That sounds correct to me. Metaphysics is most definitely not the teachings of any organized religion.
They are not conveniently avoiding the question of why we exist, however.
Organized religions actually completely eschew these questions by shunting them all under the purview of God's will. Nothing on this Earth avoids questions and inconsistencies in narrative more than organized religions. Adherents can simply never think about these questions as they, and, everything else has been answered by their religious static, social and moral code.
Yes, there's a lot of shunting of that question in religious organizations, but there is still room for it to exist in the minds of many religious individuals. The number of essays and books written on it is a testament to that. I can't say that for the non-religious or non-deists. The question is one of purpose, and purpose originates from an intelligence, and acknowledging a higher intelligence is a non-starter for the non-religious. Almost every time they're asked, they will consistently say "It doesn't matter, we're just here."
I think you are on to something with "I've always considered "metaphysics" to be the agnostic/atheist/philosopher's way of analyzing our existence as conscience beings without acknowledging the divinity behind it."
Thankfully, that is not me, although I do consider myself to be "agnostic" in the sense that I consider "the ultimate truth to be unfathomable to the human mind"
"To understand the entire universe is like trying to measure the ocean with a teaspoon"
I solidly and completely believe in God, however, but I have arrived at this conclusion from my own direct experience. I feel that the conscious mind is an impediment to direct experience of this divinity. I feel the Bible, a static social and moral code, can never convey the grandeur, sheer scale, majesty and underlying love of this extraordinarily strange experiment we are ensconced in.
So philosophy is one of my guilty indulgences but it will always be a mental abstraction, a grim facsimile of the true state of things.
Just the same as an ant cannot view the entire Empire State Building so too the human mind, nor words on a page, can capture the infinite.
I must say though, I am very pleased my view of the universe is not the cold, largely lifeless and foreboding emptiness of the atheist.
I'd agree with most of that, but I suspect that sometimes the terms "agnostic" and "deist" can be interchangeable. I think many people are deist without knowing it. Some may even be Christian deists, which pretty much means they believe in the teachings and values of Jesus but are maybe not sold on his divinity. In any case, vanilla deism is a much more satisfying perspective than, as you say, "the cold, largely lifeless and foreboding emptiness of the atheist."
That sounds correct to me. Metaphysics is most definitely not the teachings of any organized religion.
They are not conveniently avoiding the question of why we exist, however. Organized religions actually completely eschew these questions by shunting them all under the purview of God's will. Nothing on this Earth avoids questions and inconsistencies in narrative more than organized religions. Adherents can simply never think about these questions as they, and, everything else has been answered by their religious static, social and moral code.
Yes, there's a lot of shunting of that question in religious organizations, but there is still room for it to exist in the minds of many religious individuals. The number of essays and books written on it is a testament to that. I can't say that for the non-religious or non-deists. The question is one of purpose, and purpose originates from an intelligence, and acknowledging a higher intelligence is a non-starter for the non-religious. Almost every time they're asked, they will consistently say "It doesn't matter, we're just here."
I think you are on to something with "I've always considered "metaphysics" to be the agnostic/atheist/philosopher's way of analyzing our existence as conscience beings without acknowledging the divinity behind it."
Thankfully, that is not me, although I do consider myself to be "agnostic" in the sense that I consider "the ultimate truth to be unfathomable to the human mind"
"To understand the entire universe is like trying to measure the ocean with a teaspoon"
I solidly and completely believe in God, however, but I have arrived at this conclusion from my own direct experience. I feel that the conscious mind is an impediment to direct experience of this divinity. I feel the Bible, a static social and moral code, can never convey the grandeur, sheer scale, majesty and underlying love of this extraordinarily strange experiment we are ensconced in.
So philosophy is one of my guilty indulgences but it will always be a mental abstraction, a grim facsimile of the true state of things.
Just the same as an ant cannot view the entire Empire State Building so too the human mind, nor words on a page, can capture the infinite.
I must say though, I am very pleased my view of the universe is not the cold, largely lifeless and foreboding emptiness of the atheist.
I'd agree with most of that, but I suspect that sometimes the terms "agnostic" and "deist" can be interchangeable. I think many people are deist without knowing it. Some may even be Christian deists, which pretty much means they believe in the teachings and values of Jesus but are maybe not sold on his divinity. In any case, vanilla deism is a much more satisfying perspective than, as you say, "the cold, largely lifeless and foreboding emptiness of the atheist."
Good chat !