Non-believing priest

There is in Denmark a huge debate right now, about a priest in the state church. He has publicly announced that he doesn't believe in God. First he was set on probation until his priesthood had been investigated by the clergy court, but now he has been reinstated as a priest because of public pressure from his parish, where he is very popular.
What do you think, should he be allowed to become a priest, even though he doesn't believe in God?

Things like this happen here in the US all the time.

A pastor is known all over the world. Then they find out he's gay, he looks at porn, he cusses, he's an alcoholic, he smokes, etc. People then ask how he can be a preacher and go against his own god's word.

If you believe in the Christian religion (which I have studied quite a bit), you may believe that God has a specific calling on each person's life and this will be fulfilled one way or another. By using this method, one might just say that the priest is meant to be a priest.

Hey, after all, he's a good one.

Let him be.

Although, I must add, he's quite the ass for not even trusting in what he's telling other. Whatever though.

Originally posted by nickybutt
There is in Denmark a huge debate right now, about a priest in the state church. He has publicly announced that he doesn't believe in God. First he was set on probation until his priesthood had been investigated by the clergy court, but now he has been reinstated as a priest because of public pressure from his parish, where he is very popular.
What do you think, should he be allowed to become a priest, even though he doesn't believe in God?

The state church???? Please explain.

Originally posted by nickybutt
There is in Denmark a huge debate right now, about a priest in the state church. He has publicly announced that he doesn't believe in God. First he was set on probation until his priesthood had been investigated by the clergy court, but ...[text shortened]... llowed to become a priest, even though he doesn't believe in God?

It is a consequence of how more and more people look upon the role a priest has to play according to them: the role of a social worker, popular in the eyes of his people, willing to serve the people instead of God ... what else is there to serve if God doesn't exist ? It's all symbolic, isn't it Captain Kirk ?

Originally posted by nickybutt
There is in Denmark a huge debate right now, about a priest in the state church. He has publicly announced that he doesn't believe in God. First he was set on probation until his priesthood had been investigated by the clergy court, but now he has been reinstated as a priest because of public pressure from his parish, where he is very popular.
What do you think, should he be allowed to become a priest, even though he doesn't believe in God?

I was talking to a rabbi a few months ago (reformed tradition) and he was telling me that there are rabbis who are agnostic and it s not an issue in their synogogues.

Originally posted by maybeONEday
Things like this happen here in the US all the time.

A pastor is known all over the world. Then they find out he's gay, he looks at porn, he cusses, he's an alcoholic, he smokes, etc. People then ask how he can be a preacher and go against his own god's word.

If you believe in the Christian religion (which I have studied quite a bit), you may be ...[text shortened]... ust add, he's quite the ass for not even trusting in what he's telling other. Whatever though.

I don't see how not believing in God equates with these other examples. One can argue about whether being a non-smoker or a heterosexual is an inherent job requirement, but I would have thought belief in God was a bit more fundamental than that.

Of course, he can still go through all the rituals and so forth, but why would he want to? If he likes dressing up and saying the required lines, he should be in the theatre, not the church.

Originally posted by Delmer
The state church???? Please explain.

Delmer, in many countries there is an official religion, and hence an official church/mosque/temple etc.. The whole separation of church and state thing hasn't actually taken off in much of the world.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I was talking to a rabbi a few months ago (reformed tradition) and he was telling me that there are rabbis who are agnostic and it s not an issue in their synogogues.

The only honest theist is an agnostic theist.

Originally posted by rwingett
The only honest theist is an agnostic theist.

The words "agnostic" and "theist" are not compatible.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The words "agnostic" and "theist" are not compatible.

They most certainly are. An agnostic theist is one who chooses to believe in a god even though it is uncertain, or that it cannot be known, whether that god actually exists or not.

Originally posted by rwingett
They most certainly are. An agnostic theist is one who chooses to believe in a god even though it is uncertain, or that it cannot be known, whether that god actually exists or not.

An agnostic theist is thus a self contradiction. A theist is a person who believes that God exists. An agnostic believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. Seems strange to me that a person can believe that God exists and at the same time also believe that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

Originally posted by rwingett
They most certainly are. An agnostic theist is one who chooses to believe in a god even though it is uncertain, or that it cannot be known, whether that god actually exists or not.

You need to be precise - is an agnostic one who says:

a. I do not know with certainty that God exists
b. Humanity (at the moment) does not know with certainty that God exists
c. No one can [ever] know with certainty that God exists

Is it (a), (b) or (c)?

One also needs to be precise about "certainty". Clearly, there are plenty of things that one cannot know with 100% certainty - e.g. Am I really typing this or just dreaming?

Finally, one also needs to be precise about what one means by "know". Are you using knowledge in the sense of "true belief that is justified"? How does one know he knows?

Originally posted by nickybutt
There is in Denmark a huge debate right now, about a priest in the state church. He has publicly announced that he doesn't believe in God. First he was set on probation until his priesthood had been investigated by the clergy court, but now he has been reinstated as a priest because of public pressure from his parish, where he is very popular.
What do you think, should he be allowed to become a priest, even though he doesn't believe in God?

Quite simply - no.

If he wants to do social work, he should join a charity.

Originally posted by orfeo
Delmer, in many countries there is an official religion, and hence an official church/mosque/temple etc.. The whole separation of church and state thing hasn't actually taken off in much of the world.

Yep, that's pretty much like it. Until 50 years ago 99% of the danish population were members of the state church, but today that number is down to about 80%
The state church is a reformed Christian church, formed after Martin Luther's principles.
Everyone who is christened is automatically member of the church, and it is indeed still part of the state. The supreme authority is the secretary of the church or church minister as it, directly translated, is called in danish, and is as such, member of the government. Therefor everyone also pay church taxes (1% of the income), even if you don't believe in God.
I should perhaps say that in my opinion it is hypocritical to be a priest and not believe in God. I know I would feel very odd if I were to lead a creed.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You need to be precise - is an agnostic one who says:

a. I do not know with certainty that God exists
b. Humanity (at the moment) does not know with certainty that God exists
c. No one can [ever] know with certainty that God exi ...[text shortened]... of "true belief that is justified"? How does one know he knows?

Actually I think any of the three options you've listed could be compatible with theism. In fact, I think one could hold any union of these postions as well and still be a theist since (c) is a refinement of (b) which itself is a refinement of (a).

a) "I do not know with certainty that God exists. Instead, I believe by faith that he does."

b) "Humanity, of which I (hypothetical theist) am a member, does not know right now with certainty that God exists, but I believe by faith that he does."

c) "No one, including myself (hypothetical theist), can ever know which certainty that God exists, but by faith I believe that he does.

Given this, I don't see how it really matters which definition of these three Rob picks.

As for certainty, I think you can be fairly loose with the term given that certainty is a pretty ridiculous requirement for a human. I've always taken the agnostic to be one who says that it is impossible for a human to know anything about God. (The language I use does have a problem because to saying that it is impossible to know anything about God is to know at least one thing about God. Or maybe not. Maybe this offers no information and so a response like "null" would be more appropriate.). Since belief is not wholly contingent upon knowledge, one can believe something that they do not know to be true. This would be the case with an agnostic believer.

I'll let you go around with the others on knowing that you know. Really, do we always have to retreat to extreme skepticism when some one discusses religion?