Knowledge, belief & agnosticism (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Thursday, July 24, 2008, 10:19 (5964 days ago) @ Mark

Not for the first time, I find Mark's train of thought difficult to follow. It would be valuable to know how Christians deal with certain problems that as an agnostic I find impossible to solve, and so I'd be grateful for clarification. - Carl suggested that God could prove his existence by appearing before a panel of scientists, performing miracles etc. You respond as follows: - "The Christian God could not do this. He could perhaps appear before the panel in some form and perform miracles, I suppose. But there would always be room for doubt from a logical point of view." - He could not do it, but perhaps he could do it? And why would there be room for doubt? Is God incapable of making himself clear and convincing? Is it now the official Christian view that the Old Testament Adam and Eve, Cain, Moses, Noah, Abraham, Job etc. either did not exist or were insane? (God talks directly to them, and doesn't seem to leave much room for doubt.) Who sent the vision that changed Saul to Paul? Is God incapable of doing a similar job on Dawkins? Carl's suggestion and my questions have a slightly farcical undertone, but the thinking behind them is serious: why doesn't the Christian God act? Not just to prove his existence, but perhaps more importantly (from a humanistic standpoint) to save the innocent from the natural disasters he has created, and to remove human oppressors of the innocent (like the self-proclaimed Christian Mugabe)? Here are some possible answers to my question: 1) God doesn't care; 2) God is incapable of action; 3) action would spoil his fun; 4) it's all part of a plan we can't understand (so there's no point in trying); 5) God isn't there. Our atheists will have no problem choosing, but in the words of a kindred Fool, the rest of us are "left darkling". - You think Carl has made two mistakes: "to consider God as merely another object whom, if he exists, we could objectively study." Here is a dictionary definition of theology: "the systematic study of the existence and nature of the divine and its relationship to and influence upon other beings." Off with the heads of the theologians, then. You continue: "If he exists, then he is the ground of all our studying." So can we or can't we study him? You go on: "The idea that we could have a vantage point from which to assess him is like saying that we can pull ourselves up by our own shoe laces." . Of course we couldn't assess him. He would simply tell us what's what. The question is why doesn't he? Your answer so far is (a) that he can't, or b) that if he did, there would always be room for doubt ... neither of which says much for his omnipotence. - Thank you for referring us to your sermon. I find the arguments equally difficult to follow, but need to reread it and will try again later. Despite the problems I have in following your reasoning (which of course may well be my fault), I'm grateful to you for taking us along these routes. Discussion in itself is helpful.