Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 06-26-2002, 06:12 AM

Quote:

... science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying:

"You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word, By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable."

This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.

- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler, as quoted in
- Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism, by Doctor Barbara Forrest

Is there a content or meaning to Agnosticism beyond the tautologous statement that "I claim no knowledge of the unknowable"?

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Philosoft · 06-26-2002, 07:02 AM

I have seen definitions of 'agnostic' that seem to make a positive claim, "there are things that are unknowable." This seems more dogmatic than is warranted. I like your definition better, even if it is tautologous.

Clutch · 06-26-2002, 07:31 AM

Strahler does not say "unknowable". He characterizes supernaturalism in terms more consistent with viewing it as empirically vacuous, devoid of content.

Unknowability has connotations of transcendence; that is, of there *being* a transcendent domain in which supernatural entities may exist or fail to exist. Strahler's obvservations, if correct, describe an attitude that falls well short of countenancing the coherence of this possibility. It seems more like, "Well, we're playing the Truth game here. If you'd rather play Checkers, hey, go to it."

WJ · 06-26-2002, 08:08 AM

I personally think that this goes back to the decision of whether or not to act or take a position or hold a belief about a something (or what does it mean to have and hold a belief about a some thing). Allow me to explain.

With regard to the 'unknowable', I have become convinced that the existence of the synthetic apriori is absolutely necessary. Of course, this only relates to the intellect in that we use semantics and language (as the sole method, excluding assumptions)in determining our rules of correct reasoning. Otherwise, we are left with things like the distinctions from phenomenalism-philosophy for another source of 'truth value' viz. the unknowable.

Beyond 'logic', it seems there are at least two choices:

1. I don't know, therefore, I take or hold no position of belief about the subject matter. I simply don't know. Nor do I will to know it.

2. Faith, because I will to know it, and take a position on the matter as a belief (albeit possibly temporary) one way or another. I have a suspended or placed [a] belief inside of a faith, in order to move it forward, as it were. I am forced to take a postion.

With regard to the specific context of religion and #2, I am wondering whether that is more akin to Pascal's Wager, and/or the necessary existence of the synthetic apriori in the face of science and the discovery of the unknowable?

Walrus

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-26-2002, 07:02 AM	#2
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	I have seen definitions of 'agnostic' that seem to make a positive claim, "there are things that are unknowable." This seems more dogmatic than is warranted. I like your definition better, even if it is tautologous.

06-26-2002, 07:31 AM	#3
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Strahler does not say "unknowable". He characterizes supernaturalism in terms more consistent with viewing it as empirically vacuous, devoid of content. Unknowability has connotations of transcendence; that is, of there being a transcendent domain in which supernatural entities may exist or fail to exist. Strahler's obvservations, if correct, describe an attitude that falls well short of countenancing the coherence of this possibility. It seems more like, "Well, we're playing the Truth game here. If you'd rather play Checkers, hey, go to it."

06-26-2002, 08:08 AM	#4
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	I personally think that this goes back to the decision of whether or not to act or take a position or hold a belief about a something (or what does it mean to have and hold a belief about a some thing). Allow me to explain. With regard to the 'unknowable', I have become convinced that the existence of the synthetic apriori is absolutely necessary. Of course, this only relates to the intellect in that we use semantics and language (as the sole method, excluding assumptions)in determining our rules of correct reasoning. Otherwise, we are left with things like the distinctions from phenomenalism-philosophy for another source of 'truth value' viz. the unknowable. Beyond 'logic', it seems there are at least two choices: 1. I don't know, therefore, I take or hold no position of belief about the subject matter. I simply don't know. Nor do I will to know it. 2. Faith, because I will to know it, and take a position on the matter as a belief (albeit possibly temporary) one way or another. I have a suspended or placed [a] belief inside of a faith, in order to move it forward, as it were. I am forced to take a postion. With regard to the specific context of religion and #2, I am wondering whether that is more akin to Pascal's Wager, and/or the necessary existence of the synthetic apriori in the face of science and the discovery of the unknowable? Walrus

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.