As you may have guessed from my handle, you can call me Ether, and I'm an agnostic. I come not to argue, but to bring forth your input and reasoning, and maybe have a little friendly debate.
First, let me define my 'brand' of agnosticism. Simply put, there may or may not be a god, it is impossible to test for or prove. Even if there were a god, statistically, the chance that any known faith on Earth is correct is so unbelievably small that it seems inherently strange, to me at least, that there are so many professing different faiths (or different branches of the same faith) as 'right' (for lack of a better term). I have never seen, in my experience, or read of an instance lending any credence to the beliefs of any specific faith. I am a strong supporter of evolutionary theory, as well. I was raised in a Christian household, but after gaining my own world-view and traveling a bit, I stripped myself of that 'title', per se, and found that the system I now most identify with is that of a strong agnostic. I do not believe in the organized practice of religion, as I feel this has done more harm than good, and has only bred war (the Crusades, Palestinians vs. Israelites, etc.), hate (Holocaust, etc.), and has served as a divider between peoples rather than a unifier -- aside from the obvious hindrances to scientific process even in the recent past.
Please do not confuse me with those of atheistic belief. While I may identify more strongly with such a system, it does not mean that I believe there "is no god." This is purely a belief and cannot be tested, either. For all we know, in my understanding, "god" could be a large teapot in the sky... or maybe the FSM argument, as I'm sure some of you are familiar with. This also brings into question what defines (a) "god."
So I ask you all - what makes your faith the right one? Beyond simply saying "because I have faith", "because I was brought up like this", or the like -- give me a solid reason, if you please. Why is (are) your 'god(s)' the god(s)?
Thank you.
-Ether
Hello Ether,
You sound a little like a logical positivist, the idea that a meaningful definition of God cannot be made seems more like ignosticism than agnosticism, (but perhaps that's just splitting hairs).
I would say religion (though not necessarily organized religion) has done a lot of good in the world that isn't appreciated. People will find outlets for their greed, and seek positions of power no matter what the situation. If religion becomes a tool in their hands, it is not the fault of the faith (whichever one that may be), as I do not believe a worldview should be judged by its abuses.
I had a similar experience myself, I was an atheist at one point, but certain arguments kept coming up in my mind that I couldn't get away from. For example, I couldn't dismiss the idea that God created the universe because God would have needed to be created. Even Aristotle's use of God in his universe as the uncaused cause, (the unmoved mover and source of motion) precluded the necessity of his creation, and this being equally as possible or impossible as anything else, stripped me of that particular objection.
It doesn't stop there though, an uncaused cause could be any cause, it doesn't need to be God. But what if the cause was intelligent? This is where the fine tuning "problem" came in.
It seems to me that this cause must be able to cause the universe, (hence is not contained by it and must be intelligent) I see little real alternative here than a supernatural creator. Furthermore, as consious beings, who can ask "why am I here?" "what is my purpose?" It doesn't seem coincidental that we find the univerese hints at one.
One alternative, A
Multiverse, has been suggested. However, I find there to be significant problems with the idea of the multiverse as an explanation, that if there are infinite universes, the right universe would exist at some point which would allow life. Least of these, is from a strictly scientific perspective, that it is more elegant to posit a designer than an infinite amount of universes with no evidence, and that it commits the inverse gambler's fallacy.
We can discuss this more later, but lets move on because I want to get through this without making a post that is so long that no one wants to read it.
The next question is why would God bother with us? My thoughts on this were always that if God (assuming he exists) went through the trouble of designing the univerese, he probably will interact with it in some way.
We are fairly small in the universe though, of little significance, why us?
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised thingsand the things that are notto nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him (1 Cor. 1:27-29).
It is what I see in the story of Israel, to King David, to Jesus, God reveals his greatest glory through things that have little significance of their own.
Anyway, as to why Christianity, it comes down to for me, "were the apostles lying or telling the truth?". There is no time for legend to have built up, as the apostle John himself wrote about what he saw.
This is a strange world. It is one that likes to butcher preconceptions. I claim no special knowledge of my own, but I believe I can trust Jesus as I explore it.
But why not other religions? I do not find them as rational, or as likely. I usually employ C.S. Lewis's particular understanding (trilemma) with every situation then ask myself, "what are the implications?". Christianity held up under it I could find no others that did and had implications that caused me to follow.
As for the idea that religion has been losing ground or something like that. I will respond by saying that I do not buy into any myth of progress or regress. I see history as a dialectic between teleology and ateleology, with the ideas shifting back and forth each having its day, while I see that conflict between materialism and idealism, or the belief in the supernatural has not really given any ground that isn't still being hotly contested. The supernatural still exists in the same places it has always been since Aristotle, the first cause or creation, the soul, the afterlife, etc.
Also, if you are interested in materialism vs idealism, you might want to check out Berkley's defense of Idealism
here.
Anyway, talk to you soon hopefully,
God bless,
Tim
