I was raised Catholic and believed in Catholicism until about six years ago, when I was in my early 20’s. For the first time, I started to read some philosophers and writers that were critical of religion and faith (Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche, Dawkins, Schopenhauer, Epicurus). Their arguments against faith made a lot of sense to me; much more so than did Catholicism and Christianity. After some period of time, I came to believe (and still do) that faith is one of the dumbest concepts imaginable because if one has faith in a god than one can have faith in anything; I could believe that space aliens created the world and that would be just as logical as having faith in a god. I believe that all religions are jibberish. That being said, I don’t think there is NOT a god because I realize it’s impossible to know either way for sure. I can’t judge anything supernatural or outside the realm of my experience or knowledge, so, I can’t know for sure if god is or is not real. I literally believe that almost anything is possible regarding human existence and existential questions. God could, most surely exist, but it’s impossible for me to know at the present time.
I was never taken to any churches when I was a kid, and the only thing I knew about Jesus was what I heard from other kids at school. None of it made the slightest bit of sense to me, even the first time I heard it as a kid. Then I was like…yo I’ll study philosophy and all the world’s religions and I’ll take a gander at the history of science and I’ll go through all the logic courses so that I can have a real understanding of the world and what have you. So then I did that. And in the end I was like, well…there’s no sufficient response to the problem of first cause, and there’s no getting an answer out of any scientist about what happened before the big bang, no one can reconcile the impossible definition of God that uses the “3 omnis” with any notion of free will and I just don’t think that either side really has adequately addressed what’s necessary to prove their claims, (whether those be positive or negative claims). You see what I’m saying? The whole debate is canned, repetitive nonsense where no one proves anything. I don’t think probability can cover it. I think that certain kinds of things are just not knowable by their nature, and because of that, when we start trying to know them, we just fail. Maybe those things are “nothing”, maybe they’re, “some god or another”. Either way you slice it, both sides of that debate have a long way to go before they’ve done enough to silence the valid criticisms of the other. Plus…on top of that…it’s just a boring moot topic. Who really gives a shit if there’s a god or not?
Look out V, in a minute, a bunch of people are going to show up and insist that to be agnostic means that you’re actually an atheist, and then some might show up and say it means you’re actually a theist. A lot of people get confused when distinctions aren’t binary. Let’s get out the popcorn and see what happens.
There seems to be a contradiction here between: “…faith is one of the dumbest concepts imaginable because if one has faith in a god than one can have faith in anything” and “God could, most surely exist, but it’s impossible for me to know at the present time.” Just because I have the money to buy anything doesn’t mean I have to buy everything. I can select the things I want or need or like. That isn’t dumb. So, if people want or need or like God and therefore place faith in it, it isn’t dumb.
Agnosticism is a big tent with a wide range of possibilities. There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. If faith entailed certain knowledge, then it would seem unreasonable, because certainty isn’t possible. If one is certain, there is no need for faith. Faith happens where certainty isn’t possible. That’s why faith takes courage.
To be honest, I agree with Felix, since there is uncertainty in faith, otherwise we’d know, and therefore I am agnostic (=a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience). I was even an agnostic when I was in the church because of the same reasons. The thing that I always said (in keeping with C.S.Lewis) was that, as long as I do not know what we are talking about when I use the word God, I give the word my (often unspoken) definition which usually differs from the imagination of my neighbour. Therefore, when we sit in a church with others, we are all in one way praying to our own idols and have to hope that the deity we pray to, if there is such a “thing” or not, isn’t offended.
I’ve quoted Lewis enough here, so you’ll know what I mean
There haven’t been people here like that for years. Best you’re going to get is a theist/solipsist claiming that he is God, or snarky one-liners like this one.
So would you say faith is pressing forward in spite of doubt or not knowing? Or is faith doubt in and of itself, that as Nietzsche said: “Faith: not wanting to know what is true.”
Faith is the trust I have that what I value and cherish is worth pushing for, even if the basis of that faith is feeling or something which I cannot prove. In this way we have “faith” in those we love, in our family and friends as well as in the dignity of our fellow being or of all living creatures, depending upon what outlook we have, sometimes even though some of our species seem to be trying to convince us otherwise.
I also need faith that what I am doing is the right thing, or what the group I belong to is doing. If I were not to have faith in this way, I would be half-hearted. It is an advancement of trust which we hope will not be disappointed, either by the people I trust or by the world at large or nature.
Faith is therefore not as Nietzsche defined it, it isn’t “not wanting to know what is true”, but wanting what I value and trust to be true. Most importantly, it is definately an advantage if what I trust is trustworthy, which is the task that we all need to be mutually committed to, since without the attempt to be trustworthy for each other, trust or faith remains an illusion in all cases.
‘‘How did you come to be agnostic?’’
The odds for the existence of some ‘‘god’’ are, even in principle, totally incalculable; so these odds cannot be known more precisely than 50:50.
The only reasonable position, with the current state of human knowledge, is agnosticism.
But it depends what you mean by the word ‘‘agnostic’’… I dont think the gods of any of the theistic religions exist, although its certainly ‘‘possible’’…
