Writing Studies 3302 Spring 2009

I, myself an agnostic, agreed with almost and pretty close to everything that Ingersoll had to say. His comments and thoughts did not seem to be in anyway disrespectful to the church but rather an unclear understanding of how typical church-goers and believers of God act and preach their beliefs to others. Ingersoll mentioned how he believes that many children are forced to be a certain religion. Although I understand that from a religious perspective it is a parent’s responsibility to teach their child what they know and share their beliefs I also think it is important for parent’s to be open minded. I have always had the hopes of someday teaching my own children, and giving them the option of learning about different religions. I believe it is the only way to make a decision. However, is anyone really able to teach about many different religions and somehow leave out Atheism? I do not believe that Atheism is a good belief system. An open mind and a willingness to accept other religions and others’ views of religion is an important aspect in any kind of religious discussion. I have found it very hard to have conversations with those who are unable to say, “I see where you are coming from.� They do not have to agree, but rather try and understand why I am a bit skeptical of religion. I also have a difficult time understanding many people and their religious practices because, like Ingersoll said, many people begin to pray and go to church when things get hard. However, as soon as things begin to go back to normal their dedicated religious practices are often put on the back burner. Unfortunately many people confuse agnostics with atheists and it is a sad mistake because many people begin to change their opinion of those who are really agnostics but are believed to be atheists. Although we can never truly understand religion because it is the definition of faith, it is unfortunate that the we are unable to live a good, compassionate, willing-to-help-others lifestyle and still know that when our day comes and if all of us skeptics find out that we lived our lives wrong about religion that we may not be considered for a happy ending like the believers.

As I was reading the comments and thoughts of Robert Ingersoll and of the other agnostics, it seemed like there was a lot of criticism of all of the bad things that are a part of this world. Ingersoll says that he can't see believing in a God when famine, death and tragedy continue to exist, and we call our God caring and merciful. God however does not define everything that happens in our world because of free will. He also claims that our faith is not based it fact, which may be a true statement, however, I feel that the main reason that God does not simply show us that he exists is because he is again giving us a choice to believe and take the right road, or to go our own way and pretend that we know what is best for ourselves. When Ingersoll talks about living in the present and having a creed for this life and coming up with a creed for whatever lies beyond this world when we get there, he fails to see that one world is highly dependent on the next and that what he do now will greatly effect what happens in the next world. I feel that many of the thoughts and feelings of these agnostics are very humanistic and put what is best for the individual ahead of what is best in Gods eyes. I guess if I didn't have belief in God that is the way that I would live also. As far as people not going to heaven if they live a "good" life and just don't believe in God, I believe that this is a case of thinking that our acts are what define our souls. Although deeds may be what define us to other people, our faith, thoughts, and how we act on them is what I see as being truly important to the afterlife.

I personally find it very difficult to find where I stand on the topic of God’s existence and the relevance of religion. As I read Ingersoll’s opinions, I found myself agreeing with the majority of claims he makes about the existence of God and the fear that seems to go hand in hand with a strict religious existence. The great majority of my family identify themselves as agnostics of varying degrees. Some chose to just live a life with no religious affiliation while others strictly believe that no God exists at all. The ways my family’s beliefs have affected my own bring me to strongly agree with the first point of Ingersoll’s essay. The author explains how the opinions and ideals of children strongly reflect upon the ideals of their parents, although these children will modify and evolve these ideas over time. My ideas are not quite like those of my parents, yet they are similar. I also find myself identifying with what the author says about the constant presence of fear in religion. Essentially, I feel that people are taught to have faith in God through fear of God. If our only options after death are Heaven and Hell, it seems obvious that what all people will chose is the option that is not described as a place of eternal pain and suffering. Although I do not affiliate with a specific religion, I do have religious beliefs. Ingersoll makes a point that a person cannot simply be welcomed to Heaven even if they live a decent and honest life. I personally find myself sometimes frightened that, in the case that Heaven and Hell exist, I will be shunned from the better because it could be argued that since I do not know if I believe in everything that encompasses a religion such as Christianity, I do not have faith. I feel that humans will never know exactly what defines faith, and what makes a person good. Who do you need to have faith in to be accepted in the afterlife? There are so many countless aspects and views on different religions, how do we know which is the right one and how do we ensure that we do not make an honest mistake somewhere in our lives and by doing so prove to whomever judges us in the end that we do not have enough faith.

Today I am. I think the previous statement puts Ingersoll's thoughts and arguments into perspective. Ingersoll questions the existence of God with clear validity in his points. I think Ingersoll is right in declaring the "the time to be happy is now". The concept of heaven and hell is not matter of science or fact, but rather a matter of personal efficacy and self justification. Ultimately, I think the concept of heaven only serves to bring comfort in the realization of mortality. After all, Ingersoll writes being honest, generous, brave and moral were tickets to hell. If God exists, I want to know how faith is justified; what purpose does faith in God serve in this life? Is it so one can go "live" in heaven; a mysterious utopia in the clouds? If God was true, faith wouldn't be necessary. I believe, faith in a God serves as a means for self justification of hell. If God exists, and free will exists, then one should be able to have control over their justification in life of life and its ending.

In response to Russel's part on First Cause, I think a true beginning is impalpable to humans. As for life on earth, many attribute God as the creator, the first cause. I think humans try to fill the intangible by creating tangible evidence. This is where God seems to come in. God seems to be a tangible idea for humans' void in understanding. This insinuates God is created by humans. Humans are reluctant to attribute things to chance, but rather to a higher perceived force. I think the concept of chance explains human existence. Random events led to humanity, uninfluenced by outside forces. Chance is the "first cause".

Truth be told, I had never heard of an Agnostic before these readings and recordings. The article I found most useful and informative was Russell's "What is an Agnostic?" I liked how he explained not only what Agnostics are and their beliefs but also but them in context with other religions and compared them. It was interesting to me how he differentiated them from Atheists, in that Atheists believe that we can know that there is not a God, whereas Agnostics believe we can not know whether there is or isn't. But what lost me was when he discussed nature and harmony. It is easy to use examples from nature to support any religious belief, in this case that since some animals are prey and others predators there isn't any beauty in nature because hunting is not considered beautiful. But when someone uses nature to prove a religious theory, they are establishing criterion that don't actually appear in nature, namely ethics and morals. Is it right for one animal to hunt another? No, not be definition of right and wrong. But on the other hand, what if that animal chose not to hunt and ultimately killed itself because of it's selflessness? Is that right? The point I'm getting at is that their are no morals, ethics, or faith in nature. There is just balance and equilibrium. The fact that he did not understand this simple truth makes it seem to me that Agnostics, through some event or upbringing in their youth, just want to reject and find dissenting truth against traditional Church law and order and God. Stated another way, they are playing devil's advocate because they do not "feel the presence of god as they believe the Church says they should." And just a side note, I am not a religious freak-nut or prejudice against any faith or a psychology wizard. These thoughts are just from my personal experience and analysis of the readings.

Bertrand Russell commented in the section of his paper titled “The Argument for the Remedying of Injustice� that most people believe what they believe based on what they have been taught from birth. I think that this point has a lot of validity, and it reaches a question that I have always had about the way Christianity deals with heaven and hell. It is very clear that people tend toward the religious beliefs of their parents; what else can describe the geographic distribution of religion? If people truly spontaneously decided on a religion at x point in their lives, and they could choose any one, wouldn’t there be more of an even distribution of religions throughout the world? It is clear that the majority of people just believe what the people around them believe. If you grow up around Buddhists, you are Buddhist, if you grow up around Muslims, you too are Muslim. The question that this brings up for the Christian religions is why it is that so many are sent to hell when they have never been given the opportunity to believe otherwise. Heaven as Christians believe in it must be a very homogeneous place; there are billions of people on other parts of the globe that are never exposed to other religions. They simply believe what they do because of their environment, yet they are sentenced to eternal damnation…? This is a question I have long had for believers in heaven and hell, and I am still looking for the answer.

I have read somewhere that proof of God would bring down religion because faith is based on the idea of believing something without having evidence. Russell brings up the point that he could be convinced of a “superhuman�’s existence by having a voice come down from the sky and predict everything that will happen to him that day; however unlikely, and have it all happen. However, I believe that this undermines the idea of faith and having belief in a higher power.
Another idea that Russell brought up was that people who desperately defend and cling to religion end up creating horrible circumstances. There is famine and genocide happening all over the world, yet how can a supposedly caring God let this happen? Many may argue that there is the issue of willpower and that however much power an omnipotent presence has, willpower will overcome that. However, there are situations documented in the bible where God intervenes. If God is willing to lead the slaves out of Egypt, why couldn’t he have given the Jews and other persecuted groups a way out of the holocaust? The battle over Israel and Palestine has been going on for hundreds of years, and each defends their right to the land due to religious reasons. What I do not understand is how they can defend their religious history by committing sins such as murder. In this way, I agree with Russell that clinging to religion and dogmatic belief can, in certain cases, be detrimental to the progression of humanity.

I too would fall under the chatagory of agnostic. I really do not beleive in a God, but I like to think there is something more intelegent or just as intelegent as humans. I really don't know what it could be, some life form outside of our planet or maybe something with in our planet, who knows it could be a virus. Maybe the fact that we may never know is what draws me to agree with the agnostic out look more then atheism or theism.
Ingersoll made some very relevent observations during the time he was alive. What shocked me is how little you hear about him in an American History class, as he seemed to have some sort of an impact on the government becasue he had a different view point. It helps me sleep better at night knowing that not all the "founding fathers" were Christian.
This American Life, with Julia Sweeney was what hit home with me. My father was raised Catholic in South Phillie, this means he went to a Catholic school up through high school and was taught by Nuns. So even though we never really praticed or went to many Catholic sermons it still rubs off on you. Listening to Sweeney made me recall some of the things that made me wonder if there was really a God. From my observation as well, it seems that many people who were raised Catholic, or with some influence, seem to agnostic or atheist. This too could just be my family, friends and Julia Sweeney.

After reading these articles and listening to the recordings, I think that I would consider myself an “optimistic� agnostic. The more that I study the Christian religion, the more I find myself doubting it. This process has occurred through my experience studying abroad, through reading articles, and through talking with others. Although I have come to doubt the Christian faith, I cannot write off a higher power all together. I agree with these readings that the idea of hell is inconsistent with the claims of an all-loving God. I cannot believe that an all-loving God would believe that being a good person is simply a “respectful way of going to hell�. If there is a God, I think that He is a God that would not punish otherwise “good� people just because they did not do the things that man-made religion told them was necessary.
When I was young, I was very Christian. I agree with the readings that humans are sculpted by their environment and they grow from different experiences. I believe that humans must challenge their beliefs, regardless of what they are, rather than blindly accept that which they have grown up with. Even if one ends up back at the same religion or belief with which they started, I think that their faith (or lack there of?) will be much stronger than before. And since I would argue that these beliefs are part of the foundation of every individual, it only makes sense to strengthen this foundation as much as possible.

The problem I have with the selected agnostics in today’s readings is their failure to recognize the reason (dare I say legitimacy) of religion. Russell talks about fear as the foundation of religion, which is fair, but fails to explore it fully, focusing only on this basis as being what religious cruelty stems from. I think that we must extend his brief paragraph as follows: first, there exists a fear which stems from man’s innate fallibility/mortality—our inability to fully understand the workings of the world and to orient ourselves as infinitesimal beings in an infinite, (seemingly) chaotic universe. Religion serves, then, as a means to orient ourselves, a means to order chaos and infuse seemingly unjust/chaotic facts of life (i.e. war, famine, general suffering) with meaning. Religion is a system, existing both on an individual and social level that functions not only spiritually but also secularly. If we view religion in this light, at least momentarily, we see that religion has a validity that our agnostics fail to grant it. Religion is (on one level) a means of coping with our own nature, arguably as valid as anything else. This said, however, I have equal problem with religious doctrine. I simply don’t agree with the all-encompassing demonization of religion, and its failure to function in the good/evil dichotomy of the world put forth in these pieces.

On bad days, when I’m absolutely certain that no supernatural power or being could wish such horrible cruelties upon its subjects, I could fall under atheist. On optimistic days, when I really see no point in arguing about the potential existence of some higher power, I would consider myself agnostic.

I thoroughly enjoyed Robert Ingersoll’s reading. He has a strong ability to appeal to the majority’s sense of humanity and logic, while not being overtly offensive to the religious followers. I read through some of his other writings and speeches, and each one is filled with valid and logical arguments against the purpose, ideas, and teachings of religion.

In many ways, he is a true person of the people. He believes in being good and happy just for the sake of it, and isn’t prejudiced or tainted as many religious conservatives are.

“As long as man believes the bible to be infallible, that is his master. The civilization of this century is not the child of faith, but of unbelief—the result of free thought.�
Quoted from a lecture on Gods
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/8140/8140-h/8140-h.htm#gods

This American Life is also a great radio show, and had me laughing almost all the way through. The absurdity of some of the people mentioned throughout the show was astounding, especially in regards to the Georgia teacher who is practically assaulted by the school’s administration for teaching what is state required and her refusing to bow to insolence and ignorance.

After growing up catholic and living years without practicing any type of religion, I now claim to be an agnostic. I never enjoyed attending church. Maybe it was my own personal experience, but I was always at conflict of how the church shut out those that did not follow their doctrine. I was taught that God is supposed to love everyone. However, I watched my aunt be scorned for getting divorced, my gay friends judged and banished for their innate feelings, and I realized that I no longer wanted a relationship with this vengeful God. In my opinion, religion uses God as a means to justify their own biased opinions.

As I listened to Julia Sweeney, I found myself agreeing with her rationalizations. I also remember reading the bible as a child and as I grew older and closer to confirmation, I began to see the error of the bible's teaching. Families being forced to kill other family members, especially their children seemed to break the moral code fronted by christianity. I also found myself reaching out to God for all of the wrong reasons. If something went astray in my life then I found myself asking God to fix it rather than stepping up and doing it myself. God was no longer someone I turned to in order to strengthen my faith. Instead I realized that the bible did not provide teaching that were relatable to my life.

Although I cannot agree with everything that Ingersoll and Russell believe, I do admire the strength of their arguments; for both of them were at one point a believer in God. I was raised in a Lutheran family and I my ideas and beliefs were built on the preaching of our pastor and the enforcement of my parents; leaving no room for thoughts or objections of my own against Christianity. I developed very few concerns or oppositions to what I have been told to believe until quite recently. What I do strongly believe in, however, is that every human being has free will and is able to choose what paths they desire to take and possesses the ability to follow their own beliefs. Both Ingersoll and Russell seemed to be optimistic humanitarians but are deprived of religious faith.

Also, Ingersoll and Russell reflect on the content of the Bible to support their arguments. Granted that the Bible is a universal symbol that denotes the views of Christians, one must consider the historical context of the book. One should receive the stories from the Bible figuratively and not literally. There is little to no evidence to support the historical events that took place in order to prove the existence of God or a God. These ambiguous stories were meant to deliver a message or moral from God. I am convinced that as human beings we possess the desire to question all things already known or to desire to know all things. However, we are then relying on the possibility that we are not in control of this world, let alone our own lives, for we do not have the answer to everything. Science can only bring us so far into the unknown. This is when faith intervenes.

I have always enjoyed learning about religion, but even at a young age refused to believe in a heaven and hell. I was notorious in church for debating with my youth group leader. However, I still find myself more of an agnostic/process theologian than an atheist. I believe in a higher power, and I even take that as far as believing in the power of prayer. However, I am a fan of Bertrand Russell and his work promoting atheism and the questioning of Gods existence. In the article “Why I am not a Christian� and in “Why I am an Agnostic� both Ingersoll and Russell seem to find it troublesome that a supposed omni-benevolent, and omnipotent God could allow famine, war, and genocide to exist in our world. I believe God granted us freewill in order to gain knowledge from the human experience so that the next evolution of man can be that much closer to “God’s image�. God maybe all powerful in terms of creation and destruction, but God doesn’t physically exist the same way we do, and therefore can only be omnipresent spiritually. As to answering the question why doesn’t God intervene when seemingly bad things happen to seemingly good people? Without getting to in-depth, I would speculate that there are two reasons. One being that destiny of events exists, and in order for thing B to happen, thing A must precede it. The second being God given free will, and by granting us free will we grant omniscience to God. Since God is omnipresent, God is experiencing every event as it occurs in real time. I agree with what Ingersoll and Russell had to say about hell too. The fact that if we don’t believe, we will experience eternal pain brings to much nonsense into the realm of religion. Since I believe God experiences as we experience why in Gods name would God want to experience pain and punishment beyond what comes with being a human already?

Reading Russell’s comments in the article “What Is an Agnostic?� put a new perspective on the term Agnostic for me. In the past few years I was certain I had made the transition from Lutheran to Agnostic, but he has reaffirmed my beliefs unbelievably. His comments about sin, heaven and hell, and an afterlife are what I disagreed with. Perhaps it was just how I was raised, but to think that there is no place we go after our stay on Earth is staggering. With all the knowledge we accrue throughout our lifetime, and all the questions that go unanswered… it is tough to believe that there is not something else out there… some great beyond that we do not know of yet. I do not fully believe in the Christian theologies, but at the same time, there are many things that do not make enough sense to fully commit to. I do know that Ingersoll’s quote says it best; “Let us be true to ourselves -- true to the facts we know, and let us, above all things, preserve the veracity of our souls�. I cannot put a label on myself just yet, but I do know that ideas from both the Christian and Agnostic theologies have a certain aspect of appeal. I find that I do enjoy Ingersoll’s attitude more so than Russell’s does. Russell’s view seems much more conceited than Ingersoll’s does, much more narrow-minded. He seems more of an atheist. Overall, I enjoyed reading the articles though. It has helped to re-open my mind to the Christian ways again.

I found each of these pieces to be very thought provoking. The first thought that came up was the term Mohammedan. My original thought was that it was a term referring to Islamic people. Then I went to wikipedia and did a search of the term. I discovered that I was right but I also discovered much more. The term is actually considered derogatory in several respects. So, I find it quite interesting that these people who are talking about how evil religion is go about referring to a religion in that way. I think that agnostic or atheist people would have a better time relating to people if they did their best to not offend anyone in such a blatant way. The next provoking thing I found was how the priest who was trying to convince the women of the trueness of Christianity ended up relying on chanting in Latin in the end to purify her soul. He goes about talking about the bible and how she must view it in order to grow in faith but in the end uses something similar to exorcism which is banned by the church. I think that people who live religious lives are very interesting. I think that people who preach religion are simply lazy individuals who have mastered a way to live for free. This brings me to my third point. I recently saw a documentary about the life of Jesus in India. It was amazing. According to the documentary at age thirteen Jesus goes to India and learns all about Hinduism, Buddhism, and then eventually upsets the ruling class who then tries to assassinate him. So he comes back to Israel looking for relief and ends up getting into many problems. I could talk for quite awhile about the documentary but I am not going to. My point being that Jesus was not the son of God or anything like that. He was a yogi. People who wanted power used him. From the research I have done in the topic the individual largely responsible is Saint Peter. So, personally I love religion. I think that it is a wonderful thing that preaches the good in all people. However, it is often misused by those obsessed with power and needs to be purified if it will survive in the modern age. My question for the class discussion is how can we find a middle ground between religion and agnosticism? In conclusion, just say know to religion.

Ingersoll and Russell inadvertently define 'faith' by explaining why they are agnostic. Neither is able to accept or believe that which they do not have proof of, mainly God and the future life. Many Christians do not see conclusive proof that God and the future life exist, yet are still able to believe in both. Faith allows Christians to believe in both.

Russell tells us that an agnostic will look inwards for guidance about how to move forward. “The agnostic will find his ends in his own heart and not in an external command.� This is not to say that someone who believes in God and future life receives guidance only from external command. People believe in God (or a higher power) to varying degrees, and many who do are also guided by their own hearts and minds. “Finding ends in his own heart� is not exclusive to agnostics. It is possible for many people who believe in a higher power to be free thinkers as well. (Granted, there are believers who are not free thinkers, as Russell claims.)

Russell makes a very good point in his speech “Why I am Not a Christian� when he states “Most people believe in God because they have been taught . . . to do it, and that is the main reason.� I agree with Russell in this claim. Would I believe in God if I never heard that He may exist? If up to this point in my life I’d never been exposed to church, never heard of the Bible, and never been told about a higher power, I don’t think I’d suddenly come up with the idea that He existed. Would you?

While I was reading the Ingersoll article, I started to wonder why he claimed to be an Agnostic instead of an Atheist. All his views sounded very concrete, such as the Bible and its flaws in logic. Then towards the end of the article he firmly stated “I do not know� as to the answers to many questions that plague the natural world.

Most everything Ingersoll mentioned hit very close to my beliefs, as I also consider myself an Agnostic. One section that I really liked was Ingersoll’s advice to people with faith who attack an individual’s beliefs in the falsehood of the Bible and its teachings: “They should attack the geologists. They should deny the facts that have been discovered. They should launch their curses at the blaspheming seas, and dash their heads against the infidel rocks.� This quote stuck out to me because it is so true. There is evidence here on earth that blatantly proves history as the Bible tells it wrong. If only people would think for themselves and listen to the indisputable evidence that we hold within our grasps.

It's easy for me to read such things for I have been for awhile now. Russell has been a long time favorite of mine. Ingersoll hits it on the head when he says, "They did not reason or investigate." Where people just choose to believe without any depth of reasoning is exactly where I criticize.

Religion tends to tell you that the answers are already discovered and that it's just up to you to believe. Science tends to continue to ask questions about everything and never stops with blind faith. This is where I think the two clash drastically.

It's impossible for me to read these articles and not make sense of them. Ingersoll spells out many ridiculous claims such as living a completely virtuous and moral life, only to go to hell if no faith in God is involved.

Also, it's nice that Russell and Ingersoll passage the Bible's hypocrisy often.

While reading "Why I am an Agnostic," I realized that I was judging Ingersoll, and quite harshly at that. His repeated insistence that God is not benevolent made me rather angry. In fact I delayed responding so that I had time to calm down and respond objectively.

My response was driven by my religion, by my 'raisin', that all doubt is bad and disavowment is essentially deadly to the soul. 'God's capacity for goodness is infinite! There is no love to compare!' I thought. His evidence from the Old about God's cavalier destruction of peoples and the New's 'worse' eternal damnation are nothing compared to His mercy and compassion.

But I noted the evidence from the Old Testament *Cue clip from Prop 8 The Musical--"You pick and choose, well please choose love instead of hate!* and I thought, he is confusing God with religion. More specifically, how can we know that humans--being imperfect--misrepresented God's identity. 'Thou shalt not use God's name in vain' has often been taught as 'Don't say Jesus Christ when you trip!' but I've heard that that may have been meant to say 'Don't use God's name to justify your humane agendas' Most importantly, we are incapable of comprehending the mind of God.

As for the allegations of 'eternal damnation' the context at the time of Christ was not the same 'fiery Hell' we conjure up--the tortures of Hell were elaborated upon during the Middle Ages, when the human need to control others, under the guise of Religion, got way out of hand. The original Hell was the emotional pain of not being near the Being that loves us.

I think that the same problem exists in both religion and science...we believe we know everything. Theologians claim to know that the rich guy is in Hell, suffering terribly. (It is technically blasphemy of the darkest kind to judge others/to claim to know the mind of God, which seemed to be the reason Ingersoll spat God out) while a recent study showed many scientists are not as willing to accept being proven wrong as good science dictates they be.

And that brings us back to Agnosticism's basic tenant, that we just don't know. I don't know, but I believe.

The introduction of Why I am not a Christian highlights one of the main of reasons why I do not consider myself a Christian. That is, the shifting definition of Christianity and being a “Christian� through the times. In my view, this is one of the principle factors that deter me away from organized religion, specifically from the Christianity doctrine. Firstly, there are often many different denominations within a specific religion. In other words, there are as many different interpretations of the same exact religious text. In this sense, I wonder if God will allow for such discrepancies during His day of Judgment. If the answer is no, then I wonder which specific domination will be the lucky ones who make it to Heaven. If the answer is yes, then I wonder where He would draw the distinction between a “believer� and a “non-believer�. Will he allow those who didn’t believe in the Trinity, but nonetheless lead a very morally upright and spiritual life into Heaven? Lastly, at the “Judgment Day� Tribunal, how will Christians through the ages be judged? Will a man from contemporary society face the standards as the man who live during 500AD?

As if yesterday, I remember the first time I had doubt in God. It was the night before my first day of Kindergarten, actually. I remember having a scared, empty feeling. My interminable fear was so bad that I had to sleep on the floor in a sleeping bag in my parents’ bedroom. I kept thinking: What if there is no God? What is going to happen when I die? Will everything just stop? I don’t want to die! I could not tell my parents that I did not believe in God, so when they came to their bedroom in response to my crying, I told them it was because I was nervous about my first day of school (I’m sure I didn’t use the word “nervous,� as I was only five years old). I felt so alone. I cried myself to sleep.

Humans are the only beings (on earth) that have the ability to contemplate their eventual death. Deer, bears, ants, birds, grasshoppers – none of these beings knows that they will eventually die. As humans, we use religion to put ourselves at peace with death. We hope that maybe there will be something else after death, and therefore we adhere to faith. We can’t bear to believe that we are here for only a century at best and then after death, nothing, for all eternity thereafter. I agree with Ingersoll that we inherit our belief in religion from our parents. And then because of our visceral need to believe in a life after death, some of us maintain our faith. However, children eventually grow up. We eventually formulate our own opinions. And some of us eventually see the stories of the bible or the Quran or others as impossible to believe. In the end, we all take our own separate journey toward or away from faith, no matter what we were taught as children. I began my journey at only five years old.

The materials we reviewed for this week left me not unsatisfied, although I'm not dribbling with a need for another taste. Agnosticism seems to me the Mozzarella of the theological realm. I don't know what to do with it alone because it hasn't much flavor, and in the end it appears a cheese just the same.

I have nothing against the practice itself, in fact I agree almost completely with the way it manifests in the individual; as not just acceptance of the inability to know why everything occurs, and the humility that would logically be associated, but the overall disposition gives no justification to judge the character of others for reasons other than the observed negative effect of their actions as it to pertains to us as a whole.

That being said, I accept openly the acceptance and openness that appears to be a part of package, as well as the self-sufficiency and logic required of someone who does not openly accept anyone's word at face value. I think both of these can have very positive effects on a population and can lead to contentment in the individual as well. I do not however agree with the rational used in these papers, or for any reason for that matter.

Here are a few statements that caught my attention as potentially contradictory:

There is NO REASON why the world could not have come into being without a cause; NOR, on the other hand, is there any REASON why it should not have always existed."THE IDEA that things must have A BEGINNING is really DUE TO THE POVERTY of our IMAGINATION." -Bertrand Russell

Does anyone else find this peculiar? The First-cause Argument is flawed because it lacks imagination.

"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument." -Bertrand.

I don't believe that the statement that "everything must have a cause," either rejects or validates christianity completely.

Also Russell's states: an agnostic is someone who "thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future with which Christianity and other religions are concerned... at least impossible at the present time."

I don't find anything wrong with that... but it seems difficult to me to presume things of humans, and the cause and effect relationship which allows us to hold one accountable for right or wrong, or to form any sort of relationship of right and wrong relative to a persons decisions... I don't know if I agree with the concreteness with which he attempts to debase other faiths or philosophies... it doesn't make sense.. neither do a lot of his arguments.

I would like to rephrase that. I don't know if I agree with the definitive nature with which he attempts to provide concrete evidence that a belief can't be valid because it can't explain how God came to be. When his own belief is structured around the principle idea that "we can't be certain about some things," specifically pertaining to the beginning... I don't see how he can reject concretely and with certainty any idea that is based on uncertainty or lack of evidence. That is the foundation of the belief... that we can't know what is, but we can know what's not, not enough to rule out God, but enough to rule out christianity.

I agree with him overall, but none of his arguments nor the cases he uses to support his doubt are as reasonable as it would be if he didn't try to justify uncertainty with certainty.

Prior to reading these articles, I did not know much about agnostics, but from them I can’t help but think what a depressing life it would be to be a one. To just accept your fate of death and have no hope for any sort of afterlife is horribly pessimistic. I can kind of see where agnostics are coming from, I mean it sounds logical, but I just don’t understand why someone would be one. I don’t really understand how someone cannot believe in ANY sort of afterlife or anything. It sounds downright depressing. Even if it turns out that I am wrong and there is no God or afterlife, I much rather live my life believing so, no matter what Ingersoll and Russell were saying. I am much too much of an optimist for that kind of lifestyle.

Also, I found myself getting quite annoyed at these authors because they don’t see religion the way I see it. For instance, Ingersoll was going on and on about the atrocities of God but that is not the God I know. I think he is stuck on the Old Testament depiction of God, before the birth of Jesus. The God I know is full of love and forgiveness and the whole time I was reading I just wanted to introduce him to the God I know and love.
I found the second article by Russell, "the What is an Agnostic?" much less annoying becuase I did not feel personally attacked whereas I did in the other one by him and the one by Ingersoll.

I think that the same problem exists in both religion and science...we believe we know everything. Theologians claim to know that the rich guy is in Hell, suffering terribly. (It is technically blasphemy of the darkest kind to judge others/to claim to know the mind of God, which seemed to be the reason Ingersoll spat God out) while a recent study showed many scientists are not as willing to accept being proven wrong as good science dictates they be.

g37ORF