why “agnostic”? — I don’t know

I studied physics in college (the first time around hehe). And I believe that the Natural Laws , Physical Laws, Mathematical Principles of the Universe work every where in the Universe.
Why then, should we in science, have to look in so many places to understand the universe? we should be able to look into any volume of air around us, the natural Laws are the same there as any other place. We shouldn’t need to peer into Black Holes or into DNA or into fossils or into Human History.

The problem is that we, as observers, have only our own experience, or the collective scientific experience to compare with our data. The volume of air around us still runs by the laws of the Universe, It the scientific observation of that volume of air that is limited at any given time.

I wonder if Isaac Newton, with the gained scientific knowledge of of the 19 century, would have understood that time is relative. Einstein had an advantage of a couple centuries. Isaac, instead, believed that God used time to move mass, to propel the Universe.
Einstein himself, had all the mathematics of the Big Bang theory, but couldn’t put it together, because he believed the the Universe could have no beginning or end.

So science is never an absolute, since it is limited to realm of human observation and experience. Science is limited at any given time, because its observation of the scientist, Man and his knowledge, is also limited.
Thus I use the term “agnostic”.
To the agnostic: Science is a powerful means of understanding our world, but never a complete one.
There IS No complete means, their is always a degree of uncertainty.
For me as an agnostic there are many means. Perhaps we can call these means :”languages”.
Rationalism, empiricism, mathematics, history, all the sciences, and perhaps mysticism they are all languages Just as art, music, mythology and other forms of communication are languages.
All these Languages are parts… integrated into a greater language: a” Meta-language”. This Meta language o be spoken, communicated and tested within our realm of human interaction which we call existence.

For the “agnostic“, he or she must come to terms with uncertainty and doubt, Subjectivity with objectivity and this greatly affects the way we think of believe and knowledge. Agnostics are often spiritual, but reject Fundamentalism in Religion. Just the same we agnostics maybe lovers of the sciences, but reject the narrow absolutism of the dubbed “evangelical” or “militant” atheism as meaningful essence in our lives.

It is a great gift — the freedom to evolve our values and beliefs with limited coercion in our lives, and to steer clear of the pitfalls of extremism.

Advertisements

About chris
I write because I'm not good at it. I share because, writing without sharing seems empty. Thus, I write and share what I think is meaningful.

4 Responses to why “agnostic”? — I don’t know

  1. Svasti says:

    I’m not agnostic, but I have friends who are and I’m cool with that…

    For me, understanding the experience of Self as God (or, there’s nothing in this universe that isn’t God) has been revealed. Or, at least I’m satisfied that it has been. For me. In my hippy, yogic way…

    As far as everyone else is concerned, I actually think being Agnostic is one of the better alternatives out there.

  2. chris says:

    well I’, glad your cool with my agnosticism.
    Agnostics like me often are criticized by not being committal, but I think thats a misconception. I am willing to take action on a value without knowing all the consequences, without fear of making a mistake.

    Agnosticism to me is about experiencing living with the understanding my rational understanding of living, is limited.
    thanks for comment, Svasti.

  3. Peggy says:

    Since late teenage I considered myself agnostic. In fact, for many years was very cynical and not very understanding of those that “had religion”. In my 60’s within a two year time span my mother at age 87 and my only sibling, age 57 both died. I was prepared for my mother’s death, however, the death of my only sibling left me reeling. I spent many, many months sitting in meditation, time with a Buddhist group and finally had to admit that for me I had to have some belief about death, what comes after, why I’m here, etc. in order for me to truly live and be awake during the time this body has left on this earth. So I chose Buddhism as it offers the only thing that makes any sense for me. I am still struggling with the ideas of consciousness after death, etc. I have found Philip Kaplan’s writings on Buddhism helpful. Despite my questioning of all Buddhism purports I have more hope and my own death and those of the people I love is no longer a negative.

    Thanks
    Peggy

  4. chris says:

    I explored Buddhism at an early age.After studying certain aspects of physics in college Became a skeptical atheist briefly, then an Agnostic.
    Although Humanism and Existentialist philosophy as guides in “creating meaning” within in my life compelling for a while,
    It was in Zen Buddhism, where “meaning comes and is found”, and explored and experienced inward,… where i would be most comfortable.

    For me… the experience of grief is more important than knowing what happens to are consciousness after death, right now.

    Thanks for your comment Peggy!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: