An Answer to an Agnostic

[I posted the following comment at the Internet Monk site in response to a post by an agnostic called,  A Letter from an Agnostic.]

 

Dear Agnostic,

Well, there are some positive points in your monologue. First of all you get it that it basically all comes down to one's presuppositions. Atheistic materialism assumes out of hand that there is no God because in doing empirical science there can be no appeal to supernatural intervention, otherwise science degenerates into superstition and mysticism.

However, the philosophy of science has challenged the idea that somehow "science" is neutral. Thomas Kuhn in his classic book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions argued convincingly that science is basically controlled by sociological power structures very similar to a religious organization like the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, there is a degree of subjectivity in doing science and in determining the current "dogma." Which theory of evolution is the correct one? Do blackholes exist and what about string theory? Can life spontaneously generate itself from a primordial soup of the right combination of amino acids? (No scientist has been able to duplicate the process. You would think if they know how it happened it could be repeated in laboratory conditions).

Really the agnostic position is no better than the atheist position because it presupposes that there can be no rationally acceptable answers. But if that is so then empirical science should become agnostic instead of making theoretical presuppositions and then testing those presuppositions. You assume that the burden of proof is on the Christian. When you said that there is no way to prove Jesus rose from the dead, etc., you're clearly siding presuppositionally with the atheist. But how can the atheist be rationally certain that there is no God apart from presupposing that there is no God? The atheist is on equal ground with the Christian since the burden of proof is equally his to prove there is no God.

Now, I know you're going to ask how we can know that Christianity is true from among all the other world religions. That comes down to rationally and logically comparing religions. There is a reason why Christianity is one of the three major religions in the world. It is because it is superior rationally, ethically, and spiritually. Of course, I am biased and presupposing that.

Forgive me for being blunt here but agnosticism is in fact a choice. You have deliberately chosen not to choose and you do so based on your presupposition that God is unknowable and that Christianity is irrational. But that is far from the case as you intimated in your inner struggle. God is indeed incomprehensible as far as knowing everything about an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being goes. But incomprehensibility is different from unknowability.

To believe or not to believe is based on your own choices and your own presuppositions since there is no absolute knowledge of anything. We are all in the same situation on that point whether the choice is atheism, agnosticism, Christianity or some other religion.

The bottom line is presupposition. In my opinion Christianity is compatible with science and it is superior to atheism, agnosticism and to any other religion when rationally examined and when one finally decides to believe.

Calvinism takes the position that God will actually cause you to believe, though you must make the choice (John 1:11-13; John 3:1-8). The onus is still on you but God will help you to make that decision if you are willing to stop choosing rebellion and simply submit to the Creator.  Choose you this day whom you will serve.  (Joshua 24:15; Psalm 14:1-3).

Sincerely in Christ,

Charlie