Dating an Agnostic?

[wuggle]

Huge yes and no situation with this one. There are certainly Catholics who understand Transubstantiation. It requires a flexible interpretation about what "reality" is, but no more or less than any of the other spiritual truths you are asked to embrace.

 

FWIW, this was not one of the teachings of the Catholic church that I found confusing, so I fully believe some Catholics can understand it and many do (many also will admit they do not and rather just don't think about it much, true). Transubstantiation makes total sense to me

 

Whilst there are loads of points on here that I would love to respond to I'm not sure how much help that would be to the OP anymore. Fascinating discussion about religion but not sure that it isn't becoming a thread jack (including my own posts ) I suppose that's for the OP to tell us.

 

I did just want to say that this whole issue of transubstantiation was probably the starting point of my questioning my RC upbringing. I remember in school having a religious education lesson describing how catholics actually 'have to' believe that this bread and wine become the body & blood of christ, which we must imbibe, then 15 minutes later finding myself in a physics lesson describing the big bang and the structure of the atom. Very confusing

 

I spoke to a work colleague yesterday who is a catholic, and asked for his understanding of this issue, he said that the bread doesn't really 'become' the body of christ it's all just symbolic. When I pointed out to him that this is just plain wrong and that as a catholic he is supposed to believe that it is he replied "yeah, yeah, but everyone knows that's just nonsense and ignores it", when asked if he really believed the rest of the stuff he said, "Well it's what I was brought up to believe so I suppose it's right"

 

Sort of summed it up for me. Maybe religion shouldn't get in the way of real life and who we do or do not love.

Edited March 14, 2012 by wuggle

[Diamonds&Rust]

I spoke to a work colleague yesterday who is a catholic, and asked for his understanding of this issue, he said that the bread doesn't really 'become' the body of christ it's all just symbolic. When I pointed out to him that this is just plain wrong and that as a catholic he is supposed to believe that it is he replied "yeah, yeah, but everyone knows that's just nonsense and ignores it", when asked if he really believed the rest of the stuff he said, "Well it's what I was brought up to believe so I suppose it's right"

The bias of scientific thinking is so prevalent that "nonsense" and "spiritual reality" are practically equivocal.

 

The bread really becomes flesh in the same way that Jesus is really the son of God, or God really exists at all.

 

It stands alongside physics, not against it.

[sweetjasmine]

That is not what the word means, however. At the very farthest of the spectrum, even with agnostic theists, it still requires that the person does not claim God as a personal belief or practice a particular religion; generally agnostic theism does not even allow you to claim there is one particular God. Therefore, you couldn't be a practicing Catholic at the level the OP has described and be an agnostic, of any kind, according to any real definition of the word.

 

This isn't quite accurate. I've met several agnostic Christians -- people who say they don't know whether there's a god (and claim that no one can know) but who believe in God and practice their religion anyway because they choose to take it on faith that a Christian God exists. They believe, have faith, and feel the emotional connection, but will state that we can't know whether God exists.

 

Agnosticism/gnosticism are statements of knowledge. Atheism/theism are statements of belief. You can be a gnostic atheist ("I know there is no god and I lack belief in any god"), an agnostic atheist ("I don't know whether there is a god and I lack belief in any god"), a gnostic theist ("I know there is a god and I believe in XYZ-god"), or an agnostic theist ("I don't know whether there is a god and I believe in XYZ-god because I have faith"). Personally, I'm an agnostic atheist, which is a label that confuses the crap out of people almost as much as "agnostic Christian."

 

I agree with you that agnosticism is not a transitional state of noncommittal religious confusion. That just doesn't make any sense.

 

In any case, this isn't particularly relevant because the OP says she believes in God. It's not up to somebody else to tell her what she believes and define her own religion for her. That's a bit rude, IMO.

[wuggle]

It stands alongside physics, not against it.

 

IMO one supersedes the other, but happy to be proved wrong

[xxoo]

Just a quick bit of input- I'll have more to say later...

 

How am I to discern for myself whether or not faith is my number one priority? Kathy's concerns are exactly those of my parents- to a tee. I'm just hesitant to jump on that bandwagon because I'm not sure that I'd be heartbroken if my kids ended up well-adjusted but somewhat faithless. I also think that with the right support from my family (and his- he's descended from a long line of protestant missionaries. Very religious extended family....) they'd have less to worry about. Our kids would see all sides of the issue....

 

Is this a bad thing? I think it's going to depend on perspective.

 

There are no guarantees. My mother sounds much like Kathy. She did her best to teach us that the bible is right, and to follow her faith. ALL of us kids wound up agnostic/atheist. We found it oppressive, and went as far in the other direction as possible until we could stomach small bites of religion.

 

Now, years later, I expose my kids to religion (hers, my husband's family's, my grandparent's....all different religions). I take them to places of worship as part of religious and cultural education. They are encouraged to learn as much or as little as they like.

 

I am sure they will make up their own minds. As did my mother, me, you, and your bf!

[Diamonds&Rust]

This isn't quite accurate. I've met several agnostic Christians -- people who say they don't know whether there's a god (and claim that no one can know) but who believe in God and practice their religion anyway because they choose to take it on faith that a Christian God exists.

I don't think, strictly speaking, someone who has taken it on faith that God exists is an agnostic. I wouldn't find it important to say that except for the flexibility being applied here to a rather inflexible meaning. I would at least hazard to say that your belief/knowledge discrepancy is not universal when it comes to the meaning of this word, as evidenced by the popular reaction you described to your identification as an agnostic atheist.

 

I see the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic religion, but just expressing the uncertainty and doubt that even Jesus himself expressed is not enough to invalidate one's theism.

IMO one supersedes the other, but happy to be proved wrong

I don't want to be in the unlucky position of arguing for the physical reality of transubstantiation. The quest for proof will invariably yield results than confirm physicalistic theories.

 

All I'm saying is that the solution shouldn't be to pretend to believe it just because it's dogma. It should be a mature adaptation towards a reality composed of elements of both knowledge and non-knowledge, with room for a mystery of experience as well. After all, it's as dogmatic as religiosity to take it on faith that science will eventually explain everything through the ingenuity of our experimental designs.

 

If you think of the Gestalt images of figure and ground--the vase and the opposing faces--think of religious mystery as a ground on which our scientific truths stand out as affirmed figures. Or, as Jung would suggest, religious truths represent a feminine tolerance of not-knowing rather than a masculine action of ascertaining some part of truth.

 

It's either that or religious people are just dumb, which I should hope is the exception to an otherwise-actualized rule.

[sweetjasmine]

I would at least hazard to say that your belief/knowledge discrepancy is not universal when it comes to the meaning of this word, as evidenced by the popular reaction you described to your identification as an agnostic atheist.

 

I see the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic religion, but just expressing the uncertainty and doubt that even Jesus himself expressed is not enough to invalidate one's theism.

 

Well, the reaction I get is due to most people not ever bothering to read up on agnosticism, atheism, and the like. Bertrand Russell covered agnostic atheism very well (and simply, too) with his famous teapot example. What I described is what the words really mean, even though popular definitions may differ.

 

In the popular definition of the word, "atheist" = "I am absolutely certain there is no God and I'm going to eat your babies because I have no morals" when it simply means lack of a belief in a supreme deity. If I said my cat is an atheist (which she is because she lacks the capacity to think abstractly and thus believe in god), most people would balk at that even though it's absolutely correct.

 

They also think that "agnostic" = "I'm confused about religion," hence Eve's description of an agnostic as someone who hasn't reached an end state. Both of these common definitions are wrong. Just look at the etymology of both words - gnosis means "knowledge" and theos means "god." Agnostic simply means without knowledge, and atheist simply means without god. Since most people are religious, and since a good portion of those who are don't explore other belief systems, the distinction between agnosticism and atheism isn't relevant to your average person, so the incorrect popular definitions persist.

 

The Christian agnostics I mentioned refer to themselves by that label and describe their beliefs in the way I phrased it. It's a rare position to hold, since most theists are gnostic, in part because their religions often mandate them to be.

 

This is sort of on par with "anarchism [as opposed to anarchy]" = "setting sh-t on fire because you're mad about stuff" and "socialism" = "genocide à la Hitler and that Stalin guy." I can point you to hundreds of thousands of English speakers who define those words in these ways, but that doesn't change the substance of the philosophies.

[zengirl]

It doesn't surprise me that certain Christians would see an agnostic as an undecided potential Christian, but that's not what the word means period.

 

It all depends on whether a person views secular life as being the same as a life of faith or not. Methinks that that is the crux of everything.

 

To me, this just sounds like a religious person devaluing the views and beliefs of another, Eve. A person has NO RIGHT to devalue anyone's belief or non-belief as any 'less' of a belief or choice than any other, IMO. That is the crux of the matter of tolerance. MMV, of course. Clearly, no religion is the same. A life of your faith and a life of my faith are not 'the same' either, but equality of value and sameness are different things.

 

This isn't quite accurate. I've met several agnostic Christians -- people who say they don't know whether there's a god (and claim that no one can know) but who believe in God and practice their religion anyway because they choose to take it on faith that a Christian God exists. They believe, have faith, and feel the emotional connection, but will state that we can't know whether God exists.

 

Oh, I have as well met agnostics who had a personal feeling that God or gods exist. I think this comes down to defining the word "belief." To a religious person, they would not truly have faith or belief if they thought we could not know and that they, in fact, themselves did not know. To many religious people, believing in that context is knowing. Agnostics aren't just people who occasionally doubt, though -- that's an important distinction -- they are people whose belief system is built around the notion that God/gods and the nature of the universe is inherently unknowable and that trying is futile. That doesn't mean they can't have a wide array of personal feelings.

 

Agnosticism/gnosticism are statements of knowledge. Atheism/theism are statements of belief. You can be a gnostic atheist ("I know there is no god and I lack belief in any god"), an agnostic atheist ("I don't know whether there is a god and I lack belief in any god"), a gnostic theist ("I know there is a god and I believe in XYZ-god"), or an agnostic theist ("I don't know whether there is a god and I believe in XYZ-god because I have faith"). Personally, I'm an agnostic atheist, which is a label that confuses the crap out of people almost as much as "agnostic Christian."

 

The problem here is there is a term called "Christian agnostics," but that faith (most theologians agree) has deeper roots in and connection to Judaism than agnosticism. It's actually not related to the word agnostic directly. Kind of like how we don't drive on a driveway. *shrug* That grouping actually does claim to know and believe in Jesus, thus making them theists and gnostics. Now, there may be actual agnostics who practice Christianity (as you say and it is certainly possible!) but the existence of a clear group of non-agnostics calling themselves "Christian agnostics" confuses things.

 

Your breakdown is not terribly different from what I mean or think, but the issue is that most people do not separate knowledge and belief, except for those who do so extremely consciously. In order for one to be, say, Catholic and believe in God, one also has to 'know' to a degree. Granted, in the modern age, as tolerance evolves, the 'knowing' changes, and thus the meanings of these words change. I guess my point is: Some people will refer to tolerance of other ideas as agnosticism, using the somewhat outdated breakdown you give because their idea of faith requires absolute belief to the point of intolerance. And I think that's perhaps what happened here.

 

In any case, this isn't particularly relevant because the OP says she believes in God. It's not up to somebody else to tell her what she believes and define her own religion for her. That's a bit rude, IMO.

 

That was basically my point. But interesting thoughts and discussion! I don't disagree with you---I just think it's made complex.

Edited March 15, 2012 by zengirl

[FredRutherford]

This is getting way off point...

 

Can we go back to going after other posters?

 

 

Not that I cannot discuss these concepts, but....

[TaraMaiden]

Would you like me to introduce the matter of Self/not-self?

 

it's relevant to dependent origination......

[FredRutherford]

Would you like me to introduce the matter of Self/not-self?

 

it's relevant to dependent origination......

... but not the thread....

 

The OP didn't come here for a long discussion on agnosticism vs. Christianity, etc.

Edited March 15, 2012 by FredRutherford

[TaraMaiden]

this is page 7. Look at any thread over 3 pages - and it's off-topic.

any question can honestly be answered, in and of itself, within 2, probably.....

 

I have a feeling that even if this is not what she actually came for - she's probably intelligent enough to read it with interest, because it gives her a truly rounded view of the different types of advice, opinion, and contribution available here.

 

if anybody honestly posts a thread, and doesn't expect such a diverse discussion, they're either extremely naive, or they've never been on a forum before......

[zengirl]

this is page 7. Look at any thread over 3 pages - and it's off-topic.

any question can honestly be answered, in and of itself, within 2, probably.....

 

I have a feeling that even if this is not what she actually came for - she's probably intelligent enough to read it with interest, because it gives her a truly rounded view of the different types of advice, opinion, and contribution available here.

 

if anybody honestly posts a thread, and doesn't expect such a diverse discussion, they're either extremely naive, or they've never been on a forum before......

 

Right. I have no problem if the OP would like to re-direct the thread, as her second post attempted to do by saying her problem was not really a personal religious conflict but a familial conflict, and I'd be happy to address points she's most interested in, but I don't see the problem with divulging into other potentially illuminating topics and interesting discussions. The whole point of conversation is the journey.

[Eclypse]

What this essentially boils down to is your parents forcing you to make a choice. Him, or them. By picking one you will be losing the other. And that is so unfair in my opinion. You're sort of in-between a rock and a hard place. Although I have never been in your position I can sympathise with you immensely.

 

Reading through your post and some of the replies I felt a great anger coursing through me. Some very narrow minded people are letting an outdated 2000 year old book destroy their relationship with their daughter and putting her in a position she does not deserve to be in. Your parents should be the people most supportive of you. I would understand their convictions if he was say someone who beat you up frequently or was a drug abuser. But this.... this just boggles my mind.

 

It's ironic that Jesus preached about acceptance. Yet look at this. If I was in your situation... I'd marry this guy and your family can either accept him as one of their own or disown you. If the latter happens consider yourself lucky. You wouldn't want to be a member of such a clan anyway, or raising children in that sort of environment.

 

Good luck to you

[Ross MwcFan]

The majority of children adopt the faith of their parents. Even those that may, for a time, move away from the faith when young, they often go back to it after awhile. I don't remember the statistics offhand, but I believe it was 80% adopt the faith of their parents if both share the same faith. Less than 50% if only one parent has the faith. Much less if neither has the faith. Spirituality is a value and belief system that is passed down from generation to generation. People can choose to reject it later on, but for the most part, children adopt the beliefs of their parents. Your children are obviously confused about what they believe, since you have rejected your faith and moved on to something else.

 

Kids need to be able to see what alternatives are out there, and then when they're old enough they can decide for themsleves what they believe in. Instead of having a particular religion forced onto them, which kinda seems abusive.

 

Children are going to be confused about a lot of things because they have not experienced the world fully yet. And only letting kids see one view isn't allowing them to see the world fully.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Ross MwcFan

[ChemistQueen]

I’m back!

 

Been a busy couple weeks with work- but I’ve really been enjoying the discussion, on topic or not. Somehow, spring break for teachers and graduate students doesn’t ever amount to much of a break.

 

First of all, I just want to say that bf and I actually are only in our mid 20’s. Perhaps that puts things in a different perspective. In the big picture, we’re just kids. “Still wet behind the ears” as my gramps would put it. I do think, though, that we’ve reached the point in our lives where it’s time for the both of us to start solidifying ourselves as individuals. We both need to start asking ourselves the hard questions about where we stand on things, what we believe, feel and think, etc.

 

I know that this relationship has indeed forced me to really examine my faith. I think that’s going to be a good thing for me in the long run. Dating someone the same as you doesn’t encourage thinking or exploration at all. In this relationship, both he and I have had to sit down and talk about our beliefs. He’s discovered that he’s leaning more towards theism than he originally thought and I’ve finally become comfortable with the fact that I don’t agree with the church on everything. In a way, we don’t stand apart from one another as much as we form a something of a bridge between two worlds- believers and unbelievers. If that makes any sense at all. We have taken two very different paths to become the adults we are but, somehow, we’ve arrived at the same place. Perhaps we have different foundations- his being a politically liberal, protestant, “church-less” background, mine being a politically conservative, Catholic, “churchy” background. I feel like that might make our relationship all the richer though.

 

To clarify what I said about not caring whether or not my kids are believers… That wasn’t to say that I’m not going to try to give them the opportunity to grow in the same kind of faith that my parents gave me. I just think that there would be worse fates than having well-adjusted kids who aren’t particularly religious. This stands in stark opposition to the ideas of some folks from my church who consider leaving the church to be something of a spiritual death sentence. To them, having a child that doesn’t turn out Catholic would be worse than the kid dying in a car wreck at 16. My mom is much of this mind set. Thus, to keep the peace, I’m going to make peace with myself and the church. I’m going to continue to worship as I’ve always done, I’m going to hold the beliefs that I believe and I’m going to question and oppose that which I damn well want to. And if I have kids, I’m going to pass that individuality or dissent or faith or whatever one wants to call it right on to them. I want children who make their own decisions- and not only that, children who make the right decisions. And I’d much rather have kids more focused on making THIS world the best place it can be rather than kids who are so focused on getting to the next world that this life, the only life they get, gets neglected and only half-lived. Furthermore, I’d sooner beat my kids senseless than find out that they’re being the kind of evil brats I contended with as a middle-schooler. Turns out the bf doesn’t put up with that crap either.

 

I’m learning, through the bf, that morality is NOT dependent on religion for enforcement. He’s never been taught to feel guilty for things like I’ve been, but he’s got a steady compass. We’ve got the same sense of right and wrong- how to treat others fairly, how to share, and how to love one another and our neighbors as fully as we can. Whether or not we both kneel and receive communion together on our wedding day seems irrelevant. That’s just one of the many ways I express my faith and my love for humanity. We have so much that we can share- I don’t know why the one thing we can’t share has to be so divisive.

 

I have decided to see a counselor- a secular one, as well as a priest about this situation. I want to make sure that my decision to stay with my man isn’t a result of my being too stubborn to see another side. I want to know that my feelings are legitimate. I also want to have a place to vent that isn’t partial and that won’t judge. I don’t want to burden my friends with this more than they’re already burdened, and I definitely want to make sure that I don’t take out my frustration and worry on the bf.

 

We’re taking things as they come. We’re happy. We’re enjoying the small things about our relationship. We’re developing superb communication skills and learning new things about each other every day. And, I think, if the day comes where we don’t love each other anymore, that love won’t have dissipated because of religious differences. I can only hope that my parents won’t make things any harder than they’re already going to be.

[TaraMaiden]

If I could reach through the screen and hug you - I would.

Mid-20's be damned - you demonstrate a level of maturity way beyond your years, and your attitude - and that of your BF - are admirable.

 

all the very best to you, in everything.

things will be fine.

[zengirl]

OP,

 

Sounds like a great plan. Good luck with everything.

[denise_xo]

I’m back!

 

Been a busy couple weeks with work- but I’ve really been enjoying the discussion, on topic or not. Somehow, spring break for teachers and graduate students doesn’t ever amount to much of a break.

 

First of all, I just want to say that bf and I actually are only in our mid 20’s. Perhaps that puts things in a different perspective. In the big picture, we’re just kids. “Still wet behind the ears” as my gramps would put it. I do think, though, that we’ve reached the point in our lives where it’s time for the both of us to start solidifying ourselves as individuals. We both need to start asking ourselves the hard questions about where we stand on things, what we believe, feel and think, etc.

 

I know that this relationship has indeed forced me to really examine my faith. I think that’s going to be a good thing for me in the long run. Dating someone the same as you doesn’t encourage thinking or exploration at all. In this relationship, both he and I have had to sit down and talk about our beliefs. He’s discovered that he’s leaning more towards theism than he originally thought and I’ve finally become comfortable with the fact that I don’t agree with the church on everything. In a way, we don’t stand apart from one another as much as we form a something of a bridge between two worlds- believers and unbelievers. If that makes any sense at all. We have taken two very different paths to become the adults we are but, somehow, we’ve arrived at the same place. Perhaps we have different foundations- his being a politically liberal, protestant, “church-less” background, mine being a politically conservative, Catholic, “churchy” background. I feel like that might make our relationship all the richer though.

 

To clarify what I said about not caring whether or not my kids are believers… That wasn’t to say that I’m not going to try to give them the opportunity to grow in the same kind of faith that my parents gave me. I just think that there would be worse fates than having well-adjusted kids who aren’t particularly religious. This stands in stark opposition to the ideas of some folks from my church who consider leaving the church to be something of a spiritual death sentence. To them, having a child that doesn’t turn out Catholic would be worse than the kid dying in a car wreck at 16. My mom is much of this mind set. Thus, to keep the peace, I’m going to make peace with myself and the church. I’m going to continue to worship as I’ve always done, I’m going to hold the beliefs that I believe and I’m going to question and oppose that which I damn well want to. And if I have kids, I’m going to pass that individuality or dissent or faith or whatever one wants to call it right on to them. I want children who make their own decisions- and not only that, children who make the right decisions. And I’d much rather have kids more focused on making THIS world the best place it can be rather than kids who are so focused on getting to the next world that this life, the only life they get, gets neglected and only half-lived. Furthermore, I’d sooner beat my kids senseless than find out that they’re being the kind of evil brats I contended with as a middle-schooler. Turns out the bf doesn’t put up with that crap either.

 

I’m learning, through the bf, that morality is NOT dependent on religion for enforcement. He’s never been taught to feel guilty for things like I’ve been, but he’s got a steady compass. We’ve got the same sense of right and wrong- how to treat others fairly, how to share, and how to love one another and our neighbors as fully as we can. Whether or not we both kneel and receive communion together on our wedding day seems irrelevant. That’s just one of the many ways I express my faith and my love for humanity. We have so much that we can share- I don’t know why the one thing we can’t share has to be so divisive.

 

I have decided to see a counselor- a secular one, as well as a priest about this situation. I want to make sure that my decision to stay with my man isn’t a result of my being too stubborn to see another side. I want to know that my feelings are legitimate. I also want to have a place to vent that isn’t partial and that won’t judge. I don’t want to burden my friends with this more than they’re already burdened, and I definitely want to make sure that I don’t take out my frustration and worry on the bf.

 

We’re taking things as they come. We’re happy. We’re enjoying the small things about our relationship. We’re developing superb communication skills and learning new things about each other every day. And, I think, if the day comes where we don’t love each other anymore, that love won’t have dissipated because of religious differences. I can only hope that my parents won’t make things any harder than they’re already going to be.

 

There is so much wisdom in this post.

 

Good luck moving forward

[KathyM]

Kids need to be able to see what alternatives are out there, and then when they're old enough they can decide for themsleves what they believe in. Instead of having a particular religion forced onto them, which kinda seems abusive.

 

Children are going to be confused about a lot of things because they have not experienced the world fully yet. And only letting kids see one view isn't allowing them to see the world fully.

I fully agree, that children need to make up their own mind about their beliefs and not have it forced upon them by their parents. I don't believe in isolating kids from the world. I sent my kids to public schools where there were people of many faiths, and some with no faith. My kids have friends of different faiths and some with no faith, and they get along perfectly well. I'm not suggesting anyone isolate their kids or force a religion on them. I'm just saying that when children see their parents as giving their faith an importance in their own lives, they are more likely to develop the attitude that faith is important. If kids grow up with parents who have no faith or a negative view of religion, then they are more likely to grow up with a negative view of it and no faith. Personally, I prefer to lead by example and show my kids that a belief system is important, but I don't force my kids to do or believe anything. They have to decide for themselves what they believe.