The Sermon Part 1 (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Friday, July 25, 2008, 09:53 (5963 days ago) @ Mark

I agree completely with the various comments that Mark's sermon is interesting, sincere and instructive, and I'm grateful to him for offering it to us. He has opened up new areas for our consideration, and I'd like to stress that my doubts are in no way meant as a personal attack. But there are aspects of the argument that I find confusing, and the whole point of discussion is to get clarification. I have reread the sermon, and what follows is an attempt to explain these doubts, which I will address directly to Mark. I'd also like to stress that this is not a statement of belief or disbelief on my part. (Carl, I am an agnostic, not an atheist.) I shall have to split this response into two parts. - You believe that "the knowing of persons is the closest analogy we can find to our knowledge of God", bearing in mind that this is different from knowing about persons. To know a person, "requires there to be a relationship with two-way exchange. In order to know you must allow yourself to be known." This is where I begin to flounder. If I follow your logic through, it means that God must allow himself to be known by us. How does he do this? You argue that the Bible gives us facts about God, but can only help us to know God "because we have come to share the faith of the Church whose Scriptures they are". Nature doesn't "give us factual knowledge in the way that biology does." So if neither the Bible nor Nature are the conduit through which God allows himself to be known by us (essential to our relationship), what is? You appear to answer that it is the Church, but no, it is "through the Scriptures and the Church that God may draw us to him and lead us to deeper faith." Faith in what exactly? Drawing us to him does not mean allowing himself to be known. I will come back to this in a moment, because it involves a crucial area of doubt for someone uncommitted like myself. - First, though, you say categorically that it is a mistake to think "because it is a personal faith with God which we should have, that it is therefore private and individual." Why? You state this as if it were a fact. How can a personal faith not be private and individual? Are parishioners not allowed to thank God in private, or to pray for guidance and help in their own personal lives, or to deviate from whatever brand of teaching the church in their area happens to subscribe to, even though it may differ totally from the teachings of the church on the other side of the river? The statement that "only the whole church knows the truth" seems to me to be meaningless. What is the whole church? Does it have an existence independent of the people in it? Is God, or what you and Paul mysteriously call the Spirit, running it? If so, why is it in such a mess? If God exists, surely only he knows the truth. And if the church can't make up its mind about the role of women, homosexuality, euthanasia, the use of condoms etc., I would argue that a believer should have the right to put his private, individual relationship with God before any institutional relationship. - I'd like now to get back to "knowing God". You say near the end of the sermon, "God is someone about whom we may find out no facts as such but know personally as Father." Earlier, you said the Bible did give us facts and Nature didn't. I'd like to bring Bible and Nature together and explain why I have so much difficulty understanding your argument and your faith.