The Evangelical Universalist Forum

On agnostic Christianity

Happy new year to all of you!

Someone asked me to define what I meant by “agnostic Christian”, here comes my answer.

While I believe there are grounds for thinking that materialism is false, they are not compelling for every rational person and they fall short from establishing the truth of the resurrection of Jesus.

I define faith as "hope in something not very unlikely in the face of insufficient evidence " and in that sense I have faith in Christ.
Actually I believe that every human being has this kind of faith in someone or things which often turn out to be idols.

If however Christianity really taught that millions or billions of human beings will be eternally tortured, I would clearly hope it is NOT true.

I believe, however, that God will save everyone truly desiring Him and that the only persons who will cease to exist are self-centered or evil individuals rejecting Him, like many pharisees at the time of our Lord, or most likely Fred Phelps.

This clearly does not violate my moral conscience and seems** even just** to me.

What about you?

Are you convinced that both Christianity and universalism is true? Or is it more a hope like in my case?

I have hope, but it’s not a matter, for me, of…“all I have is hope”, as if hope is a lesser thing than knowledge.
As I read long ago (E.F. Schumacher I believe, though he surely was not the first) the slenderest knowledge of the greatest of all things is infinitely more precious than the most exhaustive knowledge of the trivial. To that effect.

Does ‘hoping’ admit to doubt? Surely it does and that is an advantage - it keeps us open to testing what we believe and, seeing our hope pass the test, strengthens it.

I think there is a ‘sliding scale’ between agnosticism and full conviction. Not to have perfect knowledge is not the same as to say “I don’t know”.

The whole topic of knowing and certainty has been here before, maybe it’s time to re-visit. Have you done a search for threads concerning ‘proof’ and ‘certainty’?

I have found some interesting posts, but while there is definitely some overlap I think that the issues I have raised have an original aspect.

What is more, when I participate in forum discussions I am not only interested in finding answers but also in having an exchange with fellow believers (hopefully in a spirit of love).

There is a whole philosophical movement called Bayesian epistemology which stipulates that our degrees of belief in any proposition can be (almost) objectively computed using the laws of probability.
But as I explained in the above link, I consider it pretty doubtful that probability is a meaningful concepts for propositions not involving events which are (in principle) repeatable, such as the existence of God or of an infinite number of parallel worlds.

When we say that we see the probability of God as being 15%, 35% or 0.001467%, it is hard for me to view such assertions as something more than the expression of subjective states of mind or brain.

Cheers.

“I consider it pretty doubtful that probability is a meaningful concepts for propositions not involving events which are (in principle) repeatable, such as the existence of God or of an infinite number of parallel worlds.”

That hearkens way back to A.J. Ayers and the logical positivism movement, which had its way on the philosophical scene in the 1940’s and 50’s. Ayers himself was of the opinion, based on his reading of Hume, and Wittgenstein’s Tractatus ( Ironically it was the latter’s Philosophical Investigations that helped put the nail in the coffin of the Positivists) that any proposition that could not be ‘verified’ by repeatability (i.e., “scientific method”) is nothing more than an assertion, a mental state. Similarly, to give a probability to a statement is not to say anything meaningful about the statement, but only to express the confidence (or lack of it) we have in it, e.g., a mental or emotional state.

But that of course is stacking the deck by determining the criterion for what is true, before any investigation is even made. It suffers from the fatal mistake that Wittgenstein drove home in the Philosophical Investigations and the theory of the language-games.

If you are by ‘decree’ laying down the parameters of the discussion and saying “This is the field we will play the game on, and these are the rules”, why then you’ve guaranteed yourself a ‘win’, because your opponent may not not be playing that game; his game may be played on a much larger field with much larger goals. And a much different Referee :wink:

If verifiability in Ayer’s sense is the only way we can claim either truth or probability, we are left with a very reduced and ultimately meaningless world-view, in my opinion.

I think also that in regards to atheists : many of them fall into the trap of the verifiability game and its stress on reduction of reality to a very narrow compass of so-called ‘knowledge’. But that reduction of reality really cannot satisfy our human need for transcendence, for fulfillment in God.

In short, if we are playing the ‘prove it to me’ game with an atheist, the meaning of ‘proof’ has to be expanded far beyond the scientifically verifiable, into the realm of human meaning, and love, and the Great Dance (CSL). Then everything else starts to make sense in light of that.

I’m very happy you have joined the forum, Lothar’s son, and appreciate your comments though I disagree with them (at times).

Have you read, personally, the Philosophical Investigations?

Thank you very much for your kind words :slight_smile:

I have not yet read that and my list of books to be read is **so long **that I desperately need millions of years (and hence being resurrected) before achieving it.

I agree that positivism is a self-refuting epistemology.

However, it seems very hard to me to see the probability of a proposition which is not an event (like the truth of String Theory or the existence of the Multiverse) as being something more than a subjective brain state.

In the weeks to come, I’ll show how one can avoid speaking of probabilities in such cases and focus on** the discrepancies **between the prediction of a theory or worldview and what is observed in the external world.

It is obvious that the problem of evil is the main argument against belief in a good God.

It is obvious that the problem of evil is the main argument against belief in a good God.

That is true, as to a belief.

As to the existence of such a Being of course, there are other objections; however the philosophical currents…currrently are in a stale-mate, and the arguments have moved from ‘proof’ to ‘justification’ - if we say we believe in God, do we have a justification via argumentation, correspondence theory, etc.

I may be doing a short study on “Love Alone is Credible” by Balthasar which impinges on this directly.

I look forward to your next postings on this subject.