Agnosticism

[ricmat]

its not as simple as 2 options presented to you on paper, A: eternity with a loving God B:eternal torment and despair away from a loving God. Many agnostics (most people in general) feel that they are doing their best to try to find the truth.

I can not flip a switch in my mind to chose to believe that a cat is really a blueberry, nor that scientology is truth, nor that hell exists, if I can’t rationally come to that conclusion. It does not make sense that I may be tormented for an eternity for a finite ‘mistake’ during a tiny blip of time on this earth.

When I posted some Catholic insights on Hell, I didn’t expect that anyone would find it to be a convincing argument. The OP mentioned Hell, and I was just trying to provide some insight.

To your point that agnostics are trying to find the truth - I accept your statement as fact, and it certainly beats “having no interest at all in finding the truth.”

Most of us here can offer insights about what we believe, but have not formulated arguments specifically directed at atheists or agnostics. We believe these things, but also realize that they are not by themselves convincing arguments.

It is good for you to search. Perhaps someday you will find the truth, and then our insights will suddenly take on more meaning.

God bless you in your search!

 

[Contarini]

One example in particular comes to mind:

“Blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed” (John 20:29).

No, that does not say as a general rule that the virtue is inversely proportional to the evidence. Thomas had evidence–he had the testimony of his fellow disciples. Are you saying that those who believe without hearing any trustworthy testimony are even more blessed? Jesus didn’t say that.

Edwin

 

[AgnosTheist]

No, that does not say as a general rule that the virtue is inversely proportional to the evidence. Thomas had evidence–he had the testimony of his fellow disciples. Are you saying that those who believe without hearing any trustworthy testimony are even more blessed? Jesus didn’t say that.

Off topic: I dont think Thomas was penalized for being a skeptic. What do you think?

 

[Contarini]

Off topic: I dont think Thomas was penalized for being a skeptic. What do you think?

I wouldn’t say he was “penalized.” I’m not prepared to claim that the statement in question isn’t some kind of gentle rebuke indicating that he already had sufficient evidence in the testimony of his fellow disciples. But I think we need “Thomases” in the Church!

Edwin

 

[AgnosTheist]

Aleii, great comments! much wisdom in your posts.

 

[Mirdath]

Off topic: I dont think Thomas was penalized for being a skeptic. What do you think?

Nah, he wasn’t. It is one of Jesus’ snider moments though

And don’t forget, Thomas was the first to say ‘my Lord and my God’.

 

[Aleii]

Thanks for all the kind words.

Have a great weekend everyone.

 

[AngelsAmongUs]

Melbourne guy,

Have you ever prayed for faith? Maybe you have. But if you haven’t then try asking God to give you the gift of faith. I mean, before getting discouraged because you don’t have something…ask for it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Im on the verge of agnosticism and i would just like to state some of the reasons why.

Firstly i really dont understand the concept of faith, the more i think about it the harder it is for me to comprehend it. Faith basically states that you believe in something based on absolutely no evidence at all. When you explain to a devout catholic, or protesant or muslim, etc, that you have no faith you will usually get a response along the lines of “well you have to open your heart” or “God wants you to have faith but you refuse to”. This sounds absolutely ridiculous, the reason i dont have faith is because i choose not believe things which i have no proof for.

Heres my problem, i cant let go of catholicism i still keep my bible and reconciliation candle by my bedside and i still pray everynight, and for some reason i still try to follow the morals of the church, its wierd. I think theres a very thin line between religion and agnoticism, and at the moment im standing on it.

Is it wrong to be rational? Will God smite me for my lack of belief in something that cant be proven? I personally dont believe hell anymore. Some people define hell as eternal physical torture and some define it as a dark place without God. My theory on Gods punishment to sinners is probably the greatest punishment of of all, being thrown into non-existance.

No matter what happens to my beliefs i guess i’ll always have a special bond with catholicism for some unexplainable reason.
I would like to hear some thoughts from some agnostics on why they arent actually athiest?

If one looks at it from a strictly logical basis, one is forced to agree that there is no actual factual proof of the existence of God. But neither is there factual evidence proving the non-existence. Someone rather impressive, (I forgot who) suggested it would be a fool who would then not believe. One carries no consequences if wrong, the other does. LOL…But seriously, I realized that 12 men, and several women knew Jesus, and they appear to have believed. Ditto for Paul. So strong did they believe, the willingly died. And Millions, ney billions have now believed. How presumptuous would it be to not believe? Now I’m only talking about Christians. The same may well be said of other faith traditions, but it is argument for belief.

Its great to be rational. For me personally, a faith must be rational. Catholicism works for me mostly because its theology is logical. Its internally consistent.

Look you can’t hide from God. I sincerely believe God punishes no one for honest questions, and we can’t help in any case how we feel. As long as we sincerely seek, I think we are fine. I believe the only hell is the one we now inhabit if we have not established that relationship with God. The Kingdom is God living through us, to the glory of the Universe.

Good luck, and I would try some mystics if I were you. They had a lot to say about the dryness of faith.

 

[Mirdath]

Someone rather impressive, (I forgot who) suggested it would be a fool who would then not believe. One carries no consequences if wrong, the other does.

You’re thinking of at least two different people. Anselm quoted David, ‘the fool hath said in his heart…’; and Blaise Pascal, whose wager is perhaps the most atrocious piece of philosophical tripe to have come out of the great thinkers of Europe. I described it once elsewhere as the cocktail saber in the arsenal of apologetics, and I stand by that.

 

[notself]

It is called Pascal’s Wager.

You live as though God exists.
If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

The major refutation of the wager is that it is not an either or choice. There are thousands of Gods that have been or are being worshipped all over the world. What if you choose to believe in the wrong God? Will the right God be p*ssed and send you to hell anyway?

Pascal should have stuck to science.

 

[ricmat]

It is called Pascal’s Wager.

The major refutation of the wager is that it is not an either or choice. There are thousands of Gods that have been or are being worshipped all over the world. What if you choose to believe in the wrong God? Will the right God be p*ssed and send you to hell anyway?

Pascal should have stuck to science.

I’m not sure there are thousands of gods being worshiped these days - although that might have been true in the past.

The big 3 (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) all worship the same God - with some minor variations.

If you worship the wrong god (nature, for example), through ignorance or incomplete information for example, at least you acknowledge that there is a God (or something greater than yourself) and stand humbly before him. IMO that counts for something. So long as you keep looking.

 

[Keikiolu]

You’re thinking of at least two different people. Anselm quoted David, ‘the fool hath said in his heart…’; and Blaise Pascal, whose wager is perhaps the most atrocious piece of philosophical tripe to have come out of the great thinkers of Europe. I described it once elsewhere as the cocktail saber in the arsenal of apologetics, and I stand by that.

I like to think of the various defenses against “the wager” as the “Panty Shields” of the arsenal of anti-Christian-apologetics.

 

[Mirdath]

I like to think of the various defenses against “the wager” as the “Panty Shields” of the arsenal of anti-Christian-apologetics.

How is defense against Christian apologetics ‘anti-Christian apologetics’? If you attack, prepare to have to scale a few walls; and if you attack with such ludicrous weapons, prepare to get shot down before you can blink.

Props on the surreal analogy though. I don’t get it at all – but I think the pantyliner has a much better chance of resisting martiniweapon rape!

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}…

It does not make sense that I may be tormented for an eternity for a finite ‘mistake’ during a tiny blip of time on this earth.

Only the final “mistake” of actually positively REJECTING, not merely “not fully understanding/accepting”, God, gains hell for you.

The only “tiny blip of time” that matters is the minute moment between your being alive and your being dead. If you let that moment pass without saying, “God, as you are, have mercy on me!”, in spirit, then the following eternity will be occupied with none of God’s mercy.

Most agnostics actually DO hold that “intent” in their being, but the price for stopping there, and not truly discovering God, is some serious time in the you-know-where place.

Agnostics may be cowards, which is true not because they “reasonably decide that God can’t be proved” but because they don’t do their due diligence in a subject that they DO consider important,… but even cowards are preferable to the inhumilitous (?) [those without humility] atheist who actually thinks he has proof that God doesn’t exist.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I like to think of the various defenses against “the wager” as the “Panty Shields” of the arsenal of anti-Christian-apologetics.

How is defense against Christian apologetics ‘anti-Christian apologetics’? If you attack, prepare to have to scale a few walls; and if you attack with such ludicrous weapons, prepare to get shot down before you can blink.

Apologetics means “defense of”, in this case, the faith.

I couldn’t think of a word for “attack-etics”, which is what atheists do when they engage Christians about matters of faith.

Props on the surreal analogy though. I don’t get it at all – but I think the pantyliner has a much better chance of resisting martiniweapon rape!

A cocktail-saber is a very ineffectual weapon.

A panty-shield is a very ineffectual defense.

You see “the wager” as ineffectual because you don’t accept the basic premise, “singular omnipotent God as the only possibility”, which DOES majorly immasculate the “weapon”.

But, the “weapon” is not aiming at what your “shield” is protecting.

Even a cocktail-saber can kill if “applied well” to an unprotected vital organ.

You are protecting your intellect, while your exposed heart is run through.

 

[Mirdath]

Apologetics means “defense of”, in this case, the faith.

I couldn’t think of a word for “attack-etics”, which is what atheists do when they engage Christians about matters of faith.

But I am not engaging the Wager – someone is using it to engage me.

A cocktail-saber is a very ineffectual weapon.

A panty-shield is a very ineffectual defense.

Until the instant you rupture it… If, as they say, the best defense is a good offense, there’ll be one coming right up!

You see “the wager” as ineffectual because you don’t accept the basic premise, “singular omnipotent God as the only possibility”, which DOES majorly immasculate the “weapon”.

And because the Wager does not account for any other possibility, it’s a completely useless argument. In fact, Pascal didn’t even account for different mutually exclusive monotheist faiths – or even exclusive denominations within a single one!

But, the “weapon” is not aiming at what your “shield” is protecting.

I am not protecting any part of my person – I probably should start, though, given your seeming intent to violate me with an uncomfortably Freudian metaphor, potentially with olives – I am telling you that your weapon of choice is, shall we say, all too inadequately endowed. It is a toy without batteries. It does not work, it does not do the job, it does not satisfy.

Even a cocktail-saber can kill if “applied well” to an unprotected vital organ.

The only unprotected vital organ Pascal’s Wager is effective against is an uneducated, unreasoning mind.

 

[Atreyu]

Melbourne Guy, if you’re interested, then I recommend reading some of Peter Kreeft’s writings. He includes most of the traditional arguments for God (such as Aquinas’s famous “Five Ways”), as well as some other arguments, and he writes in an easy to understand fashion, I find. Anyway if you go to this site, I recommend the essays on the “Divinity of Christ” and the “Resurrection Evidence”. The beauty of these two essays is that they give not only evidence for God, but they prove (and I use this word in an informal sense) the uniqueness of Christianity. I find these arguments quite compelling.

 

[Mirdath]

In counterpoint to Atreyu, I would say go directly to Aquinas. Kreeft is regarded as the Second Coming of Aquinas by many, but I’ve found him to be an insufferable hack, awful writer, and Z-list pop-philosopher.

 

[Contarini]

It is called Pascal’s Wager.

The major refutation of the wager is that it is not an either or choice. There are thousands of Gods that have been or are being worshipped all over the world.

This betrays a complete misunderstanding of monotheism. The Christian God is not the same sort of being as pagan gods. He is not in competition with pagan gods. He is by definition the ultimate being in the universe, of whom there can be only one. The equivalent in pagan religions is not a specific god but either the ultimate High God or Brahman or whatever from whom all other gods derive, or the impersonal cosmos of which the gods are simply the highest part.

However, as a response to Pascal’s wager this only needs to be rephrased to be effective. You are right that Pascal seems to be assuming that there are only two choices. He’s addressing a specific audience for whom the choices were Christianity or nothing.

William James’ version of the wager is much more effective.

Edwin