Talking Religion...

[Fungo Squiggly]

I was using agnostic as an identifier for those who believe that it's not possible to know for certain whether or not a deity exists. It's a strict interpretation of agnosticism.

Such a person could believe that atheists are similar to theists in that each group believes in something which a strict agnostic believes it is not possible to be certain about.

Personally, I think that the definitions of theist, atheist, and agnostic should be mutually exclusive, but unfortunately the usage of "agnostic" has become muddied.

I don't know what to think about this.

 

[Gatorubet]

I don't know what to think about this.

Cheese makes theological self-determinative labeling hard?

 

[Taosman]

Cheese makes theological self-determinative labeling hard?

That's a bunch of baloney! :tongue2:

 

[localyokel]

Give us this day our daily bread...

and some Miracle Whip, and we'll all have sammiches.

 

[Brewtus]

.
.
.
But.. to me.. that there is anything at all... begs the question... why should there even be a universe in the first place? I don't know.... maybe at the end of the day, the ultimate question is does our universe exist for a reason or not.

Theists, ironically, need a reason to "justify" why the universe is even here in the first place...
Non-theists seem to be comfortable saying "Who cares why. We're here. Fact." and are perfectly happy examining the universe from this perspective.

Why are we here v. We are here

(Great post by the way, thanks for taking the time to write it). I think we can both agree that no one knows with a high level of certainty as to how or why the universe came to be. Science continues to explore that question and maybe one day we'll have a good answer, but then again maybe we'll never know. So it seems that in summary Theists have a need to propose the existence of a Creator to explain why the universe is here and how humans fit into it. While on the other hand I simply state "I don't know" and will reserve judgment until I have a good reason to believe something. And I just don't see how one can simply look at the fact that the universe exists and immediately make the jump to assuming that a God also exists.

There's also the issue of separating the existence of a God and a Creator as they can be two mutually exclusive beings. If your argument is that the entire universe is evidence enough, then I would argue that this is only an argument for a Creator and not an eternal, all-knowing and all-powerful God. For all we know the Creator could have been some advanced alien being who seeded our universe into existence, but says nothing about the existence of a God. (It also says nothing about the existence of Christ, the accuracy of the Bible or what happens after we die.)

I just don't see how an argument from ignorance (claiming that God is an explanation for things we don't have knowledge of) is a credible explanation for anything since it really doesn't answer anything (how and why did God create the universe and what created God?).

 

[buckeyegrad]

I just don't see how an argument from ignorance (claiming that God is an explanation for things we don't have knowledge of) is a credible explanation for anything since it really doesn't answer anything (how and why did God create the universe and what created God?).

How many religions actually base their claims of the existence of God out of an argument of ignorance (i.e. God of the gaps)? That sounds like Greek philosophy to me, not the religious experiences of most world faiths.

Take the Judeo-Christian tradition for example. Despite 2000 years of theological discussions, the faith remains grounded on the experiences of men, not on treatises they wrote to explain things they didn't understand. When reading the Bible (OT and NT) one does not find individuals grappling with trying to understand the world around them, especially the physical, and then decide, oh, it can be explained by God. (Granted, the wisdom literature and prophets do show a struggle, but only with a foreknowledge that God exists--usually they are theodic struggles.) Rather, you see individuals who have an experience with the divine and then react to it.

 

[Gatorubet]

How many religions actually base their claims of the existence of God out of ignorance (i.e. God of the gaps)? That sounds like Greek philosophy to me, not the religious experiences of most world faiths.

Take the Judeo-Christian tradition for example. Despite 2000 years of theological discussions, the faith remains grounded on the experiences of men, not on treatises they wrote to explain things they didn't understand. When reading the Bible (OT and NT) one does not find individuals grappling with trying to understand the world around them, especially the physical, and then decide, oh, it can be explained by God. (Granted, the wisdom literature and prophets do show a struggle, but only with a foreknowledge that God exists.) Rather, you see individuals who have an experience with the divine and then react to it.

All due respect, but huge parts of the OT could very reasonably be said to be attributions to things they did not understand. The Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis accounts of Fhe flood are pretty much a prime example of that, as is the entire Genesis creation account for that matter. I mean, unless one believes in an inerrant Biblical account of Adam and Eve, you are pretty much "square on" God of the Gaps stuff when it comes to how the planet and Sun and animals were created. That is very "Thunder is Thor's hammer" type stuff, for all of its allegorical and linguistic beauty.

 

[buckeyegrad]

All due respect, but huge parts of the OT could very reasonably be said to be attributions to things they did not understand. The Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis accounts of Fhe flood are pretty much a prime example of that, as is the entire Genesis creation account for that matter. I mean, unless one believes in an inerrant Biblical account of Adam and Eve, you are pretty much "square on" God of the Gaps stuff when it comes to how the planet and Sun and animals were created. That is very "Thunder is Thor's hammer" type stuff, for all of its allegorical and linguistic beauty.

Is that how it is presented? Is that what you actually get through good exegesis? Or is that what you, and many modernists, read into it?

Forget the issue of inerrancy for a minute and whether their depictions are accurate--that is another issue. Do the writers of the text write in a manner of expressing their experiences and reactions to experiences or theologizing their struggles with the unknown? It is the first--except again, in the examples of the prophets and wisdom literature when they are struggling with issues of theodicy, which already assumes an existence of God.

 

[cincibuck]

From my admittedly limited theological base, is it not true that all major religions have a creation story, that several have used virgin birth and/or life after death, resurrection , that most contain miracles as proof of their divine connections? Would these not constitute God of the Gaps theology? And would they not indicate an innate human need to try and understand where we came from?

I believe that most of us feel a need for a spiritual community and that most of us form a community around norms we can accept.

It seems to me that when we reach outside to look at the core beliefs of other religions we are surprised to find that they are strikingly similar to our own and to each other - that it is religion, not spirituality, which tries to create differences, justifications and repudiations of what others believe.

 

[buckeyegrad]

To further elaborate on my last two posts, Blaise Pascal's own declaration of his faith best sums up what I am trying to express without writing a Gatoresque Wall of Text:

God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and the scholars.

Pascal had this statement sown into the inside of his cloak as a daily reminder to himself that his faith in God was grounded in experience, not philosophical musings. Pascal understood that the god of theology was not real in that it was the construction of the theologians; but God that is experienced is very real. He references Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob because again, these men experienced God and only knew God through those experiences. They were not theologians seeking to fill the gaps of their knowledge by theorizing about what a god who could fill those gaps would be like.

 

[Gatorubet]

Is that how it is presented? Is that what you actually get through good exegesis? Or is that what you, and many modernists, read into it?

Forget the issue of inerrancy for a minute and whether their depictions are accurate--that is another issue.

Well, for some that is an "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...." type contemplation, but I see where you are going.

Do the writers of the text write in a manner of expressing their experiences and reactions to experiences or theologizing their struggles with the unknown? It is the first--except again, in the examples of the prophets and wisdom literature when they are struggling with issues of theodicy, which already assumes an existence of God.

Assuming most of this was long standing oral tradition, I would assume we're are talking more hermeneutic than exegesis, but either way, I guess where I am having difficulty is your (here I am assuming, so - ya know what that is worth) proposition that humans did not "fill in the gaps" in a manner that included the use of personal experiences and a relationship with a Higher Power, one that might have been felt to be spiritually fulfilling by the person contemplating those issues in a framework with which they were familiar?

I guess I fail to see how one can conclude that Genesis did not involve "individuals grappling with trying to understand the world around them, especially the physical..." I do not see that effort as inconsistent or inapposite to the experiences of men, or precluding the participation of individuals who have an experience with the divine from being involved in that process - the process of searching for explanations in a world containing many issues beyond their explanation and for which they had no understanding absent a supernatural construct.

I think it would be presumptuous on our part to assume a lack of a relationship with the Divine when we look at how they answered those questions is all.

 

[Brewtus]

He references Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob because again, these men experienced God and only knew God through those experiences. They were not theologians seeking to fill the gaps of their knowledge by theorizing about what a god who could fill those gaps would be like.

So are you claiming that personal revelation is a reliable way to determine what is true? If someone claims to know something with absolute certainty through personal experiences, should others accept that claim as being true just at face value? I don't doubt the sincerity or honesty of the individual making the personal claim, but shouldn't the criteria for accepting whether something is universally true or not depend on much more than personal experiences?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I just don't see how an argument from ignorance (claiming that God is an explanation for things we don't have knowledge of) is a credible explanation for anything since it really doesn't answer anything (how and why did God create the universe and what created God?).

I understand what you mean, but it occurs to me that any theoretical idea that explains the universe is, similarly, an argument from ignorance. Why does this apple fall? Well, it must be this "gravity" thing.

Yeah, it makes sense, this gravity explanation.... but... and I joke about this... it could very well be "intelligent falling" which is "truly" responsible for why things fall out of the sky and to the ground.

Anyway, I do agree with you that mankind has a long history of saying this or that god is responsible for this or that phenomena which escaped our level of knowledge. Consequently, there's plenty of reason to think that a creator is nothing more than an answer to a question we don't really have an answer for. Still, much like gravity (to me, anyway), G-d isn't just a band-aid answer to a complicated question... it's more of a theory, I guess. One which, to me, has stood up to inquiry and examination as compared to things I can actually observe. If that makes sense....

So.. If you ask me, did G-d make the planet Jupiter... my answer, "technically" yes.. but.. no. In other words, he's not like some guy molding clay and then putting these creations on some canvass. that's just not the way I see the universe behaving (tho, depending on the level of our technology, there are things which do appear to "pop" into existence... I just choose to believe those things existed prior to our ability to observe them). But, it's "technically" yes, in my view, because the whole thing was "set in motion" by the Creator. Like.. I created my children... but.. they evolved into the people they are without my direct intervention (Not to say I haven't had any influence on them.. of course I have... I mean more to the point that they were both once a handful of cells imbedded on a uterus. I didn't have anything to do with them becoming little people... neither did the wife.. it just happened under whatever "natural" rules govern.

Hope that makes some sense.

 

[Brewtus]

Yeah, it makes sense, this gravity explanation.... but... and I joke about this... it could very well be "intelligent falling" which is "truly" responsible for why things fall out of the sky and to the ground.
.
.
.
Hope that makes some sense.

I think I understand your position and agree that we'll never have 100% certainty in understanding anything. Yes, there could be "intelligent gravity" but science has a very good understanding of how gravity works through many independent lines of investigation, experimentation and prediction. The explanation for gravity may have morphed over time (from Newtonian physics to Relativity to maybe something else in the future), but it has consistently and accurately been explained through natural forces without any divine interference being necessary so why think otherwise?

But I don't understand how God or a Creator is a better explanation than "I don't know". Please explain how God "has stood up to inquiry and examination" when by its very nature God cannot be examined. Mistaking the fact of the universe even existing and the extremely unlikely scenario that humans evolved as an explanation for God seems to me like the ultimate argument from ignorance. The occurrence of very rare events do not imply, by default, some sort of supernatural cause.

And as I wrote previously, God and a Creator can be mutually exclusive beings. I'm not sure if you're arguing for just a Creator who has only had input into the initial creation of the universe but does not exist now or has given no further input, or a personal God that still interacts with the universe and provides for some kind of life after death for humans.

 

[Gatorubet]

To further elaborate on my last two posts, Blaise Pascal's own declaration of his faith best sums up what I am trying to express without writing a Gatoresque Wall of Text:

God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and the scholars.

Pascal had this statement sown into the inside of his cloak as a daily reminder to himself that his faith in God was grounded in experience, not philosophical musings. Pascal understood that the god of theology was not real in that it was the construction of the theologians; but God that is experienced is very real. He references Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob because again, these men experienced God and only knew God through those experiences. They were not theologians seeking to fill the gaps of their knowledge by theorizing about what a god who could fill those gaps would be like.

Therein lies the problem. Every religious tradition contains sincere individuals of good faith who not only claim to have, but in fact have had rich and deeply held experiences with God, and who only know God through those experiences. And yet, they all fundamentally disagree with each other to lesser and greater extents on the nature and truth of God. Which is all to say, while a rich personal experience is in no way to be diminished or disregarded - the fact that many different people over many different eras and cultures claim validity for their own flavor truth tends to make that - experience - problematic when used as a claim for the validity of the existence of God - or of one's flavor God - or of a single God for that matter. I'm sure polytheists had similar experiences back in the day, but that richness of experience would not make their belief system any more valid to non-believers by virtue of that personal experience.

It boils down to Faith. One has it, or one does not.