Q: Is taking an agnostic position on unknown things, a matter of safety (as the quote above implies) or of sensibility aligned with current knowledge of reality?But go head and remain completely agnostic, for safety's sake
Agnosticism. For safety or sensibilities' sake?
Moderator: Moderators
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14271
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 916 times
- Been thanked: 1647 times
- Contact:
Agnosticism. For safety or sensibilities' sake?
Post #1[ POI Wrote]
- boatsnguitars
- Banned
- Posts: 2060
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
- Has thanked: 477 times
- Been thanked: 580 times
Re: Agnosticism. For safety or sensibilities' sake?
Post #2Depends.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
- The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5170
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 48 times
- Been thanked: 159 times
Re: Agnosticism. For safety or sensibilities' sake?
Post #3[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #2]
Moderator Comment
Please refrain from the use of one-liners.
Please review the Rules.
______________
Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
Moderator Comment
Please refrain from the use of one-liners.
Please review the Rules.
______________
Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
-
- Sage
- Posts: 691
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2023 1:31 am
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Re: Agnosticism. For safety or sensibilities' sake?
Post #4Agnosticism is the most temporary of all positions as it is by definition ignorance, that is, the person admits they don’t know which is what ignorance means. It is therefore, the least safe of all positions. Being ignorant is always the least safe as you willingly embrace not knowing. There’s no safety in not knowing.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14271
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 916 times
- Been thanked: 1647 times
- Contact:
Re: Agnosticism. For safety or sensibilities' sake?
Post #5[Replying to Mae von H in post #4]
Can you explain that in more detail. For now it appears that you are saying that being ignorant is a temporary thing (because knowledge through existence is available?) but existence is also extremely complex and for that, our knowledge of it (regardless of being Materialist (Atheist) or Theist or Agnostic) is outweighed by our collective ignorance of it - meaning ignorance is as temporary as The Universe and the Universe is not as temporary (as you seem to be implying agnosticism is) in relation to it and our place within it.Agnosticism is the most temporary of all positions as it is by definition ignorance, that is, the person admits they don’t know which is what ignorance means.
-
- Sage
- Posts: 691
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2023 1:31 am
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Re: Agnosticism. For safety or sensibilities' sake?
Post #6Thank you for your response. I’m not at all sure that I correctly understand your position so I apologize if I’m off.William wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 3:59 am [Replying to Mae von H in post #4]
Can you explain that in more detail. For now it appears that you are saying that being ignorant is a temporary thing (because knowledge through existence is available?) but existence is also extremely complex and for that, our knowledge of it (regardless of being Materialist (Atheist) or Theist or Agnostic) is outweighed by our collective ignorance of it - meaning ignorance is as temporary as The Universe and the Universe is not as temporary (as you seem to be implying agnosticism is) in relation to it and our place within it.Agnosticism is the most temporary of all positions as it is by definition ignorance, that is, the person admits they don’t know which is what ignorance means.
First I ought to clarify that I think of “existence” as “living” not merely the state of being real or there. So we exist but our ancestors no longer do for me. Inanimate material exists but is irrelevant for our discussion.
When you say “knowledge through existence,” do you mean knowledge WHILE we are alive or being alive results naturally in knowledge? I assume the first and see no evidence of the latter. There are a fair number of living ignorant people, for example.
Now existence or life is extremely complex so I agree, but it doesn’t follow that we are therefore ignorant of it. But maybe I don’t understand your position correctly.
On what basis do you think the universe is temporary? What is the evidence for this. I’m a scientist and think in terms of evidence for a position.
Just FYI, I believe the Bible describes truth based on the evidence. It’s how I decide.
In the interest of brevity, I’ve only answered your questions. There’s more needed to clarify the temporary state in choosing agnosticism rather than committing to a position
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14271
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 916 times
- Been thanked: 1647 times
- Contact:
Re: Agnosticism. For safety or sensibilities' sake?
Post #7Hi Mae.Mae von H wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 5:50 amThank you for your response. I’m not at all sure that I correctly understand your position so I apologize if I’m off.William wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 3:59 am [Replying to Mae von H in post #4]
Can you explain that in more detail. For now it appears that you are saying that being ignorant is a temporary thing (because knowledge through existence is available?) but existence is also extremely complex and for that, our knowledge of it (regardless of being Materialist (Atheist) or Theist or Agnostic) is outweighed by our collective ignorance of it - meaning ignorance is as temporary as The Universe and the Universe is not as temporary (as you seem to be implying agnosticism is) in relation to it and our place within it.Agnosticism is the most temporary of all positions as it is by definition ignorance, that is, the person admits they don’t know which is what ignorance means.
First I ought to clarify that I think of “existence” as “living” not merely the state of being real or there. So we exist but our ancestors no longer do for me. Inanimate material exists but is irrelevant for our discussion.
When you say “knowledge through existence,” do you mean knowledge WHILE we are alive or being alive results naturally in knowledge? I assume the first and see no evidence of the latter. There are a fair number of living ignorant people, for example.
Now existence or life is extremely complex so I agree, but it doesn’t follow that we are therefore ignorant of it. But maybe I don’t understand your position correctly.
On what basis do you think the universe is temporary? What is the evidence for this. I’m a scientist and think in terms of evidence for a position.
Just FYI, I believe the Bible describes truth based on the evidence. It’s how I decide.
In the interest of brevity, I’ve only answered your questions. There’s more needed to clarify the temporary state in choosing agnosticism rather than committing to a position
Thanks you for your comments.
Since asking the question I have been shown that my thinking about agnosticism being its own position, was an incorrect way in which to understand it.
I was identifying with being an agnostic as if it were a position and questioned if critiquing it a "safe place" was acceptable.
Since I understand now that there are only 2 positions one can take on the question of "God" (do we exist within a created thing/is there a creator?) and since agnosticism is generally thought of as a subset of the atheist position and I do not regard myself as an atheist, I must be a theist.
-
- Sage
- Posts: 691
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2023 1:31 am
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Re: Agnosticism. For safety or sensibilities' sake?
Post #8Thank you for your answer. You are teachable which is quite remarkable in these days. What a pleasure to read!William wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 11:53 amHi Mae.Mae von H wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 5:50 amThank you for your response. I’m not at all sure that I correctly understand your position so I apologize if I’m off.William wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 3:59 am [Replying to Mae von H in post #4]
Can you explain that in more detail. For now it appears that you are saying that being ignorant is a temporary thing (because knowledge through existence is available?) but existence is also extremely complex and for that, our knowledge of it (regardless of being Materialist (Atheist) or Theist or Agnostic) is outweighed by our collective ignorance of it - meaning ignorance is as temporary as The Universe and the Universe is not as temporary (as you seem to be implying agnosticism is) in relation to it and our place within it.Agnosticism is the most temporary of all positions as it is by definition ignorance, that is, the person admits they don’t know which is what ignorance means.
First I ought to clarify that I think of “existence” as “living” not merely the state of being real or there. So we exist but our ancestors no longer do for me. Inanimate material exists but is irrelevant for our discussion.
When you say “knowledge through existence,” do you mean knowledge WHILE we are alive or being alive results naturally in knowledge? I assume the first and see no evidence of the latter. There are a fair number of living ignorant people, for example.
Now existence or life is extremely complex so I agree, but it doesn’t follow that we are therefore ignorant of it. But maybe I don’t understand your position correctly.
On what basis do you think the universe is temporary? What is the evidence for this. I’m a scientist and think in terms of evidence for a position.
Just FYI, I believe the Bible describes truth based on the evidence. It’s how I decide.
In the interest of brevity, I’ve only answered your questions. There’s more needed to clarify the temporary state in choosing agnosticism rather than committing to a position
Thanks you for your comments.
Since asking the question I have been shown that my thinking about agnosticism being its own position, was an incorrect way in which to understand it.
I was identifying with being an agnostic as if it were a position and questioned if critiquing it a "safe place" was acceptable.
Since I understand now that there are only 2 positions one can take on the question of "God" (do we exist within a created thing/is there a creator?) and since agnosticism is generally thought of as a subset of the atheist position and I do not regard myself as an atheist, I must be a theist.
I’m thinking of your last line. I’m not at all sure that we have the power to accurately describe who we are. It’s so easy to deceive oneself.
Nevertheless, if you consider yourself a theist, since that’s an active position, what theology do you believe?
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14271
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 916 times
- Been thanked: 1647 times
- Contact:
Re: Agnosticism. For safety or sensibilities' sake?
Post #9[Replying to Mae von H in post #8]
I have no beliefs so to speak, at least not religious ones.
I think Natural Theism appears to be the most sensible position within the Theistic setting.what theology do you believe?
I have no beliefs so to speak, at least not religious ones.
-
- Sage
- Posts: 691
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2023 1:31 am
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Re: Agnosticism. For safety or sensibilities' sake?
Post #10If you have no beliefs, how are you a theist?William wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 2:59 am [Replying to Mae von H in post #8]
I think Natural Theism appears to be the most sensible position within the Theistic setting.what theology do you believe?
I have no beliefs so to speak, at least not religious ones.