From Ratzinger/Benedict’s Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures
Even if I throw in my theoretical lot with agnosticism, I am nevertheless compelled in practice to choose between two alternatives: either to live as if God did not exist or else to live as if God did exist. If I act according to the first alternative, I have in practice adopted an atheistic position and have made a hypothesis (which may also be false) the basis of my entire life….
When one attempts to “put it into practice” in one’s real field of action, agnosticism slips out of one’s hands like a soap bubble; it dissolves into thin air, because it is not possible to escape the very option it seeks to avoid.
The trouble with this view is that it has originated from a believer of a certain denomination, and this has characterized their view of the impossibility of a position between active faith (and only recognized denominations fit this, perhaps only the authors denomination is acceptable for the more radical) and active denial.
Denominationally, if one lives our live in the belief there is a god, then certain acts or thoughts are required of oneself. These recognitions are different between the monotheistic and polytheistic religions, and within the monotheistic's, even within each of the three main branches (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) there are a variety of denominations as well that hold diverging beliefs on what is required of a believer according to their own interpretation of the nature of god.
These seemingly make agnosticism impossible, as not following is held by each as equal to denial of their truth; but there is an alternative: That god makes no moral or physical demands on our universe. Thus we can accept the possibility of a god without endorsing them as morally worthy of our attention, or without accepting they play a physical role in altering the environment we find ourselves in. In short to create a agnostic denomination, that denies the presence of god makes any active demands on those who accept/suspect the existence of god.
To denominational believers this is a denial, because belief has specific demands on each of us, based on their own interpretation of god. But Agnostics can offer their own (arguably equally valid) interpretation that god has no want or need of us to act in any such fashion at all. Or Agnostics could take a negative view and whilst accepting the physical existence of god, deny any authority for this being that would justify any act of adherence or support. Indeed for many agnostics this is perhaps closer to the heart of their views as it is moral issues such as the problem of evil or the lack of positive intervention by God that destroy their faith. Believers argue there is only belief or non-belief, because this question is too important to be decided either way. But if I choose to grant god no moral authority over myself, and find evidence no physical authority either, then I can simply choose to be indifferent to his presence.
I think John Schwenkler is correct to note that
there’s little denying that in fact the life of the average agnostic or spiritual “seeker” is much more adequately described as structured by the conviction that God does not exist than the conviction that He might, and we’d better find out whether
However, that does not deny the possibility of a truly agnostic position situated between those of active faiths (with specific demands of both thought (that god exists) and action (recognition in daily life of gods presence/authority) and active disbelief, which demands only thought (that god does not exist).
A middle path is still quite plausible if you deny either the authority or importance of god, neither of which contradict a agnosticism towards the existence of. God-the-petty, god-the-small, god-the-away-on-holiday. All such views allow a agnosticism to be neither support nor denial of gods existence in practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment