RE: FallentoReason 2.0
December 16, 2012 at 10:26 am
(This post was last modified: December 16, 2012 at 10:37 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Your agnosticism certainly doesn't suggest or establish that what you've claimed might actually be true, just that you don't know. You could be agnostic about the earth being round, or any other number of things for which the status of the claim has been robustly established. Let's not confuse the status of our personal knowledge of a thing with the status of the thing itself.
To use a particularly illustrative example of this- in the years between 1892 and 1898 two men, Dmitri Ivanovsky and Martinus Beijerinck discovered a virus known as Tobacco Mosaic Virus (a particularly nasty virus for agricultural production), before this time no one had any clue wtf a virus was (and no one would -know- what a virus was for another 40 years or so). You see, the first man (Dmitri) proposed that a non-bacterial pathogen was infecting tobacco plants. The second man (Martinus - who, btw discovered the process of nitrogen fixation) established that this was the case, that the pathogen was smaller than a bacterium - but he was unable to culture it.
Now, today, equipped with much more powerful instrumentation it's trivially easy to show that Mosaic is now and always was caused by a virus. However, before the work of these two men (and others later, with newly invented instrumentation) the explanations for this condition in cropland ranged from the whims of god/demons to witchcraft to bacteria. With their work we could add a 4th option, viral contagion, to the mix. At any point you would find people who simply -knew- that mosaic was caused by [insert any one or combination of the above]. You would also find people who did not feel that that they-knew- that mosaic was caused by [insert any one or combination of the above]. Finally, you could find people who -knew- it wasn't caused by [insert any one or combination of the above]. Meanwhile, over, around, beside and under all of these varying possibilities of what was or wasn't - Tobacco Mosaic Disease had been going about it's business via a viral pathogen - as it had, likely, since the emergence of nightshades a very.....very long time ago.
Even the two men mentioned above would have had to honestly concede that they did not -know- that their own claims were true (despite having very compelling reasons for their conclusions). It wasn't until much later that the subject had been definitively laid to rest by direct observation via crystallization (in 1935) of the pathogen in question (an effort which was rewarded with a Nobel Prize in 1946- you see, there was still 11 years of debate on the issue). But none of this had any effect on what Tobacco Mosaic Disease was caused by, what was potentially true and what was actually true were entirely different propositions - and what was actually true was not affected by peoples varying explanations (or lack thereof).
Now, I'll grant you that having a discussion about an unknown is likely to be toothless, that if we can't at least attempt to claim knowledge that something exists, for all practical purposes - it doesn't (specifically, to us). However, it's important to remember that the status of our knowledge (or lack thereof) doesn't seem to have the ability to compel the cosmos to conform to the contents of the same. Your agnosticism, or the agnostic nature of this subject says nothing about the cosmos or a god - it's only capable of saying something about you and your level of comfort with a given claim. What you feel may be possible has no effect on what -is- in actuality. I'll add here, that the claim - especially for the reasons you offered- doesn't even compel me to concede agnosticism. I'm very comfortable saying that the god described does not exist.
To use a particularly illustrative example of this- in the years between 1892 and 1898 two men, Dmitri Ivanovsky and Martinus Beijerinck discovered a virus known as Tobacco Mosaic Virus (a particularly nasty virus for agricultural production), before this time no one had any clue wtf a virus was (and no one would -know- what a virus was for another 40 years or so). You see, the first man (Dmitri) proposed that a non-bacterial pathogen was infecting tobacco plants. The second man (Martinus - who, btw discovered the process of nitrogen fixation) established that this was the case, that the pathogen was smaller than a bacterium - but he was unable to culture it.
Now, today, equipped with much more powerful instrumentation it's trivially easy to show that Mosaic is now and always was caused by a virus. However, before the work of these two men (and others later, with newly invented instrumentation) the explanations for this condition in cropland ranged from the whims of god/demons to witchcraft to bacteria. With their work we could add a 4th option, viral contagion, to the mix. At any point you would find people who simply -knew- that mosaic was caused by [insert any one or combination of the above]. You would also find people who did not feel that that they-knew- that mosaic was caused by [insert any one or combination of the above]. Finally, you could find people who -knew- it wasn't caused by [insert any one or combination of the above]. Meanwhile, over, around, beside and under all of these varying possibilities of what was or wasn't - Tobacco Mosaic Disease had been going about it's business via a viral pathogen - as it had, likely, since the emergence of nightshades a very.....very long time ago.
Even the two men mentioned above would have had to honestly concede that they did not -know- that their own claims were true (despite having very compelling reasons for their conclusions). It wasn't until much later that the subject had been definitively laid to rest by direct observation via crystallization (in 1935) of the pathogen in question (an effort which was rewarded with a Nobel Prize in 1946- you see, there was still 11 years of debate on the issue). But none of this had any effect on what Tobacco Mosaic Disease was caused by, what was potentially true and what was actually true were entirely different propositions - and what was actually true was not affected by peoples varying explanations (or lack thereof).
Now, I'll grant you that having a discussion about an unknown is likely to be toothless, that if we can't at least attempt to claim knowledge that something exists, for all practical purposes - it doesn't (specifically, to us). However, it's important to remember that the status of our knowledge (or lack thereof) doesn't seem to have the ability to compel the cosmos to conform to the contents of the same. Your agnosticism, or the agnostic nature of this subject says nothing about the cosmos or a god - it's only capable of saying something about you and your level of comfort with a given claim. What you feel may be possible has no effect on what -is- in actuality. I'll add here, that the claim - especially for the reasons you offered- doesn't even compel me to concede agnosticism. I'm very comfortable saying that the god described does not exist.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
