RE: Agnosticism
January 16, 2014 at 6:11 pm
(This post was last modified: January 16, 2014 at 6:42 pm by Whateverist.)
(January 16, 2014 at 1:01 pm)rasetsu Wrote:
To my mind, if you don't believe in revealed or absolute knowledge, you already accept, by implication, that your claims to knowledge are provisional. In that case, I think the label is redundant in that it adds a qualifier which doesn't need to be added, because it's already presumed. It also allows our understanding of just what "knowledge" is and what the word means to be framed by this question of certainty and 'proof', outdated notions that are at home in theist epistemology, but should be abandoned by thinking non-theists. Knowledge isn't about possessing certain, infallible truth, it's about reasonably justified beliefs, with doubt, skepticism, and the acknowledgement of fallibility.
On a very quick reading -I've got to run- I'd say that it clearly is not the case that every atheist is an agnostic. A "7" or anti-theist makes absolute knowledge claims in which I detect no provisionalism. Perhaps it is a failure in my understanding but i'll have to think more of this later.
Okay, I have a few more minutes after all.
More than anything, what I think I know about the whole god question is that what a 'god' may be varies vastly between speakers. It's a thing which isn't a thing, a pre-thing which is the origin of all things. Or perhaps that is all just elaboration of some archaic expression of vastness and awe. More likely all that a god really is is a voice from within, or the apprehension of the presence of something that is nowhere but in you. If so, then 'god' is our creation. Not by any deliberate scheme but as a potential of our imaginations, the nature of our consciousness and the influence of culture. I just think it is obtuse to insist on refuting the most stupid interpretations of 'god'. Of course 'god' is not a fit topic for physics or philosophy, but perhaps there is something worth knowing about the phenomenon anyway.
