08.27.05
Posted in life at 2:49 pm by
I’m sure that this’ll be a tad controversial, and I’m rather intrigued by that. I’m reading this book, Subversive Orthodoxy by Robert Inchausti, and thus far, it’s pretty good. While I was reading it a few questions popped into my head that I thought I’d just throw out for open insight here.
First, Does the death of modernism from the Enlightenment sound the death knell for Atheism? That is, is Atheism, as it is manifest by modern skepticism, transformed under the non-modern mindset?
Second, Does this really make these Atheists agnostic, if we really get down to brass tacks?
Third, If you’re a ‘post-modern’ thinker and a Christian, and you’ve ditched notions of inerrancy and certainty, doesn’t that really make you an Agnostic?
Fourth, If you’re a ‘post-modern’ believer in Christ and an agnostic, and the post-modern atheist is also really an agnostic (if you accept my reasoning) aren’t we really just all agnostics running around trying to figure out what the hell is up?
Fifth, and finally, isn’t it really true that woven into the fabric of human nature is the very concept of agnosticism–not knowing the answers? I mean, we can have a faith in things, we can accept or reject evidence about certain things (e.g. the literal resurrection, the virgin birth, the diety of Jesus Christ, the presence of absence of God) but really, aren’t we (non-modern folk) all agnostics if we’re really honest with ourselves?
I don’t have all (or any) of the answers, really. I just got to thinking and thought I’d share. I’m curious what any of you have to say about this.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/08/27/a_controversial_question/trackback/
Posted in life at 2:49 pm by
I’m sure that this’ll be a tad controversial, and I’m rather intrigued by that. I’m reading this book, Subversive Orthodoxy by Robert Inchausti, and thus far, it’s pretty good. While I was reading it a few questions popped into my head that I thought I’d just throw out for open insight here.
First, Does the death of modernism from the Enlightenment sound the death knell for Atheism? That is, is Atheism, as it is manifest by modern skepticism, transformed under the non-modern mindset?
Second, Does this really make these Atheists agnostic, if we really get down to brass tacks?
Third, If you’re a ‘post-modern’ thinker and a Christian, and you’ve ditched notions of inerrancy and certainty, doesn’t that really make you an Agnostic?
Fourth, If you’re a ‘post-modern’ believer in Christ and an agnostic, and the post-modern atheist is also really an agnostic (if you accept my reasoning) aren’t we really just all agnostics running around trying to figure out what the hell is up?
Fifth, and finally, isn’t it really true that woven into the fabric of human nature is the very concept of agnosticism–not knowing the answers? I mean, we can have a faith in things, we can accept or reject evidence about certain things (e.g. the literal resurrection, the virgin birth, the diety of Jesus Christ, the presence of absence of God) but really, aren’t we (non-modern folk) all agnostics if we’re really honest with ourselves?
I don’t have all (or any) of the answers, really. I just got to thinking and thought I’d share. I’m curious what any of you have to say about this.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/08/27/a_controversial_question/trackback/
zalm said,
August 27, 2005 at 3:49 pm
I’m not going to touch the first two, because Leighton will eventually weigh in, and I’ll just end up looking silly.
A lot of the answers to these questions depend on the definitions of your terms and who gets to set them. If they are rigid, unchanging, universally accepted definitions, then you might be on to something. But if the definitions are fluid, evolutionary, or even defined from within the groups themselves, then things get a little trickier.
For example, it really sounds like you’re asking if post-modern Christianity or post-modern Atheism looks more and more like modern Agnosticism than their modern predecessors. But what if the definition of Agnosticism has also shifted under post-modernity? (I’m not pretending to know how that’s happened, I’m more just addressing the premises behind your comparisons.)
As for the final question, I’m not sure that doubt as a corollary of faith is the same as Agnosticism. There’s a certain humility that comes with realizing our own limitations in describing an ineffable God. But I’m not sure that’s the same as Agnosticism, either.
Maybe you’re trying to say that post-modernity should lead to a more humble, less dogmatic adherence to these categories.
I don’t know that I have a point, exactly. But those were my first few thoughts. Take them for what they’re worth.
Brandon said,
August 27, 2005 at 4:15 pm
Well, Zalm, I’m not entirely convinced that I ‘have’ a point, really. I was mostly just musing and being amused. I’d agree that one’s definition of agnosticism matters to the discussion. I’m not sure that I see any of the categories as being flexible (just to let you in on my bias).
When I ask these questions I think of the groups of folks I’ve mentioned as rigid, unmoveable, and fixed (for the sake of argument.)
I think I’d agree that post-modernism should lead to a more humble less dogmatic adherence to the rigidly labeled modern groups of religion.
Particularly, (and I’ve really been thinking aloud here) I like how this places us as a group of people on a journey (rather than having already arrived as a member of a ‘religious group’.) Also, I like how tearing down the walls via a deconstruction such as this lends an aire of distinct groups becoming less distinct and more inclusive.
But, for the love of God, don’t tell Ingrid I said any of this.
shupac said,
August 27, 2005 at 5:01 pm
#1–Not sure, but it does undermine the possibilty of atheism as a logical certainty, unassailable until believers cough up laboratory-grade facts. However, I think it is still a reasonable hypothesis, and one which works quite well for many people.
#2, 3, 4, 5. These are hard to answer because it seems like the term agnostic is being used in a vacuum. Nearly everyone has some degree of agnosticism about something, but that doesn’t necessarily become the defining fact of their life. I know atheists who will quite readily concede that their position can’t be conclusively validated, but aren’t terribly interested either in trying to shore it up or to reconsider the arguments of believers. They have other priorities and find identity and meaning in them. I can’t claim an incorrigable certainty about the facts that I profess about my Christian faith (virgin birth, etc.), but the farther I go, the less important the question of their factuality seems. I’ve heard the gospel stories and been moved to believe them–”believe” in the old english sense of “put one’s trust in,” not believe as in “profess to be true.” In my experience, they have proved trustworthy, and i think it worthwhile to continue living in conformity with them. The meaninfgulness of my religion doesn’t appear to suffer in direct proportion with uncertainties about propostions of the creeds.
Bottom line: the logical underpinnings of the believer and the atheist may not be all that different, but the things that form and direct them are very much so. What people know is probably a lot less important than to what they choose to relate.
My Spin On Things said,
August 27, 2005 at 10:39 pm
I am in suspended judgment. But I like your blog.
Leighton said,
August 27, 2005 at 10:41 pm
Question 1:
First, it’s important to be clear about what “atheism” means. There are a number of competing definitions that get tossed around.
Defintion 1: classical atheism. This goes back to ancient Greece and Rome. An atheist in this sense is one who doesn’t offer tribute to the (state) gods. Socrates was tried and executed for atheism in Athens, and the Romans persecuted early Christians as atheists. In this sense, atheist is not a description one claims for oneself; it is a title given by others. Perhaps you ignore other (or all) deities because you don’t think they exist, or because you think they’re demons (Augustine seems to have held both these positions at various points in his writing), or perhaps you’re not aware of them, or perhaps they’re irrelevant to you; in any case, others observe that you live your life without making obesiance to their deities.
Definition 2: Enlightenment atheism. This is essentially Enlightenment deism without the deity; the ineffable laws of the universe don’t allow for God’s action, hence (s)he must not exist. In contemporary forms this is called “strong atheism”, which claims affirmatively that (e.g.) the Christian God, or more generally any deity, does not exist.
Definition 3: “postmodern” or weak atheism. This is the sort of semantic “null position” of not affirming either the existence or nonexistence of God. This sounds a bit like agnosticism, but agnosticism (as it’s generally used) usually makes a positive claim that we don’t know, and can’t know, whether God exists (for appropriate notions of God); weak atheism doesn’t make either of these claims at all. Philosophically it says very little beyond that weak atheists are usually more interested in pursuing other questions.
You get all three kinds of atheists nowadays; quite a few Christians are atheists according to definition one, in fact.
Atheism as such has already been considerably transformed by postmodern thought. Most atheist organizations these days are about advancing political aims rather than the classical mission of reforming epistemology, and a strong motivating factor is the balance of power: there’s a general feeling that “faith-based” language means too much to people. I, for instance, will never at any point in my life hold political office because I’ve called myself an atheist, whereas Bush Sr. can suggest that atheists aren’t really citizens and nobody will so much as raise an eyebrow. There’s a lot of implicit social deconstruction going on in the political discourse of freethinkers (or free thinkers, I can never remember which is which).
Question two: I don’t really think so. If you acknowledge (properly IMHO) that you can never be certain about anything, then everyone becomes agnostic about everything and the word “agnostic” stops being useful. I think of agnostics (as do most agnostics in my experience) as people who go out of their way to state their uncertainty about some important things, whereas I think the norm is to sort of keep the uncertainty in the background and work around it as best we can, or else pursue different questions. Once you get a group of people who all agree that we can’t be really certain certain about anything, it’s a bit redundant to keep saying so unless the uncertainty is somehow fundamentally important.
#3: Only if you believe the fundamentalists. Agnosticism as a position wasn’t even clearly defined until well into the Enlightenment, so it seems a little unfair to retrofit it to something as old as Christianity. Besides, saying you’re uncertain about the foundations of your beliefs is different than making uncertainty a foundation of your beliefs. Of course, there are Christians who are also agnostics, which is a perfectly legitimate way to approach it, but it’s not the only boat in the lake.
#4: I don’t know, but it seems like a good question to pursue.
#5: Yes, but only as a reaction to modernist epistemology; I like to think that a few generations down the road when we get over our preoccupation with certainty, we’ll be able to frame important questions in more relevant ways.
Little Light said,
August 29, 2005 at 4:32 pm
I don’t know, but it seems you have to define faith as well. If faith exists with the inclusion of uncertainty, perhaps a non-modern thinker would accept this as part of his belief process. You can choose to suspend your disbelief (which can lead to another level of faith in itself) - you could choose to have faith despite a conscious awareness of the problems with your belief. I don’t think that necessarily makes one agnostic.
life as usual » I am an Agnostic Christian said,
October 12, 2006 at 9:10 pm
[…] I came to this realization about a year ago, and have tossed it around in my head for a while. I was actualy thinking over the weekend that I needed to blog about it, to find a way to actually express it (I process best by “writing”.) Then tonight I came across this post about it on badchristian.com than said it far better and more succinctly than I could have. […]