3 Answers

  1. I'll start with the background. Up to a certain age, I was a nobody. That is, ” well, as if it might be so, or maybe not, and in general-why are you bothering with questions?”. Then, under the influence of constant conversations with believers and critical thinking, I became an atheist. Then I read Luria's book, I don't remember the title, but there was a man whose psyche was stuck in the year 45. I won't retell it, just read it. This led me to understand consciousness as a kind of ellusion, or something. And then I realized that critical thinking, in fact, is also irrational, because it relies on several accepted axioms. That is, the same dogmatism as the believers. That's why I became an agnostic.

    If you need an explanation, I'll write it in the comments.

  2. I came to the conclusion that there is a God in a purely logical way when I was just over twenty years old, back in the era of”scientific atheism”. If you think rationally and consistently, then the conclusion about the existence of God is inevitable. In this regard, atheism is something irrational, based on the psychological rejection of certain rational consequences from completely rational premises. And a minimum of intellectual courage is sufficient to recognize such logical consequences. But this was not a religious belief, but a common belief in scientific methods of knowledge. Therefore, it took almost another decade and a half to move from knowing about the existence of God to believing in Him: from the “God of Philosophers” to the Living God. For even in everyday life, for example, it is one thing to know about love, and another to love yourself, and here the analogous difference appears in a much higher degree.

    However, it would be possible to talk about everything for a long time, so I'll just share one of the main lessons of my own experience. I am well aware that many people will not like it, but the truth is more expensive. The biggest obstacle on the way to God is popular prejudice against the Church. They are often based on a basic ignorance of church life (not to mention ecclesiology). But they are very militant, and they are distributed purposefully, including with the widespread use of”useful idiots”. This is a technical term (more precisely, slang) from the field of media technologies, meaning that part of the “advanced” (but essentially ignorant) audience that is always ready to pick up and retransmit any information stuffing – completely free of charge and completely uncritically (it is enough only to motivate accordingly: for example, “free thinking”, etc.). So, with regard to the Russian Orthodox Church, the disinformation “hit” is now massive, in all directions. Since I've been working in the media industry for three and a half decades, I can judge this quite professionally. And the point is not at all in some “conspiracy theory”, but in banal and routine (one can say eternal) geopolitical competition. It is no coincidence that the positions of our Western “partners” in this regard can change up to the diametric opposite. So, in 1983, Ronald Reagan declared the USSR an “evil empire” not for its nuclear arsenal, not for state property, etc. – he justified this by saying that the Soviet society rejects Christianity and Christian morality, and the Soviet authorities oppress the Church. Now, on the contrary, they are hammering Russia for allegedly “merging Church and state” and for the fact that there is “too much religion” in Russian society, that “minorities are oppressed” (homosexuals, etc.). The times have changed – the songs have changed, although the goals of competition have remained the same. And one of the strategic tasks that is currently being solved is to create a mass illusion in the Russian population that church membership is not necessary for faith in God. In fact, without the Church and outside of it, you can not come to God at all. Whether we like it or not, there is always a deeper, spiritual level behind all political, economic, and social conflicts. In the words of one of Dostoevsky's heroes, here the devil fights with God, and the battlefield is the hearts of people. Among other things, this means that the battlefield is human freedom: everything unfolds both through it and in it. To decide anything, to choose – a personal matter for everyone. It is only important to understand that the choice is made in the earthly life, and what is its essence:

    In hell there is no chance, in fire there is no ford:

    It's up to us, even if we're weak,

    As long as the existence of freedom is given –

    The eternal pledge of fate.

    She's close the closest thing,

    Ty's only way

    From the everyday life of this fleeting life

    To eternal existence.

    Law of Laws, fundamentals basis,

    Any ontologies are the essence of,

    Because there was a Word in the beginning,

    And the first word is ” be!”.

    Who to be, there are always many temptations,

    But with whom to be-always one thing:

    You're either with the devil or with God,

    And the third is not given.

    Well, the path to religious faith… One of the main principles of intellectual freedom is ” question everything.” However, in its consistent form, it looks like this:”question everything, including the doubt itself.” This, of course, is only the first step. But every path starts with the first step.

  3. Because atheism is not fundamentally different from religiosity. It is also based on faith – only the belief that there is no God. Agnosticism is based not on faith, but on knowledge – this is the fundamental difference. The amount of knowledge I have gained over the years supports the theory that there is no God. So I don't believe it. that there is no God, but I know that there is no God. And I am ready to change my point of view if I am provided with evidence to the contrary, which I consider weighty. And again, I will not believe in God, but I will know that he exists.

Leave a Reply