From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 15:05:29 EST
bivalve wrote:
>
> Walt wrote:
> >3.) Lastly, I contend that agnosticism is personally falsifiable.
> >Since agnosticism claims that both atheism and theism are viable
> >world views, one needs to become a STRONG atheist to prove that is
> >not true. (I don't mean these watered down "free thought" alliances
> >with "weak atheists", agnostics and humanists, which avoid facing
> >the consequences of true strong atheism.) Just try being an strong
> >atheist for an extended period of time. Say there is no God and live
> >your life as through that were absolutely true. Shake off all moral
> >principles and go for the gusto. Wallow in things that used to be
> >"sin" and plunder whenever you cannot be caught. You may have to be
> >a hypocrite so that your peers don't see your lack of morals but the
> >financial gain will be worth it. Try to ignore that funny feeling in
> >your gut and avoid throwing up. If you cannot actually do it
> >physically, do it in your mind daily. When through with this
> >exercise, atheism is down the tubes and agnosticism neces!
> sarily follows with it.<
> >What say you and others?
>
> This points out a place at which agnostics and atheists consistently
> fail to be logical. For example, Jim has been accusing Christianity
> of being untruthful, yet as an agnostic he has no grounds for
> requiring truthfulness of anyone. It would be inconsistent of
> Christianity to be untruthful, but again agnosticism cannot justify
> consistency as a principle. I know of no moral system not rooted in
> theism that does not boil down to "I can do what I want and you can
> do what I want".
This seems to me to be missing the point of what an agnostic
claims to be.
The defining quality of an agnostic is to say that one does not know
whether or not
there is a God. It does not mean, at least in normal usage, that one
doesn't claim to
know anything, or that genuine knowledge is impossible. It doesn't
even have to mean
that a person says that it can never be known whether or not there is
a God, even though
there isn't enough evidence to decide the question at present.
Of course I'm speaking of intelligent people who have given
some thought to
these matters. The college sophomore who declares him or her-self an
agnostic because
it's a fashionable thing to be or the person who's just using the word to cover
intellectual laziness isn't my concern here.
Of course "agnostic" can be used in other senses - e.g., "I'm
an agnostic about
the Higgs boson." But when someone says simply "I'm an agnostic",
especially when
religion is at issue, it normally has the meaning I gave above.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 12 2002 - 23:28:10 EST