Agnostics

[bennyboy]

Belief is defined by contemporary analytic philosophers of mind as, the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition as being true.

I have no idea what it would be like to both accept a premise as being true, and not accepting the same premise as being true, simultaneously. Or, being in some inbetween mental state of neither accepting a premise as being true, and not accepting the same premise as being true.

I've described it several times in this thread. It is the possibility of a conditional belief-- If A, then B; if not A, then not B. For example, if the universe is a created thing, I'd be willing to call whatever philosophical principle or creative impetus created it "God." Since I cannot know whether the universe is a created thing, I have a belief state of AnotA.

As for "contemporary analytic philosophers of mind," you'll have to demonstrate that their view matters. You'll have to establish that I am actually a unified agent, and that belief is OF that unified agent, and not something a subsystem of the brain is capable of achieving. In my opinion, the neurology of decision-making trumps the philosophical authorities to whom you are referring as a go-to for what belief really is.

I don't think it's possible for the mind to be in either of those states.

And that's not even taking into consideration the formal definition of the word 'agnostic', that does not even concern belief.

I think you should read about the last 10 pages, because you are about to just go through all the same arguments that EP has made. In your case, though, you can nip it in the bud and go read what I've said before we drag this on another 20 pages.