People who are committed to the institutional expression of the religious impulse spend a lot of time sitting around lamenting the rush away from formal religion that is such a marked trend in current western culture. I am beginning to wonder if atheists are experiencing some of the same anxiety. It seems the atheist expression of faith is beginning to lose adherents, or at least be forced to admit that some of the faithful non-believers they claimed as their own were in fact not entirely in the atheist camp.
The scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson in a video posted at the “Big Think” blog and linked on Andrew Sullivan’s “The Dish” http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/why-choose-agnostic.html disowns the label “atheist” in favour of “agnostic”. It is a delightful 3 minute and 49 second piece worth listening to.
The famous atheist combatant Christopher Hitchens, who tragically died on the 15 December 2011, was not impressed with the move towards agnosticism. In his debate with the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig at Biola University (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FofDChlSILU&feature=related), Hitchens rejected the label “agnostic” as somehow a dodge taken by those who lack the courage to honestly acknowledge their non-belief. Htichens argued,
If you don’t think there is any evidence (for the existence of God) you are wrong to take refuge in saying you’re neutral. You ought to have the courage to answer the question which one is regularly asked, “Are you an atheist or not?” “Yes” I will say, “I am.”
I disagree with Mr. Hitchens. The choice to identify as an agnostic is a courageous choice. The agnostic who chooses to authentically occupy the uncomfortable middle, settling neither with the easy answer of rejecting transcendence in favour of a purely materialist universe, or the unquestioning conviction that the evidence for God should be obvious to any honest person, has made a difficult and lonely choice.
The word “agnostic” comes from the Greek word, “agnostos” meaning “unknown, unknowable,” from a- “not” and gnostos “(to be) known”. So, an agnostic is a person who acknowledges the profound limitations of human knowing and is willing to live with the uncertainty that exists at the edges of the human ability to understand. A genuine agnostic is a person who is willing to admit that there may be more to life than can be easily grasped by limited human concepts, yet remains unable to find comfortable language to penetrate the depths of that dimension that transcends the human mind.
Some of the greatest writers in the spiritual traditions might find themselves comfortable with the label “agnostic”.
The great 5th/6th Century anonymous Christian mystic Pseudo-Dionysius wrote,
I pray we could come to this darkness so far above light! If only we lacked sight and knowledge so as to see, so as to know, unseeing and unknowing, that which lies beyond all vision and knowledge. For this would be really to see and to know: to praise the Transcendent One in a transcending way, namely through the denial of all beings. We would be like sculptors who set out to carve a statue. They remove every obstacle to the pure view of the hidden image, and simply by this act of clearing aside they show up the beauty which is hidden.
(Luibheid, Colm (trans.). Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works. NY: Paulist Press, 1987.)
The late 14th Century anonymous author of the English Christian classic, The Cloud of Unknowing, wrote,
of God Himself no man can think. I would therefore leave all those things of which I can think and choose for my love that thing of which I cannot think. And why is this so? He may be well loved, but he may not be thought of. He may be reached and held close by means of love, but by means of thought never.
(Anonymous. Ira Progoff (trans.). The Cloud of Unknowing. NY: Dell Publishing, Co., 1957.)
The great 20th Century monastic Thomas Merton wrote,
It should be remarked that in the contemplative life, while study and intellectual development are of great importance, there is something else more important; still: the realm of personal experience which penetrates beyond the limits of speculative thought to “taste” the ultimate realities and to penetrate the inner meaning of what is believed and yet remains obscure. For the contemplative, then, what matters is not speculative discussion of the “problem of God”… The Christian contemplative is aware that in the mystical tradition both of the Eastern and Western Churches there is a strong element of what has been called “apophatic theology.” This “apophatic” tradition concerns itself with the most fundamental datum of all faith…the God who has revealed Himself to us in His Word has revealed Himself as unknown in His intimate essence, for He is beyond all merely human vision…. The heart of the Christian mystical experience is that it experiences the ineffable reality of what is beyond experience. It “knows” the presence of God, not in clear vision but “as unknown”…Christian faith too, while of course concerning itself with certain truths that have been revealed by God, does not terminate in the conceptual formulation of those truths. It goes beyond words and ideas and attains to God Himself. But the God who in a certain sense is “known” in the articles of faith is “known as unknown” beyond those articles.
(Merton, Thomas. Contemplation in a World of Action. NY: Image Books, 1965.)
No less an authority than the soon-to-be ex-Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, in his beautiful book, The Wound of Knowledge, lends his voice to the chorus that affirms the way of unknowing as the way to communion with God.
no ‘spiritual’ experience whatsoever can provide a clear security, an unambiguous sign of God’s favour. Real knowledge of God cannot be put into words with any approximation to completeness; thus real and personal knowledge of God cannot be identified with words in the understanding.
(Williams, Rowan. The Wound of Knowledge. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000.)
Faith operates in the realm of intuition. It is a land of shadows, a terrain of barely glimpsed realities. We are opened to this mysterious domain by recognizing the limits of human reason. This dimension of life is stirred within us by an encounter with beauty, or by the unexpected rising of tenderness and love. Inexpressible sorrow can serve as an uneasy bridge to the place of faith, as can the sudden arising of unexplainable joy.
We walk in the territory of faith not with the certainty of absolute knowledge, but with trust that reaches forward into the darkness and feels its way with a confidence that does not depend upon intellectual proof or scientific demonstration. The journey of faith walks the path of surrender. We move forward, not by acquiring more knowledge, but by laying down our human powers and abilities and opening to that deeper awareness that can be found in the depths of our being.
As Thomas Merton famously wrote in Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander,
At the center of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusion, a point of pure truth, a point or spark which belongs entirely to God, which is never at our disposal, from which God disposes of our lives, which is inaccessible to the fantasies of our mind or the brutalities of our own will.
This little point of nothingness and of absolute poverty is the pure glory of God in us. It is so to speak His name written is us, as our poverty, as our indigence, as our dependence, as our sonship. It is like a pure diamond, blazing with the invisible light of heaven. It is in everybody, and if we could see it we would see these billion points of light coming together in the face and blaze of a sun that would make all the darkness and cruelty of life vanish completely…
I have no program for this seeing. It is only given. But the gate of heaven is everywhere
21 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 7, 2012 at 7:13 am
jaqueline
but Christopher…in real life…agnostic is often a soft option…taken by many not because they are courageously taking the middle…but because they lack the curiosity and courage to really engage with the question.
May 7, 2012 at 7:18 am
jaqueline
and honestly, your examples of possible agnostic attitudes do not hold…they do not declare empirical certainty, but they do declare faith!
May 7, 2012 at 7:43 am
jaqueline
though agnosticism in it’s positive form is best described as a question I
think.
to try and explain what I mean I am taking some sentences form the quote above :
“to praise the Transcendent One in a transcending way,” Faith
” is there a transcendent being? is their someone to praise?” Agnosticism
“They remove every obstacle to the pure view of the hidden image, and simply by this act of clearing aside they show up the beauty which is
hidden.” F
” once we strip away every obstacle to the pure view will we find any beauty there?” Ag
“The heart of the Christian mystical experience is that it experiences the ineffable reality of what is beyond experience. It “knows” the presence of God, not in clear vision but “as unknown”…Christian faith too, while of course concerning itself with certain truths that have been revealed by God, does not terminate in the conceptual formulation of those truths. It goes beyond words and ideas and attains to God Himself.” F
” The heart of the agnostic experience is that it is not sure that what it is experiencing is the ineffable reality of what is beyond experience, In fact it wonders if there is a beyond at all…….agnosticism has not gone beyond words themselves and attained God Himself.” Ag
“This little point of nothingness and of absolute poverty is the pure glory of God in us.” F
“This little point of nothingness and of absolute poverty ……..I can’t even stand to go there” Ag
It points to me I think of what we Christians sometimes do…we think Agnostics are neutral territory, a buffer zone, despite what you write, and we try to win that territory and utilise it for our side. It is also not fair to turn ourselves into something we are not in order to broaden the buffer zone. The writers above although acknowledging mystery are very clear as to who they attribute that mystery to, which a proper agnostic withholds from doing, even though they may not reject the possibility of the attribution..
May 7, 2012 at 9:32 am
Tress
I like this post!
May 7, 2012 at 9:50 am
sethmil
I never realized the depth of agnosticism. Based on my experience the definition of agnosticism is “I don’t know and I don’t care”, an apathetic view that I find shallow.
“the God who has revealed Himself to us in His Word has revealed Himself as unknown in His intimate essence, for He is beyond all merely human vision…. The heart of the Christian mystical experience is that it experiences the ineffable reality of what is beyond experience. It “knows” the presence of God, not in clear vision but “as unknown”…Christian faith too, while of course concerning itself with certain truths that have been revealed by God, does not terminate in the conceptual formulation of those truths. It goes beyond words and ideas and attains to God Himself. But the God who in a certain sense is “known” in the articles of faith is “known as unknown” beyond those articles.”
Thomas Merton
This is the God, the Christianity I know. It’s the lonely place I talk about. I go to church but don’t feel like I’m among kindred spirits. (Even though I’m sure there must be some) Based on the hateful dialogue over the same-sex marriage issue I’ve heard lately, not in my own church but through the media and Facebook. I’m about ready to jump ship. I will take some thought to relate to agnosticism. But then again, I’ve just realized I don’t really know what agnosticism is, it’s not as straight forward as I thought.
May 7, 2012 at 9:37 pm
jaqueline
I dunno Seth…I am wondering why those quotes are being presented as agnositic, they are pretty definitely within the realms of faith considering that whatever mystery they describe is firmly attributed to a God…and at least two of the writings are from people who have been considered Christian for a long time.
It is exciting to know however that Christianity does not necessarily look like the hardline certainty of Conservative Fundamentalism. or whatever you are experiencing in your part of the world.
May 8, 2012 at 5:39 am
sethmil
I’m having trouble distinguishing positive and negative theology. Thomas Merton is near and dear to my heart and I’ve never felt anything I’ve read is inconsistent with orthodox Christianity. So I’m feeling a little intellectually challenged here. I do know, and maybe this is the rub, in my belief and in my experience God is not the static words of the Bible but His Word is somehow contained there, as if it is, in a manner of speaking, the arc of the covenant. The static words are good advice but God is spirit and can only be experienced that way, through personal relationship, revelation. That is we can only experience God in the moment, as spontaneity, the Divine Spirit, The Son living in us. That is the whole of our faith, the crucified and risen Jesus. Jesus lives. Again, this is the lonely spot I speak of and I should point out I am not an intellectual, I approach God as a child, in pure simplicity, in being still and letting Him speak to me. Theological minutia is not important to me. I do not understand the fine points being made here and I am not going to spend any time trying because it is not important to me personally or at least at this moment it is not being important. I don’t even know which side of the fence I am on. Also, in common parlance, your definition agnostic works for me (they) “lack the curiosity and courage to really engage with the question.” BTW, my name is Steve, WordPress insists on calling me sethmil and won’t let me change it.
May 8, 2012 at 8:01 am
jaqueline
Honestly Steve…failing Christopher explaining directly why those quotes were presented as agnostic…we may have both missed the point…that the point is to open our mind to mystery and challenge the polarised certainty of both hardline atheists and christians . I wonder that they were put up to allow a sort of window into a another way of looking at Christianity, that it is not all bible bash and brimstone; the way atheists often portray it and ‘fundos’ force it. That this post might be a talking point or a way into the doorway of faith for those who may have been wondering whether they have to have absolute certainty about God in order to believe.
I do not think it was to leave Christians who have questions or uncertainties or mystery to feel as though they may not be Christian.
What you describe though IS Christianity as I understand it…and I as a number in our church understand it..as far as I can tell from conversation and what I hear from the pulpit: “The static words are good advice but God is spirit and can only be experienced that way, through personal relationship, revelation. That is we can only experience God in the moment, as spontaneity, the Divine Spirit, The Son living in us. That is the whole of our faith, the crucified and risen Jesus. Jesus lives.”
May 8, 2012 at 8:10 am
Christopher Page
“the point is to open our mind to mystery and challenge the polarised certainty of both hardline atheists and christians” – Christopher likes!
May 8, 2012 at 8:13 am
jaqueline
*laughing*
and relieved!
there you have it Steve
May 9, 2012 at 8:32 am
timberwraith
I think jaqueline’s statement does a good job of summarizing one of the reasons why I recently switched from calling myself atheist to calling myself agnostic. There’s a resounding level of certitude in many new atheist circles that I have grown to find quite off-putting. I see that certitude leading the atheist movement into a number of growing negative practices and beliefs.
The three things that finally made me “snap” are the widespread Islamophobia I’ve witnessed in online atheist communities, a tendency to embrace hollow stereotypes of religion that ignore the positive contributions of progressive/radical faith, and the recent declaration by Richard Dawkins to mock, ridicule, and show contempt for the beliefs of religious people. Dawkins stated this in his speech at the Reason Rally in Washington DC in March. I searched the atheist blogosphere for weeks after Dawkins’ speech. Except for one or two lone voices, no one critiqued Dawkins’ speech. Quite to the contrary, numerous blogs spoke in support of his words. This is far more than I can bear.
Ironically, when I first switched from calling myself agnostic to calling myself atheist years ago, one of my reasons for doing so was a reaction to the off-putting certitude of Christian fundamentalists. I find myself having come full circle.
There is another reason for my recent switch in labels. As my own sense of spirituality has evolved over the years, I find that it best thrives within the margins of the unknown. For me, agnosticism means that I am content to leave unknowable answers unanswered. My variation of agnosticism is akin to saying “I am comfortable with leaving things undefined.” I fear that if I try to place this body of experiences within particular cultural, religious, and ritualistic paradigms, I will distort and hinder this sense of connection that I feel. I also fear that if I try to place this body of experiences within the paradigm of God, something crucial will be lost. The thing about the concept of God is that it is inevitably tied with centuries of cultural, intellectual, and ritualistic meaning. This inadvertently provides far more definition than I feel comfortable with.
I think I understand why people find it important to interweave the spiritual with religious practices and beliefs. I also think I understand why people feel the concept of a god is important. For me, however, those approaches simply do not work.
May 9, 2012 at 11:27 am
sethmil
“I fear that if I try to place this body of experiences within particular cultural, religious, and ritualistic paradigms, I will distort and hinder this sense of connection that I feel. I also fear that if I try to place this body of experiences within the paradigm of God, something crucial will be lost. The thing about the concept of God is that it is inevitably tied with centuries of cultural, intellectual, and ritualistic meaning. This inadvertently provides far more definition than I feel comfortable with.”
A very true, perceptive, and open minded statement. It has taken me years to get past that distortion and I’m still working on it. For me, it was all embodied in Christianity, what I call “Churchianity”. Please know the medium is not the message.
May 8, 2012 at 10:12 am
sethmil
I think I have been straining too much, I think I am already there and it didn’t occur to me that everybody isn’t. As I was driving a little while ago this thought occurred to me. In a previous post, I mentioned how something in me senses that Gandhi knows the same God I know. I also believe and know Jesus is the only way to truth and God. I don’t understand the contradiction but I live with it and just accept it as just one more mystery, things I don’t understand and I know there is no answer and never will be. And as I think more about it, there are many things like that, where people insist on thinking they know what cannot be known, and I don’t know any place where that is more evident that the book of Revelation. I’m thinking maybe some people have trouble with being in that zone, they want to make things black and white. I think I said this before too, it’s not black and white, It’s not even a thousand shades of gray, it is living color. So there’s another mystery. What did I just say? I know what I mean but I can’t form the concept in my mind. It is beyond my comprehension. I cannot explain it to you. But that’s okay, my dog doesn’t understand me either especially why it is that he must remain in the back yard. Steve is feeling a little less intellectually ” challenged”.
P.S. I feel a resonance in this place/blog and it is a very pleasant feeling. It’s nice to have a place where people think like I do, where they are comfortable being in the “zone”. (And I just realized, duh!, it’s called “a spacious place”)
May 8, 2012 at 2:08 pm
jaqueline
Oh I just laughed with joy reading that…
May 8, 2012 at 10:59 am
sethmil
Christopher, you may not believe this but I just noticed you have written a three part blog on loneliness. I have made reference several times to being in a lonely place, I was not alluding to your blog but as it turns out you have described in great depth what I was talking about except I was saying that lonely place is a lonely place. It’s a good place, it’s where I meet God, but I know few people personally who are there,who know what goes on there, who even know that place exists. In our society, it is very hard to get there, it was a tragic event in my life combined with the free time unemployment provides that got me there.
Here’s a random thought for you: We are all children of The Enlightenment but few are children of the Light. The Enlightenment good or bad has led to much spiritual darkness.
May 8, 2012 at 2:15 pm
jaqueline
this might cheer you about the enlightenment
If you can download it and listen…
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/enlightenment/3932542
May 9, 2012 at 11:33 am
sethmil
Thanks Jaqueline, I enjoyed that. Every time I have what seems to me like an original thought, it turns out that it’s just that I’m the last one to get it. The reason it occurred to me is that that seems like everything we discuss here is dealing with getting past the “enlightened” mindset.
May 10, 2012 at 5:58 pm
jaqueline
oh don’t worry…I was pretty down on the enlightenment until I heard that program…it was quite illuminating (ha ha ha )
March 28, 2013 at 1:27 pm
John Sinclair
All we have is our ability to reason and we all reason on the basis of what we think is likely to be true.
One can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. The quest is meaningless. It cannot be proven or known.
All these fancy terms to categories believers from non-believers is utter nonsense – as though either standpoint holds merit.
Christopher Hitchens was right on the mark when he said this: ‘I do not regard atheism as being morally inferior. I would not concede that for a minute. I would not regard it as being morally superior either; but I do think it has a slight edge. It does not believe in anything that could be called ‘WISHFUL’.
This is precisely where I come out in terms of my reasoning.
BELIEVING something to be true and KNOWING it to be true – are WORLD’S APART. It seems to me that the burden of proof is on those who claim to KNOW that God exists and that God is on their side.
There is no possible way that somebody can know what is fundamentally unknowable and for this reason – religion loses a point.
March 28, 2013 at 8:51 pm
jaqueline
I really appreciate that bit of reasoning John!
March 29, 2013 at 7:37 am
Steve
Those who know God know it has nothing to do with moral superiority. God reveals Himself to those He chooses. He has a strong preference for the downtrodden, the suffering, the oppressed, and the meek. Those of us who know need no (additional) proof, we see it everyday. C.K. Chesterton made an interesting comment on the subject: “Without God there would be no atheist.” What makes some atheist so intent on killing God. It makes me chuckle to think about it.