The Problem With Agnostics!

Randip Singh · #1 (**permalink**) 29-Sep-2009, 23:28 PM

The problem with agnostics I have read is they are neither Theists or Atheists. They sit on the fence and agree with everyone, thus creating a muddle and confusing themselves and everyone else. Anyone else have any views on this?
*

BhagatSingh · #2 (**permalink**) 30-Sep-2009, 00:46 AM

, the problem is that you think that agnostics agree with everyone.

Agnosticism (

Greek_language

: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after

Gnosticism

) is the

Philosophy

view that the

Truth_value

of certain claims — particularly

claims regarding

,

or the existence of

,

, or even ultimate

— are

or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.[1] It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a

Theism

or an

Atheism

.[2]

Narayanjot Kaur · #3 (**permalink**) 30-Sep-2009, 01:16 AM

Bhagat ji

Excellent point. I will think about it.

Randip Singh · #4 (**permalink**) 30-Sep-2009, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhagatSingh

, the problem is that you think that agnostics agree with everyone.

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.[1] It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist.[2]

They keep mentioning Truth, but what is truth to them? Their definition of Truth, has not made Agnosticism a religion in itself?

Sikhs think "higher than truth is truthful living".

Sinister · #5 (**permalink**) 30-Sep-2009, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randip Singh

The problem with agnostics I have read is they are neither Theists or Atheists. They sit on the fence and agree with everyone, thus creating a muddle and confusing themselves and everyone else. Anyone else have any views on this?

Yes of coarse!

It’s the moderate voices in society who are the ones that make a ‘muddle of things’ and ‘confuse’ everyone. But the ones screaming from minarets, ringing large bells from steeples, and playing small melodious chime instruments to stimulate and appease stone deities have it all figured and sorted out.

Last time I checked, objective examination of every stripe of culture and philosophy has never led to any confusion...but simply a greater understanding of the interactions of society and functioning of reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randip Singh

They keep mentioning Truth, but what is truth to them?

The language you use is through and through. There is no “them” or "they", sadly it's only "us". A human is boundless and contradictory yet routinely mistaken to be categorical and consistent in their beliefs.

I cannot tell you what "their" truth is, but I can tell you what i think of this world and yonder...that is if you permit me and in turn obligate yourself to litsen and comprehend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randip Singh

Their definition of Truth, has not made Agnosticism a religion in itself?

Sikhs think "higher than truth is truthful living".

Sikhs all over the world think alot of things at any given time. I bet a hardy majority of them also think Harbhajjan Mann a grand actor.

Now,
everyone is entitled to be stupid, but lets not abuse the priveledge. So i will conclude with a relatively true statement; Harbhajjan Mann does indeed suck.

and that is the truth for us... but may not be for them

BhagatSingh · #6 (**permalink**) 30-Sep-2009, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randip Singh

They keep mentioning Truth, but what is truth to them? Their definition of Truth, has not made Agnosticism a religion in itself?

Truth = a fact that has been verified
I don't know how that could make anything a religion

...unless you totally make it up and claim to be right, which agnotics don't do.

Quote:

Sikhs think "higher than truth is truthful living".

Um... Is truthful living higher than God (truth for sikhs)?

Sinister ji

Quote:

There is no “them” or "they", sadly it's only "us". A human is boundless and contradictory yet routinely mistaken to be categorical and consistent in their beliefs.

I nominate your post as the best post ever!

Mai Harinder Kaur · #7 (**permalink**) 30-Sep-2009, 09:21 AM

Perhaps I am misunderstanding or misinterpreting, but I'm afraid I must take issue with the statement statement.

Quote:

Truth = a fact that has been verified.

It has actually been proven (deductively!) - that there are truths that cannot be verified. Goedel's First Incompleteness Theorem states that in any complete arithmetical system, there are true statements that cannot be proved. To be exact,

Quote:

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250).

I will not bore the good members here with any of the mathematics. The point is that there are truths that cannot be verified. It seems this is true in life, as well as in mathematics.

I must admit to a certain grudging respect for agnostics. There is a sort of intellectual honesty in coming to the conclusion that it's impossible to know.

But they miss out on so much! I know that in my life, my beliefs has given my life meaning, purpose and joy. Who would want to live without those?

SICL

Narayanjot Kaur · #8 (**permalink**) 30-Sep-2009, 09:31 AM

Mai ji

I am so glad that you posted this. Truths and facts are not synonymous. Truths are deduced, sometimes from a priori assumptions that themselves may not be verifiable. A truth may be logical, mathematical, scientific, pragmatic, relational, semantic or subjective. That is the short list. Philosophers look at the nature of truth in many different ways. In the field of epistemology (the study of the nature of knowledge) three types of truth are explored: logical (by deduction), ontological (according to purpose or motive), and moral. According to Leibnitz truth may be either necessary (a logical outcome from a series of propositions) or it may be contingent (as a matter of fact).

Truth statements do not even have to be related to anything real or actual. As in the syllogism: All snorks are bollywoggles, Lulu is a snork, therefore Lulu is a bollywoggle. A fun kind of logic game that kids play in 5th grade.

Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/26877-the-problem-with-agnostics.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=26877

Link related to epistemology http://www.radicalacademy.com/prcmin...stemology1.htm
Link related to Leibnitz http://www.angelhaunt.net/leibniz/truth.html

Mai Harinder Kaur · #9 (**permalink**) 30-Sep-2009, 10:10 AM

Narayanjot ji,

Quote:

Truth statements do not even have to be related to anything real or actual. As in the syllogism: All snorks are bollywoggles, Lulu is a snork, therefore Lulu is a bollywoggle. A fun kind of logic game that kids play in 5th grade.

Yeah,

.

An oft overlooked part of the explanation of deductive logic says that "Deductive logic, correctly applied, always yields a true result, if the premises are true. Of course, there goes the fun. I think it's better for 5th graders to enjoy their game. Enough time for logic and "matters of consequence" later in life.

I think my single favourite scene in the whole of the Christian Bible takes place during the trial of Jesus when Pontius Pilate, who is quite an interesting, complicated character, washes his hands and asks, "What is truth?"

SICL