Mailvox: an agnostic’s view

I had a pleasant exchange of emails with one of the gentleman who had previously expressed some doubts about the creation of a certain term. He had some interesting thoughts on the general subject:

I find /omiderigent/ an extremely useful term. The notion of /all-acting/ God, in a purely structural sense, is arguably presumed by the traditional Western “omni-” characteristics: omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. God (as you believe him to be, because I will remind you I am not a believer) is increasing humanized by his detractors, as a mechanism of applying human rule sets and constructs to him. The Omnipotence Paradox exists as a result of this assumption: God is bound by the same rules as man. This notion, however, does not take into accounts Goedel’s Inconsistency Theorems: For any axiomatic rule set, there exists an infinite number of truths that are both true and unprovable. Even if God is bound by the same rules as man, he is still capable of establishing truths that unprovable within the known rules of the set. The solution to the Omnipotence Paradox lies not in the application of Logic to God, but in the fact that the truth does not have to be provable within that system. The broader ideological implications of Goedel might very well serve you in your assault on less accepting non-believers.

As for my own non-belief, it is a choice I have made based on my understanding of my environment. I find that most aetheists and agnostics (incidentally, I take great issue with modern definitions of these words, as they are connotative, not denotative) are unwilling to allow for the possibility of their own error. I do not believe, but I cannot fault, nor deride anyone who does. Faith being an issue of self-actualization means that any reasonable human being has arrived at a belief which satisfies and completes their being. Some individuals will be quite eloquent and intellect in their support of this belief, while others will not. But it is still an actualized choice that must be respected. I do not know if I am right. I do know if you are right. I do know that we disagree. I am still considering the basis for my moral construct; and given that even Plato could not define morality without collapsing his belief into a monotheism, I suspect a rational construct will be difficult to explain.

I tend to concur with that conclusion, obviously. It is always interesting to note how many atheists argue that a rational non-theistic morality that does not wholly depend on cultural traditions could be constructed, I have yet to seen any of them actually do so or provide any evidence that they are living by one.