Who is an agnostic?

What is an agnostic? - Essay by Bertrand Russell (1953)

From Wikipedia – The Free Encyclopedia In Hebrew וin English: Bertrand Russell lived between 1872-1970, was a philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, pacifist, supported social reform, and vacillated between the theological views of agnostics and atheists. In 1950, Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature, "as a token of appreciation for his special writing and his work in humanitarian fields and freedom of thought". The article "What is an Agnostic?" Published in 1953.

What is an agnostic?
An agnostic thinks that it is not possible to know the truth in matters related to God and the future of life [or the soul], the matters that preoccupy Christianity and other religions. Or, if not completely impossible, then impossible in the present, at the moment [a position known as weak agnosticism].

Are agnostics atheists?
No. An atheist, like a Christian, believes that we can know whether or not God exists. The Christian believes that we can know that there is a God; The atheist - that we can know that there is not. The agnostic withholds judgment, he says there is not enough evidence to confirm or disprove. At the same time, an agnostic may think that the existence of some god, though not impossible, is highly improbable; He may even think that such an existence is so improbable, that it is not at all appropriate to consider it practically. In that case, he is not so far from atheism. His attitude is perhaps similar to that of a cautious philosopher towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the other Olympian gods did not exist, I would be at a loss, certainly to find a decisive and final argument. An agnostic might think that the Christian God is as unlikely as the gods on Olympus; In that case he is, in all practical respects, in the same boat as the atheists.

Since you deny the "laws of God", what authority do you accept as a guide to behavior?
An agnostic does not assume any 'authority' over him, in the sense that religious people assume one. He believes that man must think about behavioral questions himself. Of course, he will seek to learn from the wisdom of others, but he will be forced to choose for himself the people he considers wise, and even their words he will not treat as if they were indisputable. He will notice that what is commonly thought of as "God's laws" changes from time to time. The Bible says that a widow must not marry her dead husband's brother, and also, under certain circumstances, she must do so. If you had the unfortunate fate of being a childless widow with a bachelor brother-in-law, you cannot (logically) avoid breaking the "laws of God".

How do you know what is good and what is evil? What does the agnostic consider a sin?
Unlike some Christians, the agnostic is not so sure what is good and what is evil. He does not believe that people who disagree with the government on obscure [difficult, unclear] points in theology deserve to suffer a painful death, as most Christians used to think. He is against persecution, and his attitude towards moral condemnation is quite cautious and selective.

As for 'sin', he believes that it is not a very useful concept. He will agree, of course, that there are desirable and undesirable ways of behaving. But he holds the opinion that the undesirable types of behavior should be punished only if the purpose of such punishment is deterrence or for the purpose of corrective behavior, and not when the punishment is the result of the mindset that believes that the punishment is a good deed for its own sake - that the wicked must suffer and fast. It was the belief in retributive punishment that made mankind accept hell. This is part of the damage done as a result of the idea of ​​'sin'.
Does an agnostic do whatever he wants?
On the one hand, no; On the other hand, everyone does as much as they can. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that you hate someone so intensely that you want to murder them. Why don't you do that? You might answer: "Because religion tells me that murder is a sin." But, as a proven statistical fact, agnostics are no more likely to commit murder than other people, in fact, they are slightly less likely to do so. They have motives to avoid murder, just like the rest of the people. At the top of the list is the fear of punishment. In lawless situations, such as the gold rush, many people will commit crimes even though under normal conditions they would obey the laws. The deterrence is not from the legal punishment alone; There is also the discomfort and the constant fear of discovery, and the loneliness of knowing that you have to wear a mask even among your dearest and closest to you, in order to avoid being hated. In addition to all of these there is also what can be called a "conscience": if you have ever considered murder, you will be wary of the horrible memory of your victim's last words or dead body. Granted, these all depend largely on the fact that you live in a law-abiding community, but there are ample reasons for creating and maintaining such a community.

I said that there is another sense in which each person does as much as he can. Only the fool will want every urge or satisfy every impulse, but what restrains that desire? another desire. Man's antisocial wishes may be restrained by the wish to please God, but they can also be restrained by the wish to please his fellows, or to gain the respect of his community, or to be able to think for himself without feeling sick. But if he has no wishes of this kind, the abstract ideas of morality will not prevent him from deviating from the straight path.

What is the agnostic's attitude towards the Bible?
The attitude of the agnostic towards the Bible is no different from the attitude of an enlightened priest towards it. He does not think it is a divine revelation; He believes that this is ancient legendary history, and in that sense no more accurate or correct than the writings of Homer; He holds the opinion that the moral commands, as they are expressed there, are sometimes good, but sometimes very bad. For example: Shmuel commanded Saul, during a war, to kill not only every man, woman and child of the enemy, but also all the sheep and cattle. but Saul left the sheep and cattle alive, and that is why we are told to speak against him. Personally, I have never been able to admire Elisha for this who cursed the children who laughed at him, or to believe (as the Bible claims) that a benevolent question will send two bears to kill the children.

What is the attitude of the agnostic towards Jesus, the virgin birth, or the Holy Trinity?
Since an agnostic does not believe in God, he cannot think that Jesus was God. Most agnostics admire the life and moral preaching of Jesus, as told in the books of the Christian gospel (The Gospels), but not necessarily more than other people's lives or sermons. Some would place him in the same line with Buddha, some in the same line with Socrates, and others with Abraham Lincoln. Nor will the agnostics hold the view that his words are not open to discussion and debate, since they do not accept any authority as absolute.

As for the virgin birth, they see it as a doctrine taken from mythology the pagan - Name Such births were not uncommon especially. (spoken Zoroaster born a virgin; Ishtar, the Mesopotamian goddess, is called "the Holy Virgin".) Agnostics cannot believe in the phenomenon, or the doctrine of the Trinity, because neither is possible without belief in God.

Can an agnostic be a Christian?
The word "Christian" carried a different meaning in different periods. During most of the centuries, since the time of the crucified, the word meant a person who believed in God and immortality, and who held the belief that the crucified was God. but The Unitarians They call themselves Christians, even though they do not believe in the holiness of the cross, and these days many people use the word "God" in a less precise sense than the one it carried until now. Many people who say they believe in God today do not mean a person or personality, or a trinity of people or personalities, but only a vague trend of power or purpose inherent in the process of evolution. Others, who go even further, see "Christianity" as nothing more than a set of moral rules, and because they are ignorant of history, imagine that it is unique and characterizes only Christians.

When I wrote, in a recently published book, that all the world needs is "love, Christian love, or compassion," many people thought this indicated changes in my worldview, although in truth, I might have said the same at any other time. If by "Christian" you mean a person who loves his neighbor, a person who sympathizes with suffering, who passionately desires a world free from the cruelty and abominations that corrupt it in the present, then absolutely, rightly one can be called a Christian. Also, in this sense, I think you will find many more "Christians" among the agnostics and among the Orthodox. Unfortunately, from my point of view, I cannot accept such a definition. Apart from a few other objections, it would be rude to Jews, Buddhists, Moslems, and other non-Christians, who, as history so far shows, have been no less concerned than Christians in the practice of those virtues, which some modern Christians arrogantly claim as the uniqueness of their religion.

Also, I think that all those who called themselves Christians in the past, and a large majority of those who call themselves that today, would consider belief in God and immortality to be an essential part of the Christian person. For these reasons, I will not call myself a Christian, and for the same reasons I will say that an agnostic cannot be a Christian. But, if the word "Christianity" were to evolve and somehow be used in the sense of nothing more than a type of morality, then it would certainly be possible for an agnostic to also be a Christian.

Does an agnostic deny that man has a soul?
This question has no precise meaning unless we define the word "soul." I assume it means, roughly speaking, something immaterial that exists consistently throughout one's life and even forever, for those who believe in immortality. If this is the intention, it is unlikely that an agnostic would believe that man has a soul. But I hasten to add that this does not mean that the agnostic is necessarily from a materialist. Many agnostics (and I am among them) are skeptical of the existence of the body as well as the existence of a soul, but this is a long story that will lead us into complicated metaphysics. Both thought and matter, he says, are only convenient symbols for discourse, not things that actually exist.

Does the agnostic believe in the afterlife, heaven or hell?
The question 'Do people survive death?' It is the type of question where evidence can be presented. Many consider psychics and spiritualism to be movements that provide such evidence. An agnostic, as such, does not hold an opinion about survival or non-survival unless he thinks there is evidence for one side or the other. For my part, I do not think there is good reason to believe that we survive death, but I am open to persuasion if sufficient evidence comes to light.

Heaven and hell are another matter. Belief in hell is closely related to the belief that retributive punishment of sin is a good thing, quite independently of the behavioral correction or deterrent effect that may or may not accompany such punishment. There is almost no agnostic who believes this. As for heaven, it is possible to imagine a situation in which sometime in the future evidence will be discovered as to its existence through spiritualism, but most agnostics think that such evidence does not exist, and as a result do not believe in the existence of heaven.

Aren't you afraid of God's judgment for denying his existence?
definitely not. I also deny the existence of Zeus and Jupiter and Odin and Brahma, but this does not cause me any qualms. I observe that a very large portion of the human race do not believe in God and yet suffer no visible punishment as a result. Also, if there was a God, I think it is unlikely that he would be so proud that he would be offended by those who doubt his existence.

How does the agnostic explain the beauty and harmony of nature?
I do not understand where the spoken "beauty" and "harmony" are supposed to be found. Along the food chain, the animals prey on each other mercilessly. Most animals are brutally killed by other animals or suffer the prolonged agony of starvation. For my part, I am unable to see any great beauty, or wonderful harmony in a tapeworm. Please do not say that this creature was sent as a punishment for our sins, because it is more common among the animals than among the people. I guess the questioner is thinking about things like the beauty of the starry sky. But we must remember that the stars, from time to time and on not a few occasions, explode and reduce everything near them to a hazy dot. Anyway, beauty is a subjective matter that is only in the eye of the beholder.

How does the agnostic explain miracles and other revelations of the Shekinah's unlimited capacity?
Agnostics believe that there is no evidence of "miracles" of any kind, in the sense of phenomena that contradict the laws of nature. We know that faith healing happens and that it is not miraculous, by any means. B-Lourdes [a city famous for the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and for the miracles that occur there], some diseases are curable and others are not. Those that can be relaxed in Lourdes can probably be relaxed anywhere else where the patient has full confidence in his doctor. As for the records of other miracles, as Joshua who commanded the sun to stand still, the agnostic dismisses them as fables and points to the fact that all religions are full of such fables. There are at least the same number of testimonies to the powers of the Greek gods in the writings of Homer, as the number of testimonies to the Christian God in the Bible.

There were vile and cruel passions to which religion opposed. If we abandon religious principles, will humanity be able to exist?
The existence of vile and cruel passions is not in doubt, but I find no evidence in history that religion has opposed such passions. On the contrary, she sanctified them, thus allowing people to comply with them without any remorse. Cruel persecutions used to be more common in the Christian kingdom than anywhere else. The justification for persecution, it seems, is dogmatic belief. Kindness and tolerance will increase only in proportion to the decline of dogmatic belief. In our time, a new dogmatic religion arose, let's say, Communism. To this religion, as to other dogmatic systems, the agnostic opposes. The persecutory nature of communism today is just like the persecutory nature of Christianity in previous centuries. And the fact that Christianity became less persecutory, which must be attributed to the free thinkers who reduced the dogmatism of the dogmatist. If these were dogmatists in these days as they were in the past, they would still think it right to put a heretic on the stake. The spirit of tolerance, which some modern Christians see as the essence of Christianity, is actually the product of a mindset that allows doubt and is suspicious of absolute certainties. I think anyone who examines history impartially will find that religion has caused more suffering, not prevented it.

For an agnostic, what is the meaning of life?
I feel obliged to answer through another question: What is the meaning of 'the meaning of life'? I guess the intention is some kind of general purpose. I don't think life in general has any purpose. They just happen. But human beings as individuals have goals, and there is nothing in agnosticism that would make them abandon those goals. Of course, there is no guarantee that they will be able to achieve the results they are aiming for; But you will not look kindly on a soldier who is ready to fight only on the condition that victory is certain. The man who needs religion to support his own ends is a fool, and I cannot think well of him as the man who takes his chances, even when he admits that defeat is not impossible.

Doesn't the rejection of religion entail the rejection of marriage and chastity?
Here too, I must answer with another question: Does the person asking this question believe that marriage and chastity contribute to earthly happiness, here below, or does he think that while they cause misery here below, they should be advocated as a means to reach heaven? The person who holds the second view will, no doubt, expect that agnosticism will lead to the decline of what he calls good measure. But he will have to admit that the thing he calls good measure does not contribute to the happiness of the human race on earth. If, on the other hand, he holds the first opinion, we suppose, that there are external arguments in favor of marriage and chastity, he will have to admit that the arguments are such as would appeal to the agnostic. Agnostics, as such, do not hold definite views regarding sexual morality. But most will admit that there are valid arguments against unbridled gratification of sexual desires. But they will arrive at these arguments through external sources, and not through any assumption of divine commands.

Is belief in opinion alone not dangerous? Isn't the mind defective and imperfect without spiritual and moral laws?
No sane person, however agnostic, has "faith in opinion alone." The mind deals with facts, how distinct and how hard. The questions whether there is life after death, and whether there is a God, refer to matters of fact, and the agnostic will hold the opinion that they should be investigated in the same way as the question, "Will there be an eclipse of the sun tomorrow?" But facts alone are not enough to determine actions, because they do not reveal to us what goals we should strive for. On the level of goals, we need something other than the mind. The agnostic will find his goals in his own heart, and not in external commands. Let's illustrate things: suppose you want to take a train from New York to Chicago; You will use your mind to find out when the trains are running, and the person who thinks he has some faculty of reason or intuition that allows him to ignore the timetable will be considered a fool. But no timetable will tell him that this is wise, he will have to take into account other matters related to the facts; But behind all the facts there are the goals that he considers worthy, and these, for the agnostic as for other people, belong to a different plane than that of the mind, even though there is no reason for them to be opposed. The plane I'm talking about is the plane of emotions, feelings and passions.

הIf you see all religions as a kind of superstition or dogma? Of the existing religions, which religion do you have the most respect for, and why?
All major organized religions that dominated large populations were tainted to one degree or another by dogmatism, but "religion" is a word without a particularly precise meaning. Confucianism, for example, may be called a religion, although it is not related to any dogma. Even in some forms of liberal Christianity, the dogmatic element is reduced to a minimum.

Of all the great religions of history, I prefer Buddhism, especially in its earliest forms, because there was the least element of persecution.

Like agnosticism, communism is also opposed to religion. Are the agnostics communists?
Communism is not opposed to religion. He only opposes the Christian religion, just like Islam. Communism, at least in the form supported by the Soviet government and the Communist Party, is a new dogmatic system, of a strange, particularly violent and oppressive kind. Therefore, every true agnostic must oppose it.

Does the agnostic think that science and religion cannot be reconciled?
The answer depends on the question, what is meant by "religion." If the intention is a purely moral system, it can be reconciled with science. If the intention is a system of dogma, which is considered a truth that cannot be doubted, then it is contrary to the scientific spirit, which refuses to accept facts without evidence and holds the opinion that absolute certainty is almost always impossible.

What evidence will convince you that God exists?
I think that if I were to hear a voice from heaven predicting everything that was going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours, including events that seem very improbable, and if all these events were to occur, then I might be convinced of the existence of some superhuman intelligence. I can imagine other such evidence that might convince me, but to my knowledge no such evidence exists.