Agnosticism: Evidence based faith.
I was raised to believe that the act of questioning was a virtuous one, by those who refused to question anything for themselves, and who quickly discouraged any line of inquiry which ran contrary to their faith. This inconsistent stance, and others like it, served as a major defining theme of my early childhood and ultimately gave shape to many rather destructive tendencies later on, including a predilection toward highly selective reasoning which continues to this day. On the other hand, my rejection o f these beliefs served to promote a continuing and increasing regimen of self-analysis which borders on the obsessive. This is perhaps unhealthy, but it has served me well over the years. Questioning has, for me, become a way of life.
It was recently pointed out to me by a pastor of my acquaintance that my inability to accept any statement purely on faith is the hallmark of a fundamentalist upbringing. My need for evidence may well stem from this source, and is certainly the cornerstone of my own belief structure.
I am agnostic. The word comes from the Greek words a and gnosis, meaning "without knowledge". Does this mean that I have no knowledge? In a sense, yes it does. Does it mean that I have no faith? Probably not. I often joke that I don't even have the faith necessary to become an atheist. This says something about my default level of faith, but it also says something about atheism: Put simply, just as much faith is required to believe that God does not exist as to believe that he/she/it does exist. Why? Because there is no evidence to support either case.
Personally, I believe without any conclusive proof of my own that anyone who says that they know that God exists or that God does not exist is making a statement based solely on faith, not on fact or even evidence. No such evidence exists, at least in my experience.
This brings us to the more important question, at least as far as I'm concerned. Do I believe that faith is a bad thing? Certainly not. Faith is required in order to get through each and every day: Faith that the sun will rise, that your car will start, that the world outside your bedroom door exists without you. Let's say, for instance that you want to lose 200 pounds this month. Two factors are required in order to motivate you to complete such a goal: Imagination ("I can see myself 200 pounds lighter, and I like what I see"), and faith ("I believe that I can lose 200 pounds in one month"). Without both of these factors, it is unlikely that you would be motivated to get on the treadmill with a wheat germ and beansprout sandwich in hand.
But here's another scenario. What if you only weigh 150 pounds? It would, of course, be impossible for you to lose 200. In such a case, your imagination would be in error, and your faith would clearly be misplaced. This is why it is necessary to temper faith with the observation of evidence ("I just weighed in at 150, so I guess I ought to revise my former estimate"). Blind faith can be at best misleading, and at worst detrimental or even fatal.
For me, each of the following responses is true, based upon my own faith:
The spirit of agnosticism, to me at least, is not one of absolute rejection, but rather of constructive questioning and continual revision of one's beliefs, or one's faith. Using these tactics, one is clearly in a much better position for self-improvement as well as planning for the future and making decisions based on logical reasoning, rather than emotional reasoning.
It was recently pointed out to me by a pastor of my acquaintance that my inability to accept any statement purely on faith is the hallmark of a fundamentalist upbringing. My need for evidence may well stem from this source, and is certainly the cornerstone of my own belief structure.
I am agnostic. The word comes from the Greek words a and gnosis, meaning "without knowledge". Does this mean that I have no knowledge? In a sense, yes it does. Does it mean that I have no faith? Probably not. I often joke that I don't even have the faith necessary to become an atheist. This says something about my default level of faith, but it also says something about atheism: Put simply, just as much faith is required to believe that God does not exist as to believe that he/she/it does exist. Why? Because there is no evidence to support either case.
Personally, I believe without any conclusive proof of my own that anyone who says that they know that God exists or that God does not exist is making a statement based solely on faith, not on fact or even evidence. No such evidence exists, at least in my experience.
This brings us to the more important question, at least as far as I'm concerned. Do I believe that faith is a bad thing? Certainly not. Faith is required in order to get through each and every day: Faith that the sun will rise, that your car will start, that the world outside your bedroom door exists without you. Let's say, for instance that you want to lose 200 pounds this month. Two factors are required in order to motivate you to complete such a goal: Imagination ("I can see myself 200 pounds lighter, and I like what I see"), and faith ("I believe that I can lose 200 pounds in one month"). Without both of these factors, it is unlikely that you would be motivated to get on the treadmill with a wheat germ and beansprout sandwich in hand.
But here's another scenario. What if you only weigh 150 pounds? It would, of course, be impossible for you to lose 200. In such a case, your imagination would be in error, and your faith would clearly be misplaced. This is why it is necessary to temper faith with the observation of evidence ("I just weighed in at 150, so I guess I ought to revise my former estimate"). Blind faith can be at best misleading, and at worst detrimental or even fatal.
For me, each of the following responses is true, based upon my own faith:
- Can I lose two hundred pounds this month? No.
- Can I write the next great American novel? Possibly.
- Does God exist? How the hell should I know?
The spirit of agnosticism, to me at least, is not one of absolute rejection, but rather of constructive questioning and continual revision of one's beliefs, or one's faith. Using these tactics, one is clearly in a much better position for self-improvement as well as planning for the future and making decisions based on logical reasoning, rather than emotional reasoning.
posted by Q. at 8:48:00 AM
2 Comments:
I'd like to comment on this.
First of all, I am not agnostic; however, I often claim to be.
The reason for this is simple: free food.
Christian activists become very excited at the sight of an agnostic, whom they regard as a "convertible target".
It's rather like chumming the water for sharks.
So what is one way the church lures in adherents?
Food and shelter! Good old necessities! People who can bake are the weapons of the church!
And me?
Well, I'm just a guy who likes pastries.
Cheers,
-M
... I peddle the illusion of hope, Mr. Q. Does this make me a bad man?
P.S. Other groups also go for the agnostics, including the ones who kidnap people and take them to small farms in the New Mexico desert for "training". Everybody likes the agnostics. It's a dangerous faith.
LOL.
Post a Comment
<< Home