Why I am an agnostic now

[greybeta]

So, recently I’ve changed my religious views on my facebook to “Agnostic.” Dictionary.com defines an agnostic as:

1. 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.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

To put it more plainly, I believe in God but I simply cannot acknowledge that Jesus is the only way to know him because I don't believe knowing God is exclusive to Christianity.

Then there must be a question that arises. Why, if I believed in Christianity before, would I be willing to switch to agnosticism now?

Well, it has to do with my time off. I meditated and I realized something heinous about myself. I was one of those people who had faith that the good Lord would take care of anything and everything in my life. All I had to do is sit and wait.

But the more I thought about it, the more irrational it seemed to me. I mean, I’d always wanted to study history but my parents wanted me to be a doctor. Even when I did switch I could never feel their full support. It seemed to me that if I fully pursued my wishes to teach history, I’d fail to meet their expectations. But if I went back to being a doctor, I’d fail at meeting my own expectations.

This is what you call a vicious circle. Or, as one of my electrical engineering professors said, it’s a circuit that just keeps the room warm (before it burns out).

The rational play for me is to resolve this cognitive dissonance. But, to do that, I would have to do the one thing that I thought I would never do. And that would be to become an apostate of something I held very dear.

I had to renounce my faith.

If I came back to Christianity now, I would return to my former state. If I am to quit blaming God for everything that goes wrong in my life, then I have to put that responsibility on myself.

Now, I know many of those who I worked in ministry with might say that is not much different from their faith. Fair enough.

But then if you put a gun to my head and asked me if I believed that claiming Jesus Christ was the Son of God and the only way to heaven, I would say no. I would deny the exclusivity of Christianity (or any religion for that matter).

But…Jesus died for our sins, didn’t he? We’re all the children of God. We can’t store up so many good deeds and commit crimes to balance the ledger. Salvation is a gift, it can only be given, not earned.

And yet, I think about all the terrible things that happen in the world today. God does a lot of good in this world, and yet he allows a lot of evil.

And in that lies the fearful power of Jesus. I mean, my goodness, if people didn’t believe in Jesus then how could so many good things happen in the first place?

Then again, plenty of other religions allow people to cope with reality. What makes Christianity different?

Jesus died for you.

That’s the first thing you have to admit if you are going to be a true believer in Christ. My problem is that I had it backwards.

In other words, Jesus already died for me. I still had to die for him.

In the Baptist Church, believer’s baptism signifies one’s death to be reborn. I had it wrong. I thought that one baptized one’s self to die, but the truth is that you’re already dead before you become baptized.

The belief is that “once saved, always saved.” Then the answer in my case was that I was never saved in the first place. Rather, I claimed to be and followed the outward forms of being saved, but inwardly I had no such intention.

That’s what Christians talk about what they talk about denying themselves. No, they’re not going to starve themselves to death. It’s a denial of who they are, and it’s not a one time thing. Nope, they’ve got pick up their cross and carry it daily.

Or to sum it up more tidily, the exclusive nature of Christianity is irrational to me. I remember Jesus saying that one should be cold or hot because he would spit out the lukewarm people first.

If I am to be a true believer, I can’t just believe in the parts of Christianity that make sense to me. I also have to believe in the parts that make little sense to me.

In that case, the rational thing to do is to reject it in its entirety.

Unfortunately, I’ve discovered that I’m a rather irrational person.

Comments

[stella-x3x3.livejournal.com]

Welcome to my religous beliefs.

I belive in a higher power, being God or something his its place, but I do not believe that he/she created what I "should" believe in. To follow my religion completly I would be a surpressed young woman never entering college and probebly engaged or married already since I was only created to breed and serve my husband.

I do believe that there is something out there effecting out lives but not by the textbook. I am glad someone understands, because usually most dont.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Heh, I forgot you were Jewish. Well, let's see if the grass is greener on this side...

[stella-x3x3.livejournal.com]

It is.

[jeremyarc7.livejournal.com]

Is it weird that you said pretty much exactly what I thought you would?

You're not agnostic. You're deist.

I'm slowly moving in your direction, sort of, somewhat, maybe.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Is it weird that you said pretty much exactly what I thought you would?
Not really, since we're both history majors.

Deist, agnostic, whatever it is it's not fundamental.

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

No, but it's also not agnostic. Which makes little difference to you, but to someone like me (an agnostic), it makes all the difference in the world. It's not splitting hairs from where some of us sit. ;)

There's nothing wrong with being an agnostic, or a deist, or even a fundamentalist Christian or an athiest. (Well -- unless you're using your beliefs as an excuse to hurt other people, but I know that's not who you are.) You have to follow where your heart leads, follow your bliss as Campbell said. I think that's the only path to truth. I can't imagine finding my personal truth on another person's path. :)

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

So, you would also define me as deist?

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I wasn't entirely clear on the details of what you were saying in the post. It sounded a lot to me like you were feeling conflicted or confused about your faith, which isn't the mark of any one school of theology (that I know of).

Deism is what the founding fathers, for the most part, believed. It's believing in God, but not in God intervening on earth. The way my father described it to me when he was teaching me about religions is that they believe that the universe is a great and wonderful machine, like a beautiful, complicated clock, but that machine had to be designed and started by SOMETHING, and that something is God. However, Deists also believe that after getting the ball rolling, God stopped dabbling and interfering.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

I see. Then could you tell me why you would consider yourself agnostic in the strictest sense?

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

I'm what's sometimes called a 'weak agnostic', which is basically to say that while I don't necessarily believe that knowledge of the spiritual World Beyond, if there is such a world, is impossible to have (although I also don't believe for certain that it IS possible to have), I know that I don't have it. I don't feel qualified to tell myself I "know" anything about anything other than what's on this world -- and I'm not even always certain about that. :P

Agnostic is literally "A" (no) - "gnostic" (spiritual knowledge). I have no clue. None at all.

There are more hardline levels of agnosticism that go as far as to say that human knowledge of the beyond is impossible, and I don't go that far. It has been argued that someone who believes in a faith but doesn't KNOW that it's true in the strictest sense is also agnostic, but I think that corrupts the general understanding of the word, since faith, by nature, is a matter of belief rather than knowledge.

I do have ideas in terms of what doesn't really make sense to me, but even then, I recognize that I've got a pretty narrow viewpoint and the truth isn't something that's necessarily going to make sense. However, I'm not comfortable accepting any one faith as a postulate.

Does that make any sense? (Sorry, high on allergy medication and lack of sleep.)

BTW, try looking up Deism and Agnosticism on Wikipedia. I seem to remember that they have some very good articles on theology/philosophy.

[nickel.livejournal.com]

The theory of weak agnosticism has been verified by modern religion. Originally part of the electroagnostic model, the modern agnostic model includes both strong and weak agnostic forces. Religionists are currently seeking for a way to reconcile the differences between weak and strong agnosticism and uncover some sort of Grand Ordered Design.

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

Look, 'weak agnostic' and 'strong agnostic' sound a lot less silly than 'nonfundamentalist agnostic' and 'fundamentalist agnostic', is all I'm saying.

[wldntulk2knwwho.livejournal.com]

Oh, if only faith and rationality could co-exist on the same plane. But then, that would make us perfect, right?

The belief I've come to embrace is that baptism is the death, and that when you are raised out of the water, you are also raised to your new life in Christ. But, I also learned that I wasn't perfect and could fall away, thereby negating the idea of once saved, always saved. Yeah, I used to have some good debates on the idea of predestination with Stu. :)

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Quick, get Stu in here! I'm sure he can enlighten me on where I've gone astray. Seriously.

[renough.livejournal.com]

One of my mentors used to say that when things change and we wonder where God is, we have to look at what changed. God never changes, so that leaves us with the smoking trigger. I say this mostly because your perception on God's role may have changed, but God has not.

I'm curious how Christianity fails its followers in their ability to cope with reality. I consider myself able to cope with it, and I'm wondering what one has to ascribe to to be unable to see the reality around them. Then again, it is pretty difficult to see all the reality around oneself. I freely admit that there is plenty out there that I have not experienced, nor will I be able to understand. The world is too big to experience everything first hand, and I don't exactly trust TV and movies to tell me how things really are.

Which brings it to an interesting point. I believe that all truth is God's truth. There is nothing out there that is true that isn't of God. This allows me to believe that other religions have some things correct. They must have found some truth, or otherwise they wouldn't last too long, would they? It's like science. There are many truthful things in science, and I think a regrettable offense to Christians as they grow up is that they are told that truth only comes out of Christianity. So, when they find some truth outside of Christianity, it can be a scary thing and rocks the boat.

With all that said, it needs to be said that I think that Jesus was the most correct. I think He was God, and what he taught resonates with me more than anything else I have studied or read up on. Jesus says "Follow me." He didn't say, "Follow my religion," or "Follow your local church." I think that following Jesus can lead one to Christianity or their local church, but that wasn't what was commanded specifically. And we humans are faulty things, aren't we? We aren't going to get everything right, and as soon as we start basing someone else's words as the ones that should come before Christ's, well... that leads to troubles that I don't even want to start to address in this limited comment space.

So, all that to say, I believe people that are searching for truth are searching for God, whether they know it or not. But when the person that resonates the most with me in His teachings says that He is the only way... well, I'm going to believe Him. This also leads me to believe that other routes to God may look good, and they may indeed have some truth to them, but I don't believe they are complete.

I hope this helps in some way. This is basically how I feel on the subject, and I'm not looking for flames or debates. But honestly, if there's a way of living that has worked for me, and I think it's the best way, I'm going to want those I care about to enjoy that same life. It isn't a matter of 'converting,' but moreso wanting to see a friend enjoy what I enjoy, because I believe there's nothing better out there.

-Ryan

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

It's not so much that Christianity fails its followers in coping with reality. The implication of Christianity though is that other religions must necessarily fail in doing so at the very end. As you say, other routes to God must by definition be incomplete in some form or fashion.

The reason I'm agnostic is that I cannot say with complete confidence that Jesus is the only way. But, who knows, I may turn around into your view one day.

[nickel.livejournal.com]

About ten years ago I was in a similar position. I felt very strongly that there had to be a greater meaning to life, some sort of purpose to explain it all. Something that made it more than just another red queen's race. Because I was raised in a faithful environment, my natural inclination to think critically about what I was told led me to find contradictions even in the doctrine that had reinforced those tendencies. Then I had a personal revelation. Personal revelation is available to everyone, regardless of faith, ethnicity, or moral station. You are right. The exclusionary aspect of Christianity in general is antithetical to the teachings of Christ and the purpose of his Father. Our Father. But that isn't a failing on His part. It is only because we are mortal beings, and even led by good people are still led by people, with mortal fallibility. They are going to make mistakes. They are going to exclude others. They are going to say the wrong thing at times. They are even going to lead the faithful astray. But it is the role of the faithful to continually keep their leaders in check by questioning and making moral choices based on their own personal revelation. And if a leader cannot be kept in check by his followers, then it is the responsibility of those followers to find another path. Without the faithful, those that claim the power of revelation for themselves are nothing. I encourage you to continue investigating belief, religion and Faith. I am sure you will find a place where your personal convictions are not at odds with what the leadership of that faith preaches.

You aren't going to be able to sit back and let it come to you however. It is going to take active investigation. That is the point at which I disagreed with your post. God will take care of everything, but it is a matter of 'seek and you will find', not 'good things come to those that wait'. Whatever you want, whatever you believe, whatever you need, if you look for it, you will find it.

And welcome back. I wondered if you had disappeared forever.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, that's an interesting way of framing the situation. I shall investigate further.

Oh, and it's good to be back. :)

[themaskedsmile.livejournal.com]

I'll read the full comment thread later when I have more time (which seems like kind of a joke), but for now I'll say that your posts are very well-written and thought-provoking. That's pretty rare among my LJ friends page, and among online journals in general. Entries like these make clicking over to this site actually worth my time.

You probably don't even remember me, but I'm glad you're back. Not just for the entries.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you feel my ramblings are worth your time. One of the main reasons I blog the way I do is because of theferrett and his theories on writing. If you have time (hahaha), he's worth putting on your reading list.

And actually, I do you remember Miss Gomes. One of my last memories at TU was the fact that I had to avoid any peanut products in making tacos.

[thanoslug.livejournal.com]

Welcome back. I wish you luck on your quest for meaning and pray that it brings you back to Christianity. I would like to comment on something you said: I was one of those people who had faith that the good Lord would take care of anything and everything in my life. All I had to do is sit and wait.

I'm curious as to what about Christianity made you believe that everything would be taken care of for you if you just sat around and waited. It is true that God does take care of those that are His (of course, a lot of folks misunderstand this - just because God is going to take care of you does not mean that your life will be all sunshine and easy going) but it is also true that we are told to do all that our hands find to do to the best of our ability. We are told to go out and tell others about Him. We are certainly not encouraged to rest on our back-sides and do nothing at all.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Yes, I remember hearing that God provides you the opportunities, but you still must take advantage of them. I started thinking, if God provides all the opportunities, then there must necessarily be people who take advantage of their opportunities without acknowledging God (in the fundamental sense, if you know what I mean). I suppose the answer would be that's just another mysterious way in which God works.

[sunfell.livejournal.com]

I'm a double ditcher of dogma. First, I pitched the church of my childhood and became Wiccan, then, the nonsense and reality-disconnect of modern Wicca made it a burden on my mind and soul, and I pitched it, too. It was not an easy decision, and like you, I spent some time away from those whom I worshiped and worked with. It was more difficult for me because I was a very experienced and highly respected person in the Craft- a minister and high priestess, in fact. People still ask me when I am going to come back, but they do not apprehend that I have stepped out of that life, and have left it behind permanantly. I dumped the dogma, not what I've learned. I needed that part of my life back, so my journey could continue. It is much easier to walk the path unburdened with unnecessary things- be they physical or spiritual.

There's a freedom to being an agnostic. Freedom from dogma, fear, social control, hate, rote belief... And there is a responsibility in being an agnostic, too: people will no longer spoonfeed you your beliefs. There is no Book of Agnosticism, no "Dummies" manual or instruction book. There are no scriptures, no one book or rede that tells you how to run your life, or gives ministers power over you. All books are scripture- and none. You write the book, then burn it. You have to find and quantify what is signal, and what is noise. You have to decide if there's a divine plan of some sort, or if it's some tool of social control... or if that which might be the Ultimate/All is actually way beyond our means of comprehension.

Being agnostic allows you to be inclusive, and exclusive- but not in a way that makes you 'better' (or inferior) to others. It permits you to sample offerings from believers of all sorts, and turn away from them if they do not suit you. It is difficult to be a zealous agnostic- unlike Atheism and Christianity, agnosticism does not breed unpleasant zealots. We're more 'zen' in our outlook than 'sin'.

Agnosticism permits freedom from imposed guilt, but does not absolve you from being responsible for your actions. You are your own redemption, and you are your own temptation, too. There are no Jesii to come pull you out of any holes you fall into (or snatch you into the sky or stomp on you in wrath). You must find your own way out- the maps you draw are your own. You can permit your inner wisdom to guide you, and build trust in it. There is something to that 'still, small voice' within that the Bible speaks of... And the Bible becomes just another book, not an object of worship or a weapon of religious bullies. It can be read as literature, and its power over you is diminished in a way that makes it a much easier book to read.

You make your own sacrifices, you determine what errors you've made. You atone for them in the present, not in some future paradise or punishment. You are freed from the horrific curses of Revelation and Armageddon, and can now work to derail it. You can make this world a better place, instead of yearning for a world after death that is better.

Life, if you choose to make it so, is good.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

I see you've also meditated on this. Birds of a feather...

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

I like what you're saying here, but I'm not sure if I agree with it. Agnosticism doesn't mean that you don't ally with or identify with traditional spiritual labels. I mean, if you pitch Christianity, and then decide what divine plan you believe in, you're not an agnostic anymore, you're something else.

I think the responsibility more falls along the lines of living your life without having an infallible spiritual entity telling you how he/she/it wants you to live it. You get no safety net, no 'follow these rules, and everything will work out for you', or even 'follow these rules, and you will be doing the right thing'. You've got to pretty much figure it out on your own. Or, I guess, put trust in more fallible earthly authorities like parents or teachers, if that's your thing.

You also get no pre-made community of people who have beliefs and a world view generally like your own. But you also don't have to put up with the BS that sometimes goes with those communities, so it's all good.

[sunfell.livejournal.com]

Agnostic simply means 'not knowing'- not 'not believing' or 'not spiritual'. I am not tied to any particular divine plan, because I am not sure that there is any Authority out there to enforce it. This is different from Atheism, which postulates that there definitely isn't any Authority or similar being above us. Since the existence of the divine in any form cannot be scientifically or logically proven or disproven (unless you are an un/believer), it stands to reason that we really don't know for sure.

That is fine with me. I take responsibility for my own life, fate, ethics, and actions, and will not foist it upon another: human or divine.

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

I think we're basically saying the same thing here, only using different words. :)