The below are excerpts of one exchange with an agnostic friend of mine, on the subject of good and evil...I start by asking him:

As an agnostic, how would you distinguish between 'good' and 'evil'?  What criteria would you use to determine this?
In case you're wondering what Bertrand Russell (my friend quoted the Cambridge philosopher at one time, and even later in this correspondence) said when asked a similar question, he answered, "I feel it, of course".  Would that be your answer too?
Because note that if you cannot even lay down an objective standard of reference for determing 'good' and 'bad', then your entire paragraph above becomes pointless - why complain about 'bad' things happening if you can't even say for sure what's good and what's bad?

In fact, if you believe (like he said he did) that 'there is no right or wrong answer', then you've just about shut yourself out from discovering what's good or bad, right?  For e.g. "Is terrorism good or bad?".  Let's say your answer is "It's bad".  But then if there is really no right or wrong answer, so are we saying that blowing up buildings could be 'good' because there's really no answer...?

(If I use Bertrand Russell's explanation, then can I say that if I feel that extortion is morally good, then does that make it so?  And if not, why not?)
 

"Being agnostic (in my definition) means I believe the existence of a God described by the Bible, Koran , Veda or Sutra is not or can't be proven.  I do believe in a creator but certainly not as explained in the Bible.  Thus agnostics are not 'playing it safe'; they simply think that it's a waste of time to seek something that can't be proven..."

Just a coupla questions here:

1.  How did you come to the conclusion that all the views presented by the different faiths are not true?  How much have you even examined the various doctrines presented?  How sure are you that your conclusion isn't really a presupposition that itself needs evaluating?

2.  What alternative viewpoint would you put forward?  If the creator as explained in the Bible is - as you seem to suggest - 'certainly' not the correct one (and I'm only assuming that you understand the attributes of the Biblical Creator sufficiently, which I doubt), then what creator do you believe in?  What are his/her/its/their attributes, goals, and reasons for creating the universe?  And can you validate your beliefs i.e. give some reason as to why people should prefer your viewpoint as  opposed to those which have been accepted for millenia?

3.  What proofs about God would be 'enough' for you?  If it's a divine manifestation (like some kind of heavenly figure appearing at the foot of your bed - and I'm not saying that it's what you want), then are you sure that it will convince you?  In fact, do you even have some formulation of what it is you want as proof?

4.  Are you aware of the various problems with your own world-view?  Surely you don't believe it is fool-proof?

I'll just give one example of no.4.  Very often people may complain about God and the problem of evil, but I'd like to see agnostics attempt to even justify the quesion from within their own
belief-system.  I think you can't, but I hope you can convince me I'm wrong.  How would you even define evil?  And why?

"I observe that a very large portion of human race does not believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And if there is a God, I think it very unlikely that he would have such and uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence.  (Bertrand Russell)"

I haven't read Russell at all, but he'd be sorely mistaken if he thinks that non-belief in God is necessarily and always correlated with 'visible punishment in consequence'!  Maybe he should've considered the mercy of God in holding back His judgment, but then again if and when He does judge people there's always the possibility of screaming, "You cruel God!", right?

Another thing Russell needed to be told is that God does NOT have such 'uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence'.  It's not 'uneasy vanity' which causes the hurt, friend, it's LOVE - know the difference?
 

"The truth is out there - but not necessarily to be found"

I'd like to ask where you've been looking (not to Bertrand Russell, I hope?!  Why him?!), and how hard you've looked.  However, I see that somehow you 'found' the 'truth' that : "The truth is not necessarily to be found", eh?

How do you know that's true, if the truth is 'not necessarily to be found'?  ;>)
 
 

AL


Back to Main Page