krose wrote:At this point I cannot see a way to put aside what I have learned and make myself believe the Adam story, no matter how much I want to, or others want me to. I just don't see how a person can honestly do that.
Very interesting topic. I consider myself an
agnostic theist (and have for a very long time). However, I'm quite happy saying or writing "theist" when asked what I believe.
There are numerous beliefs that can be included in agnostic theism, including fideism, however not all agnostic theists are fideists. Since agnosticism is a position on knowledge and does not forbid belief in a deity, it is compatible with most theistic positions.
More important:
Christian Agnostics (distinct from a Christian who is agnostic) practice a distinct form of agnosticism that applies only to the properties of God. They hold that it is difficult or impossible to be sure of anything beyond the basic tenets of the Christian faith. They believe that God exists, that Jesus has a special relationship with him and is in some way divine, that God should be worshipped and that humans should be compassionate toward one another. This belief system has deep roots in Judaism and the early days of the Church.
I'm no slouch when it comes to skepticism, and can "see" and understand all of the arguments against belief. Indeed, I've posted
many of them myself. Still, it's not quite like "seeing the sun", because I realise that I, we all, have inherent biases. When skeptics say that humans "form patterns" to "make sense of the world", they usually apply it to "believers", but I feel this can also be applied to skeptics. Once they form a "pattern", which excludes "the supernatural" (used broadly), then like the believer parameters are set up, and they won't venture beyond those parameters,
regardless of the evidence. To
their mind, "the evidence is in"; "this is the way the world works, and it doesn't and cannot work in any other way".
If, when we die, we cease to exist, then what makes "sense"? "Sense", in that case, was
only the function of a temporary piece of matter, and once that matter is eaten by worms, does "sense" continue eternal? What if an asteroid struck earth and killed every living thing in it? Does "earth sense" "continue eternal"? Is there something lasting, universal and eternal about this "earth experience"? It's all over, and every living thing on earth is dead - passed into oblivion. If something of this earth experience continues, then it will have to be experienced by other beings already in existence, or to come into existence. But how will we know that, or if "this is true"? Can an ant comprehend the mind of Newton, or as Darwin himself phrased it, "can a dog comprehend the mind of Newton?" And what if there are greater minds in the universe than Newton, so that Newton takes the place of the dog in this respect?
We know the answers to all of these hypothetical questions?
I'm not advocating "irrationalism", or that one should be open to
anything. While we live on earth,
most things have a "rational basis". If your income is $600.00 pw, and your expenditure is $800.00pw, you're eventually going to go broke. Relying on a miracle to change this can validly be called "irrational", in most cases. But still, it gets complicated. Consider the strange case of
Anita Moorjani. Real, or fake? Is there anything in her experience that can, according to our understanding of what's "rational", be called rational? Or the equally strange case of
James Leininger. Skeptics don't usually go beyond their parameters in such cases, but are they worthy of more investigation? I think so.
That's why I've become wary of "solid patterns" and "parameters", not that I think we should exist in a "free for all" universe, where
anything can happen. However, a Christian once asked me if I thought there was anything God couldn't do. My reply was that God cannot change our past, but in the realms of "science fiction", and Hollywood sci-fi versions like "The Terminator", or "Back to the Future", even that seems under question, since they are based on valid hypotheses about time travel. We know all about time travel, and what's possible or not possible? Whatever you say.
The closing of the mind begins with "dogma", and that can be applied in a secular or religious sense.
So what about Adam, creation, Jesus as Son of God, etc.? I wouldn't unequivocally say "I believe it", but I'm not going to mock such beliefs, because in my view, only fools go where angels fear to walk. I'm open to all possibilities, in "all possible worlds", recognising the limitations of my "earth sense", which, supposedly, will one day completely vanish and have NO "eternal meaning", except for the "here and now".
So though "logic" may proscribe it, in "some sense" I believe that Jesus was the Son of God, that he was the Messiah, a resurrected being who will one day return to earth. Do I
know it? Not at all. But I can
choose to believe it, even against my "logical mind", which will one day be eaten by worms and cease to exist forever (well, supposedly). In this sense I have followed the philosophy of
Soren Kierkegaard, which many will call "blind faith", but, for me at least, there's far more to life than "logic", especially in the "earth sense".
I have little doubt here that many will call and consider Kierkegaard a "lunatic", but there's no doubt about
his influence upon philosophy and theology, and because these are the kinds of questions we should all be asking - outside of our "set parameters" - whether they are religious or secular.
