..
..
I have just begun watching videos by Richard Dawkins and have been
quite impressed with his work. I am skeptical of skepticism and
scientific method to be the end all reality of my experience as being
human and a Pagan. I recently watched a video "Enemies of Reason" by
Dawkins and was quite impressed. I found myself agreeing in part with
him as he made quite a spectacle of psychic readers at new age
conventions and fairs. Dawkins contended that these New Age methods and
religion for that matter is humanity's attempts at filling in gaps in
understanding with fabricated meaning. I certainly agree that this is
done however I would argue that "experienced meaning" can fill in such
gaps in my understanding and that I strive to be ethical and
responsible about it.
First let’s take a peek at some things that Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley had to say about theism:
Charles Darwin (section of Charles Darwins Autobiography on http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/Charles_Darwin_quotes.html )Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with
the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more
weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather
impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe,
including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into
futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus
reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an
intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve
to be called a Theist.
This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can
remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time
that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But
then arises the doubt—can the mind of man, which has, as I fully
believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the
lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not
these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which
strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited
experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant
inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so
strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully
developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their
belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and
hatred of a snake.
I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems.
The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I
for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.Thomas Huxley (from the Secular Web Library http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html )Huxley describes how he came to originate the term "agnostic" as follows:When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself
whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an
idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned
and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to
the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these
denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these
good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from
them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain
"gnosis"--had more or less successfully solved the problem of
existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong
conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on
my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that
opinion ...
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate
title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to
the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about
the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest
opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a
tail, like the other foxes. [Quoted in Encylopaedia of Religion and
Ethics, 1908, edited by James Hastings MA DD]
Huxley was delighted to find that the name "agnostic" stuck; he proceeded to expand upon what he meant by it.Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of
which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That
principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as
the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good';
it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the
axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that
is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the
fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be
expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it
will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And
negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that
conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and
undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face,
whatever the future may have in store for him.As a Panentheist Neo-Pagan, I believe in the God and Goddess. On the
other hand, there is much that my reason will not allow me to believe.
I don't believe in certain assumptions about Magick and I don't believe
in concrete application of what a Tarot Reader or an Astrologist tells
me. I may use their reading as food for thought but my scientific mind
will not allow me to ignore investigation fully with what research
sources may be at my disposal.
First I am compelled by my faculties of reason to consider the
originator of the term "Agnosticism": Coined by Sir Thomas Huxley
(whilst defending Charles Darwin during the heated presentation of
"Origin of Species" at the Royal Geographic Society).Huxley held that
Agnosticism was not a creed but a method. To apply the method of
Agnosticism (Huxley said it is a method, not a creed), to back up my
belief system.
My belief system makes note of patterns in nature, most importantly
procreation, especially by more sentient species which include male and
female. My belief in these deities is very nebulous as I perceive them
to be in the nature of most things in the natural scientifically
observable world. So if being compelled to first apply the discipline
of Agnosticism to my creed of panentheism, it is first with this
observable, measureable experience of nature, biology, chemistry,
physics and astrophysics etc. Second are much my feelings, of joy, of
awe and of "transcending wonder" when I see the majesty of a mountain
or the delicate beauty of a snowflake. The timeless feeling I get when
looking at antiquated art or watching the ducklings following in the
Father and Mother ducks at the duck pond here in my hometown of Norman.
I see and feel. I measure life and I experience life. Sometime my
experience is to bask in joy such as recently when I held my newborn
Grandson Dayne. There is a warm glowing joy that I have only felt with
such strength when holding my children and my grandchildren as soon as
they were born. I do not need to pass this joy through the filter of my
skeptical mind to say that "I know this joy!" If someone asked me to
"prove it" I would have to respond "prove it yourself and hold a
new-born grandson." I have no reason to prove it to embrace and
treasure such an experience as divine. Another quick example the
"teflon" effect all of my troubles slipping right away from my mind
when standing atop the Continental Divide or listening to a choir sing
the mysteries of the stars when a certain harmony is struck!
So, give me Dawkins and give me Farrar! I like to straddle the cosmic fence! I would love to read your thoughts (pun intended)
CraigWicce