I was pleasantly surprised reading Lewis’s thoughts about Christianity and how he emphasized that Christians (and people of any faith) should have an open mind about other belief systems and not be so quick to throw down other faiths. What bothered me was his assertion that someone who considers themselves to be an atheist must, by definition, deny all belief systems. He makes it clear that one must either believe in God in the context of some religion or simply be a denying atheist. He seems to be missing a third option – a noncommittal agnostic point of view.
As a scientist in training, I am learning how to think about the world objectively and not put my full faith into something unless I have clear empirical evidence. Any plausible idea of a god, to me, transcends space and time and our universe and we will never have a clear case for or against its existence. The evidence is beyond us, as humans. I accept that there may be some higher power we do not understand – however, this power would be more unknowable than most people would be comfortable with. Since there is no way to prove or disprove this nothing, I remain happily noncommittal.
People seem to have this need to commit fully to one side of the argument to get some kind of satisfaction. I’m satisfied hanging on the fence and observing my universe objectively and answering the questions that I can. Discovering the secrets of the universe this way instead of contriving a god to explain them seems much more satisfying to me.
9 Comments
I think that in a way by choosing to take a noncommittal agnostic point of view though one sidesteps, well, commitment. I’m not saying that once someone makes a decision they are stuck there, for everyone changes their minds, but that one avoids a topic that for as long as can be remembered has had two contrasting opinions; the existence of a higher power or the absence of one.
I don’t think that the need to choose sides has to do with satisfaction, but rather with people wanting to know if you are either with them or against them. Religion can be an extremely touchy subject for most, as for some it reaches down to the core of who they are and their entire belief system. Because of this I think religion is something that should be kept personal, out of business and government and school. But then there are all of the ties it has to many other subjects which prevents this, such as morals, which is a part of every person’s everyday lives. As much as I would like to avoid it all together, religion has integrated itself into pretty much everything. Your belief in whether a higher power exists is a big factor in how you’re molded.
In a way I find it refreshing that you have chosen to look at the whole situation in a new light, and do what works best for you. You’ve taken an analytical view at something that many take on feelings and natural beliefs. When it all comes down to it though, none of us will every agree on the subject entirely. You either believe or you don’t, or as many people are starting to do, have placed yourself somewhere in the middle ground, watching while the two sides are stuck at an impasse.
I agree with you Milt. I also really liked his openness to all Christian religions and put them all on the same playing field. A lot of Christian religions put other Christian religions down; sometimes I don’t even think they realize they do it. I am a practicing Catholic and I hate it when we talk about other religions. The Church I used to go to put Catholicism up on a pedestal and that is why I left that church. I don’t think that any group is better or worse than any other. I also don’t see anything wrong with atheism. I think it is hard to talk about the agnostics. They are the hardest group to form a clear opinion on. Every agnostic believes something slightly different and I think that’s why Lewis ignored them as a group. I think that there are a lot of people, even religious people who are noncommittal when it comes to God. There is so much we don’t know and can’t know that it is hard to even try sometimes. There is no clear-cut answer when talking about God, and I think that’s okay. We don’t always need answers. I wish that Lewis had touched on the not knowing a little bit; it would have made for an even more interesting read.
I am happy that Milt brought up the fact that scientists learn to think objectively throughout their schooling. I believe that taking an objective outlook is one of the hardest tasks to do in certain cases or life situations. If everybody was applying the scientific method to their lives, there would be exactly 0 lotto tickets purchased. The same reason people eat fast food, and don’t work out. If people were using objective thinking all the time they would not smoke cigarettes, as tobacco is very bad for you. Yet, the state of New York makes millions of dollars every year on the lottery, 68% of Americans are overweight and 400,000+ people die every year from tobacco. When you really stop to think about all of these situations, it seems as if objective thinking isn’t involved. People still chose to participate despite the unreliability of an idea or act that directly applies to how they live their life. I feel that these scenario can be comparable to how people think about religion. According to, American Grace; How Religion Divides and Unites Us, 83% of Americans identify with a religious denomination. Still they have no factual or empirical evidence to back up their beliefs. Thinking about religion objectively is one of the hardest tasks to do as a human being and is certainly not a characteristic that many people share.
I feel like Lewis is right. If you are an atheist, you do have to deny all religions. All the religions say there is at least one god/God. Atheists think there is no god/God.
Being an agnostic is a great option. We don’t have any convincing evidence one way or the other so why should we commit to either side?
I fully agree with Milt here, I love the way you put your beliefs. The mention of scientific thinking is especially interesting to me, because I’ve heard other agnostics with similar reasoning, due to their scientific approach to figuring out what to believe. I think this class is especially interesting because we are taking that approach: a logical, thorough examination of different religious premises, based in provable arguments and rational thinking. In this way we side-step the more polarizing arguments that arise when people simply talk about what they believe. I love the idea of arguing religion based in sound arguments, instead of what people usually just do, which is just stating their opinions and feelings as fact, with no evidence to back themselves up.
That is one of the main problems I find with all religions, not just Christianity. Like Kapp said, people generally define their faith or lack there-of on their feelings and natural beliefs. Thus, when they go to talk with people of contrasting beliefs, the talk can quickly become heated and irrational, since there is way to prove either side is right or not. In philosophy, we thankfully have a more systematic, almost scientific approach, which allows us to look at the facts, discuss what doesn’t make sense in a logical way, and side-step all of the messy arguing that doesn’t accomplish anything or make anyone happy.
I like what you’re saying Milt. It’s true that many people feel as if they need to either believe in a god or not believe in a god. But, what’s wrong with saying “I don’t know if there is a god”?
Zuch I like that you brought up that churches like to put their religion up on a pedestal. I hate that people believe that their religion is better than any other religion. We have no way of proving whether there is a higher power or not, so how can we say that a particular religion is right or wrong?
The problem with agnosticism is that it gets you into meaningless statements about probability. An agnostic who repeats “I don’t know” is likely to be seen just as low as for believers and unbelievers alike. “Okay then, what do you think is more likely?” Agnostics in their drive to be even handed get pushed into saying that both are ‘equally likely’. Well, what on earth does that mean? Is that a statement about statistical probability? So, you spoke of science, in a repeatable experiment where the universe is created god appears 50% of the time? That’s absurd reasoning. Please clarify.
The problem is you are trying to include God within the realm of science. If God cannot be proven or disproven, then the question of his existence is not even a scientific one – that’s why we are talking about this in a philosophy class. I was simply stating that because I am a scientific thinker, the existence of God does not concern me.
Agnosticism to me is not about being on the fence because there is an “equally likely” probability of God existing or not. I do not try to be even handed, I just keep an open mind until my questions are answered. Agnosticism is the choice to not question whether God exists in the first place, and to concern myself with more empirical questions. With luck, finding answers to those questions will help me understand more about my universe – it does for me what religion does for others.
Also, how could saying “I don’t know” be considered low? Isn’t that the point of philosophical thinking? According to Socrates, admitting that you do not know things is the basis of true wisdom.
You are trying to apply scientific concepts like statistics and probability to God, and that can’t be done. I’m not saying science and religion aren’t compatible; in fact it is because they occupy separate niches that they CAN exist in harmony. I’m just saying you can’t apply the same type of thinking to them.
Yes, but according to your reasoning here, scientifically speaking, we must either be athiests or theists. Your reasoning here leaves no room for agnosticism.