2. Against Agnosticism
This is my second post on the rather interesting questions I outlined in my last entry, as well as: what does it mean to have meaning in life? I am concentrating on two aspects: religion and philosophy, for they are the ones whose sole purpose is to bring meaning and direction to us. Concepts such as love, justice, and various views of politics may be their own philosophies (or even their own religions!) but without their own basis in their own philosophy they cannot exist with a firm foundation. These new posts are not my excuse for an argument, they are rather my own thoughts condensed and organized into something coherent for your reading pleasure.
In this post, I want to state my position on agnosticism (not atheism), and next post I will make a stand against relativism. Why? An agnostic position cannot truly understand religion, and a relativistic opinion is the bane of all philosophy. Once these two concepts are addressed, we can see if conventional religions and altruistic philosophies (not fundamentalist or extremist) are relevant to our mindful and rational search for meaning, peace and happiness.
William James (1842 - 1910) once disagreed with agnosticism by claiming: "By remaining skeptical and waiting for more light... we lose the good, if it be true, just as certainly as if we positively choose to disbelieve." He goes on to present an analogy: "It is as if a man should hesitate indefinitely to ask a certain woman to marry him because he was not perfectly sure that she would prove an angel after he brought her home. Would he not cut himself off from that particular angel-possibility as decisively as if he went and married someone else?"
The 'woman' in question is obviously the 'religion' in question. Of course, one could counter this argument of the angel-possibility: the woman might probably turn out to be a bitch-possibility! But the point stands; no orthodox religion suddenly turns out to be vile hateful propaganda; it may have been one already, or you didn't do your research enough. Humans, doubtless, have the potential to suddenly change and become bad people, but it takes generations for schools of religions to become hateful ideologies - and some do, but not most orthodox denominations.
According to thinkers like William James, there is something comfortingly attractive in agnosticism: it is impossible for an agnostic to be wrong. A religious person is prepared to risk error and delusion for a chance at securing a vital good, which is what his religion's blessings are. An atheist risks error and the loss of a vital good, or of a religion's blessings, for an attempt at truth. Both risk 'error'. But the agnostic will risk a loss of truth and the loss of a vital good for the certainty of avoiding error.
Certainly, a powerful case against the agnostic can be made. "You indecisive coward!" might be too harsh a criticism, yet long-term agnosticism will only raise more questions than answers. Life certainly has enough questions already. However, one should not blindly jump onto the Christian boat, or the Muslim boat, or the Buddhist boat, or the atheist boat so eagerly. A period of examination can help tremendously in regards to the belief-systems of the religions in question. Certainly when one decides to search for meaning, a degree of caution must be adopted. Yet when one chooses the easy way and opts for a life of agnosticism, one cannot help but wonder if he could ever find the answers he originally sought to discover. The happy fact is that they still can; only that it takes a lot longer than anyone would have preferred. A religious and philosophical path takes enough time already; ideally it is a lifetime commitment, like marriage. Many would scoff at the idea of marriage being a simple long-term game of selecting the 'easiest' and 'safest' option (it could very well turn out the opposite later, so one might as well take the calculated risk. This is where one's personal feelings and needs come in). Why should religion and philosophy be any different? No one said either would be easy.
So pick a side. But pick a side. It is useless to sit on the fence. No one said it has to be perfect. The gods are perfect, pantheism is not. Yahweh is perfect, Christianity is not. Buddha is perfect, Buddhism is not. But as long as you remain tolerant, picking a side need not be picking a fight.
Thus ends my second post: "Against Agnosticism". I hope you enjoyed reading it. If you have comments or objections please e-mail me at buddhacidefervour@gmail.com.
In this post, I want to state my position on agnosticism (not atheism), and next post I will make a stand against relativism. Why? An agnostic position cannot truly understand religion, and a relativistic opinion is the bane of all philosophy. Once these two concepts are addressed, we can see if conventional religions and altruistic philosophies (not fundamentalist or extremist) are relevant to our mindful and rational search for meaning, peace and happiness.
William James (1842 - 1910) once disagreed with agnosticism by claiming: "By remaining skeptical and waiting for more light... we lose the good, if it be true, just as certainly as if we positively choose to disbelieve." He goes on to present an analogy: "It is as if a man should hesitate indefinitely to ask a certain woman to marry him because he was not perfectly sure that she would prove an angel after he brought her home. Would he not cut himself off from that particular angel-possibility as decisively as if he went and married someone else?"
The 'woman' in question is obviously the 'religion' in question. Of course, one could counter this argument of the angel-possibility: the woman might probably turn out to be a bitch-possibility! But the point stands; no orthodox religion suddenly turns out to be vile hateful propaganda; it may have been one already, or you didn't do your research enough. Humans, doubtless, have the potential to suddenly change and become bad people, but it takes generations for schools of religions to become hateful ideologies - and some do, but not most orthodox denominations.
According to thinkers like William James, there is something comfortingly attractive in agnosticism: it is impossible for an agnostic to be wrong. A religious person is prepared to risk error and delusion for a chance at securing a vital good, which is what his religion's blessings are. An atheist risks error and the loss of a vital good, or of a religion's blessings, for an attempt at truth. Both risk 'error'. But the agnostic will risk a loss of truth and the loss of a vital good for the certainty of avoiding error.
Certainly, a powerful case against the agnostic can be made. "You indecisive coward!" might be too harsh a criticism, yet long-term agnosticism will only raise more questions than answers. Life certainly has enough questions already. However, one should not blindly jump onto the Christian boat, or the Muslim boat, or the Buddhist boat, or the atheist boat so eagerly. A period of examination can help tremendously in regards to the belief-systems of the religions in question. Certainly when one decides to search for meaning, a degree of caution must be adopted. Yet when one chooses the easy way and opts for a life of agnosticism, one cannot help but wonder if he could ever find the answers he originally sought to discover. The happy fact is that they still can; only that it takes a lot longer than anyone would have preferred. A religious and philosophical path takes enough time already; ideally it is a lifetime commitment, like marriage. Many would scoff at the idea of marriage being a simple long-term game of selecting the 'easiest' and 'safest' option (it could very well turn out the opposite later, so one might as well take the calculated risk. This is where one's personal feelings and needs come in). Why should religion and philosophy be any different? No one said either would be easy.
So pick a side. But pick a side. It is useless to sit on the fence. No one said it has to be perfect. The gods are perfect, pantheism is not. Yahweh is perfect, Christianity is not. Buddha is perfect, Buddhism is not. But as long as you remain tolerant, picking a side need not be picking a fight.
Thus ends my second post: "Against Agnosticism". I hope you enjoyed reading it. If you have comments or objections please e-mail me at buddhacidefervour@gmail.com.
posted by Raymond at Tuesday, August 01, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home