Reply #74: Essentially, yes.

[Selwynn]

Parts that I would disagree with:

1. Agnosticism is a conclusion about life based on knowledge around us, which argues that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, so the subject is irrelevant. That is the only "faith-less" position. Atheism is a belief, without concrete empirical evidence, on the absence of God. There are other kinds of evidence or subjective impressions that might cause one to embrace atheism, but not concrete evidence.

2. The only logical path following current concrete knowledge is agnosticism.

3. Saying that religion is based on faith because none of the beliefs are based on actual knowledge presupposed an understanding of what "actual knowledge" is. But if you study epistemology - and lucky for you it just so happens that I do (hehe) - you'll recall that classical skepticism points out the fact that we can never really be said to know anything "for certain" for it is always possible that my senses are deceived in some way. Therefore what we are really pursuing is the rightful justification for beliefs.

4. Saying that religion is based on faith in things that can't be proven is not always accurate. For example, religion for many people is not faith in a supernatural reality, but rather a language construct by which they represent - symbolically and metaphorically - the experiences of life that are real, yet cannot be easily described concretely or objectively. It's like trying to describe the color blue to someone who has never seen blue before, without pointing to a blue object and saying "well its LIKE that." We know that our experience of blue is real - we do experience it. But trying to relate that experience to someone who has not experience it is virtually impossible - we must resort to metaphor and symbolism. For many people religion is very much like that - metaphor and symbols to talk about non-concrete experiential realities and describe them in terms that make sense.

5. It absolutely not necessary at all that religious faith have anything to do with a need to belong. I do not live with a religious person, I do not attend a religions church or any kind of religious fellowship. My beliefs are my own private beliefs - they are for me, and me only.

6. Religious faith is not necessary about relying on the words of others. I do not rely on the words of others. I experience my world first. Based on those experiences I seek to interpreting in explain those experiences in ways that make sense to me. I begin with logical analysis, scientific reasoning and rationality. But I continue to talk about abstract experiences that cannot be easily categorized or referenced via metaphor and symbolism. Through symbolism, I am able to say, this is what this real and genuine living experience I have *IS LIKE* - which is not the same thing as saying what it is. Maybe my some of the experiences I have are because of my psychology, or other reasons. Maybe they are because I perceive something about the world that I can't fully explain. It doesn't matter. My religious life is not about saying absolutely what is, it is about recognizing the diverse experiences of my life and saying, "this is what these experience ARE LIKE."

Just a few things - I'm sorry I had way more, but I have to leave now. :(