Will You Help Me?

This is an email titled Somewhere in Between the Middle that I sent to a colleague in the Army on 14th March 2005, Monday.

Colin!

I am trying to string together a few propositions from various sources to complement what "The Middle" was all about and it is my wish that this email's contents are as concise and lucid as possibly can be.

Well, as I have mentioned to you while on the MRT just now, Bertrand Russell stated that he was an Agnostic, and refused to be labelled an Atheist. Before I commence, I shall say a bit about Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970). He was a thinker, philosopher, mathematician, educational innovator and champion of intellectual, social and sexual freedom, campaigner for peace and for civil and human rights. My brother [who is an Atheist too] possesses a copy of Bertrand Russell's Autobiography whereas I own his History of Western Philosophy so in a way you can say both of us are fans of him!

Betrand Russell actually wrote a book titled Why I Am Not A Christian. I have not read what he wrote but the text is widely available on the Internet and an inquiry in any search engines should gratify your curiosity. [By the way, I think that the conversation between Bertrand Russell and Father Copleston was incredibly intellectual and I do not think I am adequately mentally equipped to appreciate and comprehend everything that was being discussed] However, I have perused a portion of a transcript of a debate between Bertrand Russell and Father Copleston regarding the Existence of God, and I shall briefly list down noteworthy points brought up by both parties. Father Copleston was a Jesuit Catholic priest and he was the author of a series of books called A History of Philosophy.

When Father Copleston asked, "would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?", Bertrand Russell replied, "No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic."

Ravi Zacharias, a Christian apologist, gave a seminar titled Why I Am Not An Atheist, as a response to Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian. Ravi Zacharias commented that if you are in a class of foundational philosophy, you will realise that Atheism is illogical, irrational, and thus impossible. Atheism, in original Greek, meant alpha-theo which refers to No God, a negative absolute or absolute negative. It is self defeating, a self contradiction to affirm the non-existence of God because unless you have unlimited knowledge of the Universe, you cannot deny the existence of God who has infinite knowledge.

Ravi Zacharias, hence, commented that Bertrand Russell understood that and thus he was discerning enough to adopt an Agnostic position, rather than an Atheistic one. But what is an Agnostic?

I shall allow www.dictionary.com to enlighten us:

n.
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
adj : uncertain of all claims to knowledge [syn: agnostical] n : a person who doubts truth of religion [syn: doubter]

www.dictionary.com then gives us a Word History and the following is an extract:

"An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things” hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge."

Okay, let's move on! Ravi Zacharias said that there is such a person as a Soft Honest Agnostic who is defined as "I am open to the evidence [of the existence of God], so will you help me?" and I certainly hope that you will be receptive enough for that. Of course, indeed, I have no doubt that you are receptive because you have been so tolerant and patient and obliging to me all this while! And whether you are eventually convinced is totally beyond my control but nevertheless, I shall endeavour to persuade you with the time and energy and opportunities I am granted.

I will like to quote more from the debate between Father Copleston and Bertrand Russell but I think my body is whining from exhaustion so I shall just type a couple more paragraphs and I will be done. Of course, perhaps, it will be premature for me to write so much stuff down so I guess it is beneficial to wait for your answer before proceeding on with more arguments. So to conclude this email, here are some very simple but not any less valid perspectives.

A. We all have desires. We all desire something to satisfy us. We desire for perfect truth, life, and love; truth without error, life without death, and love without hatred. Yet, we do not find these things since we find imperfect truth, life, and love in the world. Therefore there has to be Perfect Truth, Life, and Love, which is transcendent. Perfect Truth, Life, and Love is what we call God. If there is nothing to Satisfy, why do we have Desires?

B. We all make judgments such as right and wrong. We condemn evil and praise good. However, we could not condemn such an act as evil unless there is an objective standard which everyone follows. A moral law presupposes a moral Lawgiver just as a constitution presupposes Constitutors. This Moral Lawgiver is what we call God.

All right. Fine! I confess and admit that I am very long winded. There is no sign of me stopping. But I simply cannot resist typing the following down! I promise, I shall halt straight after what I have written this:

Remember Norman Geisler? I mentioned him once in my "The Middle" email and Norman Geisler is a Christian philosopher. He claims a Ten Step To Prove That God Exists.

1. Some things undeniably exist.
2. My non-existence is possible.
3. Whatever has this possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.
4. There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.
5. Therefore, a first Uncaused Cause of my current existence exists.
6. This Uncaused Cause must be infinite, unchanging, all powerful, all knowing, and all perfect.
7. This infinite being is appropriately called God.
8. Therefore God exists.
9. This God who exists is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures.
10. Therefore the God described in the Bible exists.

I hope the above is not too naive for your taste!

Good night.

Yours,
Thaminator