Agnostic Forums - View Single Post

marmalade · 01-01-2008, 09:46 PM

AGNOSTIC PIETY, Robert M. Price
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.c...stic_piety.htm

Old Testament Reading: Exodus 33:18-23

New Testament Reading: Acts 17:22-23

Text: Galatians 4:8-9 "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods; but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elements, whose slaves you want to be once more?"

Once the young Thomas Henry Huxley found himself at a loss among a group of his friends: all of them had some sort of dogmatic philosophy with arguments at the ready to defend it! All rejoiced to place themselves in tried-&-true categories. But poor Huxley did not feel it was so easy to make up his mind, and as a result he had no neat convictions nor ready label for them. But he felt he wanted to give his position, such as it was, a name. He decided that the chief thing about his view was that he felt keenly his lack of knowledge about the great questions of philosophy and religion. Gnosis, knowledge, was what he did not boast. He was decidedly no gnostic, the ancient label claimed by those "in the know." So why not coin a new term with precisely the opposite denotation? He christened himself an agnostic. The prefix "a-" negates whatever follows it, just as an atheist is one who believes there is no theos, no God.

What is the difference between atheism, now that I've mentioned it, and agnosticism? In popular usage, an agnostic is one who holds open the theoretical possibility that there is a God, but he or she believes there is no way of finding out one way or the other.

This, for what it's worth, is not what Huxley meant. He recognized that definition of agnosticism as simply one more brand of dogmatism, a belief that he could not justify. He was without knowledge on the ultimate questions, including the question whether one may know about God. Maybe you can! He just didn't yet see how. But he'd be happy to listen to your argument.

I have called this sermon "Agnostic Piety," and that phrase, which I did not coin, appeals to me because of its wide range of applications. I want to consider a few of these briefly with you.

First, as Huxley claimed, agnosticism might in and of itself be deemed a kind of piety. Its essence, after all, is intellectual honesty. Huxley warned that it was sheer immorality and fraud to accept a conviction on inadequate evidence. You dare not permit yourself the luxury of believing something just because you like the sound of it, the implications of it. You are deceiving your self when you buy the religious pitch of some spiritual barker just because if true it promises peace or salvation. The point is, how do you know it's true in the first place?

If we approached what one writer called the "spiritual supermarket" with such a critical attitude, we might wind up with a lighter load, an emptier cart, at the checkout, but we could at least pay for what we were buying! Like Huxley, we might not be able to impress our friends with what deep convictions we have, but we would be honest! And Huxley added, if we approach belief this way, we will be able to look one day into the face of the Truth or of God unflinchingly. What else could a God of Truth require of us?

The agnostic, one might add, is being not only intellectually honest, but intellectually humble as well. Of the Promethean knowledge of heaven and the gods he says, like the Psalmist, "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high. I cannot attain it." That is, I would say, agnostic piety.

But if the agnostic is truly open as he says he is, as Huxley said he was, he will sooner or later get around to seeking sincerely after the possibility that God exists and rewards them who diligently seek him, as the Writer to the Hebrews put it.

Perhaps the pious agnostic will pray, "God, if there is a God, help me." or "God, assuming you exist, reveal yourself to me." This may seem to you, Christian or agnostic, a rather anemic prayer. Whether it is or not, I will consider in a moment.

But first I must read you surely the most elaborate agnostic prayer ever composed. It occurs in a wonderful fantasy novel called Creatures of Light and Darkness, by Roger Zelazny. In it there is a character who is a hardened agnostic. He has long since despaired of knowing God. Yet by trade he is a chaplain! Here are the last rites as given by the agnostic to a man about to die:

"Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen."

Here is someone sending out a prayer as a message in a bottle to whom it may concern!

But what of the more typical agnostic's prayer? It may be a foxhole prayer; it may be a disinterested request of an inquiring spirit who would not want to neglect a God if a God may be known. I have said that such a prayer may seem pallid, bloodless. If that be so, then the surging red blood the prayer would lack would have to be faith.

But I ask, is the prayer so lacking in faith as it first seems? No, I say the tentative prayer of the agnostic contains the essential element of faith: the recognition that "all things are possible!"

If he didn't believe that a God might exist and might deign to reply, the agnostic would never pray in the first place!

And how is any ostensibly meatier prayer than our agnostic prays any more pious? If it seems more venturesome, if it dares to claim this or that from God, does it not run the risk of presumption? Then is it not less pious than the prayer of the agnostic?

01-01-2008, 09:46 PM	#1 (permalink)
marmalade Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 263	Agnostic Piety AGNOSTIC PIETY, Robert M. Price http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.c...stic_piety.htm Old Testament Reading: Exodus 33:18-23 New Testament Reading: Acts 17:22-23 Text: Galatians 4:8-9 "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods; but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elements, whose slaves you want to be once more?" Once the young Thomas Henry Huxley found himself at a loss among a group of his friends: all of them had some sort of dogmatic philosophy with arguments at the ready to defend it! All rejoiced to place themselves in tried-&-true categories. But poor Huxley did not feel it was so easy to make up his mind, and as a result he had no neat convictions nor ready label for them. But he felt he wanted to give his position, such as it was, a name. He decided that the chief thing about his view was that he felt keenly his lack of knowledge about the great questions of philosophy and religion. Gnosis, knowledge, was what he did not boast. He was decidedly no gnostic, the ancient label claimed by those "in the know." So why not coin a new term with precisely the opposite denotation? He christened himself an agnostic. The prefix "a-" negates whatever follows it, just as an atheist is one who believes there is no theos, no God. What is the difference between atheism, now that I've mentioned it, and agnosticism? In popular usage, an agnostic is one who holds open the theoretical possibility that there is a God, but he or she believes there is no way of finding out one way or the other. This, for what it's worth, is not what Huxley meant. He recognized that definition of agnosticism as simply one more brand of dogmatism, a belief that he could not justify. He was without knowledge on the ultimate questions, including the question whether one may know about God. Maybe you can! He just didn't yet see how. But he'd be happy to listen to your argument. I have called this sermon "Agnostic Piety," and that phrase, which I did not coin, appeals to me because of its wide range of applications. I want to consider a few of these briefly with you. First, as Huxley claimed, agnosticism might in and of itself be deemed a kind of piety. Its essence, after all, is intellectual honesty. Huxley warned that it was sheer immorality and fraud to accept a conviction on inadequate evidence. You dare not permit yourself the luxury of believing something just because you like the sound of it, the implications of it. You are deceiving your self when you buy the religious pitch of some spiritual barker just because if true it promises peace or salvation. The point is, how do you know it's true in the first place? If we approached what one writer called the "spiritual supermarket" with such a critical attitude, we might wind up with a lighter load, an emptier cart, at the checkout, but we could at least pay for what we were buying! Like Huxley, we might not be able to impress our friends with what deep convictions we have, but we would be honest! And Huxley added, if we approach belief this way, we will be able to look one day into the face of the Truth or of God unflinchingly. What else could a God of Truth require of us? The agnostic, one might add, is being not only intellectually honest, but intellectually humble as well. Of the Promethean knowledge of heaven and the gods he says, like the Psalmist, "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high. I cannot attain it." That is, I would say, agnostic piety. But if the agnostic is truly open as he says he is, as Huxley said he was, he will sooner or later get around to seeking sincerely after the possibility that God exists and rewards them who diligently seek him, as the Writer to the Hebrews put it. Perhaps the pious agnostic will pray, "God, if there is a God, help me." or "God, assuming you exist, reveal yourself to me." This may seem to you, Christian or agnostic, a rather anemic prayer. Whether it is or not, I will consider in a moment. But first I must read you surely the most elaborate agnostic prayer ever composed. It occurs in a wonderful fantasy novel called Creatures of Light and Darkness, by Roger Zelazny. In it there is a character who is a hardened agnostic. He has long since despaired of knowing God. Yet by trade he is a chaplain! Here are the last rites as given by the agnostic to a man about to die: "Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen." Here is someone sending out a prayer as a message in a bottle to whom it may concern! But what of the more typical agnostic's prayer? It may be a foxhole prayer; it may be a disinterested request of an inquiring spirit who would not want to neglect a God if a God may be known. I have said that such a prayer may seem pallid, bloodless. If that be so, then the surging red blood the prayer would lack would have to be faith. But I ask, is the prayer so lacking in faith as it first seems? No, I say the tentative prayer of the agnostic contains the essential element of faith: the recognition that "all things are possible!" If he didn't believe that a God might exist and might deign to reply, the agnostic would never pray in the first place! And how is any ostensibly meatier prayer than our agnostic prays any more pious? If it seems more venturesome, if it dares to claim this or that from God, does it not run the risk of presumption? Then is it not less pious than the prayer of the agnostic?