I promised you that I would post the rest of the short interview that I have with my friend, the agnostic theist. I wanted to ask a few more random questions to him (because he is actually a highly educated theologian) to see what he thinks about other facets of human religion (Mormonism, Information filtration). So, here we go:
ME: I like how you describe it as you agree that humans can never know anything about how we were created, and I want to delve into this more too (Hence the agnostic part of being an agnostic theist). It’s clear that the theism part in you, is based around the creationist argument. But there are common arguments to both. For example, the rise in technology may surprise you in just how much we can know about religion. Because when you think about religion, what really separates it from others, is what happens when we are born, and dead. What if we can have the technology, to kill scientists and bring them back, allowing them to explore the afterlife for “the truth”? What if we are able to time travel? What if we are able to dissect nanoparticle to the smallest degrees, to create finite-ness so we have boundaries, which means that we can backward rationalize? These are only some things that we can do. But, what if we can narrow-down the truth and lies of religion, in essence, say that religion X is a fraud, but we know parts of Y are true, but also, Z is not truly correct due to this, to narrow down the agnostic part- can we know, or will will really never know? But also, the theistic part can be narrowed down. The popular counter-argument to theism is the argument of chance, infinite-ness and blackness at death. How do you refute these things as well. Please expand.
AF: So first of all, agnosticism again means resigning oneself to the fact that we can truly NEVER know. The not knowing piece, is a firm belief and really is fact, because we really can NEVER know. Here’s why: The knowing, if a religion really exists, or if a religion and where we come from is true, we must define what is fact. Starting with this end in mind, is imperative. For example: If I want to debunk christianity, what would I need to do so? Its an easier puzzle. I would eventually be able to travel back in time and find out the person writing the bible was a random guy, and that Jesus never existed, neither did Moses. Once I could prove this, with technology and time, it becomes even tougher to solve. So, at this point, we would have debunked all of the common BS religions (islam, mormonism, judaism). But still, now what? This leads into the creation argument, which is even harder to solve. I would need to prove that our consciousness, is what we say it is. For example, for all we know, we are a brain in a vat. How can we disprove that? What is our consciousness. That is a desk. This is my chair. I took a towncar to get here. The towncar is made of metal alloys. Etcetera. The first step here, would be successfully shutting off consciousness, and turning it back on. In that time period, hopefully I would be able to get a glimpse, of the afterlife, which would hopefully provide some quantitative clues. I think that the quicker we can eliminate in the common human mind, all of the formal religions of today,from being plausible- then we have the first step completed. Technology can have more of an impact here. But when we talk about going back to the beginning of time, to see what we can do, it becomes much harder. Time travel would clearly be an awesome technology. If we harness it, it would be great, but it would have limitations. We couldn’t go back to the beginning of time, as there would be nothing, so we could not disprove divine creation this way. If we talk about infinity, meaning that the first particle that started the universe, was created by something, how was that thing created? This paradox goes forever. It becomes a crazy psychological dilemma.
So let’s put it this way- Agnosticism towards organized religion and god are two totally different things. With the rise of tech, organized religion will be proven/disproven. Agnosticism becomes a firmer stance with me in terms of knowledge about “God”, but if you are asking about belief, I believe in a god. Their are just too many holes in the creationist argument.