Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

The Way of the Agnostic

Posted by on Jan. 22, 2013 at 3:57 PM
  • 16 Replies

A religion offers a community in which we are loved by others and in turn learn to love them.  Often this love is understood, at least partly, in terms of a moral code that guides all aspects of a believer’s life. Religious understanding offers a way of making sense of the world as a whole and our lives in particular.  Among other things, it typically helps believers make sense of the group’s moral code.  Religious knowledge offers a metaphysical and/or historical account of supernatural realities that, if true, shows the operation of a benevolent power in the universe.  The account is thought to provide a causal explanation of how the religion came to exist and, at the same time, a foundation for its morality and system of understanding.

Leif Parsons

There are serious moral objections to aspects of some religions.  But many believers rightly judge that their religion has great moral value for them, that it gives them access to a rich and fulfilling life of love.  What is not justified is an exclusivist or infallibilist reading of this belief, implying that the life of a given religion is the only or the best way toward moral fulfillment for everyone, or that there is no room for criticism of the religion’s moral stances.

Critics of a religion — and of religion in general — usually focus on knowledge claims.  This is understandable since the claims are often quite extraordinary, of a sort for which we naturally require a great deal of evidence — which is seldom forthcoming. They are not entirely without evidential support.  But the evidence for religious claims — metaphysical arguments from plausible but disputable premises, intermittent and often vague experiences of the divine, historical arguments from limited data, even the moral and intellectual fruitfulness of a religious life — typically does not meet ordinary (common-sense or scientific) standards for postulating an explanatory cause.  Believers often say that their religious life gives them a special access (the insight of “faith”) to religious knowledge.  But believers in very different religions can claim such access, and it’s hard to see what believers in one religion can, in general, say against the contradictory claims of believers in others.

Contemporary atheists often assert that there is no need for them to provide arguments showing that religious claims are false.  Rather, they say, the very lack of good arguments for religious claims provides a solid basis for rejecting them.   The case against God is, as they frequently put it, the same as the case against Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.  This is what we might call the “no-arguments” argument for atheism.

But the no-arguments view ignores the role of evidence and argument behind the religious beliefs of many informed and intelligent people.  (For some powerful contemporary examples, see the essays in “Philosophers Who Believe” and “God and the Philosophers.”)  Believers have not made an intellectually compelling case for their claims: they do not show that any rational person should accept them.  But  believers such as Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne and Peter van Inwagen, to cite just a few examples, have well-thought-out reasons for their belief that call for serious discussion.  Their belief cannot be dismissed as on a par with children’s beliefs in Santa and the Easter Bunny.  We may well not find their reasons decisive, but it would be very difficult to show that no rational person could believe for the reasons that they do.

The cases intellectually sophisticated religious believers make are in fact similar to those that intellectually sophisticated thinkers (believers or not) make for their views about controversial political policies, ethical decisions or even speculative scientific theories.  Here, as in religion, opposing sides have arguments that they find plausible but the other side rejects.  Atheism may be intellectually viable, but it requires its own arguments and can’t merely cite the lack of decisive evidence for religion.  Further, unless atheists themselves have a clearly superior case for their denial of theistic religion, then agnosticism (doubting both religion and atheism) remains a viable alternative.  The no-arguments argument for atheism fails.

There remains much more to be said about the status of religious knowledge, looking in detail at the cases for and against various religious claims.  My own view is that agnosticism will often be the best stance regarding religious knowledge claims (both religious and atheistic).  But my present concern is to emphasize that, even if it falls short of knowledge, religion can be an important source of understanding.

Non-believers — and many believers themselves — assume that, without a grounding in religious knowledge, there is no foothold for fruitful religious understanding.  But is this really so?  Is it perhaps possible to have understanding without knowledge?  Here some reflections on the limits of science, our paradigm of knowledge, will be helpful.

It may well be that physical science will ultimately give us a complete account of reality. It may, that is, give us causal laws that allow us to predict (up to the limits of any quantum or similar uncertainty) everything that happens in the universe.   This would allow us to entirely explain the universe as a causal system.  But there are aspects of our experience (consciousness, personality, moral obligation, beauty) that may not be merely parts of the causal system.  They may, for example, have meanings that are not reducible to causal interactions.

This is obvious for moral and aesthetic meanings: even a complete account of the causal production of an action will not tell us that it is good or beautiful.  The same is true of semantic meaning.  We might be able to predict the exact physical configuration of the writing in a text that will be composed a million years from now in a language entirely unknown to us.  Looking at this configuration, we would still not be able to understand the text.

Similarly, although we do not presently have anything like a complete causal account of consciousness, we have a fairly good idea of what such an account would look like from a third-person objective perspective, looking at the brain as just another physical system.  But we have almost no idea of how to incorporate into such an account the first-person subjective perspective of our concrete experience: what it is like (from the inside) to see a color, hear a symphony, love a friend or hate an enemy.

It doesn’t, however, follow that we have no ways of understanding these experiences.  Not only our everyday life but also our art, literature, history and philosophy contribute to such understanding.  To say that, apart from the best current results of, say, neuroscience, we have no understanding of our first-person experiences is simply absurd.

Every mode of understanding has its own ontology, a world of entities in terms of which it expresses its understanding.   We can understand sexuality through Don Giovanni, Emma Bovary and Molly Bloom; the horror of war through the images of “Guernica”; our neurotic behavior through Freudian drives and complexes; or self-deception through Sartre’s being-for-itself, even if we are convinced that none of these entities will find a place in science’s final causal account of reality.   Similarly, it is possible to understand our experiences of evil in the language of the Book of Job, of love in the language of the Gospel of John, and of sin and redemption in the language of Paul’s epistles.

The fault of many who reject religious ontologies out of hand is to think that they have no value if they don’t express knowledge of the world’s causal mechanisms.  The fault of many believers is to think that the understanding these ontologies bring must be due to the fact that they express such knowledge.

As in the case of morality, there is no exclusive or infallible mode of understanding, religious or otherwise.  Religions should, and increasingly do, accept other modes of understanding and try to integrate them with their own.   Expressions of religion in art and poetry (Fra Angelico, John Donne), have always implicitly done just this.

Knowledge, if it exists, adds a major dimension to religious commitment.  But love and understanding, even without knowledge, are tremendous gifts; and religious knowledge claims are hard to support. We should, then, make room for those who embrace a religion as a source of love and understanding but remain agnostic about the religion’s knowledge claims.  We should, for example, countenance those who are Christians while doubting the literal truth of, say, the Trinity and the Resurrection.  I wager, in fact, that many professed Christians are not at all sure about the truth of these doctrines —and other believers have similar doubts.  They are, quite properly, religious agnostics.

(LINK) Op Ed


What are your thoughts on this?


by on Jan. 22, 2013 at 3:57 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
Euphoric
by Bazinga! on Jan. 22, 2013 at 4:11 PM
1 mom liked this

 Interesting.

MeAndTommyLee
by Platinum Member on Jan. 22, 2013 at 4:42 PM
2 moms liked this

Thank you for posting this.  I agree with this ideology and always have.  My presence in the Catholic church is not limited to the institution as I have an avid interest in all religions and at one time or another attended and took part in many differing religious services. 

I have always found myself debating  the official doctrine of the Catholic Church on some of their key elements, and have never been quited or ashamed to disagree with them.  I'm a thinker, not a blind follower.   Therefore, it was only natural curiosity to look elsewhere for differing opinions and the bases of other faiths.  They all do lead to God or a God....of sort.  Is the way you get there so concrete, so petty that if you don't follow one line of believe you will not make it into heaven?  I don't believe that. 

I will share this for following for the sake of this article,

When my mother was dying in  hospital many years ago, we sought out one of the priests  from our parish to come in and perform the Last Rites,  At the time of her illness,  I was working for the United Methodist Conference and brought in a female  Pastor from a local church to lead prayers for her.   My father was close with a local Rabbi  he'd met at a neighborhood coffee shop. They debated the gentiles/Christians and Judaism for years.   He, too,  was asked to come in,  and lead prayer.  By the end of the day, my BFF's Baptist Reverend made an appearance as well.  None of these leaders from faiths that were not officially our own refused my mother or our family in our greatest anguish.  This is what religion is.  Comfort, support and love is the same from every angle and I believe that with all my heart. 

stormcris
by Christy on Jan. 22, 2013 at 4:46 PM
1 mom liked this

Thank you for that reply. It was lovely to hear that.

Quoting MeAndTommyLee:

Thank you for posting this.  I agree with this ideology and always have.  My presence in the Catholic church is not limited to the institution as I have an avid interest in all religions and at one time or another attended and took part in many differing religious services. 

I have always found myself debating  the official doctrine of the Catholic Church on some of their key elements, and have never been quited or ashamed to disagree with them.  I'm a thinker, not a blind follower.   Therefore, it was only natural curiosity to look elsewhere for differing opinions and the bases of other faiths.  They all do lead to God or a God....of sort.  Is the way you get there so concrete, so petty that if you don't follow one line of believe you will not make it into heaven?  I don't believe that. 

I will share this for following for the sake of this article,

When my mother was dying in  hospital many years ago, we sought out one of the priests  from our parish to come in and perform the Last Rites,  At the time of her illness,  I was working for the United Methodist Conference and brought in a female  Pastor from a local church to lead prayers for her.   My father was close with a local Rabbi  he'd met at a neighborhood coffee shop. They debated the gentiles/Christians and Judaism for years.   He, too,  was asked to come in,  and lead prayer.  By the end of the day, my BFF's Baptist Reverend made an appearance as well.  None of these leaders from faiths that were not officially our own refused my mother or our family in our greatest anguish.  This is what religion is.  Comfort, support and love is the same from every angle and I believe that with all my heart. 


dinc
by Member on Jan. 22, 2013 at 5:41 PM

What a lovely story.  It is refreshing to see that people can disagree in the details but still work together for good. 


Quoting MeAndTommyLee:

Thank you for posting this.  I agree with this ideology and always have.  My presence in the Catholic church is not limited to the institution as I have an avid interest in all religions and at one time or another attended and took part in many differing religious services. 

I have always found myself debating  the official doctrine of the Catholic Church on some of their key elements, and have never been quited or ashamed to disagree with them.  I'm a thinker, not a blind follower.   Therefore, it was only natural curiosity to look elsewhere for differing opinions and the bases of other faiths.  They all do lead to God or a God....of sort.  Is the way you get there so concrete, so petty that if you don't follow one line of believe you will not make it into heaven?  I don't believe that. 

I will share this for following for the sake of this article,

When my mother was dying in  hospital many years ago, we sought out one of the priests  from our parish to come in and perform the Last Rites,  At the time of her illness,  I was working for the United Methodist Conference and brought in a female  Pastor from a local church to lead prayers for her.   My father was close with a local Rabbi  he'd met at a neighborhood coffee shop. They debated the gentiles/Christians and Judaism for years.   He, too,  was asked to come in,  and lead prayer.  By the end of the day, my BFF's Baptist Reverend made an appearance as well.  None of these leaders from faiths that were not officially our own refused my mother or our family in our greatest anguish.  This is what religion is.  Comfort, support and love is the same from every angle and I believe that with all my heart. 


 

Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Jan. 22, 2013 at 6:25 PM
Quoting stormcris:

Atheism may be intellectually viable, but it requires its own arguments and can’t merely cite the lack of decisive evidence for religion.  Further, unless atheists themselves have a clearly superior case for their denial of theistic religion, then agnosticism (doubting both religion and atheism) remains a viable alternative.  The no-arguments argument for atheism fails.

What are your thoughts on this?

This is an entirely reasonable objection to 'strong' atheism.

However it doesn't really touch upon 'weak' atheism (also known as "tooth-fairy agnosticism").

rfurlongg
by on Jan. 22, 2013 at 6:30 PM


Quoting MeAndTommyLee:

This is what religion is.  Comfort, support and love is the same from every angle and I believe that with all my heart. 


Beautifully said and I fully agree. I am Episcopalian and I have always believed God speaks to us all in the way we listen. The way each of us listens is as unique and as dynamic as we are. 

LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Jan. 22, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Far beyond the 'case against god' I think there is a significant case of reality vs. 'benevelent force in the universe.'

What, exactly, is 'benevelent' about two galaxies colliding? Black holes? Quasars? Pulsars? Supernovi? The surface of the sun? Solar (or terretrial) radiation? Radon? Cyanide? The thousands of kinds of lethal mushrooms? Virtually anything we can touch or inhale or ingest has multiple ways to kill us, without even starting to talk about blizzards, predators, earthquakes, tsunamis or sinkholes...

The vast majority of the surface of the planet is uninhabitable by people --being too steep, far too cold, incapable of supporting life at all (like on volcanoes) or underwater.

We believe, because we're a remarkably inward-looking species, that we are big and important in the universe, and nothing could be further from the truth. We are infinitesimally wee and remote from 'most' of it, and --again-- can't survive for more than a few seconds in virtually any of it: the vacuum of space, the airless surface of the moon, the gravity density of Jupiter, the intense heat of Mercury, or terminal cold of Neptune... supposing we could reach any further than that, there is absolutely nothing at all to reach for several thousand years of travelling.

Wanna talk about what could slam into the planet without an invitation?

LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Jan. 22, 2013 at 6:47 PM

I don't think it is a reasonable objection to 'strong' atheism.

First, because I don't think any atheist anywhere has ever claimed that there is no 'religion.' Clearly, there are many --lots of evidence of the reality of religions exist.

I don't claim god doesn't exist, and have no way to prove that no god exists. I'm simply awaiting any provable evidence that any god ever has, or currently does, exist. I make no claims; the people who do own 100% of the responsibility to prove their's.

Just as I don't have to 'prove' that darkness does not exist --I'm not claiming it does. Since proving its non-existence is ridiculous and impossible, it falls to the people who claim it does exist to provide reasonable proof.

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting stormcris:

Atheism may be intellectually viable, but it requires its own arguments and can’t merely cite the lack of decisive evidence for religion.  Further, unless atheists themselves have a clearly superior case for their denial of theistic religion, then agnosticism (doubting both religion and atheism) remains a viable alternative.  The no-arguments argument for atheism fails.

What are your thoughts on this?

This is an entirely reasonable objection to 'strong' atheism.

However it doesn't really touch upon 'weak' atheism (also known as "tooth-fairy agnosticism").


Sisteract
by Whoopie on Jan. 22, 2013 at 6:56 PM


Quoting MeAndTommyLee:

Thank you for posting this.  I agree with this ideology and always have.  My presence in the Catholic church is not limited to the institution as I have an avid interest in all religions and at one time or another attended and took part in many differing religious services. 

I have always found myself debating  the official doctrine of the Catholic Church on some of their key elements, and have never been quited or ashamed to disagree with them.  I'm a thinker, not a blind follower.   Therefore, it was only natural curiosity to look elsewhere for differing opinions and the bases of other faiths.  They all do lead to God or a God....of sort.  Is the way you get there so concrete, so petty that if you don't follow one line of believe you will not make it into heaven?  I don't believe that. 

I will share this for following for the sake of this article,

When my mother was dying in  hospital many years ago, we sought out one of the priests  from our parish to come in and perform the Last Rites,  At the time of her illness,  I was working for the United Methodist Conference and brought in a female  Pastor from a local church to lead prayers for her.   My father was close with a local Rabbi  he'd met at a neighborhood coffee shop. They debated the gentiles/Christians and Judaism for years.   He, too,  was asked to come in,  and lead prayer.  By the end of the day, my BFF's Baptist Reverend made an appearance as well.  None of these leaders from faiths that were not officially our own refused my mother or our family in our greatest anguish.  This is what religion is.  Comfort, support and love is the same from every angle and I believe that with all my heart. 

Amen- inclusion and treating people with compassion, respect and dignity.  This is exactly what religion is about- not division, exclusion and petty squabbles over dogma-

Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Jan. 22, 2013 at 7:02 PM
Quoting LindaClement:
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting stormcris:

Atheism may be intellectually viable, but it requires its own arguments and can’t merely cite the lack of decisive evidence for religion.  Further, unless atheists themselves have a clearly superior case for their denial of theistic religion, then agnosticism (doubting both religion and atheism) remains a viable alternative.  The no-arguments argument for atheism fails.

What are your thoughts on this?

This is an entirely reasonable objection to 'strong' atheism.

However it doesn't really touch upon 'weak' atheism (also known as "tooth-fairy agnosticism").

I don't think it is a reasonable objection to 'strong' atheism.

First, because I don't think any atheist anywhere has ever claimed that there is no 'religion.' Clearly, there are many --lots of evidence of the reality of religions exist.

I don't claim god doesn't exist, and have no way to prove that no god exists. I'm simply awaiting any provable evidence that any god ever has, or currently does, exist. I make no claims; the people who do own 100% of the responsibility to prove their's.

Just as I don't have to 'prove' that darkness does not exist --I'm not claiming it does. Since proving its non-existence is ridiculous and impossible, it falls to the people who claim it does exist to provide reasonable proof.

That makes you a 'weak' atheist.

There are some (a very small minority) of atheists who do hold a positive belief that it is 100% certain that no supernatural deities exist.  These people are known, technically, as 'strong' atheists.   *shrugs*  I didn't invent the terminology.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN