In continuance of
the discussion
with BM…
BM,
My main objective
here is to demonstrate that agnosticism (of at least the kind I understand you
to be propounding) as a worldview is possibly fraught with self-referential
incoherence and can only be lived out inconsistently i.e. it would be as
difficult to 'recognise' a coherent statement of its principles as it
would be to implement them in practice.
(Again, I apologise
for the near-random cutting-and-pasting of your paras, do let me know if there
are any particular ones - related to the topic - you wish me to
focus on):
"Does
God exist? Maybe, but we can't be sure until we die, when that revelation (or
lack of one) is going to be manifest to all."
Notice your
presupposition that some form of 'ultimately sure' revelation presumably comes
(only?) at the 'end' of time. This is also a judgment call that
all present and past religious revelations are 'faulty' or
'non-absolute' in some way.
What I'm saying, BM,
is that your view seems no different from the many faith-claims out there in
that you-they-we(!) all speak with 'transcendant' authority, like we know
something others don't or our words carry higher epistemic justification than
the rest. Which means that I were to take you seriously, I would
agreeing with a neo-religious position (requiring absoluteness!)
which claims, in effect, that there are NO absolutes! Not unlike a
computer program predicated on the non-validity of all source codes...
"That
element of doubt and humility doesn't prevent us from having faith in the
existence of God to the extent that it does not contradict other truths, but it
should prevent us from having blind faith in our concept of God."
I'm not certain
about what you mean here, BM. Because you seem to be saying that, e.g. a
Muslim can embrace his monotheistic ('only one God') faith as long as he
doesn't contradict the polytheism ('millions and millions of gods') of
Hindus(?) Or perhaps a Muslim and Hindu should seek to believe only
the lowest common denominator of their individuals faiths (and leave out the
rest?)?
And how would you
understand 'blind faith'? What would a non-blind faith look like in your worldview?
(I am able to recognise SOME 'real faith' vs. 'presumption' in my own
paradigm-community; I need lots more clarification on how this
distinction would appear in yours, especially if - as I understand you - one
opinion on the spiritual world 'out there' is as good as another).
"I saw
a debate between two people the other day: one was saying that her husband had
died and had been reincarnated into her dog, whereas the other, who claimed to
be an expert on these matters, said that was impossible because reincarnation
only takes place after a delay of 144 years! Does this debate sound as
ridiculous to you as it does to me? How can you be an expert on reincarnation
when the very concept is both unproven and beyond human knowledge? That is his
opinion, fine. Just like it is the woman's opinion that her husband is now her
dog. But neither has any basis on which to have meaningful debate because they
are simply exchanging ideas but lacking any element of fact."
I assume you
consider this reincarnation exchange somewhat analogous to all religious
dialogue, with the implication that talk about religions and truth would
degenerate to something like the above. I can conceded it sounds 'absurd'
to me because I don't know all that much about reincarnation, however:
a) We must be
careful not to use the example as a 'sampling' of all religious debate.
For e.g. the one WE are engaging in right now hardly sounds all that
weird, doesn't it?
b) As for
their debate 'lacking any element of fact', we should also take caution not to
presume that THEY do not share a common set of assumptions or agreed
facts. In fact, our blur-ness at comprehending their discussion is a
RESULT of NOT knowing where they are 'coming from', what their shared framework
is, etc.
Needless to say, and
like you mentioned earlier, there's a necessary element of humility and
listening involved...we perhaps need to read more, listen harder in discovering
why people believe what they do, what their paradigms and epistemologies are, etc...often
our hearts heavily influence how open, critical and insightful our minds
can be...
Suffice to
say, we need to caution against using misleading analogies to depict
debate on religions; granted that SOME forms of debate can reduce
to ignorant irrelevancies and mud-hurling, we can't say that this applies
to ALL such discussions (the problem of ‘invalid universalisation from a
specific instance’)
"I feel
that the question as to the existence of God must remain open because no
evidence can prove one way or the other. I personally tend to believe he
doesn't, but that's an opinion again and subject to debate. That is why I am an
agnostic. Ethically and morally, I am probably not very different from you. I
simply define right as what I reason to be constructive for myself, society,
humankind, and the planet, and wrong to be whatever I see as destructive. No
absolutes here either, simply opinions that can change as I advance in
understanding, knowledge, and experience.
"By the
way, where do you think evil comes from? Is it a thing or a being, somewhat
like God? Just as I think that God probably does not exist but could
be considered as a sort of metaphor for good and the forces of nature,
I think that evil is a man-made concept we use to describe those
things which go against the moral tenets of society and I doubt any evil
being actually exists..."
Leaving aside the
issue of evidence, I am not sure how, if your views were held
consistently, it could not logically lead to some kind of moral anarchy.
If it’s MERELY your opinion, you would be implying that it doesn't
matter at all whether or not people share it. For if you don't think that
your views are in SOME sense 'absolute', then are you saying that they can be
embraced/rejected without any impact whatsoever? Why should anyone agree
with your position over against, say, a directly contrary one?
Logically, this
would mean that a commandment like, "Thou shalt not rape", is
up to anyone to accept or reject (according to their opinion), and there is no
absolute value on its evil (or goodness?). One opinion is as good as
any. Why, frankly, should murders (say, out of nothing apart from the
desire of one person for another to die) be discouraged? Is
'destruction' such a bad thing after all? What if someone else 'sees' the
Holocaust as something good? Does nothing arbitrate between his
'opinion' and yours?
Also, I think you'd
need to justify what you consider to be NOT a man-made
concept. You obviously believe that, assuming you're right, propositions
like 'Evil is a man-made concept" have some absolute truth-value i.e. your
statements are co-terminous with reality somehow. In a word, you have
to believe that your view is not man-made(!) For if it is, then it's stands on no firmer ground than
the evil you believe doesn't really exist. But how can you justify
this? What do you suppose distinguishes 'man-made' from
'non-man-made'?
Anyway, the bottom
line is that I doubt agnosticism is a viable (if even coherent) alternative
EVEN IF one rejects what the religions teach...
Short note on
evil: I think evil is what results when God's creatures do or
will whatever is contrary is His heart of love and expressed through
the precepts ('rules') He's set for the world. Evil is non-love and
non-goodness embodied in the actions and choices of free
agents. The horror we see (almost) everyday are to be considered 'evil',
because they are the direct/indirect result of evil hearts; evil 'comes
from' evil persons. The solution would then, quite naturally,
involve changing this person, a process which presumably can only be
initiated, implemented and completed by yet another person...though a ‘perfect’
One this time…(smile)
Will stop here for
now...do let me know if I've made any sense with my objections(!)...
Have a great
weekend...regards, Al.