Agnosticism?

According to one of my friends, the root reason for agnosticism is the idea that people claim far too much of God – whom all would agree (if he exists) to be great and powerful and indescribable. Furthermore, there is no way to prove that God cares for people – perhaps He is a bored scientist carrying out an experiment. In other words, we have no way to imagine his nature (of that, I think my friend would be meaning His character, rather than His power).

Now, I must begin by saying that it is true that there is really no way to discount the Possibility of God being evil and bored (some theistic philosophers may disagree here and go on to show numerous proves of the inevitable goodness of God – but with them I would have to part company). Yet, if we apply this condition to the whole of life, it immediately becomes obvious that this condition – certainty – becomes ridiculous. Who can say for sure that anything will happen (I will discount worthless suggestions such as “something will happen”, which somehow includes nothing)? We do not – yet we do things.

Now, some may tell us that we do things because we have to – if we are not assured about something, and it is risky, and we do not need to do, then perhaps we will not do whatever it is. Few would cross a tightrope if there was no necessity to do so. But I think this belies the point. If God is real, and what He says is true, then the most necessary thing we can ever do in this life is to believe it. To find out if it is necessary, you have to find out if it is true. And surely that is the greater issue, not the necessity.

Still, didn’t we just say that we can know no thing for sure, that we can hardly be certain of anything. How then can we know if it is true or not? In normal life, we do things by reasonable certainty and by faith! Here, Faith is a technical term and not the Christian sense of faith, which we use to mean trust in God. For instance, we believe in reason – but for no reason at all. We walk on the street, believing that our legs would carry us, but without knowing for sure. Yet, we do so, not blindly – but being reasonably sure that we can walk and that reason is reasonable. For reason and our legs, most likely we are reasonably sure that we can trust them because they had worked before. There is another way we have reasonable certainty – that is by authority. An example would be us taking medicine prescribed by doctors. We trust the doctor – and often, even if we do not know him (this is curiously carried on even if we do not get well as soon as expected, many would still take the medicine, or another medicine prescribed by him. ).

And this is as far as evidences can bring one. There is no way to prove for sure – get used to it and stop demanding it; no one demands it for normal thing. But just as Faith is the unshakable fortress of the Religious, Uncertainty is the unshakable fortress (except perhaps, by God Himself) of the Unbeliever. But in between, reason goes some way. And if I may say so, it is quite reasonable to say that the Bible is reliable as a record (and especially for the life, death and resurrection of the Incarnate God), and the interpretation of basic doctrine is without many reasonable challenge

And of course, the uncertainty principle works both ways. Who can be Certain that Christians are all wrong? And that God is Good. And that God is as the Bible depict? The difference this has with the opposite argument is that this has much more severe consequences should it eventually be true… and that it has (as far as I know) much more evidences.

Still, just as my friend said that the Dune series (whatever that is) said, “Do not attempt to reason with those whose beliefs are set in stone”. (Whoops. Paiseh Moridin =p)