An honest cry from an agnostic: Witness to me

Great Debates
21

OK- it looks like you need some faith in your life, but the more Conservative Christian Churches are right out. Hey- I am SO there with you, brother! I wanted some faith in my life- but not a lot of religion- if you can see the difference. I enjoyed reading the Bible- but I hated being told what it “meant”. I also wanted something with some roots, some history- and i stumbled upon the celtic church. I am not going to recommend a religous work- but there is a nice secular one: “How the Irish Saved Civilization”. Another good, non- religous book is “The Celtic Saints” by Nigel Pennick. I am not going to recommend any religous books- as you have to find a faith that calls to YOU, and fits your faith. There are a number of good Web sites you can find, if you want. Not that Celtic Christianity has a couple of 'wings", it goes from the Traditional- which is rather a bit like a liberal RC church (but no Pope) to the rather mystical branch.

However, it is also possible the Christian faith does not meet your faith needs. Altho i would be saddened by this- it is better for you to find a faith that fits you, rather than not beleiving at all. Maybe Reform Judaism, or Budhism. Maybe the Unitartian Church. Keep trying until you have found the one for you.

22

Well, I’m one of those two things you mention up there. I can honestly say that I’ve never heard an inner voice which I felt was generated externally or was the voice of a god or supernatural being of any sort. Not even when I was a Christian, which is one of the reasons I’m not one anymore. The religion (or faith or whatever you want to call it), as far as I’m concerned, fell on its own lack of evidence in my case.

I can’t say that there were any books I read that helped me make my decisions on these matters, but there were certainly books I started reading as my own decisions took me in particular directions. Steve Allen on the Bible, Morality and Religion is one, Carl Sagan’s Broca’s Brain is another, and most emphatically Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With A Thousand Faces. That last, I think, is essential to anyone seeking to understand the basis of the mythologies we as humans create for ourselves. (And before anyone gets all up in arms, make sure you understand what “mythology” means.)

23

THE AQUARIAN GOSPEL OF JESUS THE CHRIST has buddhist ideas but it claims to come from a very strange source, so calling it a gospel might not be a gospel thing to do. it’s the ESP stuff again.

it claims to detail christ’s life during the years missing from the standard gospels. visiting india apparently, trying not to get murdered by priests. JC didn’t get along with a lot of religious types apparently. odd for the founder of a religion. ;-D

Dal Timgar

24

I was neither of those things at first either. I was pretty happy with my life at the time. It wasn’t until after I had been working on my faith for a long time, years, that I gained any inner peace.

Working on my faith mostly entailed just struggling with it. I didn’t join a thousand different churches and and go to Sunday school. I figured out the nuts and bolts part first, the part about helping others. Once I got involved heavily in volunteering, I started looking around for people I respected, and then started asking myself what the differences were between us. When I tried to see what I could do to accomplish more, I realized that I had to change some things in myself first.

It was (and is) a long journey. I think I would have to honestly say that it took me a good 8 years before I hit the point of no return in my faith. I spent a lot of that time not even thinking about it, but it sort of crept back up on it’s own all the time.

I wish you well on this search. Even if the weeks come and go, and you write this thread off, I have a feeling that this issue will dog you for a long time. At least until you come to some sort of solution that feels right to you inside.

25

Me, I grew up in a non-religious household. My family never talked about religion, we didn’t go to church, and I have consequently grown up as a firm agnostic (note that I didn’t say “atheist”).

I am a sceptical soul, and yet I too have come to the conclusion that there is more to the world than can be explained through mere empiricism. This is the paradox of agnosticism – that not believing in god(s) is not the same as believing in no god, and that there could be a higher power or powers who in some way have influence over the world in general and/or you in particular. Ya just can’t know.

In my life, there have been occurrences or sequences of events that have led me to suspect the influence of more than mere chance. Whether this is just me seeing patterns and design in random coincidence, or whether there are natural forces and influences of which we are currently ignorant, or whether I’m stalked by supernatural beings with a sense of humor, I don’t know. Just in case, though, I do occasionally offer up a silent or quiet “thank you” for any particularly nice moments that come my way.

You could always go back to the man credited with coining the term “agnostic”, T.H. Huxley; I’ve only read excerpts of his stuff, and he argues more against the religious side of the spectrum than against the atheistic side, but what the heck – you didn’t have anything better to do with your free time, did you? :wink:

26

No voices from the beyond talking to me, every, sorry. I was raised Roman Catholic, rather devout right-wing religious type for most of 18 years - then in college began to mellow more and slumped into agnostic atheism. Out of college, still atheist although I find I am growing more militant the longer I am living here in the Bible Belt.

Anyway - the closest “spooky” thing that ever happened to me was when I was about 18 years old, full of doubts, and the night before Easter I prayed for a sign that Jesus/God was real. Well, what seemed to me to be only a few minutes later, I snapped awake due to a tingling sensation in my feet - which shot up my body and paralyzed me in bed. I was lying there, staring at the ceiling, scared sh*tless. I thought that was my sign - until I was watching TV a couple days later and realized it was sleep paralysis, which is fairly common. Apparently God didn’t think a “real” sign was in order.

Oh, and I once had a dream as a teenager that the world was ending, and that I knew inside I wasn’t ready to be judged - that moved me for about 3 days before I got over it. I can’t see how it had any more validity than the dreams in which I’ve bedded Laetitia Casta.

Let’s see… I have Atheism: The Case Against God, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, Why People Believe Weird Things, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, Pagan Christs, The Jesus Myth, Masks of God: Occidental Religion, Finding Darwin’s God, Tales of the Rational and a host of books by Carl Sagan (which
aren’t necessarily atheist).

Also, not quite sure what Danielinthewolvesden meant by it’s better to have faith in something than to (apparently) be an atheist. Perhaps I misunderstood. I would think the pursuit of truth, wherever it leads, is the highest goal rather than picking a faith because “it makes me feel good.” But, to each their own.

27

If you’ve studied religions so long, you know that all a religion is, is a set of ideals and a way of living based around an explaination of how the afterlife is supposed to be/explained by the elders of whoever invented/interpereted the system. (inhales)

My point? Who says you need someone else’s way? What I see is you basically asking “what do you believe in? because I want to know if I should believe that.” I think deep down you already know what you believe (or you might not, I of course have never met you). Anyways, if you do already know what you believe in, the only reason I see you seeking advice on this is to find like-minded individuals. Need a sense of community in your life maybe? Am I reading too much into this…? I think you know the answers to questions you seek, just stop thinking about it so hard.

And how come no one mentions The Te of Piglet?

punk snot dead,
broccoli!

28

I was kinda thinking out loud myself. Wasn’t really suggesting you close your mind… Although a wise man once told me, “John, ya keep your mind open wide enough long enough, people will fill it full of all kinds junk for ya.” He also told me that he talked to god like one longshoreman talks to another.

The way I see it [today]: Precisely because we cannot apply a measuring stick to prove or disprove the existence of a Higher Being, the validity of any belief or faith we have in such must rest on entirely personal grounds. It must engage our minds and emotions, and provide us with some degree of satisfaction.

The best analogy I can think of for this is art – which also defies measurement. Whether we prefer sculpture, literature, or music, the exact elements which make up a particular work of art are irrelevant. Art is not found in its structure, but in what its structure suggests to us; which, in great art, is something new (or more) everytime we dare to open ourselves to the work. We change, it doesn’t. It challenges and reward us, and is entirely indifferent to us.

In other words, faith, or belief, is not rote recitation of an established religion’s precepts. Rather it is a volatile construct of the mind which is inextricably linked with doubt, and which proceeds by a never-ending process of questioning. The process matters more than either the questions or the answers.

That’s probably of very little use to you, quix (it’s a big windmill we’re tilting at here [ha, sorry]), but thanks for getting me thinking, which takes me a while, most days.

jm

I just previewed and noticed broccoli!'s advice not to think so hard. I dunno… I’ve never regretted thinking.

29

Well, I’ve noted in a post or two that I’m an atheist, and in others a Discordian. Some doubted the former on the grounds that everyone has faith in something, and most ignored the latter, probably thinking I wasn’t being serious.

:shrug:

I think its fairly obvious that chaos rules the universe: a place for everything and everything all over the place. To deify chaos is no more absurd, IMO, than to deify love as God, or to make everything One in zen, etc etc.

Most of my friends think its just a game to be a Discordian. Isn’t that always the way? Then we point out yet another case that leads to the law of fives and be done with it.

That said, deifying chaos isn’t particularly enlightening in and of itself, though it does allow you to ignore a lot of stuff on the grounds of…well, whatever you damn well choose.

I can take great comfort knowing that not only did I not have a choice, but I couldn’t possibly have expected this to happen. As Omar K Ravenhurst once said, and I am paraphrasing, “I used to be upset by human stupidity an inefficiency. Now I am vindicated by it.” I’d do a better quote but my copy of Principia discordia isn’t here.

30

Atheist here. And one who takes a pretty hard line at that.

You said that you didn’t like Pals’ book because it ” doesn’t necessarily investigate the underlying truths or lack thereof.” Okay, so how do you investigate the underlying truth or lack thereof for the existence of leprechauns? How can you prove that something doesn’t exist?

Let’s say that you witness a mysterious seance with a famous medium. Mystifying and magnificent things happen. You begin to wonder if the medium has supernatural powers. The next day, a scientist explains the medium’s trick to you. He even recreates the seance, making the same things occur, but showing you that they are done with trickery and deception. You cease to believe in the medium’s supernatural powers.

Notice that the scientist is unable to prove to you that there are no such things at all as supernatural powers. At best he can only debunk just the one medium and just those particular tricks he/she used. Still, if enough mediums and enough tricks are debunked, sooner or later (hopefully) you will begin to get the larger picture and agree that seances are baloney.

So it goes with religion. At best, the analyst can only examine one religious phenomenon or one aspect of religion at a time and find a rational (non-religious) explanation for it. And over time you will (hopefully) begin to see the larger picture. Hence, you can cooperate with this process and build a slow but solid foundation of skepticism toward religion. Or you can hop around from religion to religion and insist that the debunking of one religion doesn’t drain any validity from others, and you can ignore Gaudere’s utterly reasonable and rational explanation for your “innard voice” and discount it with a facile turn of phrase like “I think the Ultimate Questions of the Universe are somewhat more pressing than the Question of What’s Under my Bed.” In the latter case, you will never be one whit the wiser for your (and our) efforts.

So, to start over again: How do you investigate the underlying truth or lack thereof for the existence of leprechauns? Especially when 95 percent of the people in the world insist that they exist, and build temples to them, and even claim to communicate with them in their minds? It simply can’t be done concisely and directly. At best you can only do a combination of several things:

  1. Examine why religions arise in the first place—what human needs do religions address? If you can find a human need for religion, then you’ve taken much of the spiritual gas out of religion’s balloon. God was created by man because man needed him. Religion is just a commodity that man builds and cultivates to fill a need, just like houses for shelter and crops for food. And God ceases to have any content without man, like the meaningless stone heads on Easter Island left over from a vanished religion.

  2. If a certain, given religion has particular meaning for you yourself, then do a comparative study of similar features of other religions. Seeing facets of your preferred religion caricaturized in some tribal religion in Borneo (albeit one that is taken perfectly seriously by the adherents of that tribal religion) will often strip your own religion of a lot of its mystique and bring it back down to earth.

  3. Examine the logical inconsistencies inherent in any religion. Look at the contradictoriness, the illogic, and the occasional harmfulness and brutality of the various religions. Use Occam’s Razor and recognize that they are the signs of an edifice sloppily and erratically constructed by man over centuries to meet changing personal and societal needs, and not unfathomable mysteries of a remote, inscrutable God.

  4. Debunk key individual mysteries and miracles until you reach critical mass and it becomes apparent to you that religion is not what it seems.

But too many agnostics take the easy route—they sit around and insist that other people explain away every facet of every religion on earth, and then object when the explanations that are provided seem too mundane to properly explain some phenomenon that seems like it should at least deserve a majestic explanation.

The choice is yours. But if you insist on a neat little package that “investigates the underlying truth” without attacking the trappings of any one religion (your words: “I’m not looking for something that attacks the validity of the Bible”) and without offering explanations that seem overly mundane, then you’re probably not going to be satisfied with much of anything that atheists have to offer you.

At best, atheists can only offer you a piecemeal approach: Show how religion meets mundane needs, and thus is likely mundane in origin; show how the trappings of religion are less majestic than they first appear, and often even contradictory or harmful; and analyze away the individual mysteries and miracles proclaimed by religions.

Becoming an atheist means whittling religion down to size. Religion is real. It’s right here in our lives. But it’s not supernatural. It’s a mundane creation of man to fill a mundane need. And it’s going to be tough for you to see religion in that light if you refuse to accept mundane, reasonable explanations like Gaudere’s.

P.S. By the way, you never did explain the nature of the “innard voice” that came to you two weeks ago. Why ask others to solve your spiritual crises for you when you refuse even to explain what they are?

P.P.S. Don’t read a summary of the views of anti-religious thinkers. Read the texts of the thinkers themselves.

P.P.S.S. Personally, I don’t give a damn whether you finally end up becoming religious or atheist. But if you really want to investigate atheism, at least treat it seriously.

31

“what human needs do religions address?”

i’m going to admit this is a somewhat chicken egg question which the catholic church virtually admits. their saying, “give me a child until he’s 7 years old, and he’s mine for life.” but is there a REAL need? could it be part of the very nature of man. if man is part animal and part god, and the god part is imperfect and seeking perfection could this unsatisfied need lead to religion and people willing to take advantage of it. i try to distinguish between spiritualism and religious power games. liars and information hiders cause all kinds of bullsh!t.

a recent and well documented book on wierdness is:

OLD SOULS by Tom Shroder

claims to be investigations of children with memories of previous lives who died so recently that living people can still be found who knew the deceased.

http://www.childpastlives.org/oldsouls.htm

Dal Timgar

32

This is what I meant by passing the buck: Religion postulates a Prime Mover, something which is ultimately responsible.

33

I am a Baptist Fundamentalist and this is what I call the Plan of Salvation. I ask you to seriously consider it.

There are four things that God wants you to know in order for you to go to Heaven when you die.

1. That you have sinned.
For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23

2. Someone must pay your sin debt.
*For the wages of sin is death… Romans 6:23

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:18*

3. Jesus Christ died, shed His blood, and rose from the grave which paid your sin debt.
But God commendeth His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us…Romans 5:8

4. Jesus Christ wants to save you!
*For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:13

For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8,9*

You can be forgiven from your sin and indwelt by God Himself and thus KNOW you’re saved, if you will accept what Jesus did on Calvary as the payment for your sin. Simply ask Him from the sincerety of your heart to be your Savior. I pray that you will.

May you find peace, Friend.

34

quixotic78, if you are serious, please listen to jenkinsfan!
I am not baptist, but that is the way!

35

You might want to take a look at some of the books by Anthony T. Padovano. He is a Catholic Theologian but his works are generally directed to broader Christian themes. One book that is pretty good is American Culture and the Quest for Christ.

The basic arguement in this book is that Christians are realists in that they recognize that the solution to the “human predicament” is not in our power, but they are optimistic enough to know that a solution is neverless forecoming.

This volume discusses the Philosophies of Schopenhauer, Comte, Mill, Marx and Freud (On a basic level). It discusss primitive religions as well as Hinduism, Buddism and Islamism. The book then moves on to discuss “The American Experiment”. Much of this is devoted to discussions of John Dewey and Pragmatism.

Other themes that run through the book deal with man’s need for salvation, particulary in dire times (the foxhole or deathbed experiences mentioned above). Views that religion is neccesary to bring some type of order (or understanding) to the choas that is prevelant in the world are stated.

36

I can’t believe The Tao of Pooh and The Te of Piglet were both mentioned, but not the Tao Te Ching itself. I’ll assume you’ve read at least some of it though. The Bagghavad Gita is an interesting read, too. For heavier reading on Christianity, William Blake had some interesting ideas (avoid the prophecies and the longer poems with the exception of The Book of Thel) and for really heavy reading, Thomas Aquinas.

For more stuff more “spirituality” than religion, I recommend Richard Bach. (Jonathon Livingston Seagull then Biplane or One) Neither the novels nor the philosophy are particularly noteworthy, but they’re easy to read and you can pull the ideas out easily enough. And they’re a whole lot better than any of the same vein that you’d find in the self-help section.

But still…on what basis can you make a decision (if you ever do)? It’s just something I’ve never understood. If there are god(s), then the world is how it is because of him/her/them. If there are no god(s) then the world is how it is without him/her/them. Perhaps even there is a god but the world is how it is despite him. But whatever the case; things are how they are. I understand that you want answers, and there are thousands of different beliefs that offer them, but how will you know which is the Truth? Is the Truth even a possibility? My personal criteria would be a belief system that explains nipples on men; where socks, cigarette lighters and ball point pens go to; why Milli Vanilli and the Spice Girls received Grammies; and why a duck.

pinqy

37

I’ll try to keep this brief, as it’s one against the rest (well, not AGAINST; again, thanks for your suggestions and especially critiques). To those I don’t personally respond to, don’t take it… umm… personally.

Gaudere: I don’t trust my inner voice willy nilly. Sometimes it’s a good voice–when it tells me that I’m hungry, well, I’ll often indulge it. When it tells me that I should go to sleep, I’ll often ignore it. When it went under the assumption that God exists, I did a double take. I didn’t run to the nearest church, synagogue, mosque, etc. and convert, but I did start thinking. I appreciate your concern that I “don’t cut God any slack.” I think it’s fair to say that, if anything, I’m going to hold God to a higher standard than, say, proof of ESP, just because He has been such a dick to me in the past. (Please ignore the paradox in that statement).

Can you hijack your own thread? If so, I’d like to ask: what constitutes “proof” in the realm of the Divine? Just as you can’t prove that one painting is better than another, you can’t prove that one’s religion is better (more true) than another. What do you mean when you say that I need to follow the proof? I’ll echo my sentiment of my last post: when Religion and Science make conflicting, empirically verifiable claims, I’ll go with the facts. But how does one listen to the facts when Religion is claiming… for example, that a person will enjoy a Heavenly Paradise with 600 virgins in the afterlife? How does one go about evaluating that claim? JTR gave his take in a lengthy post; what’s yours?

super_head: You said, “I would think the pursuit of truth, wherever it leads, is the highest goal rather than picking a faith because ‘it makes me feel good.’” Well said. Hell, if I wanted to pick a religion just to feel good, I think I’ll opt for Islam with its Heavenly Abode of Virgins. :slight_smile:

Broccoli!: I’m asking what you guys believe, and what others believe, because you (plural) have had thoughts that I’d never have in a million years. I don’t know what I’m looking for. If you think I am, then you can write this thread off as me jerking you around. I’m looking for thoughts, especially thoughts foreign and contrary to my own. It’s the best form of research I can imagine in the non-empirical realm of religion.

nothamlet: You said, “the validity of any belief or faith we have in such must rest on entirely personal grounds.” Exactly. I’d like to get some insight into the personal grounds of some other people, see if they work or if they’re ludicrous.

JTR: Your point 1, you can make the case (but not prove) that humanity created religion for any number of reasons. If it were simple to prove, then we wouldn’t need psychological, social, economic, metaphysical, etc. explanations. Throughout history, tons of people have had their own theories on the origins of religion. Some were probably way off, and the real answer is probably a melange of the rest. Of course, one cannot disprove that humanity created religion because of divine influence.

Your point 2, about comparing religions. I love doing this, and many people in this thread have posted suggestions for books that will help me along in this process.

Your point 3, I think I need to be somewhat cautious with Occam’s Razor. Who says that the divine is going to go by the simplest route? Occam’s Razor is a helpful tool, but it’s not definitive by any means. I don’t think I’m rejecting Gaudere’s mundane questions. I’ve noted them, and now I’m investigating the alternatives.

Random points: I didn’t explain the specific circumstance that triggered my inner voice. It’s personal, and (perhaps I’m biased), I don’t think it’s particularly relevant. If you differ, that’s your prerogative. Substitute any crisis situation as you wish; it’ll probably be close enough to work. And I have read the original texts, or at least portions of them, in the case of every anti-religious thinker I mentioned. I chose to mention Pals’s book because I read it recently, and it addressed several thinkers at once.

Jenkinsfan and JerseyDiamond: No offense, but I did that. It didn’t take. I think I’ll investigate the other options before I smack my head against that wall again.

Thanks again,
Quix

38

No. Find the idea silly.

39

I feel so very awkward writing an answer to your request.

The Gospels certainly are pretty high up on my list of books you ought to read to know if Christ is who your heart wants Him to be. But I don’t think that they will do much for you under a critical examination in the scientific sense.

He is someone. He isn’t a philosophy, or a plan for living. You do have to make the leap of faith, at some point, but it is not likely that you will make it as the first step. So, you need a few steps that might lead you to a “leaping off place.”

Love someone. Eventually, of course you will be trying to love everyone, but that’s really hard. Start off with one specific someone, or a small number of someones. But love them each, and do it openly, and unconditionally. It’s hard. It takes time, effort, and mundane work and service. The hardest part of all is getting to the place in your own heart where you are not clutching or clinging to them, but still able to cherish and hold them. You end up growing a lot, and finding love growing up other places, where you did not expect it.

I think it is the very best way of all to find the Lord. Then when you read you will have a better handle on what the books are about. Then you can build your own love according to the model of Love that includes complete faith, and faithfulness. And when you reach the limit of your own goodness, and your love is not perfect, you will be able to understand forgiveness, and the grace that makes it possible. And you will be able to meet that great soul that you have heard speaking within you.

So, start reading, and start loving. And welcome brother, to the long walk into eternity.

With all respect for those who seek proof, or evidence, that is a much different journey. I cannot offer advice on that path.

40

First off, thanks for asking this question. I’ve been going through the same thing more or less, and seeing people’s responses do help. That is why you’ll see me post to mostly religious threads, hoping people can satisfactorily answer my doubts and questions (hasn’t happened yet). But mostly I’m a lurker (I’ve been here for over a year with hardly any posts).

I grew up being raised a Catholic and then my mom converted into a Pentecostal, so from 8 on that is what I was raised in as well. I did my own thing from about 16 on, not really practicing faith although still a believer. At about 26, I became involved in a fundamentalist charasmatic church, which I now personally consider dangerously close to a cult (I actually call it “the cult”). As I got deeper into it, I did more and more reading, and started to get uncomfortable with many of the teachings. As I looked into church history, and then into theological roots, I became more and more convinced that Christianity wasn’t all it claimed to be. But my path led me more into Judaism then into Buddhism (where you seem to be leaning more towards).

Although I’ve never considered converting (as I am now weary of all organized religions), the basics of Judaism made more sense to me. There is no devil trying to win your soul. There is no eternal damnation for not believing in a man and his words. It’s pretty simple, if you do wrong to someone, appologize and try and make it right. If you do wrong to God, appologize and try to make it right. You are responsible for the choices you make, and are responsible for the actions thereof. Worry about this life, let God take care of what happens after you die. Everytime I read a post like Jenkinsfan I cringe, because I’ve realized the true roots and theology involved in Christianity is not from Judaism. The two seem to me like there are more akin to 8th cousins twice removed rather than one directly descended from the other.

I can sypathize with your journey here. I don’t have much to offer in the way of which path to take (as I’m still searching myself), but I just thought I’d let you know that you are not walking the path alone. Best wishes in your search.