That is certainly not what I intended to imply.
Then we’ve no qualms, there, and I am sincerely glad to hear it.
I never said you were not intellectually allowed to “believe” in God and I never would. What I said was that you cannot intellectually claim knowledge of God. Knowledge and belief are two distinctly different things.
Ahh, then it’s possible that what you are bothered by is a matter of semantics. It is my experience that when people of Faith say they “know” something religiously, they mean it in one of two ways:
- That something is definitely true in context of their religion (e.g. I can fully say, and you can too, that Jesus rose from the dead in context of Catholicism, even if you don’t actually believe He did).
Or
- That they themselves have found the belief in question to be so likely–and “likely” can be a very subjective word, I understand–that they are willing to have such strong faith and confidence in it that the word “know” is just a shorthand for that.
Most religious people, in my experience, realize that faith is required (our religion says so explicitly, in fact), so they certainly don’t mean “know” in the empirical and “undeniably proven” sense that seems to bother you. They simply reject the premise that the empirical and “undeniably proven” is the only legitimate intellectual basis to believe in something, so in turn they reject the premise that anyone who goes beyond empiricism should be accused of being “irrational”. And if, as you say, you’re not challenging our intellectual right to believe, you yourself do not hold that premise either and we agree on that much.
It is true that many religious people (and even non-religious Theists) may claim to “know” that there is a Creator of some kind without needing faith, but you must realize that if we say this, it carries the automatic qualifier of: “As far as
I figure,” and, besides this, is also not typically intended to mean that one
specific religion’s God can be discerned with no faith whatsoever. For instance, I can satisfy
myself, by nothing more than logic and what I know about the Universe, that there is definitely a Creator (just in the generic, “Someone created the Universe” sense, not in the Catholic sense), even if the arguments that satisfy
me don’t satisfy
you. Thus if I say “I know” there’s a God, I mean only that I,
personally, have become convinced that the Universe was certainly created, and honestly cannot conceive of any other possibility, so of course so far as
I can tell “I know” it, just as I believe “I know” anything else that I’m truly
convinced of, even if someone else may be convinced otherwise. If you disagree, that’s your right, and I don’t think you’re stupid or anything for it…but I can’t change what I have honestly found to be true just because not everyone is as convinced as I am, and others should not be offended by that as long as I’m not saying that they are idiots for disagreeing (which I don’t believe at all; I might not fully understand how someone could disagree with me, and their explanations as to why may not satisfy me as good reasons to disagree, but I’m a firm believer that sometimes people just reach an impasse without either having to be stupid or irrational).
Anyway, I know that I for one certainly am not saying that Atheists are irrational or in denial…my only beef with Atheists on intellectual grounds is when they imply that particular insult against
us. As for believing that’s what you were doing, you
did say we had an intellectual
duty to with-hold belief in what we did not have the sensory ability to empirically prove, so even if you didn’t mean to word it that way, I believe you can see exactly why that would lead one to believe that you think we have an intellectual duty to be neutral Agnostics (since obviously neither any specific religion nor even the least-bit-strong Atheism has been empirically proven to universal satisfaction), and are never intellectually justified in choosing to have faith (by definition, a person willing to have faith is a person willing to believe in something for which they cannot empirically certain). If that’s not what you believe, you’re a rarity among non-Theists on the forum (though there are other breaths of fresh air I have encountered among non-Theists here too).
But if that’s the case you may want to be careful in your approach as you ask questions: Make sure it is clear that you are asking out of non-confrontational curiosity, not out of a demand that if we cannot answer your questions, we are somehow less justified in believing what we believe. For example, if your question cannot be answered, show the understanding that this does not somehow disprove the religion or make belief therein unjustified. If you do this, you will be better received, I think. Religion is very personal to those who believe in it, as well it should be; after all, God, if one believes in Him, is not just a trivial fact but a beloved Entity, in our case our Father, and so these topics need to be approached with all the same caution as you would approach talking to a man about his beloved and cherished parents and relatives–you wouldn’t want to come across as insulting, if only out of common respect.
I am not demanding that you take the above advice. I only offer it because I take, on
good faith, your word that offending religious people or implying that we are intellectually unjustified is not your intention, despite the opposite impression some of your comments and rhetorical questions would otherwise give. If you mean what you now say, following this advice carefully could prevent future misunderstanding.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
At least we know the universe exists, therefore on that alone it would make much more sense to believe the universe just popped out of nowhere, than believing god did.