How do agnostics live? (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, June 06, 2008, 13:37 (6012 days ago) @ Mark

Mark asks if my agnosticism is because of a lack of proof. "Do you require a scientific kind of certainty? Or is this also an area where you are open to belief if the weight of evidence led you one way or the other?" - Categorically the latter. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, and I would never have set this website up if my mind was already closed. However, the problem is not confined to God's existence. It's difficult to summarize the situation without repeating the 50 pages of argument and speculation that constitute the "brief guide", let alone the discussions we've already had on this website, but I'll try. - First, I cannot embrace atheism because I do not have sufficient faith that chance could put together the ingredients that first gave rise to the astonishing complexities of life. Nor am I prepared to discount the masses of documented (though not scientifically provable) evidence that there may be life after death. I'm also mystified by the existence of love and other emotions, intelligence, the impact of the arts and all the other extraordinary manifestations of being which seem to transcend the limitations of pure physicality. - All of these leave me open to the possibility of some kind of supreme intelligence that created us. But that does not lead me to God. It leads me only to speculate on what such an intelligence might be like ... or might have been like, because it's perfectly possible that it no longer exists, or that it has simply abandoned us. The random cruelty of nature certainly doesn't fit in with any concept of a loving, caring father figure. I would argue that if life was produced deliberately, then the creator must have had some sort of intention, but his creation of evil, of disasters, of suffering does not suggest an all-embracing goodness or goodwill. Of course, love, beauty, humour, joy are all there as well. He created a mixture, which suggests that he too is or was a mixture. In this respect, the established religions are no help at all, and I am left with a lot of confusing options. - But faith one way or another is still possible. For instance, if science could prove that there is a simple way in which life can spontaneously form itself, then it might tip the balance towards atheism. If I had a near-death experience as described by van Lommel, or some sort of direct contact with a different form of life or a different dimension, that could tip me the other way. An incontrovertible argument could do it. The weight of evidence need not be scientific, but whatever it is will need to be sufficiently powerful to create an inner conviction.