Agnosticism. For safety or sensibilities' sake?

[William]

[ POI Wrote]

But go head and remain completely agnostic, for safety's sake

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?

[boatsnguitars]

Depends.

[The Tanager]

[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.

[Mae von H]

[ POI Wrote]

But go head and remain completely agnostic, for safety's sake

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?

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. 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]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #4]

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.

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.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #4]

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.

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.

Thank you for your response. I’m not at all sure that I correctly understand your position so I apologize if I’m off.

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]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #4]

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.

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.

Thank you for your response. I’m not at all sure that I correctly understand your position so I apologize if I’m off.

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

Hi Mae.
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.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #4]

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.

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.

Thank you for your response. I’m not at all sure that I correctly understand your position so I apologize if I’m off.

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

Hi Mae.
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.

Thank you for your answer. You are teachable which is quite remarkable in these days. What a pleasure to read!

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]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #8]

what theology do you believe?

I think Natural Theism appears to be the most sensible position within the Theistic setting.

I have no beliefs so to speak, at least not religious ones.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #8]

what theology do you believe?

I think Natural Theism appears to be the most sensible position within the Theistic setting.

I have no beliefs so to speak, at least not religious ones.

If you have no beliefs, how are you a theist?