- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Posted from http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2011/01/the-blessings-of-an-unknown-god/ This post could be called anti-Areopagean, since in a reversal of the Acts 17 narrative, I write to those who inherited a supremely certain God and extol the virtues of a God unknown. I propose that agnostic theism actually results in a win-win situation, yielding rich rewards in return for handing over so-called certainty. I am not advocating that everyone adopt this philosophy, but I would like to lay out the advantages as I have experienced them.
This approach not only takes seriously the limitations of our knowledge, it could, if implemented widely, diminish religious conflict both interpersonal and national, and contribute to a healthier worldview overall. Agnosticism built around a theistic framework encourages resilient faith that easily assimilates new knowledge and allows for tolerance and appreciation for differing beliefs.
One of my goals in life is to model and champion religiosity that maximizes the benefits of spirituality while minimizing the harm that comes from most, if not all, forms of religion. I believe that an open agnostic theism that appreciates the value of spirituality allows one to enjoy a religious life while also becoming a better, more understanding and effective member of society. So in a Mormon context, I pray, enjoy Church, the scriptures, the temple, and the other details of religion, but my openness leads me to reject or at the very least complicate the idea of the “One and Only True Church” that I find divisive and spiritually stunting. (I am ok with a “most true” approach but that is a different post.) With a humility and caring that comes in part from my open agnosticism, I can engage with those around me without the automatic value judgments of traditional Mormonism kicking in. I very much respect those who understand God and religion more concretely, and I have had my own spiritual experiences that keep me in the category of believer. At the same time, I find an open, even agnostic approach to religion to be very beneficial and affirming.
My definition of the divine remains fluid. I live presupposing a caring and engaged superior Being, but I would classify that worldview somewhere between hope and belief. I am open to the idea that God represents some quantum connection between all things we do not understand, or a collective unconsciousness. Whatever created the world, whatever makes humans so different that we can have philosophical questions such as these, I call that God. God could be the name for natural laws that make choice and consciousness and love possible. God could be these attributes themselves–anything that increases consciousness, love, freedom, growth, peace, and joy–these are Divine. Perhaps we humans are the greatest gods within our grasp. I challenge you to find anyone who could not accept at least one of these definitions of “God”. I find this open characterization of the Divine useful.
My agnostic theism stems from several factors:
1) If there really is a supreme Creator of the Universe who interacts with all things, it is logical that He/She/They would be far beyond our comprehension.
2) Study of the religions of the world and human history demonstrates that humans conceptualize gods and the divine in their own image.
3) Mormon theology (and I would say theology in general) supports the idea that whatever God’s form or nature, God adapts Himself (I use the pronoun flexibly) to our understandings, expectations, and limitations (see 2 Ne. 31:3, Ether 12:39; D&C 29:33; 50:12; 88:46, which all imply that God speaks to us in a way we will understand more than the way “things really are”).
Throughout human history, groups have brandished the sword of certainty to compel and even destroy others. Though religion provides many answers that are satisfying on an emotional and spiritual level, theological ideas if taken to literally obstruct the increase of knowledge and compromise relationships. We all know what it is like to debate with the dogmatic and converse with the thoroughly convinced.
Mormonism enjoys a God defined to a striking degree. We not only know what God looks like, his job description (Moses 1:39); his family situation (including the elusive but tremendously beneficial theology of a Heavenly Mother); we know where he lives and where he comes from! I delight in the idea of a Heavenly Father and Mother to whom I can pray (well, the latter if I admit it only selectively) and with whom I can imagine a loving reunion in the afterlife. I love imagining embracing my Heavenly Parents when this life is done. Equally potent is the idea that humans and God differ only in degree, not nature. We are Gods in embryo, literally children of God and can become like Him/Her/Them. Since on a practical level religion is a symbolic system to conceptualize and interact with ourselves, each other, and the environment, I find these ideas powerful and productive. I would submit, however, that little is lost if we allow that such conceptions might not perfectly correspond to Absolute Reality, while simultaneously appreciating the benefit of such ideas in our lives.
Relaxing our cultural conditioning allows us to hear other ideas with more sympathetic ears and hearts. Paradoxically, agnosticism can lead to better understanding of truth. If we open our minds, we can be given new myths, corresponding more closely to Reality. If we are humble like children, ever seeking to learn how things
areinstead of projecting our desires of how we would like them to be, we can grow in light and knowledge and allow God to reveal truth and himself to us as it and he is, instead of constraining him to lovingly and patiently humor our prejudices until we are mature enough to surrender them. Again, this is win-win: if God and reality conform to our expectations, we will be pleased, but neither will we be shattered if life or learning lead us to doubt our conceptions. A final and one of the greatest benefits of agnosticism would emerge from accepting the responsibility for our own divinity. As far as we can tell, humans are the most developed and influential beings of which we are aware. Our consciousness spreads across the planet and beyond. We can restore and even replace organs and limbs, even bring back the dead to a degree. We have the power to destroy or (hopefully) heal entire ecosystems.
Though belief in God can be heartening and helpful, it can be equally disempowering and destructive. We can wait around, shaking our hands at heaven, impatiently waiting for God to fix all our problems. I certainly don’t want political leaders to factor the Second Coming into environmental policy!
I suggest we accept this power and responsibility and turn the accusations of theodicy back on ourselves. Why does God allow so much suffering? Why doesn’t He DO something about it? Well, why do we? Why do WE allow so much suffering? Why do we perpetuate it? Why do we humans, godlike in our ability to do good and literally answer prayers, instead squander that potential by sacrificing others and even the planet upon the altars of apathy, greed, and selfishness?
With this conception and acceptance, the goals of religious and humanist align. We are either the most advanced beings around or share a special relationship with a God who is greater. In both cases, we should emulate and adopt the characteristics of Divinity and care for the people and world around us. Several of the world’s scriptures teach us that we are Gods*, His children, or at least servants. It is time for us to put aside differences in our symbolic conceptions and start acting like it.
*I was going to reference John 10:34 where Jesus says “ye are gods”, but that passage takes Psalm 82:1, 6-7 so radically out of context that I could not include it. This post is dedicated to TJ and the conversation that started it.
Enoch wrote:I propose that
agnostic theism actually results in a win-win situation, yielding rich rewards in return for handing over so-called certainty. This approach not only takes seriously the limitations of our knowledge, it could, if implemented widely, diminish religious conflict both interpersonal and national, and contribute to a healthier worldview overall. Agnosticism built around a theistic framework encourages resilient faith that easily assimilates new knowledge and allows for tolerance and appreciation for differing beliefs…I find an open, even agnostic approach to religion to be very beneficial and affirming. Though religion provides many answers that are satisfying on an emotional and spiritual level, theological ideas if taken to literally obstruct the increase of knowledge and compromise relationships. We all know what it is like to debate with the dogmatic and converse with the thoroughly convinced. A final and one of the greatest benefits of agnosticism would emerge from accepting the responsibility for our own divinity.
I agree that a little more humility about how confident we can really be about many of the most dogmatic religious claims would go a long way towards eliminating some of the negative side-effects of religion. However, the problem I have with touting agnosticism so much is that it mostly implies a general lack of faith and conviction to many people that value these things the most. It seems like religion typically involves some speculation about what is often unknown for practical purposes so if we don’t ever want to guess or make assumptions about what some of these stories, traditions, and popular ideas about God, an afterlife, etc. really mean then why should we even care about religion at all enough to spend much time worrying about it?
Personally, I think that many if not the majority of Christians already are what you probably meant by “agnostic theist” but I’m not so sure they would appreciate this title in many cases. Meanwhile, it seems like some of the most zealous and dogmatic believers that could probably benefit from a healthy dose of reality the most are often the least likely to consider some of these alternative possibilities and I’m not so sure that using the word “agnostic” as if it is something positive is the best way to get their attention. Personally I think a better approach would be to incorporate some agnostic ideas and present them in the form of a few honest questions to plant seeds of doubt about some of the most objectionable beliefs and get people thinking without necessarily giving the impression that we should abandon some of the established faith and religion entirely.
DA, you are correct that I am using the term “agnosticism” in a particular sense, and that the popular meaning of the word might turn people off from my message. I had hoped to complicate that a bit by putting together the terms “agnostic theist.” I hope I made my points clear, terminology aside. I could have used something like “open-minded”, but since my point is specifically that God cannot be known/understood accurately or fully, agnostic seemed the best fit.
Besides, if most TBMs really are agnostic in the way I describe, wouldn’t it be beneficial to help them recognize that?
Quote:Besides, if most TBMs really are agnostic in the way I describe, wouldn’t it be beneficial to help them recognize that?
For some, yes – but probably not for many others. Stage 3 really does work for lots of people, and shattering that can be very dangerous.
If they come to that recognition kind of on their own, with a little subtle guidance from the examples of others, that’s one thing; if that recognition is thrust upon them, that’s another.
Having said all of that, I really like this post.
Ray, I am very, very sensitive to the value of Stage 3 for most people. I just love to think all this stuff through for myself and those who are ready. 
I do find it beneficial, satisfying and rewarding to have a worldview that both encompasses and transcends Mormonism.
Enoch wrote:DA, you are correct that I am using the term “agnosticism” in a particular sense, and that the popular meaning of the word might turn people off from my message. I had hoped to complicate that a bit by putting together the terms “agnostic theist.” I hope I made my points clear, terminology aside.
I could have used something like “open-minded”, but since my
point is specifically that God cannot be known/understood accurately or fully, agnostic seemed the best fit.Besides, if most TBMs really are agnostic in the way I describe,
wouldn’t it be beneficial to help them recognize that?I definitely wouldn’t try to convince TBMs that they should call themselves agnostics simply because they don’t really know what they act like they do; open-minded definitely sounds better to me. I think Church members already have a misguided idea of what faith is supposed to be in many cases to the point that they think doubt and questioning the Church is not alright. In my opinion this mindset has been cultivated largely as a reaction to the fear of losing members but is the real problem mostly just doubts or is it a combination of doubts and unreasonable costs of membership in terms of time, money, and strict rules?
That’s what I meant when I said most Christians are probably already “agnostic theists” not that they don’t believe in what they are doing but compared to us their beliefs don’t seem to be such an all-encompassing thing and many of them are more laid-back about it simply because many other churches don’t require the same level of commitment as the LDS Church. Rather than questioning everything at once I would rather start with some of the weakest and most objectionable doctrines. For example, the idea that maybe some of the things like tithing and the WoW idea didn’t really come from God might not be as painful for some members to consider as the idea that maybe there is no God (full agnosticism).
I wanted to reiterate that my approach is not programmatic. I am not advocating this for everyone, or even most. This post is not for TBMs (though it is valid and useful to discuss how to effectively touch upon this idea for that audience in a way they are prepared for). To quote my favorite part of Brian Johnston’s Mormon Stories podcast, “This site is not for orthodox Mormons. They have a whole Church”. My purpose in writing this post was to articulate my views and put forth the advantages as I see them. I enjoy the reversal of taking an idea people see as weak or threatening or even antithetical to faith (agnosticism, even of the theist variety) and demonstrating how it can in fact be a very powerful form of faith. This post is for whomever finds it to be useful.
Excellent post Enoch, I enjoyed it very much! I also enjoyed your post, Enoch. Maybe people are tired of hearing me say it, but ‘agnostic’ is not a dirty word. Just because people tend to misuse or misunderstand it is no reason to back away from it or to promulgate the incorrect usage. To say that I am agnostic is simply to affirm that I am aware that ultimately, faith in God is exactly that — faith — and that there will always be a gap between what I have faith in and what I can ‘know’ with certainty. We tend to categorize levels of belief as
- atheism
- agnosticism
- some word which implies absolute certain knowledge of the metaphysical
doug wrote:…Maybe people are tired of hearing me say it, but
‘agnostic’ is not a dirty word.Just because people tend to misuse or misunderstand it is no reason to back away from it or to promulgate the incorrect usage. To say that I am agnostic is simply to affirm that I am aware that ultimately, faith in God is exactly that — faith — and that there will always be a gap between what I have faith in and what I can ‘know’ with certainty. We tend to categorize levels of belief as - atheism
- agnosticism
- some word which implies absolute certain knowledge of the metaphysical
we are all agnostics, and that those who claim otherwise simply haven’t thought about it long enough.I realize that is putting it somewhat stridently, and I understand that some will disagree vigorously with me on that, but I feel very strongly about it. Perception is reality as far as many people are concerned; so if people think “agnostic” is a dirty word then it doesn’t really matter if it is simply a matter of semantics where they don’t really understand what exactly this term is supposed to mean because in their opinion you might as well be an atheist in that case. I understand why it would sound good to some Mormons because of all the hype we repeatedly hear about knowing the Church is “true” but to many people the more obvious third option is not “absolute certain knowledge of the metaphysical” at all but simply faith-based belief or hope for something more than what we can prove to the satisfaction of skeptics and agnosticism is more about reserving judgment and not really caring about the answer to what is essentially unknown.
For better and worse, “certainty” is one of the products peddled by religion. I think that most members and most believers are of the opinion that certainty is indeed possible. The acceptance of uncertainty, of epistemological agnosticism, requires some combination of education and maturity. I made a comment on facebook about bible translation which turned into a discussion with two of my uncles. One especially strongly expressed the view that the religious model of seeking truth (feeling things “by the Spirit” etc) allowed him to achieve a knowledge of the truth that transcends cultural and personal limitations. I don’t agree, though it is true that the illusion of certainty, or perhaps certainty as a heuristic device, is valuable. I would never force anyone into this way of thinking, though I do try to model belief and a way of life that shows a different way. VERY selectively shared, but I think most who interact with me for any amount of time get the idea I am not the typical TBM.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.