An agnostic's gnostic experience

The directions printed in the paper were wrong. Relatively irritated, we eventually found our way to the seminar, albeit slightly late.
The room was like any generic staff recreational areas found in countless public sector building and was barely even worth mentioning. The general audience member seemed at first glance middle-aged and discontent. The lecturer, a slight man with an unusual accent, but kind enough face, was stumbling slowly through his thoughts like one would through a pleasant garden – unaware of those around him.
Before long it became clear that the audience assumed to know as much, if not more than the lecturer. A few voices suddenly became part of the general discussion. They would add to the lecture. They would argue with the lecturer. They would ask such question that would all but entirely force an expected answer which, for the most part the lecturer was reluctant to give.
This was a room of Gnostics – all sure of their particular view.
For my part, I hold no particular belief, nor do I deny any truth. Mine is a life on the fence. My main argument here has been after years of study – how can I prove any of this? Many theists will say that they feel the truth. I’ve seen enough of cults to retort that a human can be made to feel a lot of things – many of which just simply cannot be right. I could also add that a Buddhist can feel the higher state of energy through meditation – related to their gods etc – and that a Christian can feel the warmth of Jesus in their soul through devotion and deep prayer, however, in both cares the individual “knows” that the others doctrine is incorrect. Who, without such related “feeling” are others to believe? There is nothing but a “feeling” for an individual to base anything remotely like evidence upon.
That is this internal debate suddenly clouding my mind as I watch the missionary lecturer smile smugly as others talk of their own views and experiences. He has the assumption that his “truth” is correct and many of the audience are equally sure of their own, currently conflicting, “truth”. Yet he smiles with a vague air of arrogance.
This is what sets off this internal debate within me. It seems as soon as one chooses on side of the fence, the decision requires such faith that the individual becomes blind to other ways of thinking (this includes atheism). This is incredibly evident in this lecture for, as the lecturer spoke, it became obvious that he has spent many years learning about a wide range of religions but is still able to mock others conflicting “feelings”. Here is a man who has spent a great part of his life learning about a wide range of doctrines and is still able to scoff when someone has a conflicting ideology (much like my previous example with the Buddhist and the Christian).
His views are largely based upon the idea that most religions are correct to a point, but only have a fragment of the scope of the real “truth”. How can, I ask myself, one study theism and assume that they alone have carefully separated truth from mysticism? How can this man, or indeed any member of the audience, argue so confidently in their particular views of what seems to me to be truly unknowable when ones spiritual journey must in truth be a private road of exploration and discovery – thus requiring an open mind and not such assertions?
Later in the lecture, I am eventually drawn back into the, well I guess it should be called a conversation by now, when the missionary makes comments about university graduates and scientists.
Firstly, he implies that all university graduates being little more than parrots – able to repeat perfectly what was previously said without any understanding of the content.
Secondly, he makes a point that scientists are more or less arrogant for believing in evolution and the Big Bang because of what can be argued as the philosophical argument between the chicken and the egg.
On the first comment, I have been guilty of accusing a vast majority of university students of being little more than parrots, I must admit. That said however, it must be argued that many people are very much like this. Take any job or any qualification – even doing the dishes at home for example – there is a level of repetition in the action. It is the wonderful human brain that has developed as such to learn a behaviour and allow it to become an action within an “auto-pilot” state, thus freeing up resources for other thoughts.
As a student, it means that knowledge can be absorbed without being such an exhaustive action. In many cases the knowledge is the only thing required. It only becomes a problem when the understanding is required and nonexistent. This is far less frequently the case. As well as this, those more exceptional individuals tend to go onto further studies and become the people that develop our understanding further. Not everyone can be, or even should be, like this. And as a personal note, I see much less wrong in an automatic absorption of general knowledge than the close-minded scorn towards conflicting ideologies. The pursuit of understanding, whether it be science or psychological or philosophical, requires open-mindedness and sound reason.
On the second point (which thinking about it, I began to answer in the previous point), it is very much a personal peeve to me to have highly religious people mock science and/or scientists. From my experience, scientists are quite humble and when approached about religion hold the view, “science is explain the how, religion is to explain the why”.
Most scientists I know are either theists or agnostic. Atheists tend to require (as previously mentioned) as much faith that there is not a god as theists require to believe that there is one (or more). Theist scientists tend to have a lot of faith outside of their work (although in some cases it is the wonders that they find in nature and mathematics give them faith in a higher purpose), while those without much faith tend to be agnostic – and try to base their views on as much evidence as possible. This includes maintaining as much as possible an open-mind and learning all that can be learnt from a wide range of fields. It is not the case that a science is trying to disprove God – although it seems to be the case that a large group of the highly devout wish to disprove good science.
As for the chicken and the egg argument, it is a philosophical question. Science can go only as far as the evidence can provide. Evolution is the tool for speciation on this planet – there is very little doubt of that. What began life? Science can only guess – based on the very little evidence we have thus far of the very early Earth. How does evolution occur? Ecology and genetic science are teaching us. The why questions to life, as previously mentioned, are not in the scientific spectrum.
Science is by no means the be-all-and-end-all. It is a tool to understanding the universe as best we can with the evidence available. However, unlike theism, it is not based on feelings, but observation, debate, clarity, testing and retesting – that is, logical refinement. That is not to say that there is anything wrong with the pursuit of understanding in other arenas, such as philosophy and religion. Not all things are of a scientific nature (some due to our lack of understanding thus far and others due to being of a completely different state altogether).
The lecture wound up.
My mind was full – and little of it to do with some greater understanding of the world. In fact little of what was covered in the material was new to me. Like many religious groups; it was the same stuff, bundled in another way. However, my mind was consumed with the many elements of this piece (such as the conflicting views of the Gnostics, the lecturers two attacks on academic people and the general discontent visible in the faces of the faithful).
I understand that there are a wide range of reasons for one to become so devout. The missionary mentioned a few personal problems in his past which I have known to have led others to a very religious lifestyle – indeed I too became very religious for a number of years following a failed attempt at taking my own life (which explains my continuing interest in learning all I can about different religions and philosophies).
This said however, in doing so I believe it was a more or less natural conclusion to become agnostic for myself. The more I learnt, the more I saw conflict between ideologies, yet the more the baseline of any given religion became more or less the same. I for one cannot accept Jesus as my lord and saviour and ignore the teachings of Buddha, nor can I accept one ideology that includes the Old Testament over another. I cannot ignore good science over old religious stories nor can I accept the how of science and simply not ask why?
Of all the subjects that, by science, would be classified as “unknowable”, religion is of the greatest interest to me. It could quite well be the most important thing to my “immortal soul”. I believe, as mentioned above, that one’s spiritual journey is the pursuit of understanding. Like science, it too should be based on learning, growth and open-mindedness. As Luther took the Bible to the common man in the common tongue, all people should learn from as much resources as possible and find whatever it is that feels right to them. A lecture like that was ineffective due to much of the audience already knowing the truth and the lecturer himself having little respect for ideological elements outside his particular views. The bulk of the audience too were closed-minded to other ideas and were there more or less for validation of their faith as a means to settle the discontent on their hearts (and I must mention from personal experience, such faith will not easy this discontent – faith will provide the tools to teach one to ignore and suppress these ill feelings, but the only way to develop beyond these is to face the feelings head on and work on self-improvement. This is something that is often too daunting a task and thus not often thought of and even less attempted).
As it stands, we live in a world where more people are religiously educated than academically trained, where dogma quite often overrides commonsense and where misinformation of different viewpoints leads to a dangerous level of defensive fear. The dynamics of worldwide religions is changing and liberal thought and freedom of choice are again in decline.
I worry where such smug smiles will lead us.

-T.C.Lubcke Jr 25/09/2009