tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post1054146871870178782..comments2024-01-24T10:39:27.668-05:00Comments on Coming Untrue: What You Don’t Know Can Kill YouDr. S. L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06303707167715370504noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-14216467658708018662014-09-18T19:43:32.957-04:002014-09-18T19:43:32.957-04:00Nicely put, Russ. I agree.
I talk to quite a lot...Nicely put, Russ. I agree.<br /><br />I talk to quite a lot of nominal atheists...meaning people who have chosen that position without knowing anything about it at all. Often they've just "heard somewhere" that all intelligent people are atheists, and they sure want to be one of those, so they opt to call themselves that.<br /><br />Others are quite relieved by the fact that calling themselves atheists obviates the need to do any search of the various beliefs, philosophies, religions and ideologies in the world -- better to banish them all with a wave of the back of your hand than have to struggle with any facts, they suppose.<br /><br />Still others...and if I can believe his own account, Dawkins is one of these...take atheism to heart because of some personal tragedy, often one in their youth. Like the young C.S. Lewis, they are angry at God for allowing bad things to happen to them, so they "pay Him back" by denying His existence. That's maybe the oddest position of all.<br /><br />Anyway, I really believe nobody becomes an atheist through sound reason, for the simple reason that atheism is irrational, meaning it's the negation of the idea that God exists premised on insufficient data to make such a claim. So I find there's always something else that is really motivating it, and unless we get past the superficial level and on to the real cause, there's not a lot one can do about it.<br /><br />Mercifully, sometimes God allows us to find a way.Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-66242393471468382492014-09-18T12:02:15.465-04:002014-09-18T12:02:15.465-04:00Thanks for the clarification. I had assumed the es...Thanks for the clarification. I had assumed the essay was to "help" or point out a "better way" for the agnostic. If the main audience is Christians, I get the point.<br /><br />And like a consistent "atheist" I concur that any rational person has to accept that both God could exist and could be a person who wishes to reveal himself to us. Those are both reasonable, event though one might wish to debate the probability of such claims.<br /><br />The typical pragmatic agnostic position is almost: "I don't care or why should I care?" I think we can agree that this is simply academic laziness in the guise of intellectualism. It is true, that humans can and do take the "I don't really care" posture, and God does not necessarily reveal to them their folly.<br /><br />I more reasoned agnostic position in my mind is: "Well there are just so many voices crying out that God has revealed himself. And many of them are contradictory and I simply do not have the time to really research each one of them thoroughly to pick out a best one if one actually exists". I am somewhat sympathetic with this view, but it boils down to laziness as well.<br /><br />Faith based on Biblical revelation is indeed reasonable and I agree, should never be threatened by the tepid waters of agnosticism. Thanks for your thoughts.<br /><br />Quisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13290921435307877508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-79100948303865435852014-09-17T16:47:22.614-04:002014-09-17T16:47:22.614-04:00Well, Russ, it's not so much designed to "...Well, Russ, it's not so much designed to "help" the agnostic -- although I think it can, if he's thinking carefully -- as to help Christians (our audience) to see why agnosticism is no danger to theism.<br /><br />Of course I don't expect the agnostic to feel that because the Bible says something he is obliged to believe it. Please let me add that caveat. I'm not saying he *knows* if or where God has spoken. He plainly doesn't and admits he doesn't. And he can't be expected to take our word alone for a confirmation.<br /><br />However, if he wants to *remain* a rational agnostic, he should be able to tell us through a rational argument how that he has ruled out the *possibility* that God has spoken. Is it a rational judment on his part, or merely a hope/wish/desire? If it's any of the latter, then it's merely an expression of his own not-knowing, but not a position a rational person must share. If, on the other hand, he's going on evidence, then he should be able to say what his evidence-of-God's-not-speaking is. <br /><br />But he cannot.<br /><br />Add to that this: that if God *has* spoken -- in any tradition or way at all -- then agnosticism is only warranted as a temporary statement of personal confusion. And if, as the Bible asserts, one can actually *see* and *know* of His existence and/or will, and the agnostic is preserving his agnosticism only by refusing to see what God claims he/she ought to be able to see, then his/her agnosticism is not rationally grounded, but rather premised on a willful rejection of the evidence. <br /><br />So the argument achieves two things: firstly, it gives us an explanation for why wish-agnosticism may be rational for a lone individual, but that him claiming anyone else is obligated to be an agnostic is irrational. (They may or may not be, depending on whether or not they have different information than the agnostic.) Secondly, it shows that agnosticism is no kind of threat at all to a theist; and that if one did, in fact know God, then no matter how many agnostics there were, it wouldn't rationally imperil what the theist himself or herself personally knew.<br />Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-57112456143844180812014-09-17T10:06:08.593-04:002014-09-17T10:06:08.593-04:00Playing the role of the agnostic * somewhere on th...Playing the role of the agnostic * somewhere on the 0-7 scale * I do not find this argument helpful, unless one takes the view that there exists one and only one assertion (i.e. the Scriptures) which claim clearly that God spoke and that assertion is most likely true. What if there are other assertions? E.g. God speaks but only via personal experience and conscience. Or God has spoken and his prophet is Mohammed. Or God has spoken and Joseph Smith is his main man. The agnostic has to evaluate all such claims to "revelation" and "bet" perhaps on one of them, given they are mutually exclusive. Of course even once we admit that God has spoken according to the OT and NT scriptures, we have yet to reach the hurdle of "what does it mean". One interesting observation re. human thought is that most agnostics wish they could no, one way or the other.Quisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13290921435307877508noreply@blogger.com