The use of the word “agnostic” raises the question of knowledge. How do we know things?
The word “agnostic” is made up of the prefix a, meaning “without”, followed by the word gnosis, which means “knowledge”. An agnostic is a person “without knowledge”. As the term is most commonly used, the “knowledge” an “agnostic” claims to lack is “knowledge” of the existence of God.
The verb “to know” signifies a range of human experiences. The range of knowing occurs on a sliding scale between absolute certainty at one end and at the other, an uncertainty that verges on doubt.
I say, “I know one plus one equals two” because I learned as a child to count and I know that there is virtually universal agreement that when I take one object and add another, I have two objects. About this I am absolutely certain.
I say, “I know it is raining” when I stand outside and feel my clothes getting wet. But here there might be a moment of doubt. Perhaps someone is watering their lawn and I am in the path of their sprinkler. With a little investigation any uncertainty in this case can be cleared up.
I say, “I know Tom is reliable,” because Tom has always been reliable in the past. But, when he fails to keep an appointment, suddenly my confident knowledge is thrown into doubt.
None of these uses of the verb “to know” comes close to my intention when I say, “I know there is a God,” or “I know God”. If the only possible meaning of “to know” is the one that I use when I say “I know one plus one equals two”, I am lying if I say “I know God.” I do not “know God” in the way I know that one plus one equals two.
On the level of mathematical certainty, the only option in relationship to God, is agnosticism. God is not a knowable entity on the level of mathematical equation, or the observable state of the weather, or even reliable conjecture about the nature of a friend.
When I say “I know God” the verb “to know” is operating in an entirely different realm than scientific observation, mathematical equation, or predictable patterns of human behaviour.
When I say, “I know God” I am saying something a little closer to “I know my wife.” The statement “I know my wife”, means much more than simply “I recognize her body”. It means I am committed to her. We share intimacy and live together in a loving relationship. When I say “I know my wife”, I am saying that I am determined to hold my heart open to her, to make myself vulnerable to her, and to grow more deeply in my awareness of the mystery of her being.
On this level, labels are meaningless. I do not say that, because I know my wife, I am a “wifist”, the way a believer in God is sometimes called a “theist”. If I turned away from my wife and rejected her, I would not suddenly become an “awifist”. When I don’t know what my wife is up to, or find it difficult to understand her behaviour, I do not call myself a marital agnostic.
I say simply that I am in a relationship of love with my wife. Much of that relationship is carried out in a degree of uncertainty, unkowning, even confusion. At times I am not sure what my wife means. There are moments when we mis-communicate, sometimes desperately. Even after over thirty years of marriage, there are still times when we find each other utterly incomprehensible. But we carry on together in relationship.
This is how I “know God”. I “know God” because despite all the uncertainties, doubts, and confusions of my life, I know myself to be living in relationship to a mystery more vast than anything I can begin to comprehend. I know that hints of love and beauty stir in my life every day. I know in the depths of my being that I am called into something much bigger and more true than can be confined by the narrow limitations of my temporal material existence. I am not an “agnostic” because I choose to commit myself to living in relationship to this mystery and growing in my ability to perceive the depths in which this mystery dwells.
16 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 9, 2012 at 8:40 am
sethmil
Some random thoughts:
Why is it that God dosen’t seem to like this middle ground?
I don’t know the answer, I’m just asking because it related to Agnosticism.
Thomas Merton says God revealed Himself as unknown – but He did reveal Himself.
Is Hitchens saying you can’t be a little bit pregnant? Lastly, where does this leave nonimal Christians, they believe but do not know?
And agnosticism has two variants: I neither believe nor disbelieve because it is unknowable and the other, I neither believe nor disbelieve because-?
Does this (below) have anything to do with what Neitzche was trying to say?
“These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”
Revelation 3:14-16
Matthew Henry’s Commentary
“If religion is a real thing, it is the most excellent thing, and therefore we should be in good earnest in it; if it is not a real thing, it is the vilest imposture, and we should be earnest against it. If religion is worth any thing, it is worth every thing; an indifference here is inexcusable: Why halt you between two opinions? If God be God, follow him; if Baal (be God), follow him. Here is no room for neutrality. An open enemy shall have a fairer quarter than a perfidious neuter; and there is more hope of a heathen than of such. Christ expects that men should declare themselves in earnest either for him or against him.”
At the end of the day, I still like this little childrens song:
Jesus loves me! This I know,
For the Bible tells me so;
Little ones to Him belong,
They are weak but He is strong.
Jesus loves me! He who died,
Heaven’s gate to open wide;
He will wash away my sin,
Let His little child come in..
Jesus loves me! loves me still,
When I’m very weak and ill;
From His shining throne on high,
Comes to watch me where I lie.
Jesus loves me! He will stay,
Close beside me all the way;
He’s prepared a home for me,
And some day His face I’ll see.
May 9, 2012 at 12:06 pm
timberwraith
Human beings are highly social creatures. We like to be with others. We like to join groups. We also have a tendency toward wanting to establish well defined boundaries between who is a part of our group and who is not a part of our group. This applies equally well to atheists and religious people, for both are human.
Is it any surprise that religious texts contain verses that encourage people to “pick a side”? Is it any surprise that atheist activists are encouraging people to either join their group or be declared irrational, dangerous, and/or cowardly? There are several messages that are being sent. To be considered pure and worthy, you must be a part of our group by adopting our ways and adhering to our beliefs. If you choose to remain outside of our group, there is something wrong with you and we judge you as deficient. There is no neutral ground. You are either a member of our group or an outsider who shall be mistrusted. The fear and mistrust of outsiders, regardless of how neutral they might be, is then used as a common means of forming stronger in-group bonds. We support each other in the face of a common threat. We unite in common cause against the corrupting influence of the outsider’s errant ways.
This is an ancient pattern in human interactions. It repeats throughout history. Some versions of agnosticism simply refuse to pick a set of beliefs and behaviors that the more common groupings of belief systems deem as “proper.” Inevitably, it places one outside of known group boundaries. That’s not exactly a recipe for popularity or for creating a solid sense of communal bonding. You remain an outsider, distrusted by many.
May 10, 2012 at 12:41 pm
sethmil
You say you do not believe you can know whether deities exist or not. Do you agree with me when I say you have closed a door and by doing so you are contradicting yourself.? Haven’t you betrayed your own objectivity? You cannot know what cannot be known. Isn’t yours a circular argument? What if you can know. You will miss the boat. And without meaning to be disrespectful, isn’t that an arrogant position? Are you not making yourself into a god just by making that pronouncement? You cannot know what the cannot be known. I suggest the Word of God is our portal into what can be known.
From my perspective, you have created a box around yourself. I respectively submit that Jesus is the door to that box. How can you know what cannot be known? You are lumping Jesus together with all the other religions and I maintain He stands alone and apart from this collective.
I see the world through a cosmological lens. In Jesus I have a core, a connection to truth from which I cannot be moved. I have purpose. Given that, I can open my mind to a whole world of possibilities, he frees me from the limits I place on myself. I can be free to doubt, free to ask and promised an answer. In fact He compels me to shred all my preconceived notions, open my mind and venture out into a world of “uncharted waters, undreamed shores”. He tells me it’s all about love, love of God, love of neighbor., even if your neighbor be you enemy and wants to kill you.. He tells me to leave self behind and enter a new realm. He tells me that love is the portal. He frees me from that which holds me back. Jesus is preposterous, and revolutionary. We have forgotten this. The institutionalized Christianity you see for the most part is fraudulent.
“This is an ancient pattern in human interactions. It repeats throughout history. Some versions of agnosticism simply refuse to pick a set of beliefs and behaviors that the more common groupings of belief systems deem as “proper.” Inevitably, it places one outside of known group boundaries. That’s not exactly a recipe for popularity or for creating a solid sense of communal bonding. You remain an outsider, distrusted by many.”
Wouldn’t Jesus fall into this category?
Please don’t misunderstand me. You are separate from me, you have you own beliefs and I find them to be exceptionally astute and interesting. I feel no need to change you other than to suggest that maybe you have closed your mind to some possibilities.
May 10, 2012 at 3:13 pm
timberwraith
Sethmil, I think you might be missing the fact that I do experience a form of spirituality, but it does not center upon the notion of a deity. As I see it, my spirituality is different from other people’s, but no better or worse than other people’s. We are different people with different paths to walk. Such is life.
There are over 40 religions on this planet during this era, each with thousands of sects and denominations. Some are theistic and some are not. There have been countless other religions that have faded with time. Narrowing down my approach to spirituality to one practice feels like I am boxing myself in. Which approach is the correct one? Perhaps you and I both are “missing the boat”?
Of course, I have indeed “betrayed” my own objectivity. No human can be truly objective. We are subjective by our very nature.
I can not know what I do not have the faculties to know. That’s not circular. I am not omniscient. It’s a statement upon the human condition. I think I have done a fairly good job of explaining this in my original comment. I’m not sure what else to say.
By notions present in some forms of Christianity, I probably look a bit arrogant because I do not embrace the existence of a god. Since I am not a theist, however, I am unconcerned. Obviously, one must first embrace the existence of a god before this could possibly become a concern. Thus, within the parameters of your belief system, these matters are valid. Within the parameters of my belief system, the assertion of arrogance holds no meaning. This impasse is not resolvable.
Nevertheless, I have done my best to keep my descriptions of my experiences as “I statements” only. I accept that your experiences are different from mine. I don’t expect your life philosophies to conform to mine.
I have also tried my best to place my perspectives within the context of a living being whose ability to grasp the universe is limited. I’m not sure how that can be labeled as arrogance. This is another variation of saying, “I am not certain. I might be wrong.”
Which god(s)? Which religious text? There are many.
Respectfully, I know that your take on spirituality is quite important to you and you see it as truth. However, so do other people around the world from a wide variety of religions and spiritual practices. One has to first be a believer before one can place primacy upon one’s own religion. Again, your statement of truth holds validity for you, but does not for me. This too, is not resolvable… unless one shifts to a form of universalism.
It is not my intent to try to move you away from that path. I am merely sharing of myself and my experiences. Conversion is not my goal.
Sethmil, it was never my intent to suggest to people here that they have closed their minds. It is my hope that we can live, side by side, while accepting that a world of billions has billions of ways of being.
May 10, 2012 at 5:21 pm
timberwraith
Just to be a little more clear, it is possible for any person of any body of spiritual belief (or non-belief) to claim that another person from a differing belief system has closed their mind to the speaker’s personal belief system. I could just as easily claim this toward others as well, but I choose not too do this for three reasons: 1) such an action could easily be perceived as an act of arrogance and possibly hinder further dialog; 2) it would be ironically inconsistent with a perspective that asserts an absence of verifiable knowledge; 3) given that anyone from any number of beliefs can make this claim, the claim of “closing one’s mind” is rendered ineffective.
May 10, 2012 at 7:21 am
jaqueline
“Why is it that God doesn’t seem to like this middle ground?”
This question more than any betrays the faultedness of hardline Christianity. It has been most unhelpful,demanding that we live in an either / or universe.
God is in the middle ground! The middle ground is where relationship is built! That we think God is not leaves us bereft of experience, bereft of wriggle room; we think that our relationship has to look and feel and be a certain way to be sure of it ( so we feel secure that we are not fooling ourselves? ). Did we misinterpret what Jesus means when he says be hot or cold, if you are luke warm I will spit you out of my mouth? We have completely missed the point. In that admonition Christ is speaking of the love we have in our heart..not the certainty we have in our heads….
“Christ expects that men should declare themselves in earnest either for him or against him.” Excuse me Mr Henry … what a lot of rot. Where and when did God demand that people declare themselves against him?
Is this where we get the idea that God is against some people? We are supposed to love our enemies, not make them for goodness sake. How betraying of prejudice, to assume that heathen are against God when there is more and more evidence that the opposite is true, don’t we recognise that Jesus fulfils the longing of every religion, not just our own? I cannot help thinking of Jesus’ words ..“for whoever is not against you is for you.”
I love how Christopher compares it to a relationship with his wife…I am wondering if that is not why Christ’s image for the church is that of a Bride and Groom. In that imagery there is room for mystery AND certainty, for trust AND doubt, for security AND surprise.
May 10, 2012 at 12:48 pm
sethmil
I am surprised and confused by your reaction.
“It has been most unhelpful,demanding that we live in an either / or universe. God is in the middle ground!”
Me, Matthew Henry, or the verse? I’m only asking questions. Matthew posed an answer to one that has plagued me and it sounded good but you have an entirely different take on it. Of course Matthew Henry doesn’t have the last word. I will have to think about that. Is it that you have a different take on the passage? If so I would be interested in hearing it.
“The middle ground is where relationship is built! That we think God is not leaves us bereft of experience, bereft of wriggle room; we think that our relationship has to look and feel and be a certain way to be sure of it ( so we feel secure that we are not fooling ourselves? ).” Isn’t that wiggle room called doubt? Isn’t that the fertile ground where we grow?
Isn’t that “wiggle room” called doubt”. Isn’t the doubt/belief tension the fertile soil where we grow?
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Who are the one’s He never knew? Is it possible these are the “perfidious neuter(s) “ rather than agnostics?
I fear I am getting on a tangent and off subject and I’m feeling a little insecure wondering if I am just playing a mind game. In any case these are sincere questions that I have wondered about for a long time.
May 10, 2012 at 5:19 pm
jaqueline
I am not sure where the confusion is. Hardline Christianity’s insistence on a belief in an either/ or universe is what I meant as most unhelpful.
May 10, 2012 at 5:22 pm
jaqueline
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in
heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
The fact that these ‘unknowns’ are saying Lord Lord, indicates to me they believe themselves to be believers and more than nominal…they are prophesying and casting out demons, performing miracles etc…’Active’ believers in other words.
May 9, 2012 at 2:53 pm
sethmil
You stated “Some versions of agnosticism simply refuse to pick a set of beliefs and behaviors that the more common groupings of belief systems deem as ‘proper’”. This is an interesting thought. This person has decided to not associate, he is a free agent. What is his role in society? Thinking about that question brings me to the point of wondering what the purpose of life is because you would have to answer this question before you could answer the first one. I will just leave that thought as is.
In thinking about it, it seems to me like to me there are three variants of agnosticism. There are those who don’t believe the God question is knowable, those who don’t know and don’t care, and those who don’t know but care, that is they seek truth. The first case represents arrogance; they have closed the door and will never discover truth, if it exists, the second represent indifference, and they will never discover truth because they don’t care enough to seek, and the third openness, truth seekers. We, on this blog, are all in this group or at least passed through it otherwise we wouldn’t be here.
From my previous post “If religion is worth any thing, it is worth every thing; indifference here is inexcusable: Why halt you between two opinions? If God be God, follow him; if Baal (be God), follow him. Here is no room for neutrality. An open enemy shall have a fairer quarter than a perfidious neuter; and there is more hope of a heathen than of such. Christ expects that men should declare themselves in earnest either for him or against him.”
My whole interest here is to find out about this “perfidious neuter”, and I do love that term. It goes back to this verse I have always wondered about and I am bringing it into this discussion because I am wondering if it has relevance. “So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” Is He referring to the group from above those who don’t know and don’t care?
So here’s my question. Is this “perfidious neuter” an agnostic?
I don’t really have a point to make and I’m wondering if any of this is relevant, helpful, or edifying to anybody. In any case I’m really happy to have discovered this term “perfidious neuter”.
P.S. In this world full of biased, bigoted, indifferent, ignorant, closed-minded, and agenda driven people, your ability to transcend all this is refreshing.
May 10, 2012 at 4:53 am
timberwraith
What is the purpose of any person’s life? This varies by country, culture, age, ethnicity, family, class, historical era, and a whole host of individual circumstances. Knowing that someone is agnostic, atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Pagan, or Jewish tells us little of a person’s actual lived purpose because there is so much individual variation within any of those philosophical systems and a person’s religion/spiritual philosophy is only one contributing factor among thousands.
This might seem like an odd way to answer the question, but I always view the world through a sociological lens. What I see when I look upon the world and its many people is more than the simplicity of range of competing philosophies but rather, the interplay of a rich complexity of social forces intertwining with individual life circumstances.
I do not believe that I can know whether deities exist or not.
I am one tiny mammal living on a small blue planet orbiting a star that is one of countless others in a universe that is so immense, no single person can truly fathom its size and scope. I can not hold the nature of this universe within my mind. I am aware of the body I inhabit. I am aware of where my next meal will come from (thankfully). I am aware of my loved ones and many of the daily travails of their lives. I am aware of a few philosophical ponderings shared by my fellow humans over a period of time that is less than the blink of an eye for the universe.
Can I hold the designs of this realm within my mind? Can I know and truly understand the fabric of this reality? I think this is unlikely. This immensity leaves me in awe, but also in self doubt. I am left reeling, attempting to find comfort in the obscuring mists of unresolvable ignorance.
May 10, 2012 at 7:43 am
jaqueline
“This person has decided to not associate, he is a free agent. What is his role in society?What is his role in society?”
I believe the role of those who are not willing to place themselves in a camp is similar to the role that connecting tissue pays in our bodies…or even more importantly the role that stem cells play.
That they might find themselves lost and without a role is not their fault..it is the fault of those who insist on either/ or..’two camps’, ‘us and them’, ‘you and me’…so not only do they reject the other, they reject those who can be a catalyst in finding relationship with the other… they are meant to be a bridge but with each side choosing to become further and further alienated….
May 10, 2012 at 6:51 am
jaqueline
a wonderful explanation Christopher!
May 10, 2012 at 5:02 pm
jaqueline
this post was written before i saw all the other comments. for some
reason they did not show on my page until after I had posted just this one
May 18, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Steve
Here it is over a week later and I’m re-reading this dialogue and thinking how much more could be said but time constraints keep me from continuing but I have to say timberwraith, you do make a good argument and it leaves me feeling like somehow we are both right but in the end it’s just a matter of playing the odds, we’ve both put a great deal of effort and thought into this matter and putting our money on the safest bet, but then again, neither one of us would admit to that. Jaqueline, as much as I am at variance with timberwraith I do know where he’s coming from. You are much harder to understand in that I don’t know where you are coming from or what vantage point you take. I could be that you are on a higher plane than I and you are seeing with a level of sophistication that is above my head. That’s not to say I don’t know what you’re saying it’s just that it leaves me scratching my head and I mean that with the utmost respect. I don’t mean to re-start the dialogue but to me , in hind sight, it was a very thought provoking and interesting discussion.
May 18, 2012 at 11:24 pm
jaqueline
” I could be that you are on a higher plane than I and you are seeing with a level of sophistication that is above my head. That’s not to say I don’t know what you’re saying it’s just that it leaves me scratching my head ..”
Well, I have gathered over the years that what I have said leaves a few scratching their head…but I must say that being told that it might be because I am sophisticated and on a higher plane, is just about the nicest explanation for an itchy scalp I have ever heard!
