Empirical Theism (or, The Choice to Not Choose in Matters of Faith)

When I was much, much younger, I was proud to be a Presbyterian, following in the beliefs of my grandparents and mother. I went through the Catechism and a second baptism in my middle school days and proclaimed beliefs in which I did not have the greatest comprehension.

As I entered highschool, I began independent studies of multiple religions. I began to question my own faith, as it was grounded more in familial interests rather than personal spiritual experience. As the years have passed, I have read through texts on Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, early Japanese Shinto, Wicca/Paganism, Christianity, Mormonism and the irreverant, but strangely compelling Discordianism. As such, I have a great respect for the religions of the world, finding philosophies in each with which I agree on moral and ethical grounds. Each has merits in its own rights.

However, none of this reading has affected the decision I made at around the age of seventeen... the age at which I first engaged my agnostic leanings. I began as an Agnostic Theist, giving my belief to the Church as a matter of faith. As my education and personal experiences furthered, I have since waivered between Strong and Weak Agnosticism, though Weak seems to provide the majority of my theistic opinions (In brief, Strong Agnosticism posits that deific forces are unknowable by man, whereas Weak believes a deity can be known, but there is not enough proof to support the existence or non-existence).

Many see my views as a 'cop out', avoiding either a commitment to or denial of the existence of a deific presence. As of yet, only one person has ever pointed out the logic of Pascal's Wager, which still requires a leap of faith that I am not, at present, capable of making. (For those unfamiliar with Pascal's Wager, he stated that the infinite rewards of belief in God outweigh the finite aspects of disbelief and pointed out that God was, in respects, a 'safe bet').

I cannot, however, find reason to accept belief based entirely on faith alone. I have not had what I would consider any spiritual experiences, but I do not consider my lack thereof indicative of the non-existence of a greater power. The problem is that I do, in fact, require some sort of empirical data, some element of proof before I can either acknowledge or dismiss the presence of a deity.

Given the nature of the universe and the intricate design, one can only imagine there must be some sort 'engineering force' that makes everything work and make sense. However, I cannot, as of yet, determine what to call it or which path to choose in matters of faith.

If this makes me a 'fence-sitter', so be it. I believe Agnosticism is, in itself, a 'safe bet', as it provides me with the ability to explore a religion without bias. I don't have to accept the contradictions inherent in multiple philosophies and can, rather, question them and pursue further knowledge to help provide answers to the aspects that don't make the greatest sense. I would rather have the knowledge and respect that I do rather than being restricted by the nature of my faith in a chosen religion.

Statistically, I know I will eventually choose a religious path as I grow older and reach an age where my mortality becomes a more prominent issue. I'd like to think my constant questioning and quest for answers now will allow me to make a choice of 'aware faith' rather than the 'blind' kind.