Definition of an Agnostic. Just so we're clear... - Page 27

Hamlet · 06-17-2008, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THEWAULRUS

Agnosticism can hardly be called a religion. It is the most open-minded of philosophies, in that an agnostic does not believe in anything; he does not even ascribe to a doctrine of unbelief, like an Atheist. A true agnostic does not assume to know the answers to the supreme questions of the universe (why are we here, how did we get here, what put us here . . . ) – he does not say that there is a god or supernatural being involved with the answers to those questions, but he also does not say there isn’t. The definition of agnosticism is very easy: Agnostics keep an open mind toward everything in the universe, and rely on solid proof or logical scientific theories to formulate their opinions.

Sounds a great deal like fence sitting. And where there is no proof how do you act when action is called for?

SirArthur · 06-17-2008, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamlet

Sounds a great deal like fence sitting. And where there is no proof how do you act when action is called for?

One being Agnostic may only act primarily by Rationalism.
There's no, or pretty few, "fence sitting" on Agnosticism.

xris · 06-17-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamlet

Quote:

Originally Posted by THEWAULRUS

Agnosticism can hardly be called a religion. It is the most open-minded of philosophies, in that an agnostic does not believe in anything; he does not even ascribe to a doctrine of unbelief, like an Atheist. A true agnostic does not assume to know the answers to the supreme questions of the universe (why are we here, how did we get here, what put us here . . . ) – he does not say that there is a god or supernatural being involved with the answers to those questions, but he also does not say there isn’t. The definition of agnosticism is very easy: Agnostics keep an open mind toward everything in the universe, and rely on solid proof or logical scientific theories to formulate their opinions.

Sounds a great deal like fence sitting. And where there is no proof how do you act when action is called for?

Why should sitting on the fence be an offence? At least we have a better view point from up there.We thrive on logic and the possibility that logic may take us to unchartered waters.unchartered waters are always the most exciting.

Lanya · 06-17-2008, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirArthur

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamlet

Sounds a great deal like fence sitting. And where there is no proof how do you act when action is called for?

One being Agnostic may only act primarily by Rationalism.
There's no, or pretty few, "fence sitting" on Agnosticism.

I just assume fence sitting is one of many 'types' of agnosticism. But I guess I just have a broad personal definition of "agnostic" anyway...

rstrats · 06-17-2008, 08:42 PM

Hamlet,

re: “Sounds a great deal like fence sitting.”

But what choice does a person have?

shadowind · 06-19-2008, 01:47 PM

the fence has a higher view point.

Ice_Monkey · 06-19-2008, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rstrats

Hamlet,

re: “Sounds a great deal like fence sitting.”

But what choice does a person have?

things have been put on the table. The choice I see is to accept them by faith or reject them by reason.

rstrats · 07-09-2008, 01:15 PM

Ice_Monkey,

re: “things have been put on the table. The choice I see is to accept them by faith or reject them by reason.”

Is there any implication in that comment that you think that a person has the ability to consciously CHOOSE to believe that someone or something does or doesn’t exist, or that a certain proposition is or isn’t true?

Ice_Monkey · 07-09-2008, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rstrats

Ice_Monkey,

re: “things have been put on the table. The choice I see is to accept them by faith or reject them by reason.”

Is there any implication in that comment that you think that a person has the ability to consciously CHOOSE to believe that someone or something does or doesn’t exist, or that a certain proposition is or isn’t true?

It depends on if and how they've looked at the proposition. The choice is in what tool they employ, and how consistently. That is a choice we all make every day in many facets of daily living. You can certainly make the choice to believe something, and the fact that there are no supporting facts not only makes this easier, but may even make it necessary. Choosing to believe a priori is the only way many come to believe many things.

Yes, that is a choice one makes.

rstrats · 07-09-2008, 06:13 PM

Ice_Monkey,

re: “You can certainly make the choice to believe something...”

Perhaps you can help me then. I have never been able to consciously CHOOSE any of the beliefs that I have and I would like to be able to do that - for example to effect a belief that it is possible for me to become a more compassionate person. Since you seem to be saying that you can consciously CHOOSE to believe things, I wonder if you might explain how you do it. What do you do at the last moment to instantly change your one state of belief to another? What is it that you do that would allow you to say, “OK, at this moment I have a lack of belief that ‘x’ exists or is true, but I CHOOSE to believe that ‘x’ exists or is true and now instantly at this new moment I do believe that ‘x’ exists or is true?

Maybe you could use something like leprechauns to demonstrate your technique. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a leprechaun is “a fairy peculiar to Ireland, who appeared in the form of an old man of minute stature, wearing a cocked hat and a leather apron.” So, assuming that you don’t already have a belief in them, how about right now, while you are reading this, CHOOSE to believe - be convinced without a doubt - that they exist. Now that you believe in leprechauns, my question is, how did you do it? How did you make the instantaneous transition from lack of belief to belief?