Agnostics with a moral compass. In this post I’ll be sticking with my theme of yesterday, related to the lecture I gave at NYU, two nights ago now, about how the Bible deals with the problem of suffering. At the end of the lecture I indicated that I have a view of suffering related to that set out in the book of Ecclesiastes. The author of Ecclesiastes, claiming to be king of Solomon (even though he was living many centuries later) stressed that life is short. It is here for a little while and then gone – and that our view of how to live should be controlled by that uncomfortable but very real fact.
For this author there is no obvious justice in the here and now. Righteous people suffer and the wicked often prosper. And the injustice of this life will not be made up in the afterlife since, for this author, there is probably not going to *be* an afterlife. This life is all there is. Which is why, for him, “a live dog is better than a dead lion.” (!)
Can You Be Morally Agnostic?
If it’s true this life is all there is, and that it will not be with us for long, how then shall we live? For this author, we should cherish life for as long as we have it, enjoying what we eat and drink, enjoying our work, enjoying our relatives, and presumably, our friends. We won’t live forever. We won’t even live long. And so we should enjoy it as much as we can for as long as we can.
As I pointed out yesterday, I agree absolutely whole heartedly with this view. But I also think (something Ecclesiastes doesn’t get into) that it is impossible to enjoy life to the fullest if we are completely self-centered egotists who care only for wild enjoyment and don’t give a damn about anyone else. That’s a miserable way to live.
In my opinion, the only way *fully* to enjoy the good things we have is to share them with others. And it is impossible to relish the good things in life if we know that others are in need but we do nothing to help them out.
Agnostics with a Moral Compass
I was thinking after my lecture that there were two things that surprised me when I became an agnostic, some 18 or 19 years ago now I suppose. (More? Less? I don’t remember: it’s not like my “born again” experience in high school that I remember with precision.) The first thing that really surprised me was just how *militant* both agnostics and atheists are about the terms they use for themselves. I always thought, as a Christian, that they were basically the same thing or at least that they commonly made common cause against everyone else. Wrong. Agnostics tend to shake their heads at disbelief at atheists and atheists tend to look down their nose at agnostics.
The term “agnosticism” literally means “one who doesn’t know.” And typically it is thought that an agnostic is someone who says she doesn’t “know” whether or not there is a superior divine power in the universe. The atheist, on the other hand, in this traditional view, is someone who says definitively that there is not such divine power. And what I found after becoming an agnostic myself is that all atheists seem to think that agnostics are simply wimply atheists
Afraid to say what they *really* think, unwilling to live up to the courage of their convictions…and all agnostics think that atheists are simply arrogant agnostics (since, really, they don’t know either!).
Atheism and Agnosticism are Different
Since then I’ve come to realize – as I indicated in a posting long ago now – that agnosticism and atheism are in fact dealing with two different things: knowledge (agnosticism) and belief (atheism). An agnostic doesn’t know if there is a god; and an atheist doesn’t believe that there is. And so it is possible to be both at once, depending on whether you are classifying yourself according to what you know or what you believe.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!