Posted by Tal on May 01, 1999 at 20:33:51:
In Reply to: Boat analogy (in my eyes) posted by Matches on May 01, 1999 at 13:46:15:
> To kind of create the illusion that we are on track, I'll post my type at the end of this... the gain a perespective of what some types may beleive..
> Atheist: His friend claims to see a boat. The atheist can not see it, so he does not swim for it.. His friend goes off. The atheist is floating around, and he's a bit upset about it all. In fact, he's getting to the point where unless a ship were to RIGHT up to him so he could touch its hull, he wouldn't beleive it was there. So he ends up drowning.
> Beleiver 1 (fatalist): Beleiver 1's friend claims to see a boat in the distance. Beleiver says, "You know what I think I see it too." They'll come rescue us, I'm sure of it. Unfortunately no one on the ship sees them, and the ship just goes by. Believer 1 becomes either A.) Upset at the ship for not coming to get them. He ends up drowning. or B.) He says, "Don't worry they'll come back for us." Of course the ship has places to go, and doesn't come back.
> Beleiver 2: Beleiver 2's friend has spotted a ship, and the beleiver can kind of make it out as well. He decided to swin towards the ship. Either A.) There is a ship there, and he is saved, or B.) There is no ship there. They drown.
> Agnostic: The agnostic's friend claims to see a ship, but the agnostic says, "There may be a ship, there may not. I don't see a ship, but let me keep my eyes and ears open and see what happens, maybe a ship will come along." The Agnostic is not willing to put in the effort to swim toward what might be his only hope for survival. The guy drowns.
> The point is, you've got to make the effort. I'm firmly beleive that there are hints of the existence of "This Thing We Call God." Why not go for it?
Alright, let me rephrase, since the boat analogy is proving to be too easy for everyone (including myself) to twist around as needed.
Setting aside analogies, let's consider the matter in its abstract form.
An atheist does not believe in what he has no proof of. Therefore the possibilities are that: a) some form of God exists and he is wrong and has wasted his life in large part (though this is still not necessarily the case, if, as is probable, the goal of life is still to be happy). b) there is no God, and the atheist is right, though the consequences are the same for everyone either way.
A believer (we can dispense with the fatalist, let's consider only those believers who are positive in their faith) believes in what he cannot see. The problem is not that he has belief (this is no different from the agnostic). The problem is that he draws conclusions with no basis that lead to largely erroneous beliefs. Now, every believer stands the chance of being right. It's possible Christians are right; it's also possible the Heaven's Gate cult was rescued by aliens as they claimed. But by virtue of the dogmatic nature of the believer, he closes himself off to all other possibilities. This is like being in a room with 100 exits, 99 of which lead to death, 1 of which leads to salvation. The believer chooses his door and says "I'm sure this is the right one." Now it's possible that he is right, but generally chances are far better that he's deluding himself and greatly reducing his own chances at finding whatever meaning there is in life.
An agnostic has belief. An agnostic can even believe in God. The difference between the agnostic and the theist is not that one believes and the other doesn't, it's that the theist jumps to irrational conclusions and the agnostic does not. An Agnostic can very much believe in the existence of God, but he does not believe God's nature can be known.
I'm an agnostic, and I generally believe in the existence of God (in the sense of there being something higher.) I believe this for many reasons. On one level there is the matter of what seems reasonable to me (I personally find some form of creation more feasible than current scientific explanations), but on a far deeper level I believe in some form of God because I often have moments when I feel that everything is so beautiful and so perfect and so at one that what we see cannot be the limit of existence (a minor peak experience). But now, this doesn't mean I know what God is. It means I only accept that a higher being exists (though I am always open to the possibility my mind is playing tricks on me and we just become worm food). I cannot say what this being is like, and what its intentions are for me or anyone else. So I live my life with the goal of happiness in mind, taking *into* account that I believe there's something higher.
Now, you could say to this "well the believer is no different; he experiences God to a greater degree so he knows what it is to a greater degree". But it's not the same, because the believer accepts dogma that is not his own. That is, no Christian has himself walked on water, and for some reason very few believers nowadays claim to speak to God (and those that do are almost invariably suffering from some psychological ailment). In other words, feeling at one with the universe and your fellow humans can lead you to say, "right, I think God exists and suffuses us all, and how wonderful that is, and I now find more meaning in life" but it does *not* logically follow that you think "right, this same being must have spoken to Jesus or Mohammed in the past and delivered his commandments through them, and so these actions are bad, and these actions are good, and this is heaven, and this is hell, and that's how it is". This is what the agnostic rebels against; not the rational interpretation of personal experience and consequent formation of non-dogmatic beliefs, but the irrational acceptance of dogma.
Tal (4/5)