Think

To Be Or Not To Be ... Part 6

So is there any way around this yet another irony; though they are an inseparable part of our reasoning system, we can accept gods only if we do not think about them.

Michael W. Austin a professor of philosophy at Eastern Kentucky University in his article "Why Atheism Can't Replace Religion" published in Psychology Today writes:

"If something is to replace religion, perhaps some form of secular humanism will accomplish this task. But here we run into another problem, namely, that human beings long for transcendence of some sort, as shown by the presence and prevalence of religious belief throughout cultures across time."

Besides theism and atheism, there is one other view on divinity.

The agnosticism claims that metaphysical and religious positions such as whether divinity or the supernatural exist cannot be based on the current knowledge.

Though Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, created the term in 1859, agnostic ideas have been present in Indian and Greek philosophy as early as 5-th century BCE.

Acknowledging the limits of human perception, agnostics can only make objective assertions and therefore cannot accept or deny divinity, remaining doubtful and noncommittal on the matter.

Thomas Henry Huxley defines agnosticism as being "not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

Offering a coherent and rational position towards divinity, agnosticism is a doctrine rather than a religion. Nevertheless, both theists and atheists fail to see the real scope of agnosticism.

Atheists see agnostics just as cowards who generally do not argue for any specific opinion. They just stand back and set themselves up as the "rational" party, always demanding a higher degree of certitude before they may consent. As they believe they always have a clear advantage in clarity and coherence of their viewpoint, atheists would rather argue with theists over whom they trust.
Reasoning with agnostics can be very frustrating because they take scepticism and never give it up. On more subtle level atheists may feel that the whole scientific edge of their philosophy is overshadowed by the ungrounded and irrational beliefs exposed by agnostics.

Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, see the denial an equal sin to doubting divinity and therefore they consider agnosticism and atheism similar. And this confusion is common among the atheists too among whom there are many who consider them atheists and agnostics.

By definition though, agnosticism and atheism are fundamentally different. Agnostics cannot be atheists and the atheists cannot be agnostics.

Once atheists change the absolute denial to just doubting the existence of divinity, they accept a possibility that divinity may exist. And that denies atheism. Once agnostics accept absolute denial of divinities, they resign the attitude of doubt on the existence of divinity, which defines agnosticism.

Unlike neither the theist nor atheist the agnostics cannot have preconceptions. Therefore ungrounded religious believes or disbelieves are absolutely incompatible with agnosticism.

Hence, opposing neither the theism nor atheism, agnosticism's position is based entirely on understanding. Agnostics like to see themselves as mere observers of the atheism/theism debates.

Take "Creation versus Evolution" controversy. Somehow, this almost two-century-old dispute is being perceived in the Christian world as the one, which would settle the existence or non-existence of divinity.

Consequent to their "believe and do not doubt" decree, the Christians Church is determined to view the divine creation happening exactly as described in the Bible. Consequent to their strategy to solely expose the opponents' inconsistencies, the atheists neglect any possible conciliation between creationism and evolutionism.

They are aware that a such line of scrutiny would render logical rational results, they would make them in fact loose the one battle they absurdly belief will prove gods do not exist.

Unexpectedly, attempts to reveal new hidden meaning of the Bible came from some theologians who have attempted to settle the biblical Creation story with the evolutionary explanation for the origin of life for a long time. Though this approach is logically sound and within the confines of the Holly Book, the Christians Church would not accept such redefinitions.

Evoking intangible divine rules for which they can produce no proof of authenticity, the Christian dogmatists decreed that such an interpretation of Scripture could not be supported by sound principles of Bible study.

Despite their academic naming, these principles are just a set of rules to base on questionable circular reasoning such as "the Bible interprets the Bible" or arbitrary truisms such as "the Bible is always relevant".

One eloquent demonstration of how the agnosticism can work objectively so the Bible creationism can be interpreted to concur with scientific facts is brilliantly exposed in the book of Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, "Inherit the Wind".

The book is based on a real-life case in 1925. Two great lawyers, the agnostic lawyer Henry Drummond and fundamentalist politician Matthew Brady argue the case for and against a science teacher accused of the crime of teaching evolution.

"Drummond:

That first day, what do you think it was?

Brady:

- The Bible says it was a day.

- There was no sun. How do you know how long it was?

- The Bible says it was a day.

- A normal day, a literal day, 24-hour day?

- I don't know.

- What do you think?

- I do not think about things I do not think about.

- Do you ever think about things that you do think about? Isn't it possible that it could have been 25 hours?

- There's no way to measure it, no way to tell.

- Could it have been 25 hours?

- It's possible.

- Then you interpret that the first day, as recorded in the Book of Genesis, could have been a day of indeterminate length?

- I mean to state that it is not necessarily a 24-hour day.

- It could have been 30 hours.

Could have been a week.

Could have been a month.

Could have been a year, 100 years.

Or it could have been ten million years."

A logical interpretation of the Bible where the Genesis could have in fact lasted indefinite periods of time rather than six days of twenty-four hour days as the text literal indicates.

A very intriguing conclusion; approached in agnostic manner, the creationism and evolutionism stand a chance where both theories can co-exist.

Could somehow the agnosticism offer a new way to discover the truth surrounding the divinity? Could agnosticism be at the base of the religion of the future?

We cannot tell yet.

Nevertheless, while the divine existence may remain a mystery, what if in order to generate a universe, god-like capabilities, absolute knowledge and power would not be needed?

End of To Be Or Not To Be ...