RE: Why Agnostic?
July 2, 2009 at 9:36 pm
(This post was last modified: July 2, 2009 at 9:38 pm by Ryft.)
Attn: Tiberius:
First, I was wondering if you would explain something about your scale. I am confused over '2', which is supposed to characterize someone who {A} believes that God exists {B} despite the fact that God's existence is unproven or even unprovable; yet somehow they are {C} 100% certain about his existence. If C, then A. Pretty straight forward. But given that B, then how is it that C? If one holds that his existence is unprovable, never mind unproven, then what leads to 100% certainty that he exists? Wouldn't that which leads to the strength of C consequently alter the condition of B?
Second, if a theist is someone who views the world as though God exists, and an atheist is someone who views the world as though God doesn't exist, what other category of people are there? Even those who are apathetic or find the question tedious nevertheless, in their own life, view the world as though God doesn't exist (atheist). Can you change my mind, by describing a view of the world that is neither theistic nor atheistic?
Attn: forum members:
About three years ago I developed my own scale. Critical evaluations are welcomed.
1. Gnostic (Strong) Theists:
Those who view the world (a) as though God exists, and argue that his existence (b) can be conclusively established.
2. Agnostic (Weak) Theists:
Those who view the world (a) as though God exists, and argue that his existence (b) cannot be conclusively established.
3. Agnostic (Weak) Atheists:
Those who view the world (a) as though God does not exist, and argue that his non-existence (b) cannot be conclusively established.
4. Gnostic (Strong) Atheists:
Those who view the world (a) as though God does not exist, and argue that his non-existence (b) can be conclusively established.
* NOTE: "Conclusively" here is meant in a logical sense, not an absolute sense. Something is proven conclusively in the logical sense when the argument is formally valid and coherent, with premises that are more probable than their denials. "Certainty" was too equivocal a term to bother with, and impossible to subdivide in a non-arbitrary way (e.g., what substantive difference is there between one who is 98% and another who is 100% certain).
First, I was wondering if you would explain something about your scale. I am confused over '2', which is supposed to characterize someone who {A} believes that God exists {B} despite the fact that God's existence is unproven or even unprovable; yet somehow they are {C} 100% certain about his existence. If C, then A. Pretty straight forward. But given that B, then how is it that C? If one holds that his existence is unprovable, never mind unproven, then what leads to 100% certainty that he exists? Wouldn't that which leads to the strength of C consequently alter the condition of B?
Second, if a theist is someone who views the world as though God exists, and an atheist is someone who views the world as though God doesn't exist, what other category of people are there? Even those who are apathetic or find the question tedious nevertheless, in their own life, view the world as though God doesn't exist (atheist). Can you change my mind, by describing a view of the world that is neither theistic nor atheistic?
Attn: forum members:
About three years ago I developed my own scale. Critical evaluations are welcomed.
1. Gnostic (Strong) Theists:
Those who view the world (a) as though God exists, and argue that his existence (b) can be conclusively established.
2. Agnostic (Weak) Theists:
Those who view the world (a) as though God exists, and argue that his existence (b) cannot be conclusively established.
3. Agnostic (Weak) Atheists:
Those who view the world (a) as though God does not exist, and argue that his non-existence (b) cannot be conclusively established.
4. Gnostic (Strong) Atheists:
Those who view the world (a) as though God does not exist, and argue that his non-existence (b) can be conclusively established.
* NOTE: "Conclusively" here is meant in a logical sense, not an absolute sense. Something is proven conclusively in the logical sense when the argument is formally valid and coherent, with premises that are more probable than their denials. "Certainty" was too equivocal a term to bother with, and impossible to subdivide in a non-arbitrary way (e.g., what substantive difference is there between one who is 98% and another who is 100% certain).
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
