# Questions about Christianity from a confused agnostic **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 27, 2006, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300 "2006-02-27T12:50:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/161 "2006-03-06T22:06:53Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > Liberal, since Reply seems not to be interested in the issue, I’m going to let this go. Maybe we’ll meet another day and pick this up then. I look forward to it. A man who is willing to make the first overture of peace in the heat of a debate well deserves engagement in discussions like these. I’ll see you around, I’m sure. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/162 "2006-03-06T22:07:55Z")
> [@reply](#): > > Voyager said: [Regarding science and bear tracks:] “Nonsense. You can hypothesize that a bear made the tracks, and then predict that you’ll find bear fur on branches. If you find it, you don’t prove anything, but you do increase your confidence. You can also predict that it will shit in the woods.” > > […and later…] > > “I want to believe in the things with the highest chance of being true” > > I have a question for you about both of these scenarios. How do you know (or why do you have confidence) that what we have seen and what we have learned so far are actually significant indicators of what is actually out there? As you agreed, it’s possible that a very intelligent being is manipulating the tracks. And as for believing in things with the highest chance of being true: In order to calculate probabilities, you need to know the odds, yes? But all we know is what we know – we don’t know what we don’t know – so how can we measure how likely the stuff we know is true? > > Um… what I’m saying is, even if science had a good track record, how do we know that its truthfulness is univeral? What if our laws only apply to the world we’ve seen so far, and that somewhere out there is a much bigger place with vastly different laws? If science correctly observes, say, 80% of our world but our world is only 1% of what’s out there, would science still be enough? We can predict what we can observe, but what about the things we can’t observe? We never know for sure, but our confidence comes from repeated tests that pass, and by comparison with other possibilities. Probability here is in a loose sense, after Keynes. Computing real probabilities requires us to know the total space of possibilities, which is not true except in very special and controlled situations. This probability is somewhat more statistical - kind of like the expression of how often our results are due to chance rather than reflecting the true space we’re testing. Basically, though we can’t assign a number to our confidence that the world is like we think it is, we do know that the probability of this after 2 n experiments is greater than that after n experiments. As for the uneversality of science - the universality of natural law is a postulate. But it is a postulate that gets tested by observation of stars and galaxies far away from us. Over 10 billion light years away, natural laws seem to be the same. Right now, of course over 15 bly away we can’t see, so we can’t say anything one way or another. Still, there is no reason to think things are different there. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/163 "2006-03-06T22:24:22Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Well, no. Don’t get too excited here. You’re right that the proof failed (and thus succeeded as a reductio). But you’re wrong that (3) is false. It doesn’t say that God both knew and did not know; it says that He knew both possibilities. > > Formally, it would be written with doxastic symbols: G[sub]K/sub And G[sub]K/sub. > > That’s not a contradiction. He knew both contingencies and their consequences, in other words. Whoa. That’s not what the proof said. Knowledge of the possibility of something is far different from kknowledge of that thing. I have knowledge of the possibilities of a roll of the dice in craps, but that ain’t going to make me any money. One does not have to be omniscient to know the possibilities, so I don’t understand why the proof gives omniscience as the justification for the step. As I said, I can see other, better reasons for arguing that God does not know the outcome of something. I’m not sure this is one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/164 "2006-03-06T23:04:55Z")
Well, cut me some slack. Whenever I post formal tableaus, I’m inevitably accused of being obtuse and abstract, manipulating cryptic symbols that don’t mean anything, so I posted an informal one. If I word it this way instead, are we okay — It must be the case that both (God knew that it was possible Jesus would rise) and (God knew that it was possible Jesus would not rise)? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/165 "2006-03-06T23:16:31Z")
I meant to address this specifically as well: > [@Voyager](#): > > One does not have to be omniscient to know the possibilities, so I don’t understand why the proof gives omniscience as the justification for the step. You can offer it as another premise, but it also follows from both 1 and the Def of Om. (It is given that God knew one possibility in premise 1, and by Def of Om, He must have known the other.) But deducing it makes it more logically stable. In reductio arguments, you much prefer that the only axiom be the one you’re disproving. That said… Keep in mind that this is both a temporal and a doxastic modality. Formal terms would involve “belief” (where belief is true and justified) and “now-necessary” (where present necessity is caused by past necessity) rather than “knowledge” and “possibility”. It cannot be said that knowledge of all possibilities is possible without omniscience, but it can be said that omniscient implies the knowledge of all possibilities. Thus, by constructing the argument the way we did, we avoid an affirmation of the consequent as well as a gratuitous assertion in the form of a premise. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/166 "2006-03-07T05:15:32Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > So it can be whatever I want it to be? Hmm. I never quite thought of it that way. Always figured religion = (relatively) strict adherence to the holy books, church, or some other body of rules. But you seem to be saying that they’re only guidelines and that it’s really up to me and it can be whatever I want it to be? That’s kinda nice in a way, but also disappointing in that it’s no different from what I’m doing now. What happens if I run out of answers? It doesn’t mean you can be whatever you want exactly. I believe there are truths that are constant and inescapable. You choose to discover them along your own path and in your own way and time or you can choose to avoid and deny them. All choices bring consequences. What I’m I’m saying is your relationship with God, and your spiritual journey is uniquely your own. No person or organization can tell you exactly what it is. You might find a church or religion that fits okay but even then it is your journey and you can take what you want and leave the rest. I can go to church and enjoy the serice without embacing every detail of doctrine. If you run out of answers? James 1:5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. > [@](#): > > Well, two things. First, I wouldn’t sentence the child to eternal damnation for growing up different from what I hoped for. I know you don’t believe in hell, but many do. Yes many do. Obviously a church that preached the fear of hellfire and brimstone would not be the one for either of us. Why would I sit and listen to what I thought was fear mongering bullshit? > [@](#): > > Second, if I were omnipotent, I could just skip the entire “innocent child” part and create a full adult with a complete set of implanted experiences of free will. Whether I _would_ is another issue, because the question then becomes whether the experience itself is somehow inherently worth it – something I can’t answer. I have no other lives to compare my current one to so I wouldn’t know. That’s the arguement we keep having here on the board. A benevolent God wouldn’t allow all the bad stuff to happen to his children since he could prevent it all. To me that works if we want our kids to remain kids who are totally dependent on us as adults. I don’t believe God wants servants or children but peers instead. In order for that to happen we must make our own choices and bear the consequences until we find those eternal qualities and choose them. Thats what Jesus was talking about. > [@](#): > > But faith and subjective belief can be dangerously blinding if misused, no? Well hell yeah. Don’t we have a ton of that going on all over the place? Technically I think that what everybody is doing anyway. The difference is, do we choose some person or group to tell us what is meaningful or do we claim our right and responsibility to do that for ourselves? If you decide to give that right away that’s your choice too. > [@](#): > > What I want to believe may be vastly different than what actually is. And often is. What “actually is” are the eternal constants I spoke of. In my own limited understanding I see love and truth as the things that have eternal qualities and are consistantly positive. > [@](#): > > At one extreme, I could believe whatever I want as long as it makes me happy. At the other extreme, I could doggedly pursue some sort of external truth even if it does nothing to make me happy. I dunno which one is better. There is no external truth to pursue. It is an internal truth. It is the truth about who and what you really are. > [@](#): > > This is why I’m agnostic. But suppose I want to settle down with a religion of some sort someday… wouldn’t some of them require a bit more conviction than this? They all want to offer the answers, and I’d love to take them – if only there was some way to gauge their accuracy beforehand. Of course. Some have fairly strict requirements and some don’t. There is a way to gauge their accuracy. Jesus called it the fruits of the spirit. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/167 "2006-03-07T05:32:16Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > Another point I should make. God doesn’t punish us for “not understanding”, or even for not having faith. God punishes us for being _sinful_. \ > > (I know that **cosmosdan** will take exception to the word “punish”. Perhaps “repay appropriately” would be more neutral; I certainly know that an appropriate repayment for _my_ actions would count as punishment, at least. 🙂 ) You’re right, I don’t agree. If I spank my kids for touching the stove after I’ve said not to then I’m punishing them. If they hurt themselves and then realize that I told them not to do that out of love, that not me punishing them. Thats kinda how I see it. There’s a passage from the Book of Mormon that first got me thinking about this years ago. > [@](#): > > Mormon 4:59 Yea, in that great day when ye shall be brought to stand before the Lamb of God, then will ye say that there is no God? > 60 Then will ye longer deny the Christ, or can ye behold the Lamb of God? > 61 Do ye suppose that ye shall dwell with him under a consciousness of your guilt? > 62 Do ye suppose that ye could be happy to dwell with that holy being, when your souls are racked with a consciousness of your guilt that ye have ever abused his laws? > 63 Behold I say unto you, that ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your filthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the damned souls in hell. > 64 For behold, when ye shall be brought to see your nakedness before God, and also the glory of God, and the holiness of Jesus Christ, it will kindle a flame of unquenchable fire upon you. The language is a little to condeming for my taste but the principle remains. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/168 "2006-03-07T05:51:35Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > And no doubt you are. But that belief in God makes someone a better person does not imply that the God believed in actually exists. I think lack of belief makes me a better person, but I certainly wouldn’t argue that indicates there is no god. That some believers do evil in the name of God doesn’t mean that there is or isn’t a god either. I have a model of a godless world, and it matches the real world much better than any godful worlds I can think of. My godless model world certainly does include believers who are good because of their belief. > > My atheism stems from the realization that the godful world I imagined as a kid did not match the real one very well, and no other godful world did either. The exception is a deistic universe, which matches our own just fine, but is indistinguishable from a godless world. That being true, I see no reason to make the leap into deism, but that is motivated in part by my lack of a need for an answer to the question “why?” Here’s the thing that I find very cool about this. Years ago I believed quite differently than I do now. Yet in both cases I was being true to what I sincerely believed at the time. I was being true to myself internally, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. What you’ve just described to me is you being true to yourself. I honor and respect that. You rejected concepts of God that didn’t work for you. Me too. You haven’t found a concept that works for you at this time. That’s what is true for you and thats what we’re asked to pursue. My own path has led me to different conclusions but I also am being true to what works for me and willing to learn more. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/169 "2006-03-07T07:26:02Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > The part you have a ‘hard time with’ is like trying to figure out what the electron shells look like… (which model to follow) which changes over time… as we ‘understand’ more or less… and some move to the ‘new’ concepts… some don’t… > > This is the most common ‘issue’ in humanity… it isn’t unique to ‘churches’ But whereas error is an accepted and even cherished part of science, it is something that’s usually denied or covered up in religion. It’s a fundamentally different approach. > [@PBear42](#): > > And Reply, please bear in mind that I’m a skeptic. I have no particular interest in saving you. Just explaining how some intelligent Christians I know get past the objections you’ve raised. See you in Hell, eh? Don’t forget to bring marshmallows! Oh, all right. I know people say not to get “hung up” on the details, but I don’t see how I can believe in something that seems plainly self-contradictory/nonsensical to me. But anyway, yep, it appears we’re in the same fast-sinking boat. See ya at the bottom 😛 > [@Tevildo](#): > > Another point I should make. God doesn’t punish us for “not understanding”, or even for not having faith. God punishes us for being sinful. I don’t see how an honest intellectual enquiry into the nature of things which leads you to reject some aspects of the Christian faith as presented by some Christian churches can be sinful; however, there are plenty of other ways, which everyone will recognize as “wicked” or “evil” or “immoral”, in which we can, and do, sin, and that sin is what cuts us off from God. Can any of us honestly say that they’ve never done or said anything evil, even by our own personal standards rather than the arbitary standards of some church or law? I know I can’t. I would like to believe this – that moral choice is all that matters – but then that goes back into the question of how much of Christianity is open to interpretation. > [@Apos](#): > > We don’t. Science is a sort of ground up method of truth: it’s provisional, and knows exactly where it’s weaknesses lie. It starts from the everyday basis of truth that we all take for granted, assumes that we can learn more in this realm, and works up and out from there. It can never provide universal truths because it’s always something limited reaching out towards the universal, but never being able to fill it. Yes, that’s what I believe too. I asked Voyager this because it seemed like he believed it had a “good chance” at arriving at the so-called universal truths. > [@Liberal](#): > > There is a difference between theological freewill and teleological freewill. Freewill in the Christian sense means freedom to exercise your moral will, and has nothing to do with the order or randomness of physical events. It is all about your essential self (your spirit) making aesthetical choices. God does indeed know what choices you will make, but that is because He knows your essence. And here’s the thing — note that, in that regard, God has no advantage over you. You also are omniscient with respect to God’s will. You know with a certainty that His aesthetical choice will always be goodness. And that is because you know His essence. Thus, freewill is an aesthetical issue, not an epistemic one; that is, it is about what is valued, not what is known. God’s omniscience has no bearing on your freewill any more than yours has a bearing on His. > > Theological means having to do with God. Teleological means having to do with nature. Aeshetical means having to do with value. And essence means having to do with the core identity of a thing. Thanks, Liberal. Ok. If your interpretation of God is accurate, your explanation makes sense as well. But that’s the question, isn’t it? Who is He? > [@PBear42](#): > > Liberal, since Reply seems not to be interested in the issue, I’m going to let this go. Maybe we’ll meet another day and pick this up then. Are you talking about the “God sacrificing Jesus to save the world” discussion? I wondered about this briefly before, but honestly, I don’t know enough about the whole “God is a trinity” concept yet to have any sort of real opinion on the matter. But if you’d LIKE to talk about this, go right on ahead – I certainly don’t mind. If you’d like to take a break for now, that’s fine too. I’m cool with whatever you guys decide to do. > [@Voyager](#): > > We never know for sure, but our confidence comes from repeated tests that pass, and by comparison with other possibilities. Probability here is in a loose sense, after Keynes. Computing real probabilities requires us to know the total space of possibilities, which is not true except in very special and controlled situations. This probability is somewhat more statistical - kind of like the expression of how often our results are due to chance rather than reflecting the true space we’re testing. Basically, though we can’t assign a number to our confidence that the world is like we think it is, we do know that the probability of this after 2 n experiments is greater than that after n experiments. > > As for the uneversality of science - the universality of natural law is a postulate. But it is a postulate that gets tested by observation of stars and galaxies far away from us. Over 10 billion light years away, natural laws seem to be the same. Right now, of course over 15 bly away we can’t see, so we can’t say anything one way or another. Still, there is no reason to think things are different there. Yup, you understood me completely. So how do you still place so much faith in science? Why is there no reason to think that things MAY be different 15 billion lightyears away? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > It doesn’t mean you can be whatever you want exactly. I believe there are truths that are constant and inescapable. You choose to discover them along your own path and in your own way and time or you can choose to avoid and deny them. All choices bring consequences. > What I’m I’m saying is your relationship with God, and your spiritual journey is uniquely your own. No person or organization can tell you exactly what it is. You might find a church or religion that fits okay but even then it is your journey and you can take what you want and leave the rest. I can go to church and enjoy the serice without embacing every detail of doctrine. > If you run out of answers? James 1:5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. If certain truths are constant and inescapable, then they must apply to everyone. But what happens when two people come across contradictory truths that are supposed to be constant and inescapable? Who would be right and how would he know? My objection to this sort of subjective thinking is that without some sort of external and objective measurement, they too often degenerate into disagreements and then wars. > [@](#): > > That’s the arguement we keep having here on the board. A benevolent God wouldn’t allow all the bad stuff to happen to his children since he could prevent it all. To me that works if we want our kids to remain kids who are totally dependent on us as adults. I don’t believe God wants servants or children but peers instead. In order for that to happen we must make our own choices and bear the consequences until we find those eternal qualities and choose them. Thats what Jesus was talking about. Not quite. The child wouldn’t be dependent on us. I’m talking about, essentially, cloning a person completely – memories included. They’d just be a carbon copy of us and definitely a peer, not a subordinate. In other words, why didn’t God just clone himself instead of making inferior copies? > [@](#): > > Well hell yeah. Don’t we have a ton of that going on all over the place? Technically I think that what everybody is doing anyway. The difference is, do we choose some person or group to tell us what is meaningful or do we claim our right and responsibility to do that for ourselves? If you decide to give that right away that’s your choice too. There’s one more option that’s too often ignored: The belief in ignorance. Everybody is doing that because everybody thinks they’re right. If everyone instead believed that they could be wrong, things might be different. > [@](#): > > There is no external truth to pursue. It is an internal truth. It is the truth about who and what you really are. The word “truth” has so many meanings. I agree with you that knowing yourself is one very essential part of the experience, but there are other questions I would like answered too. That’s all I mean by “external truths”. And foremost among these “other questions” is the question of who or what created the world I exist in. I can search within myself for the answer, but I could never logically ascertain whether my internal belief equals the actual external creator – unless I AM that creator, a possibility which I don’t like to think about. For me, this thread isn’t so much about “finding myself” – I spent a lot of time doing that already, and I’m sure it will continue – but about the questions outside myself. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/170 "2006-03-07T08:12:40Z")
“For me, this thread isn’t so much about “finding myself” – I spent a lot of time doing that already, and I’m sure it will continue – but about the questions outside myself.” Err, just to clarify: I’m asking these questions because, for me at least, one of a religion’s purposes is to answer these external questions. Thus, if I were to choose a religion, I’d want one that makes as much logical sense as possible. But this entire process does have to do with me and myself, of couse. ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/171 "2006-03-07T10:32:41Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > And foremost among these “other questions” is the question of who or what created the world I exist in. I can search within myself for the answer, but I could never logically ascertain whether my internal belief equals the actual external creator – unless I AM that creator, a possibility which I don’t like to think about. This reminds me very much of Descartes’ approach, in the _Meditations_. He realises that he has no access to any sort of “external truth” - I’m sure you know about his “evil demon”, or the modern equivalent in which you’re a brain in a vat, being fed erroneous information about a non-existent “outside world” by a mad scientist. There’s no way we can have the sort of absolute, logical certainty about anything external to our minds - including the fact there’s such a thing as “logical certainty” in the first place. What Descartes then does is to use Anselm’s [ontological argument](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/) to prove - at least, to prove to his own satisfaction - that God exists, and that he therefore has justification for his faith that the universe is actually as it appears to be. The ontological argument, of course, is as open to objection as any other argument for the existence or non-existence of God, but I think Descartes’ point still stands - we need some sort of faith before we can consider any sort of truth about the “external world”, whether it’s faith in God or just faith in the general reliability of our senses and reason; we can’t find “external truths” through pure reason without faith of any sort. I know that many atheists object to using the word “faith” to describe any part of their belief system, but I don’t see how they can get around Descartes otherwise. I’m sure **Voyager** will have an answer to this, and I look forward to hearing it. 🙂 > [@](#): > > I would like to believe this – that moral choice is all that matters – but then that goes back into the question of how much of Christianity is open to interpretation. I would say that all parts of any belief system are “open to interpretation”. A particular church may give a particular, definite answer to any specific question you have, but - certainly for most of the issues you’ve raised - I wouldn’t say there was one answer that all Christians have to accept for any of them. And, of course, if you do find a fundamental disagreement between what you know in your heart to be true and Christianity, it would be wrong of you to pretend to be a Christian. Some churches may tell you that you’re damned for doing this, but I hope that, if nothing else, this discussion has shown you this isn’t a universal Christian belief. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/172 "2006-03-07T11:34:43Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > This reminds me very much of Descartes’ approach, in the _Meditations_. He realises that he has no access to any sort of “external truth” - I’m sure you know about his “evil demon”, or the modern equivalent in which you’re a brain in a vat, being fed erroneous information about a non-existent “outside world” by a mad scientist. There’s no way we can have the sort of absolute, logical certainty about anything external to our minds - including the fact there’s such a thing as “logical certainty” in the first place. I completely agree. Logic has its limits and “logical certainty” is, for me at least, ultimately based on faith. However, logic is what I try to rely upon simply because I haven’t found anything better/more reliable – yet. > [@](#): > > What Descartes then does is to use Anselm’s [ontological argument](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/) to prove - at least, to prove to his own satisfaction - that God exists, and that he therefore has justification for his faith that the universe is actually as it appears to be. I don’t buy Anselm’s argument, but even if I did, I don’t see how it can differentiate a Christian god from any other god or even plain solipsism. It doesn’t say anything about the nature of the god. > [@](#): > > The ontological argument, of course, is as open to objection as any other argument for the existence or non-existence of God, but I think Descartes’ point still stands - we need some sort of faith before we can consider any sort of truth about the “external world”, whether it’s faith in God or just faith in the general reliability of our senses and reason; we can’t find “external truths” through pure reason without faith of any sort. > > I know that many atheists object to using the word “faith” to describe any part of their belief system, but I don’t see how they can get around Descartes otherwise. I’m sure **Voyager** will have an answer to this, and I look forward to hearing it. 🙂 Yes, I have to submit to that initial step of having faith in logic because without that, I don’t believe I would be able to “think” much at all. The languages I speak, the scenarios I imagine, the cause-and-effect relationships that govern my life… are all too closely intertwined with the system of logic that I know. I don’t think I can comprehend a world that actually functions with logical contradictions. But beyond that, I don’t want to use faith any more than I must because it hasn’t proven to reliable enough. A part of me still believes that everything after “I think, therefore I am” was a cop-out on Descartes’s part. I am not certain of anything past that, myself. But I’d still like to find out more about the world that I APPEAR to live in, which is why I asked all these questions. Even if the answers aren’t 100% certain, at least they provide some interesting possibilities. > [@](#): > > I would say that all parts of any belief system are “open to interpretation”. A particular church may give a particular, definite answer to any specific question you have, but - certainly for most of the issues you’ve raised - I wouldn’t say there was one answer that all Christians have to accept for any of them. > > And, of course, if you do find a fundamental disagreement between what you know in your heart to be true and Christianity, it would be wrong of you to pretend to be a Christian. Some churches may tell you that you’re damned for doing this, but I hope that, if nothing else, this discussion has shown you this isn’t a universal Christian belief. I would not pretend to be Christian. Such an act would serve no purpose – not for me, not for other Christians, and not for anyone else. I want to give it an honest chance and I’m trying to see if it’s something I can actually buy into full-heartedly, and these questions are just one of the stumbling blocks. If they really can’t be answered, well, maybe you’re right and Christianity just ain’t for me, But I had to try, at least 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/173 "2006-03-07T12:02:20Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > But nothing and nonexistence are not the same thing. > > It requires a presumption of existentialism to equate “A does not exist” with “A is not there”. Existence is collapse of a probability distribution. It is trivial; i.e., of no importance or value. It is an illusion set documented only by its own elements. “There is no essential distinction between scientific measures and the measures of the senses. In either case our acquaintance with the external world comes to us through material channels; the observer’s body may be regarded as part of his laboratory equipment.” — Arthur Eddington > > Reality, on the other hand, has nothing to do with existence. To be real, a thing must be eternal, necessary, and essential. The universe is none of those. Existence and the universe are synonyms. If the universe were not here, the spirit still would be. That is because it is real. The universe is different than existence there can be many Universes that we do not know about. The universe exists(we can prove that) so it is in existence. To be REAL it must exist. Nothing then is spirit. Or should I say spirit is nothing? Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/174 "2006-03-07T12:03:45Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > I want to give it an honest chance and I’m trying to see if it’s something I can actually buy into full-heartedly, and these questions are just one of the stumbling blocks. If they really can’t be answered, well, maybe you’re right and Christianity just ain’t for me, But I had to try, at least 🙂 Of course. Any religious faith worth the name is based on a love of God. As we know from our human relationships, we can’t _try_ to love someone else; it just happens to us. If it’s not happened to you, then following any religion is the wrong thing for you to do; but I would still urge you to keep looking. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/175 "2006-03-07T12:34:59Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > But whereas error is an accepted and even cherished part of science, it is something that’s usually denied or covered up in religion. It’s a fundamentally different approach. Ugh. I wouldn’t put it that way. If science begins cherishing error, then we’re all in deep doodoo. Science cherishes (and in fact is built on) the notion of falsification, i.e., that some hypothesis about nature may be proved false by empirical test. But formulating a wrong hypothesis is quite a different thing from outright error, which makes me think of things like mistakes in the design of experiments or miscalculations of data elements. I don’t think that a scientist should pat himself on the back just because he ruined a speciman or screwed up some math. And I might add that it is not unheard of at all for error of that sort to be covered up in science. Meanwhile, some religions enourage constantly examining oneself for false beliefs and even questioning God, so as to discern a right revelation from a wrong one. I think that both science and religion suffer from their share of political infestation by men who seek power and wealth at the expense of other men. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/176 "2006-03-07T12:41:54Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > I want to give it an honest chance and I’m trying to see if it’s something I can actually buy into full-heartedly, and these questions are just one of the stumbling blocks. If they really can’t be answered, well, maybe you’re right and Christianity just ain’t for me, But I had to try, at least 🙂 Surely, you don’t mean that. Have you decided that science is not for you because of its unanswered questions? Or that logic is not for you because of its undecidable propositions? I would encourage you to consider that epistemology is a fine thing, an interesting thing, and a thing that is fun to study. But in the end, nothing is really all about knowledge; everything is all about value — what _you_ value. You will hang in there with science and logic because you value them so much. The question to ask yourself is whether you value finding the God you seek. A man is always seeking that which he treasures; it is the nature of our journey. “Where your treasure is, there your heart is also.” — Jesus ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/177 "2006-03-07T14:25:35Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > But whereas error is an accepted and even cherished part of science, it is something that’s usually denied or covered up in religion. It’s a fundamentally different approach. That is too often true. It’s interesting to note that even apostle Paul acknowledged that his knowledge was incomplete. For myself , it’s important to be aware of what we don’t know, and how much there is left to learn in order to process new possibilities. Of course I have certain foundational beliefs that I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about and they would be hard to shake. In organized religion I see a lot of people who believe according to tradition. A, everybody in my group says this is true so it must be true: sort of thing. > [@](#): > > I would like to believe this – that moral choice is all that matters – but then that goes back into the question of how much of Christianity is open to interpretation. There are lots of differences in doctrine and belief that fall under the umbrella of Christianity, so I guess it’s pretty open to interpretation. That’s why the conclusion for me is that no person or group has all the answers {especially the ones that think they do} and I have as much access to spiritual truth as anyone. > [@](#): > > Thanks, Liberal. Ok. If your interpretation of God is accurate, your explanation makes sense as well. But that’s the question, isn’t it? Who is He? As well as who are we in relation to God? We can and do go forward learning as we go. We can’t just wait to have all the answers before we choose. It is in the act of choosing and trying that we learn. > [@](#): > > If certain truths are constant and inescapable, then they must apply to everyone. But what happens when two people come across contradictory truths that are supposed to be constant and inescapable? Who would be right and how would he know? My objection to this sort of subjective thinking is that without some sort of external and objective measurement, they too often degenerate into disagreements and then wars. Yes, they apply to everyone, but everyone has the right to discover them in their own way and in thier own time. Mutual respect and consideration and a little faith that although our paths may seem different now they ultimately have the same destination. I claim my right to choose my own path and honor that right for others. I have friends who are wonderful people and conservative Christians. I have others who are wonderful atheists or agnostics. Love is love, compassion is compassion, honesty is honesty. Their actions are a reflection of what they value and that’s how we relate to each other. No need to fight over the other details. How do we decide what justice is? Liberty? All the other intangibles? Do we have external and objective measurement for those? We can’t. The same holds true for spiritual truth. > [@](#): > > Not quite. The child wouldn’t be dependent on us. I’m talking about, essentially, cloning a person completely – memories included. They’d just be a carbon copy of us and definitely a peer, not a subordinate. In other words, why didn’t God just clone himself instead of making inferior copies? I don’t believe he did. In the metaphor of Eden it was Adams and Eve’s choice that seperated them from God. We chose to be seperate. We can choose otherwise. > [@](#): > > There’s one more option that’s too often ignored: The belief in ignorance. Everybody is doing that because everybody thinks they’re right. If everyone instead believed that they could be wrong, things might be different. I agree. In fact we can pretty much be assured that there’s a lot more we don’t know than what we know. That’s the beauty of it in IMHO. We can choose our own path and allow others to choose theirs. Unfortunatly some choices bring conflict and we must deal with it. If someone’s choice means breaking into my house then I must deal with it. If someone’s choice means passing opressive laws then I have to choose how to deal with it. I don’t have to choose hatred and spite. > [@](#): > > The word “truth” has so many meanings. I agree with you that knowing yourself is one very essential part of the experience, but there are other questions I would like answered too. That’s all I mean by “external truths”. I think I know what you mean but I’d point out that you have to decide internally what these external truths mean to you. For me a key belief is are we primarily {or entirely} physical beings with spiritual beliefs, or are we actually spiritual beings having a fleeting physical experience. I doubt you’ll discover an answer to that externally. > [@](#): > > And foremost among these “other questions” is the question of who or what created the world I exist in. I can search within myself for the answer, but I could never logically ascertain whether my internal belief equals the actual external creator – unless I AM that creator, a possibility which I don’t like to think about. Ahhhh there you have it. As God’s peers we are creators or at least co creators of our lives. IMHO the answer to who or what created the world we exist in is an internal question also. One of my objections to some traditional Christian belief is the view of God as some external being out there somewhere that interacts with us. > [@](#): > > For me, this thread isn’t so much about “finding myself” – I spent a lot of time doing that already, and I’m sure it will continue – but about the questions outside myself. I’m not sure you can answer the questions you’re asking while trying to keep them outside yourself. What should I have for dinner or what kind of car should I buy are questions that start as subjective and end up outside of yourself {for the most part} Other questions remain internal. For myself it started years ago by simply asking the question " God if you’re really there I want to know" I asked it with a sincerity and seriousness that meant I was willing to change my direction and my choices based on the answer. There’s been a bunch of mistakes and misinterpretations since then but hey, the journey of a thousand miles and all that. As **Lib** mentioned. The Holy Spirit has the answers. I believe it’s one of the inexcapable truths I mentioned. It’s our connection to God and each other. Jesus described it as the source of all truth and decribed kindness, humility, love, compassion, as the fruits of the spirit. It’s not an external being trying to set rules for you and get you to obey with the promise of some future reward. It’s the very essence of who and what you are and the process of losing our illusions. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/178 "2006-03-07T17:10:10Z")
Hey Reply. Yup, that’s the argument. Frankly, I’ve pretty much said what I have to say. Liberal believes he has refuted it. I don’t think so. If it interests you, read both sides and draw your own conclusions. And cosmosdan, your quote from the Book of Mormon reminds me of Homer Simpson’s famous riff on Pascal’s Wager (Homer the Heretic; season four, episode three): What if we’ve picked the wrong religion and, every time we go to church, we’re just making God madder and madder? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/179 "2006-03-07T17:26:30Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > Liberal believes he has refuted it. I don’t think so. Oy. Will you _please_ stop doing that? What I believe is what I said, namely, that I _addressed_ — not refuted — it. In fact, I’ve said many times in my history here that every worldview is valid, even those directly opposed to my own. That’s because worldviews are subjective. > [@](#): > > What if we’ve picked the wrong religion and, every time we go to church, we’re just making God madder and madder? 🙂 Then fuck him. Who needs that sort of god? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/180 "2006-03-07T17:31:47Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Well, cut me some slack. Whenever I post formal tableaus, I’m inevitably accused of being obtuse and abstract, manipulating cryptic symbols that don’t mean anything, so I posted an informal one. If I word it this way instead, are we okay — It must be the case that both (God knew that it was possible Jesus would rise) and (God knew that it was possible Jesus would not rise)? I’m not complaining about the style at all - in fact I appreciate it, and I suspect that others do also. I hope my quibbling is productive - it is meant to be. You see, I spend a lot of time reviewing papers, so I easily get into this mode. Your restatement is fine - but, unless A or ~A is necessarily true, isn’t it always the case that (P knows A is possible) and (P knows that ~A is possible)? However, this no longer supports necessity. In fact, if God knows that either is possible, neither can be necessary. Your step 4 is correct because A or ~A is always true. Actually not. What would be correct is 4a. It must be the case that (Jesus would rise or Jesus would not rise.) In your phrasing, if him rising or not rising were inevitable, then Jesus would not have had the free will to choose to rise or not. In fact, since he did rise, in your version he must rise. If he must rise, then God would have known it, (since it would not be a matter of free will) and God, knowing that Jesus would return to him, would have given up nothing or very little. I’m not too thrilled with step 5 either, but we can work on that later. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300.md?page=10)