Question for Emery

[raymond]

Emery,
It seems to me on the show you are debating mostly against Christianity. Do you leave room for the possibility of any God existing at all?

[Emery]

Sure, that's the agnostic part of my position. I think we go into that on our first show. But as of yet, I haven't seen a description of God that's believable, and certainly not one held by any of the major religions.

-Emery

[mbresciani]

Hey that's false advertising!

I thought this enterprise was called 'A Christian & an Atheist', not 'Agnostic'. There is a difference.

At least you don't pull any punches in your debates. Great show and interesting topics, keep up the good work.

[Emery]

Hey Mbresciani, welcome. Well, most atheists are also agnostics, depending on how loosely God is defined. So for example, I could call myself atheistic toward UFOs, given the traditional definition of UFOs. But if you expand the definition of UFO to include "meteors that might have microscopic life on them," then I'd be agnostic toward UFOs.

Does that make sense?

[mbresciani]

Thank you for the welcome, Emery. I have only just discovered this podcast and I am enjoying making my way through the archives and discovering fresh well thought out arguments from both points of view. I think that it is the most intelligent and healthiest debate series on the subject to date.

Regarding the agnostic/atheist explanation you gave, it makes sense to my girlfriend who assures me that she is only a little bit pregnant.

I always thought that if a theist believes in at least one god then an atheist* by definition must belive in no god at all to retain the title. You get permanently promoted to agnostic as soon as you find just one version of god that is even remotely plausible.

a-(Greek: prefix meaning: no, absence of, without, lack of, not)-theist (belief in the existence of a god or gods)

Marco

[JustJim]

theism (noun) - belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures. Compare with deism .

atheism (noun) - the theory or belief that God does not exist.

deism (noun) - belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. Compare with theism.

agnostic (noun) - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

By those definitions, I think if you believe in a non-theistic (non-personal, non-intervening, non-relational) God such as that described by deism, you're technically still an "a-theist", but you're just not an "a-deist". IOW, you can reject theistic concepts and descriptions of God, while still possibly accepting other, non-theistic concepts of God. (This is where John Shelby Spong places himself, BTW.) An agnostic, apparently, doesn't claim faith in or disbelief in any concept of God.

Jim

[mbresciani]

Thanks RevJim, but I still don't see it.

According to the definition you have kindly supplied, it clearly states that an agnostic does not claim to disbelieve in god, and an atheist does claim to disbelieve in god. There is no qualification in the type of god an atheist doesn't believe in , and I haven't seen definitions from other sources that make any such stipulations.

Would you please point me towards a more complete definition that illustrates the qualifications that you and Emery are referring to?

[JustJim]

Would you please point me towards a more complete definition that illustrates the qualifications that you and Emery are referring to?

I'm not sure what you mean. I think I was incomplete or unclear, or, more likely, both. All I meant was that to be a-theistic means you don't believe in a theistic god, which doesn't preclude belief in some other kind of god(s). That means the dictionary's definition of "atheism" is incomplete, since it implies disbelief in any concept of God, whereas the word atheism itself means disbelief in a theistic God. I'm playing with words, here, I'm sure, but by a more complete definition of atheism, one could be an "atheistic deist", for example, because, as I said, you could reject theistic concepts and descriptions of God, while still possibly accepting other, non-theistic concepts of God - and that would make you both "atheistic" and "other-istic" at the same time. Deism, for example, would not be a theistic position. Theism really isn't just a belief in any old God at all; it implies a certain kind of concept of God, as described in the definition - i.e., "belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures." And, therefore, atheism would be a rejection of that kind of a god.

Have I confused myself even more?

Jim

[mbresciani]

After a little research I found that although the current technical definition of Atheism precludes belief in any concept of God, the definition that you and Emery put forward is in common usage. As English is an evolving language, I will concede the point: Atheists can be Agnostic.

This is one case where it is valid to state that if enough people believe in something it becomes true, even if it is initially incorrect.

[Emery]

Mbresciani, perhaps this is another way to look at it:

Atheism relates to the belief aspect, agnosticism relates to the knowability aspect. So for example, I'm agnostic to whether we can ever explore enough of the Loch Ness to completely eliminate the possibility of a monster. It's just too big and deep a lake.

However, I do not believe there is such a monster. That's the atheistic part.

Does that make sense?

[mbresciani]

Yes, I see. And what is unknowable today might be knowable tomorrow so there is always hope.

Unless of course we realise that as we experience the world through a stream of electro-chemical impulses to the brain, we can never independently verify the data because of its self referential nature. We can never be sure of anything !

[Emery]

We address this very question in next week's show. So stay tuned for episodes 39 and 40.

[mbresciani]

Great, I can't wait!

[tbecnel]

I've listened to quite a few of the podcasts. First, let me express my admiration of your skills as a moderator and listener. It is unusual to listen to podcasting in which civil, and often congenial discussion proceeds on many of the controversial topics covered. It is a pleasure to listen to the podcast. I don't hear Norm lately, but I enjoyed him in the earlier podcasts in the archives (iTunes downloaded all of the archives - I think!). I registered in order to write to you on your latest podcast expressing questions of the culpability of the unbeliever if God has never given him sufficient proof of His existence. It seemed to me that your unasked question really was, "How can an omnipotent being be both merciful and just?" I wrestled with that one for a very long time while still practicing the outward expressions of Roman Catholicism, and wanting to believe. It was on a Holy Thursday night when I was reflecting on the passion narrative of John, especially Jesus' prayer in John 15:11. I wasn't very joyful, and His words seemed to ring hollow. At that point, I stopped and challenged God. I had tried to figure out how He could be all merciful and just (seeming contradiction). The price owed for sin was due and had to be paid: it was just. If God showed mercy, it was unmerited grace, and wasn't just. **aside: I always thought lawyers ruined politics, but perhaps a good one saved religion.** I verbally, out loud, told God I was not going to try to find Him any more. I had tried, and every time I thought I understood, something was missing. If I died and went to hell, He could send me there justly for my sins, but not because I had not tried to know Him. If He wanted me to know and understand that He existed, then He must answer the secret question of my heart. I would wait, but I would not search anymore. I know now that this is surrender. I did surrender angrily (amazing how we think we always have to figure everything out ourselves - called pride, huh?). On Good Friday, a priest gave a sermon on "What's Love Got To Do With It?" which I think is a song that was popular at the time. When the adoration of the cross came in the liturgy, a question whispered in my mind. In the song, Were You There, I asked myself where would I have been. I wouldn't have killed him. I didn't think He was God, so how could he blaspheme. I wouldn't have been at the foot of the cross because I wasn't a believer. I would have been off to the side feeling sorry for Him - you know, leave him alone. What a position? I would have given Him a bigger slap in the face than the high priest by not believing. They at least took His claim to be God seriously. This was the beginning of a very short process of being gifted with the understanding of the magnitude of God's gift to us and faith in Christ. It was a really "Good Friday" for me and a wonderful Easter. I know that you have gone over many of the ideas here, but I am wondering why don't you just outright and with intellectual honesty challenge God to give you faith and express Himself in your life, if that is what He says and wants you to have. I always tell people who say they don't believe in God to challenge Him; but, to be sincere, because their life will change and never be the same. I can't believe that a God who created me and knew every thought I would ever think (and I do believe in free will) in Ps. 139 would be taken aback or offended by such a challenge. I can imagine a God who is doubled over in laughter saying, "Finally, what took you so long!" I do pray for your understanding. I don't think you're really an atheist. Why would you care so much about something you don't believe in? I hope you get your answer to complete your understanding and finish your quest.

[t/b]

This is a lot longer than I planned, but I really only wanted to post once; so, I think I got everything. Sorry if this is posted in the wrong box - if so, then feel free to move it to wherever is appropriate.

[whoosanightowl]

tbecnel said:

I can't believe that a God who created me and knew every thought I would ever think (and I do believe in free will) in Ps. 139 would be taken aback or offended by such a challenge. I can imagine a God who is doubled over in laughter saying, "Finally, what took you so long!"

Why would God be doubled over in laughter saying "Finally, what took you so long!", if he knew from the beginning exactly what would happen, when it would happen, and what it would take for you to believe? It certainly could not have been a surprise since he already knew, so why would he laugh in wonderment? That just makes no sense.

I don't think you're really an atheist. Why would you care so much about something you don't believe in? I hope you get your answer to complete your understanding and finish your quest.

I know you're speaking to Emery here, and I don't want to answer for him, but I sincerely doubt that you are right. And I've "known" him much longer than you have .
Most of us ex-Christians (atheists, agnostics, deists, secular humanists, etc.) are here because we've been through a traumatic experience of losing our faith followed by deconversion, and we want to air our grievances against God, the bible and Christianity, among those who want to defend them.
We also want to help those who are still Christians understand why we no longer are able or willing to believe on faith, and to show them that we have good, sound reasons to support our points of view; just as they want to explain why they do believe and show us that they also have good, sound reasons to back up their POV's. Even though neither side is likely to see the others reasons as good or sound.
We want Christians to know that we are not all immoral, self absorbed, devil/earth-worshiping heathens, because that's how those of us who have left the faith are perceived by many believers. And they want us to know they are not all self-righteous, judgmental, fear/hate mongers as many outside of Christianity perceive them to be.
We are not denying God so we can indulge ourselves in sinful desires. We are not ignoring the still small voice of God in order to enjoy the things of the world. We are not intentionally walking away from faith in God because we don't like the moral restrictions or expectations it requires of us.
And we really want others to try to understand that and to respect us-for our truthfulness if nothing else.