longbough

As silly as it sounds, a belief in any form of "God" boils down to a matter of faith - pure and simple. And there's nothing wrong with that.

While I, personally, have faith in the existance of some spiritual "God." I accept that its nature may be entirely different from what I might think (not all notions of "God" involve bearded men in clouds or lightning bolts).

Can I "prove" that existance? No. Anyone who claims they can is dangerously in denial. Anyone who imposes their belief on others is a blind zealot.

It's all a matter of faith. The very root of "faith" is "emotional" rather than "intellectual." I used to think "intellectualism" was the only consistent basis for belief. I was a Physics researcher at Lawrence Berkeley Labs, studied mathematics and, later, studied Internal Medicine at Brown University. I habitually laughed at "new age" pop-spirituality (OK, still do).

But when I became older I learned to regard the "emotional value" of my perceptions. By it's personal nature, faith is necessarily subjective. Is there anything you can say that would change my belief in a God? I can't think of anything that would. But I also won't blindly dismiss any evidence or facts that arise, just because they are inconsistent with my understanding. My beliefs change all the time because new things are constantly being discovered.

My point is that you can NEVER know everything. What's the point of adamantly drawing all our conclusions right now? (e.g. about the existance or non-existance of an omniscient intangible sentience).

In the absence of absolute universal knowledge we will all believe in something. For some of us that is a belief in God, and for others there is not. As long as a person remains open-minded there's nothing wrong with either position.

It bothers me when some "believers" condemn agnostics with hysterical epithets. But it also bothers me when some agnostics condemn "believers" with smug "intellectual" arrogance.