Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: elag <elag@cloud9.net>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism
Subject: Re: 14 July 1789
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:10:35 -0400
Organization: Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose
Message-ID: <3F1F866C.9040AC03@cloud9.net>
Reply-To: elag@cloud9.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3F124E55.A4BA3D3B@cloud9.net> <44df026a.0307140902.56ad3c12@posting.google.com> <3F14BD7B.B816BADC@cloud9.net> <3qm9hvknftknf4e6erqug6hd58om7nof40@4ax.com> <3F150994.640B1A94@blueyonder.co.uk> <3F18C249.AC79B0EA@cloud9.net> <36a623f.0307210308.3053e8c@posting.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 154
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.surrealism:180
Parry wrote:
>
> elag <elag@cloud9.net> wrote in message news:<3F18C249.AC79B0EA@cloud9.net>...
> > Paul Heslop wrote:
> > >
> > > prefuse 73 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > lucat bene, der elag <elag@cloud9.net> goh, a hunnert truxx inero,
> > > > sumwit kowz n' sumwit duxx on Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:50:43 -0400:
> > > >
> > > > >Emilie Gruchow wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If anything, Jefferson's manner of speaking certainly counters any
> > > > >> arguments that the founding father was a devoted man of the Christian
> > > > >> church. Though I do agree with his acceptance of humanity's tendency
> > > > >> to duke it out in large groups every 150 years or so, I would shy away
> > > > >> from assigning it to a higher calling of nature (ie Deism). I am not
> > > > >> completely dismissive of religion myself, though I am skeptical, but
> > > > >> conducting one's primeval head butting in the name of some higher
> > > > >> power seems a stretch even to the agnostics on this side of the pond.
> > > > >
> > > > >Personally I'm agnostic, I don't believe in gods.
> > > > >
> > > > based on what you've just typed, you are 'atheist'. *not 'agnostic'.
> > > >
> > > > according to merriam-webster:
> > > >
> > > > an 'atheist' is someone that denies the existence of (a) god.
> > > >
> > > > an 'agnostic' either doubts the truth of religion (noun), or is one
> > > > that is uncertain of all claims to knowledge (adjective). an apropos
> > > > synonym would be 'doubter'.
> > > >
> > > > so, what are you again?...
> > > >
> > > > i, for one, am 'atheist'.
> > > >
> > > I always thought I was an atheist until I read that... now I doubt that
> > > I am :O)
> >
> > As Bunuel used to say: "Thank god I'm an atheist".
> >
> > As for me... I hold to Thomas Huxley's definition of agnosticism.
> > Huxley used "agnostic" to describe not a creed, but a method." This
> > method of thought
> > advocates that people "do not pretend that conclusions are certain which
> > are not
> > demonstrated or demonstrable." An agnostic doesn't necessarily believe
> > or disbelieve in a god -- he or she doesn't profess to know if there's a
> > god at all. Huxley's writings suggest that it's impossible to ever know
> > if a god exists or not.
> >
> > So, I would say I that I don't believe in gods, and that the existence
> > of gods is unknown and unknowable. An Atheist declares that there is no
> > god, which is somewhat different.
> >
> > This has been a public service announcement.
>
> Actually, "a-theist" means one without belief in gods.
Of course I know that. In the general sense both I and Huxley could be
considered Atheists. Atheism is also commonly understood to imply the
denial of the existance of god. This can be seen to mean a declaration
that there is no god.
It is in reaction to the certitude of this declaration that Huxley
sought to adress by the use of the term agnostic.
> Or, to paraphrase the old joke, an atheist is someone who believes in one
> less god than a christian does. I consider an "agnostic" to be someone
> who feels there is no story too ridiculous to be discounted.
Although agnostic means "does not know" and could in a general sense be
used to describe the "know nothing" attitude of which you speak, this is
not what Huxley is getting at.
It is intended to be paralell to the scientific method, which Huxley
practiced in his professional life. It's clear to me that he is saying
that religion, based on faith, can not be empirically proven or
disproven. So, it is not for the unbeliever to justify his perversity;
the believer must justify his belief, to show why he should be taken seriously.
In short, there is no need for gods to explain what we see around us for
there are other more consistent methods of doing so.
> If Huxley's standard of demonstrability were extended to matters beyond
> religion -- and there's no reason it shouldn't be, no reason why
> religious belief should be made a special case -- the agnostic
> position would effectively be that one cannot make conclusions about
> anything, for there is vanishingly little about reality that is
> absolutely certain.
Not at all, there are physical laws which work as advertised and
describe quite well much of the reality which we see. Things that are
less certain may be called theories... or if something, like the sun,
acts in a consistent way over a long period, we might assign a
probability to its actions approaching certainty.
Absolute certainty isn't always necessary, but the sun will still come
up tomorrow.
In a general way I do apply an agnostic filter to everyday life but that
doesn't keep me from making conclusions.
Hypothesis-Theory-Experiment-Conclusion goes on below the radar all the
time. Sometimes we say "Insufficient Evidence" or "Unproven".
Sometimes a Hypothesis is trashed before it reaches paper.
As Huxley says, it is a "method of thought (which) advocates that people
"do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated
or demonstrable." Nearly everything apart from faith & superstition is demonstrable.
But of course people make conclusions all the time
> and thus avoid wasting time with any number of silly propositions.
>
> Would you say you're agnostic about the Roman pantheon of gods?
Who needs 'em? Water boils at 100 c and freezes at 0 c whether I
believe in them or not. Slitting my carotid artery kills me whether I
believe it does or not. Of course, Zeus, Hermes et al could just be
hiding under my teapot.
I believe it's time for bed.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 |
|