(March 20, 2009 at 8:01 am)Tiberius Wrote: The correct definition is one who holds that some aspects of the universe as "unknowable". I disagree with WWLD's position as I don't think it has ever held any merit in philosophy or otherwise. The "unsure" definition of agnosticism only lives on in a limited public eye.
Agnosticism is my philosophy, atheism defines my beliefs.
I hear what you are saying, and I like the honesty of your final statement. I suppose I am not an agnostic. I don't believe anything in the universe is unknowable, and it's funny, because Bernard d'Espagnat just one a million-dollar Templeton Prize for producing a theory that there are just some things science can't know, such as the "veiled reality" of the universe.
I can't help but wonder if the million dollars might have creeped into his equations, but I think what he proposes is a kind of agnosticism by your definition.
I think we may be at a limit of what we can know by looking in the direction we are looking. We may need another persepective. There may be things that can be known but can only be tested in thought experiments. There may be a way to combine philosophy and science into a better way of understanding the truth of reality (which is what this whole game is about), but to believe something is unknowable, in my opinion, sounds like capitulation.
