Agnosticism Revisited
On February 28th, I wrote on agnosticism. “GoodWorks” responded with some questions aimed at things that were either unclear or absent. I think that they deserve attention. Rather than answering the questions in light or in “defense” of my post, I will treat them as new questions, and therefore avoiding semantic arguments as much as possible. GoodWorks asked one question that I think, if answered, addresses the others:
“The problem lies in that you posit the moralistic concepts of "right" and "wrong" as isolated from any reference point. How do you assert a reference point for such transient concepts?”
Adhering to agnosticism isn’t giving up morality or more specifically, a reference point. While people of faith often attribute the cause of morality as God, agnosticism is the claim that there is not enough evidence to make or deny this assertion with certainty. The reference point then is life. Admittedly, I have not gone into much detail on what this entails specifically, but I think this can be defended broadly as well: from both religious and secular viewpoints (a possible appeal of agnosticism). The relationship between God and faith are not exactly pellucid: did God choose what is moral based on its merits or out of shear whim? Some have answered that what is moral is moral simply because God chose it. Others have noted that God is perfect and therefore would, out of all possible (maybe even impossible?) options, have chosen the best option. On one hand we have an arbitrary morality, and on the other we have a God shackled by determinism. If the answer is “arbitrary morality,” then we are in some serious trouble: how do we, simple mortals, understand a morality defined outside of the scope of our reason? Most will say that we must turn to the Bible (or other texts), but this is little consolation: how should we interpret it? Will our reason help in this regard? Why should it? Even if it does, there have been different interpretations on very important aspects of morality made by various intelligent people. The other option, if not objectively correct, is certainly more useful (what good is a morality we can’t hope to understand?). If God chose a morality based on its merits, then it is possible to learn and follow this morality based on the realization of its merits. It is then possible to have a morality, perhaps identical to one a person of faith would, or rather should, follow, without a clear understanding or faith in God. As those without God follow, or at least should, follow moralities based on the value it has to their own lives (such as social contracts: don’t kill, don’t steal, etc.), agnostics are free to do the same. The only difference being that agnostics claim that it is still possible, and consistent, to have all things derive from a higher power(s). The reference point is our own lives.
I feel bad attempting posts at 1:30 in the morning due to an acute disposition to sleep rather than think. I'll attempt to stave off my Rip Van Winkle moment to address this, but bear with me I'm in that I feel like the only we way can do this subject justice is a good old fashioned face-to-face discussion. That having been said, I posit the idea of liminality in regards to the guidelines of Christianity; I'm aware you speak of religion in a general sense, but being a Christian I feel most apt to approach that theistic belief in a sort of theological synecdoche in which Christianity stands for religion in general (at least for the sake of this argument). We are given a guideline, or a rulebook if you will, in the Bible. Now it is very easy to point out seemingly contradictory statements or beliefs and use that to attribute a somewhat sliding-scale system to Christian morality. I feel that this is an over-simplifcation, albeit one which is unavoidable when the question is posed by one outside of the faith.
ReplyDeleteThis is not to discredit your question, however merely to say that there are some things which can be described, and somethings that can only be felt. While I cannot speak for all of Christianity as a whole, I'll refer you to my approach in the hopes it sheds some light on a rather obscure and somewhat intangible subject. I follow the Bible as closely as possible, and whenever there is an issue of ambiguity regarding an issue, I pray for clarification, then proceed to research the context of the ambiguity in an effort to dissolve it, as well as factoring in any ways in which God has spoken to me. I allow my conscience to guide my way most of the time, however use my Biblical knowledge to reign me in whenever something I feel is morally right disagrees with scripture. I feel like I'm ranting due to the fact that I can't stay awake and my words very likely lack coherency right now, but should you be of the inclination to discuss further, please let me know.