless of the intellectual recognition.

I began to put to him a point which is not often easily understood. First, we naturally are led to intuitively accept reason itself. In other words "I think therefore I am" is something which we naturally concede, and of course we are lead to intellectually concede as well. It makes sense of the world in an adequate way. We cannot prove it, of course. We can only substantiate it by reason of induction. But the reason we wish to substantiate it at all, is because we all naturally/subjectively know it to be true. We know we exist whether we recognize it or not, simply because we exist.

In the end, however, one must, just as in the study of, say, natural sciences {math of course being excluded from these, being not an area of research about the natural order, but simply a language of logic itself}, be content with accepting a paradigm containing such axioms of belief which create an internally coherent worldview, and at once offer to us what seems to be the most adequate understanding of our world.

When we construct a theory in the natural sciences, say like DNA, or Evolution, atomic theory, or theories surrounding friction in physics, and others as well, what we do, is we infer what we can from the evidence, and then attempt to explain all of the data conclusively and coherently by creating an "understanding" or a "framework of understanding" or what in the sciences is called "a theory". If I were to pick an analogy, this would be it. In order to understand our world, we need to accept a framework to allow us to interpret. A paradigm.

I think, that in understanding our world, we must put aside this silly notion that if something cannot be empirically substantiated, it does not merit either belief or consideration. This becomes all the more clear when we realize that empiricism cannot on it's own be justified.

Here's my point; In order to interpret the world, we must first have a paradigm with axioms of belief. Now, whether we are philosophically aware of our paradigm or not, everyone who isn't a vegetable has a paradigm. There are axioms of belief within our paradigm. One of these, which serves us well, is an acknowledgment of empiricism.

Why am I a Christian? Why am I a theist at all? Can these things be proved? No, they cannot be proved. I have to acknowledge them first on the subjective level, in recognizing them as realities, and then I can work from there to build an intellectual framework, just as I can only recognized I exist primarily subjectively, and once I accept that, I can go from there.

I am persuaded to be a theist, and a Christian, for these following reasons. First, I am convinced subjectively of the realities of these. I am convicted, based on the weight of evidence which I allot credence to, that the Gospel is indeed true. I also find this not to be any sort of intellectual suicide, not in any sense a suspension of critical skepticism. In fact, I find it to be most intellectually satisfying. The world, within a theistic framework, seems to make more sense to me. Logic, for instance, cannot be properly accounted for by the atheistic materialistic paradigm, unless Logic is a result of perception from inference, instead of an immaterial and transcendental reality which we can come to perceive. {Does 1+1=2 because we know it to, or have we come to learn that 1+1=2 because it's actually true? If it's actually true, was it true before thought existed on this planet? If so, doesn't that make logic something which is conceptual, and yet it exists as a governance naturally before there is any natural thing to conceive it? How can the one who entertains a naturalistic assumption or axiom of belief, find that satisfying, if Logic is immaterial, and yet truly exists?}


Ok.. this has been a long rant.. of me spewing out stuff after no sleep at 6 in the morning, but I do, in fact, have a point.

my point is simply this; In constructing your paradigm, in order to interpret the world, you simply have to choose which axioms of belief make the most sense of the world around us. How well does your view of the world seem to unite all the facts?

I believe that he who entertains a theistic paradigm finds a great framework with which to interpret the world around them. however, I am persuaded to be a theist, not because of how philosophically sound a theistic paradigm is, but rather first and foremost because I am convinced that the Gospel is true. I think that if we observe the weight of the evidence, suspending for an instant, for the sake of fair consideration, the assumption of naturalism, we find that the Gospel reaches us substantiated unnaturally, with great integrity, and verifiable veracity on many points, along with compatibility with the world we see around us {not seeming to in essence contradict what we are lead to concede naturally}, and authenticity, and internal coherency.

In short, I think you as an agnostic, are simply unsure about accepting anything you cannot prove and verify. However, I think, with respect, that what many agnostics fail to recognize is that you can't be sure that inductive reasoning itself works, because it's unjustifiable.

If you are to be an empiricist, then you cannot believe in anything which you cannot beyond doubt substantiate by working with empiricism in interpretation. However, the philosophy of empiricism, seems to me, self defeating. Empiricism cannot be justified even in essence. It is accepted first naturally.

Hume argues that we have no reason to assume that tomorrow is going to be like yesterday. No reason to assume in constants. I think, however, that just as there is no reason to assume you exist, you come to naturally concede it. Just in the same way

Kant once said that to reject the axiom of belief of theism, the world would be made to be absolutely ridiculous, without sense at all, and without order, reason or purpose. He argued for this reason that we must, or are naturally lead, to accept a theistic paradigm. The implausibility of the opposite seemed to him reason enough to accept theism. I think that may have some merit.

alright.. I'm not going to correct this post.. I'm just going to leave it as is, and hope that maybe somehow some good came out of this rant.. somehow..

I apologize if at times it seemed cryptic, but I think I would do well to return when I have gotten some sleep, and to express myself briefly, in order to clarify my points.


Enjoy.

[rocklobster]

I think it's great that you're not ruling out the possibility of God's existence. That means you still have hope. Anyway, is your agnoticism anything to do with the negative aspects of Christianity, like the fact that not all Christians have been good representatives of the faith? (It's a fact of life, people)

[Dante]

I can perfectly understand where you are coming from, I doubt that you're agnostic stance extends to a disbelief that stars are hot or that we ourselves do not exist, but rather that it is your religeous position that is agnostic. Remember folks:

An agnostic is someone who believes that the existence of God and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable.

The question here is how we define the term essential things, and that will be my first question for you.

Q: What do you mean in the above phrase by essential nature?

I would go into a long rant about why stars can empirically be determined as hot, but... I'd rather not get off topic. Now for an even greater question... (The above was just to clarify your position to everyone else)

Q: What is the good?

In particular, what is the good for a human? This isn't asking whether ice cream sandwhiches taste good, or whether whether a song makes you feel good... no, this question is asking, what should human beings seek in life. Remember, the good is an end in itself, so something like money doesn't really have an arguable position.

Finally you can't really sit in an agnostic position on this either, because if you don't know what the good of it all is, what are you working for, what are you yearning for, and what are you living for? Further, if you don't know what the good is, besides not seeking it for yourself, you can't seek it for your friends (you'd just be wasting their time) and you can't seek it together with a husband (same here, only now you'd possibly be raising children that wouldn't know what the good of the life you gave them was either O_O). Finally without having a belief for what the good was, you'd arguably be miserable because none of your actions would result in any good! WHAT IS THE GOOD OF IT ALL! Meh... so there... now begins the quest to understand, what the good is?

[Sheenar]

http://www.carm.org/seekers.htm

CARM is a website that has a lot of helpful information about Christianity and has a lot of articles I think you'd be interested in looking at. Let me know what your thoughts are.

[MomoAdachi]

LadyRushia-I've read bits and pieces of "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis online. I decided to join CAA 'cause I got so sick and tired of all the hentai stuff on mainstream anime fan boards, and being made fun of for holding an anti-hentai position.
Shao Feng-Li-Hmmm, good question! I suppose there's just enough evidence for those things that I never really thought about it...
Peanut-Well, murder is wrong because, well, how do I put this...it's just not humanistic or civilized to end someone else's life prematurely, it's also not fair to the family and friends of the person.
Mr. SmartyPants-I basically live by a "treat others like you want to be treated" value system, as well as some influences from secular humanism
JeamsKun(sp?)-I really appreciate your statement, for it's true that if I ever professed to be a Christian, I don't think it would be very sincere, and intellectual honesty is important to me
Ghostonthenet-I guess, if like they say something like finding Jesus's bones and being verified as his...
Taliesin-Kinda, yeah, like I said before, proof is important to me. And no, not really, I certainly don't go around telling people something like "Faith is irrational! Agnosticism is the only way to go!", because tolerance is a big deal to me, and that would be VERY intolerant. That said, I always try to be open and honest about my agnosticism.
RockLobster-Well, to be quite honest, yes, to a point. My family is just full of judgemental, self-righteous Christians, who I, even as a little kid, certainly did not want to be like.
Tyrel-I, um, appreciate your opinion...
FishAndChips-I've done a lot of reading on "comparitive(sp?) religions", and I basically think there's positive, moral attributes to all religion. I must say that I've considered trying Wicca/Paganism in my teens, but the more I read about it, it just wasn't right for me.
Pascal-What I mean, basically the meaning of life and the universe, the "first cause". I think "the good", as you put it, I think, if I understand your question correctly, is seeking to live a life of tolerance, kindness, and respect towards others, versus a selfish life not caring about others' feelings or thoughts or opinions
Sheenar-I'll check out that website...

[MomoAdachi]

Hmm, I think CARM's "don't become a Christian if..." page made some really good points, 'cause if I decided to become a Christian, I think they pretty much hit the nail on the head, so to speak, as to why I would do that. It would be highly experimental and basically, like I said before, insincere.
As for the rest of their FAQ, I think they did a pretty good job of outlining the basics of Christianity, from a believer's perspective, in a way that was easy to understand.

[LadyRushia]

Do you have any interest in Christianity whatsoever?

[MomoAdachi]

LadyRushia-Well, I have an interest in comparitive religions in general, but not so much Christianity in particular. That said, some of my favorite books happen to be Christian: the Elsie Dinsmore/A Life Of Faith series and the Ashley Stockingdale trilogy.