Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Classrooms Torn Between Science and Religion
Dystopian Rebel writes "A New Jersey public-school history teacher was recorded telling his students that they 'belong in Hell' if they do not accept Jesus. The teacher, who is also a Baptist Pastor, lied later when he was asked by the school principle what he said to the students. Unfortunately for this dodge, a student recorded the teacher's 'lesson'." From the article: "The student and his parents have requested that the teacher's anti-scientific remarks be corrected in open class, and that the school develop quality control procedures to ensure that future classes are not proselytized and misinformed. They have also referred the matter for disciplinary action. No apology has been forthcoming from the teacher or from the school."
Funny how until about a decade ago, Science was welcomed and seen as the answer, then suddenly the Discovery Institute came up with Intelligent Design and suddenly the thought that science shouldn't be taught anymore comes up.
Does anyone remember what the dark ages were? Looks like we're about to have a relapse.
MABASPLOOM!
It's a clash between science and stupidity. You'll never hear someone like Dawkins talk about the millions of Christians who don't oppose science, because he wants to limit the debate to right-wing fundie atheists vs. right-wing fundie Christians.
Quite the contrary. Dawkins talks a lot about the 'moderate' Christians, as he considers that a large number of those have a 'soft' belief that is succeptible to rational argument. He describes the antics of the fundamentalists in an attempt to get through to the millions. And good luck to him.
Religious people of pretty much any flavour seem to be normal people until you hit that one spot where the gears seem to just mash into each other and they go haywire.
This guy shouldn't be teaching, particularly not history. Any loon who tries to tell a bunch of kids that (a) Noah's ark was real and (b) There were dinosaurs on it should have their license to teach revoked.
Marx was right, it is an opiate, because there certainly seem to be a fair share of the users acting like they're on something.
Where's the Kaboom?
There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
Actually, Dawkins talks about the millions of Christians who don't oppose science all the time.
You obviously don't read many of his books (such as the latest one, The God Delusion), nor listen to many of his speeches (most of which can be found on YouTube or at RichardDawkins.net), because Dawkins has made that seemingly benign group of people the target of many of his criticisms.
In The God Delusion, Dawkins examines how he thinks these people are able to compartmentalize their lives in such a way that makes belief in God possible while also having a natural and healthy skepticism about other, non-religious claims. For instance, most people scoff at the idea that idea that there should be evidence of God's existance before they believe in him, yet would demand just such evidence if I were to claim I had a dragon in my garage.
While Dawkins certainly loves picking the low hanging fruit (the right-wing religious wackos), he is more than happy to address what he views as the hypocritical moderates. In fact, he has said numerous times that he almost has more respect for people who are steadfast in their religious beliefs than those who are willing to blend modern life with religious dogma.
You don't see scientist sneaking into Religious schools to teach evolution.
No, but you do see teachers ridiculing and berating students to *do* have religious beliefs. Wanna try it out? Try stating in open class that you don't believe the theory of evolution is valid and watch the profs at your average University lay into you for being an idiot (or gullible, confused, brainwashed, etc...).
Betcha if this guy had done that there wouldn't be nearly as much outrage about it -- at least not on Slashdot.
Regardless, this guy deserved to go anyway... if he lies during the course of an investigation then he has no place teaching anywhere.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Where the "gears grind" (well put!) is called cognitive dissonance. The tension that occurs when 2 strongly held cognitions (beliefs, feelings, concepts etc) conflict. Common in anybody with strongly held beliefs such as some religious fundies, left/right wing political nutjobs, and audiophiles. People who not only refuse to accept evidence that their beliefs are wrong, but actually may not be able to accept it without a sort of major ego collapse. Kind of scary when you encounter it, isn't it?
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Unless it is a seminary class, there should be NO room for religion in the class. Except history, maybe, to show how so many random tribes have used religion to justify genocide.
Seriously, learning and study are on the opposite end of memorization and faith. It's not just a simple difference of opinion among some "teachers". It's a fundamental difference between logic and reason, and blind retardation.
No person espousing any type of religious dogma should be considered a teacher by the simple definition of the word. They are not in fact a teacher at that point, but a malignant propagandist for a religious agenda that, 99% of the time is ignorant and bad for humanity, and the rest of the living things on the planet.
If there is debate between religion and science, it is no longer a class room but a seminary room involving a lame argument devolved between two parties where one side uses reason and logic, and the other side says, "The bible says so!".
It's stupid and pointless and if YOUR tax dollars are paying for it, you should be damned pissed off.
I certainly am.
God can go hang out wherever he wants, but not where my money is getting wasted by morons.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
and wonder why non-Christians hate them.
This kind of crap happens ALL THE TIME. It is a given for any fundamentalist Christian sect that they will take whatever forum where they think they can get away with it and use it to give the hard sell. (And I do mean "sell", because it's not benevolence they're offering, but a product.)
Another Baptist preacher once used my uncle's funeral as an opportunity to try and convince the non-Christians in our family that we had better accept Jesus before OUR time was up. This jerk didn't even know my uncle, but just wanted to exploit the situation to try to get more people into his church.
Here, another typical instance of high-pressure salesmanship from a fundamentalist preacher, only this time it's not just you he's trying to sell his product to... but it's your CHILDREN.
So he tells your kids that they are going to burn in hell if they don't buy his shtick. That's damn close to child abuse.
Or howabout the most violent place on earth - helvedgård voldsted (literally "hell farm, place of violence" if you ignore the spelling) on the little island of Als, Denmark?
Freedom or George Bush
As much as I believe in the seperation of church and state, I do also believe in equity. During my education, from junior high through college, there would occasionally be a teacher who would go out of their way to ridicule religion to the class. Not just talk about good or bad aspects, but just come out and ridicule religion - or even class members who were religious. I was never really involved or concerned one way or another, but the teachers were pretty mean-spirited towards some of the class members.
So, in be equitable, I think that the same standard should be applied to both sides. Either let everyone talk about religion as they please, or tell everyone to shut up about it. Just don't tell one group that they have to keep quiet, but allow the other side to keep on about it.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
I agree completely. Further, there's no scientific evidence that giant flying spaghetti monsters don't exist. Nor is there evidence that underpants gnomes don't exist (in fact, given the rate of underpants disappearances, I would argue *for* their existance!). The only difference between God and underpants gnomes or FSM is that the question of God is a central question in philosophy, including discussion of what "God" even means to different people from different real living cultures around the world. Underpants gnomes and FSM are just artificial creations that mock thousands of years of human insight, intuition, art, and culture.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Not true. This might seem blatantly obvious (because it is!) but science definitely has belief attributes: Large claims require larger proof, and the default state for science is that things don't exist.
"God exists" is the biggest claim someone can make. Regardless of how much evidence is available to support this, many scientists would never believe it.
But "God doesn't exist" is an equally large claim, it is just in line with science's initial state that nothing exists that isn't provable. It's taken for granted.
Note: I'm not saying all beliefs are equally valid. That's the same as saying none are. As someone with a personal relationship with God, there's no such thing as sufficient evidence to disprove his existence to me. Just like apparently there is no such thing as sufficient evidence to prove to you that he does exist.
Most Christians don't believe in God, they believe in -belief- in God which is quite a different matter.
Wonderfully put! They feel kind of mildly skeptic or agnostic, but believe that a belief is a good thing to have...
Actually, questions about "god" are *NOT* central to philosophy---at least, not in the last 100 years or so, and at least in the mainstream anglo-american tradition. (I offer this tidbit since I am a professor of philosophy.) With few exceptions, any such discussions are limited to professors covering classical arguments for the existence of god in a intro class or to some discussion of "philosophy of religion".
Moreover, it is a pretty invidious distinction to say "well, the god question is old, and so real, but the FSM is new and just parody." I mean, the Jesus hypothesis was pretty new at one point . . . .
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
They're not really so benign, because they give religion its power. Without them, fundamentalists would have a much more difficult time with their trash-talking and hatred.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I didn't mean a different type of free speech, I meant that his rights are limited and thus not free speech.
Granted, a teacher is free to express opinion *provided* that opinion is one related to the subject at hand, but not just any opinion. We don't have automata teaching children, but nor should we have people who will use a classroom to push their own unrelated agenda.
I've had the benefit of having taken far too many courses (two Masters degrees and currently ABD on a Ph.D.), so I've actually witnessed this on more than one occasion. On each occasion, the professor has disagreed with the student, but did not "lay into" him. It was basically a "you're entitled to your beliefs, but if this comes up on a test..." type of response. I'm guessing the average professor is too smart to take up class time (or his own) on what will no doubt be a pointless exercise. (I know a couple people who have gone from being Creationists to believing in evolution, but in both cases it involved letting that person come to their own conclusion. Trying to "preach" to them is very unlikely to do any good.)
Now in no way are my few experiences proof that it never happens, or really even that it doesn't often happen - I admit they are just a few case studies. Still, my belief is that it doesn't happen at your average University.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The most common example is that free speech does not entitle you to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, but "free speach" can also be trumped by crimes such as "inciting to start a riot" and such. Furthermore, the establishment clause is frequently interpreted to mean that public officials are not allow to _support_ religion while acting in their public role. If this teacher had said something to a student outside of the classroom, it might have raised eyebrows as being inappropriate, but very few people would consider it to be a violation of the establishment clause.w
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Atheists on TV? I see plenty about evolution, which is basically atheist preaching.
Evolution isn't atheist at all. Even John Paul II, the last Pope, stated evolution was correct. He said something along the lines that "God" used evolution to create life. Of course the new Pope may very well change that. As for myself, I strongly believe in evolution but I am not an atheist. What I am is agnostic, "a", without, and "gnostis", knowledge. I am without knowledge on the subject of whether there is or is not any supreme diety, soul, or spirit.
You don't choose the things you believe in, they choose you!
FalconShould there be a Law?
Yes, but if you went to a cow-sacrifice ritual in Singapore and watched a 3 year-old girl getting excruciating fits then talking like a 40 year-old man, your views on "demonic possession" might be slightly moved.
I have a copy of the "Fundamentals of Neuroscience" and I don't see that fact mentioned anywhere. Now, realize that I share the same "faith" as you, but also realize that to Christians, God is also a "fact". Declaring something to be a fact does not mean that it's not a belief you hold. (Even if it were in the Fundies of Neuroscience :), it would still not mean that it's not a belief. God is found mentioned in quite a few places in one of the best selling "reference" books of all time.)
If you want to argue about contradictions within a belief system (which IMO necessarily include the physical world), then fine. But don't deny that believing in concepts such as causality, reproducibility, etc., are still beliefs. They may be beliefs of an arguably different nature, but still beliefs. Science is, in fact, based on a set of axioms. Those axioms are the cornerstones of the "faith".
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Actually, there are those who deny that Jesus ever existed at all. In response, you'll find Christian books that are devoted to proving that he did exist. I actually heard one public school history teacher say something very much along the lines that there is no historical proof that Jesus ever existed and that it is likely that other people wrote the words he is credited with saying.
Still, I agree that mentioning the crucifiction in the context of mentioning Easter shouldn't be a problem as long as it is presented carefully. However, it would be very easy for either a Christian or a non-Christian (Jew, atheist, etc.) to slip up when discussing this, so I'd make sure I had a script to go by when discussing it, I'd make sure that I had discussed the script with the principle, and I certainly wouldn't deny mentioning it if asked by a child's parent.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Public schools in the US are government-managed and as such, the government's responsibility not to endorse any religions means that the teacher's preaching is more in violation of the First Amendment than supported by it.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
About a million years ago, back in the '80s, my 9th grade "Social Studies" teacher decided he was going to toss out our American history book the day before Christmas vacation and pull out his bible and hop upon his pulpit. A couple other students and I got up and started to walk when he threatened to have us suspended for leaving his class. I told him to go ahead, and walked straight to the principal's office and told him what was going on, and asked if I could go home, since it was my last class for the day. I told him I wasn't going to be forced to sit there and be preached at when I"m supposed to be sstudying American history. I wish I'd had a photo of the principal's face when I told him, his color just turned to ash, and he hustled out of the office and down to the classroom. When he returned, he gave me a pass and told me to have a good break.
Turns out that the teacher was sitting in the classroom by himself, since the rest of the class took the cue from us and all bailed as well. He got suspended, not the students.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
The Bishop was probably David Jenkins, Bishop of Durham between 1984 and 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Edward_Jenkins
He is said to have said "I wouldn't put it past God to arrange a virgin birth if He wanted, but I very much doubt if He would."
More details here on "atheist" priests: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/393479.stm
Telling to "the public" that earth is flat is "free speech"
Telling children that earth is flat is "lying".
Or to drive the point through
Making a video of yourself having intercourse with is protected by free speech under the impression that it could be art, and this is probably good, since the exact limit is very hard to define.
Bonking the cleaning person in front of the children might be seen as educative, but nevertheless is a nono and might get you in jail. Using not to good looking images and diagrams is deemed more adequate for sex-ed.
I am, what most people would call, a right wing fundamental Christian. I believe the Bible to be the absolute truth. I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to meet with God. Because of my relationship with God, I find evolution a laughable concpet... I am 100% convinced that intelligent design is the only explanation. I go to church, twice on Sundays, and a few times during the week. I give over 10% of my money to the church. I however, do not go around telling people they will go to hell. I enjoy reading Slashdot science articles, I don't firebomb abortion clinics. I don't hold up signs like "gay's go to hell" in protest against the Mardi Gras. I'm looking forward to playing Rainbox 6: Las Vegas (sweeeet). I cringe when i saw the youtube video about the crazy Jesus lady. These kind of things embarass me and don't at all reflect who I know my Jesus to be. I try to love as many people as I can, because that is what Jesus did. People, like this pastor, mean well - Jesus is the best thing that's ever happened to me - but their method is their own, and not God's. So don't put us in a box. Don't think this man is a horrible person, in His mind (and mine) the best thing he could ever show the kids in his classroom is Jesus. Unfortunately, his actions showed Jesus to be something that he is not. A liar and a manipulator, and that's the saddest part.
Jesus Saves
Actually, the very historicity of Jesus is subject to challenge. However, that's not unusual for history; many historical issues are unclear. However, they are generally presented as being unclear. When it comes to Jesus, however, the very debate tends to get suppressed.
Take the cruci-fiction (spelling deliberate). The Romans kept very good records of criminal trials and executions. Many, but not all, of these records survive today. That the Romans did use crucifixion in Palestine as a form of capital punishment is historical fact. That a Jewish carpenter-turned-rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, during the Passover celebrations, sometime between 20BC and 50AD, is not - the dated records don't survive. Neither the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church, both of which are old enough to _have_ the documentary evidence, are prepared to release any.
Now, there is good secondary evidence to suggest that Jesus lived, and that he was crucified. But there is sufficient doubt, along with enough supporting material for alternative theories, that teaching the Crucifixion as historical fact is intellectually dishonest.
As for Easter - yes, you'd want to say that it's a secular holiday based on the Christian tradition of remembrance of the Crucifixion of Jesus. That is fact, even if the Crucifixion itself isn't. You may then want to say that, because the country you live in was a strong Christian tradition, some of the Christian holy days have become secular holidays (and then segue into the etymology of the word). You may then want to point out that Easter should coincide with the Jewish Passover celebrations (which it doesn't any more - well, the Orthodox Christian Easter still does). While you're at it, you may want to point out that Christmas was picked as a date rather arbitrarily.
While you're at it, you may want to point out that Thanksgiving is an old celebration imported from Europe, and it is all about being thankful that you've got enough food put aside that you'll survive the winter. The fact that this original purpose is now mostly irrelevant (it's been a long time in a Western country since widespread famine in winter and Spring was a problem) doesn't mean that the holiday doesn't have a modern reason to continue.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
...says the anonymous coward. But there are many not afraid to speak openly about this topic, such as myself.
I would be what someone might label as fundamentalist, in that I believe in the infallibility of God's message to us. However, the correct meaning of fundamentalist as used in these conversations is really an extreme legalism (they take things to the extreme on the language, usually failing to realize that the infallible word does not mean someone can't do a biased translation).
I'm an Apostolic Pentecostal of the United Pentecostal Church. We're Oneness (only One, not three in one). We're also classified under the Charismatic, because we practice the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We're separate from them, though, in our Oneness beliefs and also in what are known as standards. Our women don't cut their hair and usually wear dresses and skirts, our men keep their hair cut short and wear long sleeve shirts and full length pants. We generally don't watch TV (which isn't universally practiced, dvds are allowed to an extent, etc... , but is part of our standards bylaws, debate on this issue continues), go out to movies, drink, smoke, or take any other types of drugs.
So, from reading that, you would think we're the far far far right of all issues, especially on science. You would also be furthest from the truth.
The truth is that our church realizes one thing, that science cannot and will not disprove God, if that science is truly logical in basis and not some half baked theory. Evolution remains unproven, but if you were to ask our scholars, they would similarly tell you, every bit of Evolution (or any other scientific area) that is proven fact is fully in line with biblical accounts. On the other hand, we have no faith that science will ever bring humanity even one inch closer to salvation. We simply recognize that many misguided people would use theory and out of context facts to make a case against Christianity, as if there really were some disagreement between science and biblical truth.
Churches are filled with the technologically gifted. Who do you think runs sound booths, cameras, websites, etc.? Churches have massive IT infrastructures. Christians broadcast on tens of thousands of radio stations worldwide and several denominations run entire TV networks. So, before anyone jumps on the "religion is for low IQ people", like the "New Atheism" people do, realize that such a view is mainly based in geographic epicenters revolving around creation and design, not implementation (the programmers, not the professional users).
As such, the "low IQ" bias doesn't hold, considering the proliferation of "media ministries". And we certainly passed our science and math classes with flying colors. Many will also tell you that faith is not blind. Faith is that we've seen enough evidence to be persuaded, which is the actual use of the word faith in the bible. As Jesus did say, if you don't believe because I'm telling you, believe because of the works you've seen me do. (paraphrasing heavily) We recognize that God has never refused a test, though you better be careful not to tempt him. There's a difference between testing and tempting. If you don't believe, you can test. If you believe, but ask anyways for some undeserving reason, you tempt. That's a very simplified explanation, but should get the message to you.
Now, as for this case, this teacher was misguided, and I'm still waiting for the downloaded audio to listen to the context. But I recognize a few things right off the bat. First off, he was setup.
"The following is from Paul L. LaClair, a NYC attorney who lives in Kearny, New Jersey, and is posted with his permission. David Paszkiewicz, the teacher described here engaging in incompetent teaching and dishonesty, is apparently a youth pastor at Kearny Baptist Church in addition to being a public school teacher. LaClair's son Matthew has previously garnered attention for protesting Bush administration activities by refusing to stand for
I8-D
This is hardly a new issue. Back around 1970 I took a course at UCB in the history of science. The text for the course was A History of the warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/), by Andrew Dickson White, first published in 1896. Little has changed since then (either 1896 or 1970, your choice).
The salient and interesting point of White's work is captured in the title. The warfare is between Science and Theology, not between Science and Religion. White's position, strongly defended, was that science and religion, characterized as faith or belief in powers and existence outside the immediate corporeal world, were not at odds, but that theology, as put forth by religious scholastics with a vested interest in convincing the general populace of the value of unquestioned dogma, was completely at odds with science.
It's a tough go, but worth the effort. After thirty-five+ years, I can still cite that book, although I cannot remember the names of more that a handful of the professors I endured or, in a very few cases, was privileged to study with (requiescat in pace, Dr. Pimentel).
Spiritus ex Machina
"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine."
Why would I choose to be an agnostic only in order to just "get along" when the religious say I'm going to hell and the atheists tell me I'm just being indecisive?
I'm agnostic, but I'm also highly-critical in religious arguments. If I see something which I don't believe makes sense, I don't hesitate to point it out. I'm very confrontational.
My philosophy regarding religion isn't "Let's get along." My philosophy is "I haven't heard a single convincing argument yet, so I don't know."
Albuquerque PC
You're describing Pascal's wager.
The fallacy in Pascal's wager is that you've got several religions to choose from, not just one. What grounds, other than it is the religion you were brought up in, do you have for Christianity (and the flavour thereof that you follow) being the "One True Path" that gets you into the good afterlife and lets you avoid the bad one?
How would you feel if it turns out that you should have converted to Islam? Or that you were out of luck if you weren't born a Jew in the first place? (there's some evidence to suggest that Jesus only ever extended the salvation to the Jews, and that Paul expanded on the message when he started to try to convert the Romans). Maybe Joseph Smith _didn't_ pull Mormanism out of his posterior and it really was revealed to him by God. Or you perhaps should be worshipping Brahman (possibly in one of the many sub-aspects, such as Vishnu, Shiva, or Shakti)? Mind you, if the last one turns out to be correct, you'll get another turn on the Wheel later to try again, so that's probably not worth the risk the first time around.
The point here is that, most likely, the only reason you are a Christian is that you were born into a Christian family. If you'd been born in Iran, you'd probably be Muslim. I repeat - how do you choose which religion to follow?
As for the Bible not contradicting itself, that's flat out wrong. Both the Old and the New Testament are full of contradictions, both within each Testament and between them. Heck, arguably the most important story in the New Testament, the story of the birth of Jesus, is completely different between Matthew and Luke.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
If he was a practicing Zen buddhist, he shouldn't be, since that would mean he doesn't believe in much of anything. Depending. Zen is typically more of a philosophy than a religion. A Zen buddihst may or may not believe that he will be reincarnated after he is dead. He may in fact believe or not believe that he is going to die some time in the future, depending on his feelings that day, or not. Imagine the following exchange of words between a Zen master and a student: Student: Hey, what happens when I die? Master: How should I know? Student: But you are a master! You must know! Master: Well, duh, I'm not dead yet! At it's core Zen doesn't teach you anything that is "supernatural". Reincarnation is what happens to you here and now. Every moment that you experience something your old "self" (oversimplification, who knows if there is a "self") dies and is re-born as a new "self" due to the experience you just had. If that continues after you are dead is just another dumb, and extremely irrelevant, question. What matters is where, how and what you are now. The grandparent feels that Zen meditation helps him deal with what he calls his Buddha nature. Good for him. Another person may find that surfing the beaches of Southern California does the same. I am not sure what you think is nonsense about what he believes, or why you think you know what he believes, but then again, does it matter?
This post was clearly not meant to be funny. I've noticed over the year or so that I've been a member here that you have a habit of labeling posts as funny when they try to represent an unpopular viewpoint, particularly when this viewpoint is religious in nature. If you don't want to believe what a person has to say, that's fine--but it's no reason to call their argument a joke. I was under the impression that /. was meant to be nerd *news*, not some childish nerd popularity contest. Perhaps I was wrong...
In future, I would appreciate you giving *all* viewpoints--even ones which go against the crowd or which you may think are dumb--a fair mod. If the other readers don't agree, let them submit a credible argument against it.
But one day Tom, he went and caught the River-daughter, in green gown, flowing hair, sitting in the rushes
So, the way the GP was using these words is consistent with 1b for both definitions. It's how a lot of people use these words. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
Now, I actually find the distinction between "not knowing" and "not believing" to be a whole lot harder to pin down than the distinction between "not believing there's a god" and "believing there's no god", but maybe that's just me. As for the latter, there are plenty of people who DO believe there's no god, so what do you call them if not atheist? I understand your etymology argument, but similar reasoning might lead to the idea that "inflammable" means "not flammable" (yes, I know that it comes from "inflame"), and although I'm no wordsmith, I'm sure there are dozens of examples in the English language where what the word means does not agree with its etymology.
Now if you're looking for another distinction that's not captured by these words - and perhaps this is what you're getting at - there are at least two types of agnostics: those who aren't sure whether there's no God, and those who aren't sure whether there are any gods. I.e., you can be agnostic and still think, "Well if there is a God, it's (probably) the Christian God." Such people might describe themselves as being "Christian agnostic". (I added the word "probably" because I think even self-described "Christian agnostics" might be willing to entertain the idea that it's a single God, but not necessarilyl the God of the Old and/or New Testaments.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?