I do see what you are driving at, but you are assuming that when an agnostic is pondering whether or not God or an afterlife exist, that it is the Catholic understanding of God or heaven/hell. We both know that there are many different thought and beliefs pertaining to those concepts outside of the Catholic paradigm. It’s not a simple continuum of “yes to no.”

This ties in directly to Andy’s comment – his story only works if you believe that it is impossible to live a good, respectful, and moral life without recognizing God’s existence. That’s separate from the tacit assumption on this blog that when you say “believe in God” that you mean “being Catholic,” which we all know is quite a bit more that simply believing that there is a God.

In the end, Phil hit it right on. The search for truth is not a manic “drop everything” affair, but a long-term process that has communication at it’s core – communication with people of different beliefs and perspectives… much like what happens in this forum on occasion. It’s also something that ALL people should engage in.

And waste important life time.

My thoughts are that if there is no eternal life and no God, then there is nothing truly “important” about this life at all.

And the argument Andy used is to make the argument of probabilities and “wagering” based on that. I don’t think it’s supposed to justify living as a result of fear.

And Phil, it sounds like you are putting forth an effort, which is awesome. Ultimately, as a Catholic, I believe that ianyone who is honestly following their conscience (one that they’ve made an honest attempt at properly forming) then God will reward that, regardless of how many answers they have come to fully find in the end.

That being said, this post was not really aimed at somebody like you. It is aimed at those that don’t make honest attempts at it and are intellectually lazy at pursuing what I see as a rational response to their stated belief system.

Ultimately, I had the thought that this is due to a lack of hope on their part. Perhaps they have no hope that there are answers to be found. It sounds like you have at least some hope, therefore you are making an active and rational attempt to find answers.

And I think that is most important. God bless you sir!

One thing I am learning through all of this ‘research’ is that there just aren’t a ton of answers out there. Some books say evolution and natural selection disprove God, in that we all came from common ancestry. Pro-God books claim that Darwin’s theory was faulted and has not yet been substantiated and there is no way that natural selection could have created complex DNA/RNA structures. Problem is neither get me very far because they are both theoretical. But I will keep trying…

“If theists are wrong…well, then it doesn’t matter anyway”.

Actually, in my post I was actually trying to disprove this thought. Spending, what could be, your ONLY existence, trying to sort out whether or not you BELIEVE that it will indeed BE your only existence, can be a never-ending saga. I suppose you could dedicate every man-hour of your life to try to acertain this. But most likely if you were look at it from a ‘rational’, scientific (proof seeking), non-theoligical perspective you would likely come to the same conclusion you would chasing a fountain of youth. And waste important life time.

If you open your mind, and look at things from a theoligical aspect, perhaps one could determine that their must be eternal life, whether it be from a fountain of youth OR God.

But to say why take the chance on missing eternal life as Andy put it, is living scared in my opinion. I don’t walk down the street worring about planes falling out of the sky on my head. Could it happen, yes. Do I stay in m y house all day worrying about it, no. Statistical evidence does not support it will happen so why worry about it. To devote one’s life to God out of fear of the ALTERNATIVE of eternal life is not the proper way to live, just my opinion. I guess you could argue again that the smallest probablitiy of eternal life would be worth pursuing. But I think I will wait until I know for sure. I may regret that decision on the ‘other’ side. But I won’t have any regrets here

I just don’t see that kind of response by most people that are “unsure as to God’s existence or our eternal life.” I see them more often find every way to try and explain it all away or quickly discount it so that they are free from having to consider or bother with it. And then they don’t think about it much after that. That’s not everyone of course. Just many. My perception of course.

But to me, if we are being rational about the potential importance of such a task (theists end up being right), it would merit a “dropping everything to find out what we can.” If theists are wrong…well, then it doesn’t matter anyway.

I don’t believe it does. So, it makes sense that I am not searching for it. Call me a non-fountainian.

For the sake of this argument, I am not arguing the rationality of the position itself (believing in God, no God, a fountain of youth, or magical dragons). I’m only questioning what the rational response one who holds those beliefs should have.

There are plenty of arguments and evidence that support the existence of God. There are plenty of documented miracles. Plenty of Saints who have lived extraordinary lives on numerous levels. There are endless philosophical arguments. There is always the experiential aspect of actually trying to believe certain things and see if they ring true.

If I were agnostic, investigating or trying any of these things seem like a good first step. Example: I would read every documentation on Padre Pio and how he suffered the stigmata that nobody can explain. I would read scripture. I would read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I would read history. I would read plato. I would read the lives of the saints. I would try out some of these religions that claim to offer this “eternal salvation.”

If human life is 75 earth years and eternal life is infinity, yes, from a mathematical perspective it makes sense to pursue it. But no more than it would make sense for one to pursue the fountain of youth. If someone were to tell you they have spent their entire earth-life chasing some magical fountain you may take issue with how they are spending their time here. But if it is rational for agnostics to pursue what could potentially be infinite life via God then it should also be considered rational for folks to search for a fountain of youth for eternal life. After all, if there was even the slighest possibility that it exists, then STATISTICALLY it would be worth pursuing. But WOULD it really be RATIONAL to do so?

Speaking of pursuing – you suggest that it’s the agnostics that need to ‘drop everything….and figure it out’. I presume you mean whether or not God exists, i.e. whether eternal life exists. Ummm…how? Can you elaborate? I would seriously drop everything ASAP. Please advise! Or is it the ‘tree falling in the woods’ thingy…

Athiests believe in no eternal life. They claim there is NO evidence of such and THEY are right.

The faithful believe in eternal life. They claim the evidence WILL someday be there and THEY are not wrong.

Doesn’t really clear it up for the agnostics! How do we figure it out when it seems as those who say they know for certain don’t even have it figured out? Both can’t be right!

When we’re speaking of mathematics and probabilities here, think of LIMITS back in math class.

The only reason I even mention theists and atheists is to present the two extremes of some type of certainty (there IS an eternal life or there ISN’T – and we act accordingly to that belief).

I appreciate your desire to flesh out some of these semi-related issues and tangents, of which there are many. But I think you misread the post.

One of the main take-aways is summed up in Andy’s comment above.

I was not presenting proofs of God or no God. I was not characterizing what all atheists or agnostics or theists do. I was presenting three basic world views (We have an eternal state; we don’t; or I’m not sure if we do). And then applying what I believe to be a rational response to believing either one of those views in light of the possible outcomes (There is eternal life or there isn’t).

Again, I did not characterize atheists as all believing that “anything goes” at all – please read what I wrote. I just said that whatever they believe (whether they believe they should act morally, immorally, or ANY WAY) is consistent with their world view (a complement).

Getting caught up in characterizing all atheists or agnostics is a distraction to the post and point. I was not attempting to do such.

The weight of my point is made using rationality and basic probability. ANd then questioning the response of agnostics to their uncertainty.

From a mathematical, and therefore rational, point of view – if somebody is uncertain of whether or not they have an eternal destiny (agnostics), they should drop everything right this moment and try and figure it out. Even the smallest CHANCE that we have an ETERNAL soul that could be affected by current actions is INFINITELY more important than the alternative…that we don’t. And I don’t say INFINITELY to just mean really big. I mean it literally in a mathematical sense.

So RATIONALLY anyone who is uncertain of eternity should drop everything this minute and spend the rest of their time trying to figure it all out. [continued...]

Characterizing agnostics and atheists the way you have is simply inaccurate.

I take issue with your firmly stated definition of agnosticism as the viewpoint that ‘certain truths, specifically about our existence, are unknowable.’ Yes, you say that many currently use it in a broader sense, but you state this by way of saying that they are wrong – they are not. Huxley’s own writings on the matter are layered, and are very much in line with the idea that said truths are not currently known… but not impossible to know in the future. In any case, not being an “agnostic” by your or Huxley’s definition doesn’t invalidate it as a viewpoint.

Do you mind explaining your “RATIONALLY dropping everything” statement a bit more? It’s… odd.

I’m sorry if my response about atheism is unclear; I’ll try again. Not believing in God is NOT the same as saying “anything goes.” (That would be nihilism.) Many atheists have an excellent moral code that they live by, because without eternal life, this life and how they interact with the people in it are all that matters.

John, here are my thoughts:
*re: agnostic:
Def of agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic)

This is the top definition and the original definition taken from T.H. Huxley who coined the word. That’s the one I used.

Aside from that, I admitted very clearly in the post that most people use the word agnostic in a broader sense to mean that “they simply don’t know” – agreeing with you in fact that most people use it this way these days. So I’m not sure how I “distilled that concept down”? I apologize if I did.

*Re: Atheism -
I’m confused w your response. Perhaps I just didn’t write very clearly. I did not describe any particular behavior for an atheist other than to say that ANY behavior is consistent w their world view. It has nothing to do with what “many atheists believe.” It has to do with the fact that no matter what they do or think, in an atheistic world view, there is no ultimate meaning – cuz in the end we’re all dust and wind…and that’s it.

The point of the post is not to discuss theist and non-theist viewpoints. It was to point out that if one is “agnostic” and is uncertain about our eternal destiny, that RATIONALLY they would drop everything they are doing and do everything they can to find the answer.

Many atheists believe that since this life is all we have, we must live and interact with others in as moral of a framework as possible, because there’s no second chance. You describing their “natural behavior” as you do is akin to saying that a Catholic doesn’t need to avoid sin and can commit most minor sins with impunity if they immediately seek forgiveness and penance afterwords – which is to say, obviously wrong.

There’s room here for excellent discussion of the Catholic faith and it’s positive merits in comparison to agnosticism and atheism, but not without objectivity and intellectual rigor to the non-Catholic non-theistic viewpoints. If one doesn’t honestly assess “competing” (for lack of a better term) views, the merit of the argument just isn’t there, and the chance for true insight is lost.

I welcome any thoughts, of course.

*re: agnostics – you likely know that “agnosticism” is as a much-debated philosophical concept, and as such is viewed differently by different parties. Much of theology and philosophy agree that agnosticism is the viewpoint that certain truths are not known for certain by the agnostic themself and humanity in general, which is very different than saying that they are “unknowable.” Certainly, some agnostics do believe that such truths are unknowable, but that is not representative of the viewpoint as a whole. My fallible impression is that they are not the majority, but in any case, to distill that concept down the way you did is purposefully negative to serve your argument, and not reflective of reality.

(I will mention that in my life and education, I have met many self-identified agnostics, and they have all had the viewpoint that said truths are, in fact, knowable, but just that we don’t fully know them yet. These anecdotes don’t count as epidemiology or evidence, however. )

*re: atheism – your description of the “natural behavior of an atheist” is based on the idea that without the promised reward of heaven and threat of hell, humans are incapable of moral behavior. This not only is a dreary view of humanity, but has nothing to do with reality.

-continued in the next comment, for space–