From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 15:44:36 EST
> 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.<
True, and Jim has not spelled out just what he is agnostic about.
However, if you do not know whether there is a God, you do not know
whether there is any external absolute authority for morality. Thus,
you do not have any justification for holding others to whatever
moral standards you set for yourself. Only if there is either an
agreed-upon authority or a higher point of reference is there a
reason to expect someone to heed particular moral values. Some moral
principles have obvious pragmatic value, but taking personal
exceptions usually looks more appealing.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 14 2002 - 01:08:23 EST