Update: Agnostics vs Athiest

I saw a statement from Penn Says (of Penn and Teller) yesterday who brought out a very powerful argument in the debate of Agnostic vs Athiest; and leads me to update my own thoughts (see my first blog). He suggests the only useful question is not, "Is there a God?" or "Can I know if there is a God?", but rather, "Do you believe in God?" He suggests that the differences I posted about an Athiest or an Agnostic melt away under that question. And as I listened to him, I had to agree that belief introduces yet another level; and it is one that removes much of the mystical thinking from the previous two questions. In a nut shell, he suggests that most Agnostics become Athiest when they answer that question... that in not knowing, or in not being sure, they would tend to side with an Athiest in most moral decisions. He differentiates by asking the question, "If God (however you define God) communicated to you (again, however you would define such divine communication) to kill your own child, would you do it?" His suggestion is that if you answer "no" you are an Athiest; and if you answer "yes" then stay away from him. lol.

I like it as a great update to the difficult, mystical questions. It pulls it back from definition (and a dependence on the copula "is") into action. I do believe, strongly, that it is still possible to be Agnostic and spiritual; and that being Agnostic does not mean you abandon a belief in diety - but I do think that belief becomes tempered. I know I would strongly question divine communication asking me to kill my child. I would suspect my own personal psychosis long before I would believe that to be a true or divinely inspired command. (I think my son is probably relieved to hear that... lol). Still, I do believe that the universe is basically nurturing. That there is some purpose to life, our abilities to communicate, philosophize, connect, love, etc. I certainly don't believe in a God that commands one tribe to kill another (for example Numbers 31) including all male children, and all women that have already been "polluted" by sexual intercourse. That just sounds like a bunch of horny, but powerful old men to me (which has pretty much been the case through most of our human history).

So, is there any thing I would alter about my previous post? Not too much, except I would lessen it's overall importance. I'm not so sure that the distinction between Agnostic and Athiest is all that important. I find that for myself, the distinction that becomes more important is what action does your particular form of spirituality create, and does it create action that serves for something greater (humanly, publicly recognizable as good). I fear that even this comes too close to trying to define good and evil, which I believe is the root of most theological disagreements. no easy answers... more later.