Is there any Neutrality?

[Blake Reas]

In apologetic arguments sometimes I will encounter Agnostics. They like to say that they are neutral but I tend to side with Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen that they have already made up their minds do to the effects of Sin.

In Christ,
Blake

[Gavin]

Romans 1
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

I like Van Til.:thumb:

Who is Greg Bahnsen, Blake?

[spl_cadet]

There is can be a true agnostic. True agnostics imho keep searching to determine whether God exists and which is the true religion. However, most don't. It's basically a way of being lazy. They believe that there is a God, but they don't want to have to change their lives or live by some moral code.

Or, to see a more official version of what I just wrote:
2127 Agnosticism assumes a number of forms. In certain cases the agnostic refrains from denying God; instead he postulates the existence of a transcendent being which is incapable of revealing itself, and about which nothing can be said. In other cases, the agnostic makes no judgment about God's existence, declaring it impossible to prove, or even to affirm or deny.

2128 Agnosticism can sometimes include a certain search for God, but it can equally express indifferentism, a flight from the ultimate question of existence, and a sluggish moral conscience. Agnosticism is all too often equivalent to practical atheism.
(From the Catechism of the Catholic Church)

[Blake Reas]

Originally posted by Gavin
Romans 1
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

I like Van Til.:thumb:

Who is Greg Bahnsen, Blake?

Bahnsen was one of Van Til's Students he is known for his famous debate with Atheist Gordon Stein. He has also written the best analysis of Van Til's thought available form Presbyterian and Reformed Publishers.
He did so much work in other areas that his Philosophical genius was never fully seen by the apologetics world.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

[truthman]

Van Til was cool in that he was well versed in defeating the argument of 'neutral ground'. Bill O'Reilly would have hated him.

Other than that, he was quite the Calvinist, didn't like that part.

truthman

[Blake Reas]

Originally posted by truthman
Van Til was cool in that he was well versed in defeating the argument of 'neutral ground'. Bill O'Reilly would have hated him.

Other than that, he was quite the Calvinist, didn't like that part.

truthman

Hahaha, I did a peace on the transcendental Argument in the philosophical section if you want to check it out. I do not even pretend to do it justice though!

In Christ Grace,
Blake:rant:

[Ryokan]

I think simply by being here an agnostic would be demonastrating a lack of laziness don't you?

[Pate]

I guess there are basically two types of agnostic positions:

1. It is not possible to know whether or not God exists.

2. I do not know whether or not God exists, but I don't claim to that knowledge is impossible with this regard to this question.


The second one seems to be much more more reasonable position. It is open to the possibility of evidence for God.

An interesting question would be, whether or not the first position I described, is self-refuting. If applied to all knowledge, it certainly would be. (It would be a claim to know that knowledge is impossible.)

[TheFiveSolas]

If I'm not mistaken the Greek of Romans 1:21 indicates that all people know THE God (ton theon) who exists. The verses just prior indicate that all know God because He has made Himself known to them ("...since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them..."), but that, due to sin, we suppress the truth that God has revealed. Therefore, it would seem, at least according to this section of Scripture, that there aren't really any atheists or agnostics, but only those who are suppressing the truth about God.

[Robyn Banks]

TheFiveSolas
If I'm not mistaken the Greek of Romans 1:21 indicates that all people know THE God (ton theon) who exists.
Hi there.

Murray J Harris comments that in Romans 1.21, "the anarthrous theon seems to denote 'God as he is in himself,' the one who possesses divine qualities, and ton theon 'what may be known of God' (to gnoston ton theou, v19), the one who has manifested his invisible nature." There is thus a significance in the change between anarthrous and articular states of theos. This does not mean that there is always such a significance (there isn't) - but it is there in Romans.

Both articular and anarthrous refer prima facie to the God of Israel.

TheFiveSolas
The verses just prior indicate that all know God because He has made Himself known to them ("...since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them..."), but that, due to sin, we suppress the truth that God has revealed. Therefore, it would seem, at least according to this section of Scripture, that there aren't really any atheists or agnostics, but only those who are suppressing the truth about God.
Hmmmmmm. In 1 Cor 11.14, Paul says that "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him?" Although he goes on to say that he does not insist on this rule, he does say that there is something intrinsic to nature that teaches us that long hair on a man is 'wrong'. I wonder how many people today think the same when they see a man with long hair. It would also not seem too 'degrading' to a Nazarite, appointed by God.

It leads me to consider that Paul was expressing a cultural opinion, expressed as a dictum of 'nature'.

In a culture that gave a greater 'interventionalist' role to God in the world (wrongly or rightly), it would seem as though nature itself demonstrated God's nature plainly. However, in today's Western culture, where God is not seen as so dramatically intervening, would we make the same claim as Paul (that God is plainly demonstrated to all men)? I know that this claim is made elsewhere in the New Testament, but it may well be more of a culturally-limited perspective than the universalist perspective it is made out to be.

Pate
I guess there are basically two types of agnostic positions:

1. It is not possible to know whether or not God exists.

2. I do not know whether or not God exists, but I don't claim to that knowledge is impossible with this regard to this question.

The second one seems to be much more more reasonable position. It is open to the possibility of evidence for God.
I agree, Pate.

I am in the middle of reading Life of Pi by Yann Martel, winner of the 2002 Booker Prize (which is really good). Here is what he has to say about the agnostic position:

"I'll be honest about it. It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemene. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."

Ha! :p Nice simile.

Robyn

[dizzle]

I do not believe there is any such thing as true neutrality. To say one is not sure if there is no God is not a neutral position, it is simply an ambivalent position. Ambilvalency is not neutrality.

[Yog^sothoth]

One of the things an anthropologist has to learn (of which I am training to become, not currently employed as one) is to set ones own morals and views aside, assume a point of total neutrality when conducting various studies. One of the cardinal rules of anthropology is to observe life in it's natural element, do not interfere.

One of the stories i've heard about this NOT working is when China opened up its borders for studies and a harvard educated man being overcome with emotion after seeing the amounts of afterbirth abortions and other forms of abortion being performed.

True neutrality would be like a social disease. Unable to feel anything, experience anything. Unable to do anything but observe, like a vegtable.

$.02

:duh:

[bar Jonah]

Robyn Banks:
It leads me to consider that Paul was expressing a cultural opinion, expressed as a dictum of 'nature'.

Robyn
This shouldn't be too surprising, since Paul himself states elsewhere that not all of his writings are divinely inspired.
If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' then surely we are also permitted doubt.
While I agree we are permitted to doubt, I think the example of Christ's outburst on the cross is an invalid example of doubt. He was not expressing doubt but rather hope. He was alluding to a well-known Psalm which has those words at the beginning but which ends with hope and trust in God's will. Jesus obviously knew this -- He IS the Word. :D

[Jaltus]

This shouldn't be too surprising, since Paul himself states elsewhere that not all of his writings are divinely inspired. Oh, false step my friend. You are refering to the passage in I Corinthians 7 where Paul says "I say this, not the Lord." What you are missing is that Paul calls only Christ Jesus "the Lord," so what he is saying is that this is from Paul only, he is not quoting Christ on this as he had been quoting him earlier.

Shot and a miss.

[bar Jonah]

Your delineation of Jesus being Lord rather than God the Father. But then why doesn't he say God the Father says this instead of "I say this?" He specifically says it is himself speaking.

[Sparko]

:grin:

[DurAlvar]

Hmm... seems to be a distinct lack of agnostics stepping in here. Oh well, I'll take up the slack then.

In apologetic arguments sometimes I will encounter Agnostics. They like to say that they are neutral but I tend to side with Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen that they have already made up their minds do to the effects of Sin.

Wouldn't an agnostic be bound for hell by definion, since the only way to heaven is apparently through Jesus, thus a firm belief in the non-existance of the divine would be more or less equivalent to a lack of strong belief in the divine. Thus, true neutrality would be impossible because anyone is either with you or against you.

I guess there are basically two types of agnostic positions:

1. It is not possible to know whether or not God exists.

2. I do not know whether or not God exists, but I don't claim to that knowledge is impossible with this regard to this question.

I'd combine the two views to build mine - namely, that I believe strongly that we cannot know for certain that god exists, but I also acknowledge that I could well be wrong.

[Carpedm9587]

Hmm... seems to be a distinct lack of agnostics stepping in here. Oh well, I'll take up the slack then.

Wouldn't an agnostic be bound for hell by definion, since the only way to heaven is apparently through Jesus, thus a firm belief in the non-existance of the divine would be more or less equivalent to a lack of strong belief in the divine. Thus, true neutrality would be impossible because anyone is either with you or against you.

I'd combine the two views to build mine - namely, that I believe strongly that we cannot know for certain that god exists, but I also acknowledge that I could well be wrong.

There's a lack because Sparko dug up a three year old thread (check the dates) and revived it with a post.

Nice reply, though :smile:

I have a similar approach to atheism. I believe the evidence points to the non-existence of a god, but I am open to the possibility I may be wrong.

Michel

[Snarf]

In apologetic arguments sometimes I will encounter Agnostics. They like to say that they are neutral but I tend to side with Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen that they have already made up their minds do to the effects of Sin.

In Christ,
Blake

There is no neutrality only in the eyes of those who insist that they are war with the rest of humanity and the world in general over a deity. The rest of us get along perfectly fine with neutral beliefs, me included.

Kind of like the cliche "when one is a hammer everything looks like a nail."

[Carpedm9587]

There is no neutrality only in the eyes of those who insist that they are war with the rest of humanity and the world in general over a deity. The rest of us get along perfectly fine with neutral beliefs, me included.

Kind of like the cliche "when one is a hammer everything looks like a nail."

Nicely said!

[HRG_new]

If I'm not mistaken the Greek of Romans 1:21 indicates that all people know THE God (ton theon) who exists. The verses just prior indicate that all know God because He has made Himself known to them ("...since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them..."), but that, due to sin, we suppress the truth that God has revealed. Therefore, it would seem, at least according to this section of Scripture, that there aren't really any atheists or agnostics, but only those who are suppressing the truth about God.

And since there are atheists (weak and strong ones) and agnostics, this section does not describe reality.

[Glass*Soul]

If I'm not mistaken the Greek of Romans 1:21 indicates that all people know THE God (ton theon) who exists. The verses just prior indicate that all know God because He has made Himself known to them ("...since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them..."), but that, due to sin, we suppress the truth that God has revealed. Therefore, it would seem, at least according to this section of Scripture, that there aren't really any atheists or agnostics, but only those who are suppressing the truth about God.

I see that I'm quoting a three year old post. :lol: Oh well, I know there are those currently following this forum who might agree with this post, as I've encountered this same idea in another topic just this week.

I would like to know how one might go about demonstrating (rather than simply asserting) "that there aren't really any atheists or agnostics, but only those who are suppressing the truth about God." If we have the means to do this we might also be able to demonstrate whether theists are actually suppressing disbelief.

Any ideas?