Religion is concrete, while agnosticism/atheism is abstract

I was walking yesterday evening and it started raining very lightly - very calming. I began thinking about this existence I was witnessing and the usual thoughts of Do I really exist ? What is life ? Why is there not nothing began their usual arrival in my head.

It was then I realized this. As an agnostic, myself, I have no clue what existence is or is about - nor my purpose aside from my desires or assumptions.

To the devout religious, though - the ones that truly accept on blind faith - life is concrete. There is either an inability or unwillingness or no need to ask bigger questions - life is what it is.

Am I wrong in thinking this ? Solipsism to the religious' mind is utterly meaningless in idea or as a thought of itself.

 

Yes and no

there are many religions that are backwords looking. For example Protestant Christians or Islam. They say the scripture is the only authority and the only time God spoke to us and therefore is undisputed.

on the other hand a religion like Catholicism believes God still speaks to us and is a forward looking theology. As a catholic I try to look at things with a historical relevance. For instance when we look at catholic saints they were people who had encounters with God and entered an unknown future because of their faith in God and as Catholics we have tradition that keeps us on the right path as we navigate the future. Catholicism will adapt as time goes on. The pope is set up as the authority in the church and is set up to help our religion grow with the time. Now that is not to say he the pope is perfect and will always make the right decision as he is still a man but he is the leader.

In other words
There are several that are concrete but others will grow and explore such as Catholicism.

 

Try not to worry about it.

 

No clue?? You can't be doing much reading in the direction that would give you answers. Investigate. Also, you can't have been paying much attention to what's been getting hashed out here.

 

People can make a judgment call on whether or not there is a God or not. People make judgment calls on things they don't "know" all the time, such as when people gamble or play the lottery.

Based on what I've learned about human biology and evolution I'd say that existence does have a pretty concrete and objective meaning and purpose, and this is totally using secular facts. Unless one is a nihilist or denies even the most basic axioms of existence which even animals intuitively understand.

And too much abstract reasoning isn't necessarily "good". Aristotle says that inductive and abductive reasoning do serve a purpose and no matter how much one "thinks" one can't explain existence (or even God's existence) using Aristotle's logic, so this is where "faith" comes in (induction and abduction) and it does serve a functional purpose. Thinking without any end goal is just mental masturbation and can be more counter-productive than thinking less in some cases.

 

When this world becomes concrete, it no longer allows the freedom to move and learn....which IS the meaning of life, TO BECOME MORE.

The religious mind is a closed mind for the most part and limits the ability to truly see "That Which Is", in favor of that which someone told me. As an Agnostic you have the freedom to say you do not "Know" and continue looking....who knows what you may find?

 

"To Become More." - LOVE IT !

GREAT POST

 

To become more? Well, since God is eternal, it is not possible to know everything about Him, because there will be always more to know.

Your assumption of religious people being close minded may thus be mere projection.

 

Yes...it "May". Pretty cool that I can simply agree with you and keep on keeping on isn't it?

 

It is good that you agree that it "may be" projection. At least that does not amount to a refutation.

 

Christianity is far from backwards. That "religion of peace" is totally backwards. You can't
compare the two. Also, Christianity believes that God does speak to us.

The object of the pope isn't to grow the church to adapt to the times. Christianity hasn't
changed since day one and there's no need for it to do so.

 

I'd like to hear the "bigger questions".

Yes, you're wrong. Solipsism isn't necessary utterly meaningless. Where are you
getting your information and especially about religious people?

 

At an individual level religion is very specific but at a generalized group level religion is quite abstract or perhaps a better word would be subjective. How religion answers the big questions in life is relative to the individual.

 

Yes, because you egotistically imagine those questions are profound, when the question "Do I really exist" is just stupid, and it's also pretty obvious why there is "not nothing".

 

Christianity includes both Catholic and protestant denominations and being that Protestants both believe Christ to be our savior and therefore are Christians.

there is need for growth and exploration had their not been exploration into the unknown by people in the church by people like saint Francis and saint Patrick and even Jesus himself the Christianity (both catholic and protestant) would not exist.

 

Agnostic means lack f knowledge and an Atheist is simply denial of Theism, one can be both like me I lack both knowledge of and therefore deny Theism. So it is abstract however a real position and one that can change to something else when given proper evidence then I might go to is 'this deity' worthy of worship even if 'this deity' is demonstrated to exist would it be 'proper' to worship it.

 

You certainly could do some research into the great philosophers in history who were also persons of faith. About an hour of reading should suffice to disprove your premise.

 

I would only question your premise that there's some sort of lack of need for knowledge by anyone who is a devout religious person, that they have no need to ask bigger questions. Many religious still want to understand the cosmos, to understand why there is so much pain suffered by the innocent, to match their religious views with the gains made constantly by science, etc. Being religious doesn't remove their need to learn, grow and understand things around them.

I have watched a lot of Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson and others who express the need to continuously learn, test and understand the universe while acknowledging the conflict between religion and scientific discovery. The viewpoints are interesting both ways (theist and non-theist) on the topic and the debates they engage in at least bring out a lot of great points from both sides of the arguments.

 

And to a strong extent an atheist materialist has a pretty concrete view of reality also. Everything is what it is, its just up to us to figure out how it works right?

Religious theist believe that god exist and that gods nature is revealed through their religion. As you said, that's not nearly as concrete as it might appear on the surface. Somehow god and nature (nature as in revealed reality) have to have a direct relationship. The only thing that can bridge that gap is faith. Not necessarily blind faith, but faith nonetheless. The content of that faith is certainly different from individual to individual.

 

Your statement about the direct relationship is the part scientists like Krauss and Tyson have issues with. Tyson talks about the "God of the gaps" theory and he says that method of thinking essentially makes God an "ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance", meaning that science answers more questions all the time so the "gaps" disappear over time, making the faith/God explanation for much of the universe less valid once science can directly pin an answer to something. But the argument goes back and forth from theism to non-theism, and has across the ages. I don't see where it will ever be resolved, but I also don't see theists just sitting back and not wanting to continue discovery in classrooms and laboratories.

 

Yes, you are wrong. Basically you assume faith=blindness. It's not. Basically, you are allowing your biases against religion to assume that everybody religious is at a low level of thinking, probably based on religious people you know that are on that low level of thinking. We are not. Religious people think as critically about their lives as do you. We question things. I have had all of the questions that your have in italics above. The difference is that I accept that there is some sort of higher being, and, at least for me, Christianity (specifically Catholic Christianity) answers a lot of my questions, although, as is usual, the answers to questions often include new questions to ponder.

 

And the current Pope hasn't changed a thing in terms of what Catholic Christianity teaches. Yes, his emphasis is different, but the fundamentals are the same.

 

This will actually be resolved, all it takes is one thing that we all have in abundance.....TIME.

I seems quite obvious that as you state, the sciences are chipping away at the need for supernatural explanation by providing the natural one. It seems to me this has become more an issue of the human tendency to hold onto the comfortable (Safe) than the actual God worship that began religion in the first place. Eventually, even the most devout and faithful will be forced to abandon the impossibilities in the face of reality and the Idea of God will be shoved into the closet where we keep the witches of old.

 

Actually, you can compare the two because they both worship the same deity.

 

The magical element of christianity these days is less the "god of the gaps" and more the god of circumstance. In the circumstance model all the bad things happening are really part of an intricate plan that ultimately leads to good things happening.

When arguing about the beginning of the universe it seems to me they should see god as the hand and the universe as the match, that somehow the universe is going to prove gods existence is a pathetic search. Besides which, as long as you are not looking for god in the material universe no one can really prove god doesn't exist. There are plenty of spiritual clues that point a reality beyond what we directly physically experience. The belief that that reality is a being of ultimate power is the essence of theism. Someone whose perspective is entirely materialist cannot understand this anymore than the average person understands modern technology.

However, fundamentalist literalism is still seen as the most honest religion. When societies feel culturally and ethnically threatened the idea of a physical god with material rewards (and punishments) is very enticing to the young and confused.