agnostics??? - Page 2

ReasonableDoubt · 12th February 2003, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by metacristi

But real agnostics are implicitly 'without reliable ... knowledge of no God(s)' too.

For example ...

Quote:

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important vriterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying:

You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.

This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.

- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler as quoted in
- Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection by Doctor Barbara Forrest

Upchurch · 12th February 2003, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
See, for example, Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism.

ReasonableDoubt,

I must say, this is a very interesting paper. It's always interesting to get new terminology for expressing ideas. Thank you for posting it.

Based on it's definitions, I would have to say that my stance is some combination of methodological athiest and unknowability agnostic in reference to God2 (whom I would consider to be the popular definition of the word "God")

After reading the article, however, I suppose that I could also define myself as a diest (by which I mean "one who does not believe in a personal God") in reference to the universe-style God1. I mean, go outside on a clear night and there it is (or some of it anyway). Kind of hard to dispute that. The love-style God1 isn't as easy to point at, but when it all comes down to it, I'd have to say I am comfortable believing in that God1 as well.

For God3 (who I am taking to be the Christian God), I'm squarly in the methodological atheist camp. The Bible tells the whole, unvarnished truth? Fine, Prove it.

For God4 and God5, I'm pretty much defaulted back to the unknowablility agnostic. I mean, something so undefined is unackowledgable. Even if you did have evidence of one, how would you know it?

Again, thank you RD. Interesting reading.

12th February 2003, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Franko

Great argument A-Theist.

Damn you boys are sooo predictable. hehe ...

Funny thing.

We do stay remain or less consistent in our responses.

Almost like we're not making up gibberish and lying about it comming from the mouths of gods.

12th February 2003, 11:02 AM	#41
ReasonableDoubt Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 287	Quote: Originally posted by metacristi But real agnostics are implicitly 'without reliable ... knowledge of no God(s)' too. For example ... Quote: In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important vriterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying: You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable. This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation. - Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler as quoted in - Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection by Doctor Barbara Forrest

12th February 2003, 06:15 PM	#43
evildave Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by Franko Great argument A-Theist. Damn you boys are sooo predictable. hehe ... Funny thing. We do stay remain or less consistent in our responses. Almost like we're not making up gibberish and lying about it comming from the mouths of gods.
evildave Guest Posts: n/a

12th February 2003, 01:30 PM	#42
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,423	Quote: Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt See, for example, Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism. ReasonableDoubt, I must say, this is a very interesting paper. It's always interesting to get new terminology for expressing ideas. Thank you for posting it. Based on it's definitions, I would have to say that my stance is some combination of methodological athiest and unknowability agnostic in reference to God2 (whom I would consider to be the popular definition of the word "God") After reading the article, however, I suppose that I could also define myself as a diest (by which I mean "one who does not believe in a personal God") in reference to the universe-style God1. I mean, go outside on a clear night and there it is (or some of it anyway). Kind of hard to dispute that. The love-style God1 isn't as easy to point at, but when it all comes down to it, I'd have to say I am comfortable believing in that God1 as well. For God3 (who I am taking to be the Christian God), I'm squarly in the methodological atheist camp. The Bible tells the whole, unvarnished truth? Fine, Prove it. For God4 and God5, I'm pretty much defaulted back to the unknowablility agnostic. I mean, something so undefined is unackowledgable. Even if you did have evidence of one, how would you know it? Again, thank you RD. Interesting reading.