I am supposed to be getting ready for a 1/2 day hearing tomorrow, but am instead reading links I got from twitter posts over the last two days. I was reading an article titled The Moral Dilemma of Agnosticism and was struck not only by the article and how it relates to my self-described agnostic wife, but by a comment to this article by someone going by the initials "smh" (posted on July 31, 2010 at 7:26 PM). "smh" said:
I think that, while thoughtful agnostics hold their position in good faith (pun intended), the key weakness in their argument is the mistaken conflation of two different senses of "know" -- the factual and the personal. They are hardly entirely to blame for that, as far too many Christian apologetics make the same mistake, and treat God as an abstract logical point to be proved, or an empirical datum to be verified by observation and experimentation, rather than a person who encounters and is encountered.
This got me thinking about how agnostics in general, and my wife in particular, really see God as Mr. Snuffleupagus from Sesame Street. As a kid1, Mr. Snuffleupagus was a character on Sesame Street that Big Bird saw and no one else ever did.2 While I guess you can say I am fairly intelligent, I certainly am not on the level of deep thinkers as "smh" and the writer of the article. However, I am constantly debating, for a lack of a better word, my wife about proof of the exisentence of God. As with any good agnostic, she claims to want "proof" of the existence of God before she says she can believe. Of course, much to my dismay, no matter what I try, I cannot "prove" God's existence in a physical sense.
In my discussions with my wife I have hit on the same concept as this article and "smh." I ask her how she can believe that the Civil War happened because she can no more prove that it happened than I can prove God exists. I can show you artifacts and writings of people who were around in the time of Jesus and His teachings, but I cannot make Jesus appear to her face. In the same way she can only see artifacts and writings from the Civil War era, but cannot experience a battle for herself. I have also tried to relate her lack of belief in other ways. For instance, she hasn't the slightest clue as to how to make electricity or how it works (nor do I for that matter), yet she "believes" that every time she flips a light switch the light will turn on.
Those are my simpleton attempts at relaying, "the mistaken conflation of two different senses of "know" -- the factual and the personal."3 I will never be able to factually prove God exists, even to myself. I can only know He exists because I have a personal relationship with Him. It is through this personal relationship that I know He exists. Oddly, my wife and I met on the internet and there was a period of time where she didn't know that I existed, at least with regard to what my physical characteristics were. Yet she believed, I guess, what I told her and the images I sent her of me.
Back to Mr. Snuffleupagus. Only Big Bird "believed" he existed because only Big Bird had a personal relationship with him (her/it?). The other residents of Sesame Street didn't have this relationship with Mr. Snuffleupagus and therefore didn't believe he (she/it?) existed. It wasn't until Mr. Snuffleupagus appeared to other residents that they finally realized that Big Bird wasn't crazy this whole time.
-----------------------------------------
1I remember listening to the Catholics Next Door a while back and they were talking about re-runs of Sesame Street from the 70's being put out on DVD. "Sesame Street: Old School" DVD's have a disclaimer that says "Welcome to 'Sesame Street Nostalgia.' I am Bob, your host, and I want you to know that these early 'Sesame Street' episodes are intended for grown-ups and may not meet the needs of today's pre-school child."
2I wonder if that fact in and of itself was intended as a comment on religion by the creators of Sesame Street??3I am truly in awe of people who can think at such a high level to be able to say things like that.
2 comments:
Believing in God is a little like believing in anything else, but there's a huge element missing. Believing that this chair will hold me up doesn't require that I sit in it. Believing that electricity will work doesn't mean I have to ever flip the switch.
However, believing in God seems to come with stipulations. I say seems because action resulting is one of Christianity's debates. Are we saved ("once saved always saved")? Do we have to continually work to gain salvation? Do we have to believe in Jesus to be saved? Or, did God save us all (no matter what) through Jesus.
Even if we can all stop and believe in a higher power, in God, or in something that resembles God, we still can't seem to agree on the particulars. When we stop focusing on Christianity and instead focus on God, that love that Christ shows us seems to shine through much brighter.
I think sharing your joy and your relationship with that love that shines through is what makes all the difference. It's not finding the particulars and who or what is "right." It's in finding the commonality and recognizing that in one form or another, there is something much, much greater.
That's just my thoughts...
Carol
Very good and interesting posting. I'm glad I found your blog.
Post a Comment