RE: Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"
June 28, 2014 at 7:34 am
(This post was last modified: June 28, 2014 at 7:36 am by Whateverist.)
MFM,
We may have a different conception regarding the purpose of language and I think that is leading to different expectations for discourse.
I think you are examining a piece of language and focusing on the most reasonable interpretation of its meaning, regardless of any context.
I would focus on who put the language together and what did they intend by it.
In a good English dictionary there will often be a list of uses ranked by its assemblers in terms of the frequency of use. I don't believe people who intend the third most common usage are making a mistake. (Do you?) I believe it is incumbent on the reader to correctly ascertain the intended use. If the context isn't enough, follow-up questions may be necessary .. assuming one has access to the author/speaker. I would say successful communication requires competent selection of words and adequate choice of context on the part of the writer/speaker. But it also requires competent focus and comprehension on the part of the reader/listener.
Now we both claim to be atheists but clearly we don't mean the same thing by that. I haven't signed on for that label agreeing to accept and endorse whatever that word's best interpretation entails. In my own case, I sign on with some misgivings especially because its meaning is imprecise. When I accept the label, I qualify it in order to better communicate what's true about me .. not what is defensible regarding ones stance toward gods. My disbelief is more on the order of being astounded by a preposterous idea. It isn't that I want to make a contrary claim regarding gods. I wouldn't know where to begin. When I accept the atheist label it isn't because my experience with gods leads me to a different conclusion. I simply lack any experience with god entities and the extraordinary descriptions provided by believers leads me to look for an alternative way of understanding their experience. This isn't me looking to make a case for my interpretation; this is just me trying to understand my fellow humans.
We may have a different conception regarding the purpose of language and I think that is leading to different expectations for discourse.
I think you are examining a piece of language and focusing on the most reasonable interpretation of its meaning, regardless of any context.
I would focus on who put the language together and what did they intend by it.
In a good English dictionary there will often be a list of uses ranked by its assemblers in terms of the frequency of use. I don't believe people who intend the third most common usage are making a mistake. (Do you?) I believe it is incumbent on the reader to correctly ascertain the intended use. If the context isn't enough, follow-up questions may be necessary .. assuming one has access to the author/speaker. I would say successful communication requires competent selection of words and adequate choice of context on the part of the writer/speaker. But it also requires competent focus and comprehension on the part of the reader/listener.
Now we both claim to be atheists but clearly we don't mean the same thing by that. I haven't signed on for that label agreeing to accept and endorse whatever that word's best interpretation entails. In my own case, I sign on with some misgivings especially because its meaning is imprecise. When I accept the label, I qualify it in order to better communicate what's true about me .. not what is defensible regarding ones stance toward gods. My disbelief is more on the order of being astounded by a preposterous idea. It isn't that I want to make a contrary claim regarding gods. I wouldn't know where to begin. When I accept the atheist label it isn't because my experience with gods leads me to a different conclusion. I simply lack any experience with god entities and the extraordinary descriptions provided by believers leads me to look for an alternative way of understanding their experience. This isn't me looking to make a case for my interpretation; this is just me trying to understand my fellow humans.
