Thoughts on faith

[ERCougar]

Here are a couple of passages from one of my favorite books that I read last year:

I'll be honest about it. It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.

I can well imagine an atheist’s last words: “White, white! L-L-Love! My God!” – and the deathbed leap of faith. Whereas the agnostic, if he stays true to his reasonable self, if he stays beholden to dry, yeastless factuality, might try o explain the warm light bathing him by saying, “Possibly a f-f-failing oxygenation of the b-b-brain,” and, to the very end, lack imagination and miss the better story.

Thoughts?

[wuapinmon]

I think Robin's wife is very nice.

[SeattleUte]

Here are a couple of passages from one of my favorite books that I read last year:

I'll be honest about it. It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.

I can well imagine an atheist’s last words: “White, white! L-L-Love! My God!” – and the deathbed leap of faith. Whereas the agnostic, if he stays true to his reasonable self, if he stays beholden to dry, yeastless factuality, might try o explain the warm light bathing him by saying, “Possibly a f-f-failing oxygenation of the b-b-brain,” and, to the very end, lack imagination and miss the better story.

Thoughts?

There's really no difference between agnostics and atheists, except for how they choose to identify themselves, usually for political or social reasons (you really haven't been paying attention here; you need to be a better student of my posts). This author doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. But it's a common misperception and form of solace to religious people to presume that atheists and religious people alike share a like kind of "faith." It isn't true, they don't.

To me a more interesting subject is whether the kind of faith this author is addressing is even a worthy value. Why is it a good thing to believe something through an act of will in defiance of reason? I'm not so sure it is.

I know religious Mormons like to talk about how it takes faith to put a man on the moon, cure AIDS, create an artistic masterpiece, etc. That's not the same thing as religious faith, the kind of faith religions ask of adherants. It's just not. Even Paul wasn't totally sold on faith. See First Cor. 13. I'd like to propose that the kind of faith this author is extolling (in a backhanded way) is not a good thing.

[wuapinmon]

There's really no difference between agnostics and atheists, except for how they choose to identify themselves, usually for political or social reasons (you really haven't been paying attention here; you need to be a better student of my posts).

I disagree completely. An atheist does not believe at all. An agnostic can want to believe, but ultimately does not, but doesn't deny that there might be something, just that they can't seem to feel it.

Atheists and Theists try to claim agnostics for their own. Leave them alone.

[Goatnapper'96]

Here are a couple of passages from one of my favorite books that I read last year:

I'll be honest about it. It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.

I can well imagine an atheist’s last words: “White, white! L-L-Love! My God!” – and the deathbed leap of faith. Whereas the agnostic, if he stays true to his reasonable self, if he stays beholden to dry, yeastless factuality, might try o explain the warm light bathing him by saying, “Possibly a f-f-failing oxygenation of the b-b-brain,” and, to the very end, lack imagination and miss the better story.

Thoughts?

I think some people are just indecisive. My guess is as a physician/scientist you have been trained and educated to not always conclude you have all the right answers but to act decisively with the data/information you have. In your vocation, time is of the essence. I guess I am similar and view agnostics in a similar light as neutralized wankers unwilling to shit or get off the pot.

But I do appreciate their humility with respect to not concluding they have all the truth, that is something that I wonder about in the LDS faith. I see the capacity for a benevolent leader to mobilize numbers of people for good who have that conviction of monopoly on truth and the faith in the monopolizing organization that can create, but I have my concerns that there are those who can be helped but feel disenfranchised because they don't have the ideal and might view it as out of their reach. The only bridge over the two potentially exclusive goals of fearless promulgation of the ideal and being inclusive is the charity of the flock and that is an enormous challenge.

Well the other bridge is lots of falsies on the womenfolk, but I am sure you people already knew that. I just like to flesh out all options, me and Billy Idol that is!

[ERCougar]

There's really no difference between agnostics and atheists, except for how they choose to identify themselves, usually for political or social reasons (you really haven't been paying attention here; you need to be a better student of my posts). This author doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. But it's a common misperception and form of solace to religious people to presume that atheists and religious people alike share a like kind of "faith." It isn't true, they don't.

To me a more interesting subject is whether the kind of faith this author is addressing is even a worthy value. Why is it a good thing to believe something through an act of will in defiance of reason? I'm not so sure it is.

I know religious Mormons like to talk about how it takes faith to put a man on the moon, cure AIDS, create an artistic masterpiece, etc. That's not the same thing as religious faith, the kind of faith religions ask of adherants. It's just not. Even Paul wasn't totally sold on faith. See First Cor. 13. I'd like to propose that the kind of faith this author is extolling (in a backhanded way) is not a good thing.

I know your opinion on atheism and agnositicism. I just disagree.
http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...6&postcount=45

And the idea that intrigues me in this is that belief in something is better than belief in nothing in that belief, even if irrational, brings a certain "life" to one's existence--"dry yeastless factuality" is a fantastic expression. I'm not sure if that's correct, but it's an intriguing idea.

[ERCougar]

I think some people are just indecisive. My guess is as a physician/scientist you have been trained and educated to not always conclude you have all the right answers but to act decisively with the data/information you have. In your vocation, time is of the essence. I guess I am similar and view agnostics in a similar light as neutralized wankers unwilling to shit or get off the pot.

But I do appreciate their humility with respect to not concluding they have all the truth, that is something that I wonder about in the LDS faith. I see the capacity for a benevolent leader to mobilize numbers of people for good who have that conviction of monopoly on truth and the faith in the monopolizing organization that can create, but I have my concerns that there are those who can be helped but feel disenfranchised because they don't have the ideal and might view it as out of their reach. The only bridge over the two potentially exclusive goals of fearless promulgation of the ideal and being inclusive is the charity of the flock and that is an enormous challenge.

Well the other bridge is lots of falsies on the womenfolk, but I am sure you people already knew that. I just like to flesh out all options, me and Billy Idol that is!

Outside of work, I'd actually put myself in the doubting, indecisive category. I think that's why these passages intrigue me so much. I sometimes wonder if I'm too afraid of eventually being wrong to actually make a commitment to something. Am I missing out on life that way?

[SeattleUte]

I disagree completely. An atheist does not believe at all. An agnostic can want to believe, but ultimately does not [believe], but doesn't deny that there might be something, just that they can't seem to feel it.

Atheists and Theists try to claim agnostics for their own. Leave them alone.

Both are guided entirely by reason. Neither really denies what he can't know by sensory impression or reason--For example, what preceded the universe. This is precisely why scientists say it was "nothingness." It's a concept we can't possibly know or discover, so we must consign it to nothingness. Agnostics and atheists are alike what the Greeks called materialists.

Your own post is itself internally inconsistent! Per your post, both are defined by absense of belief. Now, whether anyone wants to believe but can't or is happy in his state of unbelief is more a matter for shrinks to address than a meaningful abstract distinction. I venture there are atheists and agnostics alike who would claim to be pleased to believe if they could. The renown literary critic James Wood, who was raised in a religious enviorment, calls himself "an atheist" with a "nostalgia for belief."

[SeattleUte]

I know your opinion on atheism and agnositicism. I just disagree.
http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...6&postcount=45

And the idea that intrigues me in this is that belief in something is better than belief in nothing in that belief, even if irrational, brings a certain "life" to one's existence--"dry yeastless factuality" is a fantastic expression. I'm not sure if that's correct, but it's an intriguing idea.

Your link makes no sense, and demonstrates that you haven't read much about this. Anyway, I'm talking about what they really "believe" if you ask them a few questions. Agnostics and atheists alike essentially reject faith. Richard Dawkins admits he doesn't know how the universe started.

Ultimately, all it boils down to is a matter of self-definition. Again, it's religious people who like to find kindred souls among atheists. It gives them solace that atheists similarly engage in an exercise of a type of religious faith as religous folks do. But atheists most emphatically don't practice faith. On the contrary, they are all about only going to the limits of the senses in what they claim to know or not know.

An atheist says there is no evidence of God. Hence, he does not believe. An agnostic says the same thing. They just choose to call themselves different things.

[Non Sequitur]

I guess I am similar and view agnostics in a similar light as neutralized wankers unwilling to shit or get off the pot.

I think agnostics are genuinely confused why religious folk think it is so much more noble to shit. Like it's some kind of accomplishment.

[SeattleUte]

I think agnostics are genuinely confused why religious folk think it is so much more noble to shit. Like it's some kind of accomplishment.

Goatnapper's quote reveals how hard it is for people to address this issue outside the framework of religion. By "shit" he means affiliate with a traditional religion. Many atheists are likewise restricted in their outlook. For example, Sam Harris calls himself an atheist, and lays bare many of the stupid things monotheists believe (not a hard thing to do). Then he extolls buddhism. (Actually, it used to be in the West that if you rejected religion you were an atheist.) All he really has done is express his unbelief in traditional Western religous tradition.

[beefytee]

I think some people are just indecisive. My guess is as a physician/scientist you have been trained and educated to not always conclude you have all the right answers but to act decisively with the data/information you have. In your vocation, time is of the essence. I guess I am similar and view agnostics in a similar light as neutralized wankers unwilling to shit or get off the pot.

But I do appreciate their humility with respect to not concluding they have all the truth, that is something that I wonder about in the LDS faith. I see the capacity for a benevolent leader to mobilize numbers of people for good who have that conviction of monopoly on truth and the faith in the monopolizing organization that can create, but I have my concerns that there are those who can be helped but feel disenfranchised because they don't have the ideal and might view it as out of their reach. The only bridge over the two potentially exclusive goals of fearless promulgation of the ideal and being inclusive is the charity of the flock and that is an enormous challenge.

Well the other bridge is lots of falsies on the womenfolk, but I am sure you people already knew that. I just like to flesh out all options, me and Billy Idol that is!

I don't get the whole decisiveness. Why is it important to decide anything?

What difference does it make?

It seems like human tendency is that you have to associate with a group to feel camaraderie or valued or something.

Are independents less decisive than republicans or democrats?

So maybe that is why I am bothered less by agnostics than atheists. I am an independent.

[creekster]

Your link makes no sense, and demonstrates that you haven't read much about this. Anyway, I'm talking about what they really "believe" if you ask them a few questions. Agnostics and atheists alike essentially reject faith. Richard Dawkins admits he doesn't know how the universe started.

Ultimately, all it boils down to is a matter of self-definition. Again, it's religious people who like to find kindred souls among atheists. It gives them solace that atheists similarly engage in an exercise of a type of religious faith as religious folks do. But atheists most emphatically don't practice faith. On the contrary, they are all about only going to the limits of the senses in what they claim to know or not know.

An atheist says there is no evidence of God. Hence, he does not believe. An agnostic says the same thing. They just choose to call themselves different things.

I am not sure why you care so deeply about this distinction, or lack of it, as you do. It seems to me that you and those in this discussion are speaking past each other.

Clearly atheism and agnosticism are two different concepts that are defined differently and as words they mean different things. When religious persons choose to draw the distinction, they do so on the basis of this difference in definition, which ERC pointed out in his linked post. Your point, it seems to me, is that in practice, in the heart and soul, atheists and agnostics are two sides of the same coin as to how they operationally define the world around them, therefore whether or not the words have different roots and meaning, the practice is that both groups contain persons who lack religious faith and rely on sensual or empirical knowledge for their understanding of their role in the cosmos.

I think that neither position is ever entirely correct, as there are surely some atheists who actively deny the existence of God and their are some agnostics who promote a type of faith. This sort of spectrum is always true of any human activity, however. In the end, I don't see why both sides of this debate you keep framing can't coexist. In fact, I think both sides DO co-exist. It is much ado about a distinction without a difference.

[SeattleUte]

It is much ado about a distinction without a difference.

Exactly!

By the way, as you know, I choose to call myself neither an agnostic nor an atheist (in case anyone cares). I am not fearful or ashamed to say that I believe in God.

[SeattleUte]

I am not sure why you care so deeply about this distinction, or lack of it, as you do.

I am agaisnt all forms of religious propaganda and self-delusion. Bear in mind that Christians wrote the definitions.