I don't claim to be an expert on agnosticism, but I still have a question in my mind that I've been pondering.
Why does the agnostic choose only to follow his agnosticism?
Here's why I wonder (taking into account that I don't know all the in's and out's of their beliefs): The agnostic believes we cannot know God. We cannot know what is true. There probably is truth, but we just don't have the capacity to know it.
So my question is, why does the agnostic choose to live with his agnosticism? If truth is out there somewhere, even though we can't really know it, at least if they believed in something they'd have better odds at being right than remaining in their chasm of uncertainty. Especially concerning matters of eternity. From their viewpoint, "What if there is a God, and a heaven and hell?" Well, since we can't know for sure what is true about these matters, I might as well not believe anything." Even though they know it is possible for the truth to be in something, regardless of our capacity to know it. So what makes them choose "nothing" rather than "something," seeing that "nothing" comes with the greatest risk (100%) for dying apart from truth? I'm not sure exactly. I would guess that it has something to do with the natural desire (or a "default state of being") to have freedom from the rules and restrictions that are popularly perceived to come with the territory of believing in "something," and to control their own lives. This could be enhanced by different experiences these people have endured in their lives. They disown religion because it didn't work for them before in certain circumstances. "I prayed for God to heal my mom, but she died instead. If there was a God, He wouldn't have let that happen." Thus begins the vicious cycle of logical justifications for disbelief in God, beginning with an occurance wherein things didn't happen in a way that the person thought they should have happened if God were the way they thought Him to be (and not to harp on this, but as a rebuttal, how can those who now claim to not be able to know truth claim that they know what God should look and act like? But the emotional damage has been done [not by the hand of God, but by a reaction that came from a false understanding of God mixed with a circumstantial trigger], and they are sold in their new belief) The possibilities are endless. All this to say, I wonder why agnostics sit on their beliefs when the greatest potential outcome is failure?
1 comment:
I think it's helpful to acknowledge degrees of agnosticism, as well. There are hard agnostics who may as well for all practical purposes be atheists. They are hostile to all things they perceive as irrational. But there are some soft agnostics out there who are less hostile toward the spiritual realm. Perhaps some of these are those whom the Spirit is leading toward salvation.
Anyway, hard agnostics (atheists) have ceased searching for truth because they believe they have already found it. They have made their commitment, and no matter what they claim otherwise, they have ceased "following the evidence."
Post a Comment