| Definitions Please? |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 09/14/2002, 07:57:39 Author Profile Mail author |
Hey There Folks! TGIF! The posts on the thread below are losing me. I am a didactic learner. I need to see things laid out in some kind or order or sequence. I would like to see definitions of the following terms from anyone who cares to provide them: Agnostic
If I list them separately could you likewise define them separately and without comparision or contrast? Kevin and marg, if you are willing perhaps you could c/p your definitions from below? I need to see these laid out and lined up. Please, just simple definitions. Bam-bam-bam, that's what I need. I would greatly appreciate your help in this. Victoria
|
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Define Agnostic Re: Definitions Please? -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/14/2002, 07:58:14
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Define Agnostic Theist Re: Define Agnostic -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/14/2002, 07:58:35
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Define Agnostic Atheist Re: Define Agnostic Theist -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/14/2002, 07:58:58
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Define Atheist Re: Define Agnostic Atheist -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/14/2002, 07:59:22
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Define Soft Atheist Re: Define Atheist -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/14/2002, 07:59:46
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Define Hard Atheist Re: Define Soft Atheist -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/14/2002, 08:00:10
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Define Hard Atheist Re: Define Hard Atheist -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: diehl ®
09/14/2002, 09:47:43
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Define Hard Atheist Re: Define Hard Atheist -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
09/14/2002, 13:48:38
Author Profile Mail author
Takes the position that God does not exist.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Define Soft Atheist Re: Define Soft Atheist -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: diehl ®
09/14/2002, 09:46:53
Author Profile Mail author
or:
Agnostic atheist - one who does not believe in a deity, but does not assert that it can be disproven factually (aka "Soft Atheist") [This is my view]
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Define Soft Atheist Re: Define Soft Atheist -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
09/14/2002, 13:50:07
Author Profile Mail author
Does not believe in God.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Define Atheist Re: Define Atheist -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: diehl ®
09/14/2002, 09:45:47
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Define Atheist Re: Define Atheist -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
09/14/2002, 12:15:48
Author Profile Mail author
Literally, lacking a belief in God. (same as weak atheist, really).
However, as I've said on this board before, almost everybody takes this to mean someone who actually believes God does not exist, and most dictionaries say the same thing. It's easier to use the weak/strong to specify what you mean since its unlikely that people will ever agree on a definition.
Modified by nofaith at Sat, Sep 14, 2002, 14:21:57
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Define Agnostic Atheist Re: Define Agnostic Atheist -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: diehl ®
09/14/2002, 09:45:13
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Define Agnostic Atheist Re: Define Agnostic Atheist -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
09/14/2002, 13:56:13
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Define Agnostic Theist Re: Define Agnostic Theist -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: diehl ®
09/14/2002, 09:44:33
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Define Agnostic Theist Re: Define Agnostic Theist -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
09/14/2002, 13:58:38
Author Profile Mail author
This person would be believing it is not possible to know something, but choosing to believe anyway. It is possible.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Define Agnostic Re: Define Agnostic -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: diehl ®
09/14/2002, 09:43:55
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
WRONG!! Re: Re: Define Agnostic -- diehl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
09/15/2002, 20:36:05
Author Profile Mail author
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Must have hit a nerve Re: WRONG!! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: diehl ®
09/15/2002, 22:54:39
Author Profile Mail author
Or how about this: It's not that one can prove or disprove on evidence; it's the infinite definitions of what a god is prevents it.
To say that it is un-knowable does little to explain why. Some feel they can't know because of lack of information, others the ambiguity of the term god, some because of the limited capacity of a human mind to understand. None of these are permanent; I feel there is nothing that cannot be known (if given countless eons and enough minds); at most the question and answer can be meaningless.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"And Vicki is apparently just far too stupid to have learned this lesson after being taught it at least a dozen times over the years!!"One, don't insult others (I though that 'we' had a discussion about this). Two, even if she is, does that mean that it isn't worth it? Note, this is not a personal attack aginst you, as a whole you seems to be a great person.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"I simply cannot understand why Kevin's excellent posts have been so foolishly ignored!"Well maybe I should finish reading all of that thread... That last thread has become convoluted and there is a 'war' going on between members in it.
I think this shows how much we need to avoid these words...
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
"Holy fuck", Martin? Re: Must have hit a nerve -- diehl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/16/2002, 04:01:03
Author Profile Mail author
I thought you were ignoring me, at least that's what the sign says. Here let me get this out of the way first.
Questions to ask yourself:
1. Is your intent dialogue or belittlement?
2. Why do you persist in making anti-social remarks?Okay, good. As you yourself have stated in a different post- language and it's meaning are fluid. On the Agnostic Theism thread I noticed there was some disagreement on definitions or more precisly put, what constitutes a certain perspective. This thread is intended to gather individual definitions so that I can compare and contrast them.
I am well able to learn from a competant teacher. No teacher worth their salt assumes that knowledge can be stuffed into a bottle and forever corked. All teachers are learners. They purposefully discard their corks to let new ideas seep in. Do you consider yours to be the only correct perspective? If so, it automatically boots you out of a teaching job.
If you were to line up 10 believers and ask them the same question, it's a pretty safe bet you'll get 10 different answers. Some consistencies and some variation. Why? Is it because belief is shaky? No, it is because belief is highly personal and subject to individual interpretation and expression.
I am fairly certain that the same can be said of non/dis-belief. You fail to recognize that not only does your dogmatic and compartmentalized approach to defining strands of non-belief neglect to take into account individual perspectives, it fully contradicts your position on the fluidity of the language and it's meaning that people use to express their state.
Could it be that a new and innovative, and perhaps more accurate series of definitions is on the rise and that you yourself are about to catch a new wave of thought? Are you open to that? Is your cork in or out? Are you divergent or convergent?
Certainly, every non-believer has a story of their road to disbelief. Just as believers have theirs to belief. And individual ways of expressing their state of non-belief. Non-belief as well as belief, are highly personal states of thought.
You cannot lump people into concrete boxes of definitions since their experience, their views and their expressions, while they contain common threads, are individual. People hold different and alternative opinions on the same issue. Likewise they express their opinions in different and alternative ways. When you close the door and discount the expressions and ideas of others you close the door to your own growth and learning. You cork your own bottle.Knowledge, concepts, language and its meaning are not frozen in time. There is nothing ingraved in granite, no absolutes. Everything is subject to interpretation at any given point in time in an individuals life. And so is their way of expressing it. Yours is not the only way. I have pointed that out to you several times. Unless you begin to recognize that people while technically speaking the same language, speak their own language as well, you will not be able to authentically assess their meaning.
You persist in circumventing, via personal and degrading remarks, the discussions when another expresses a differing opinion from your own carefully guarded perspective. Are you interested in expediting the discussions or throwing them off course? More questions to ask yourself.
I would encourage you to re-think your position on what purpose you intend to serve here, if any. If you see yourself in a position to teach you must not assume your status superior to the learner. If you feel that way, then I suggest you refrain from such comments since they reduce the discussion to pettiness rather than the transmission of thoughts and knowledge.
Victoria
;)p.s. I should like to know the source of your Shakespeare quote on the Sept 11 thread. I have given you the benefit of the doubt in speculating that it could be derived from a screen play or other adpatation of some sort or a direct quote from Caesar rather than arbitrarily grabbed off the net. Just as a general rule...it's not okay to mess with Shakespeare. Not with me around at least.
Modified by Jersey Girl at Mon, Sep 16, 2002, 04:29:05
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Is there a term... Re: Must have hit a nerve -- diehl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
09/16/2002, 08:26:42
Author Profile Mail author
Yes: Soft Atheist.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: WRONG!! Re: WRONG!! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
09/16/2002, 06:58:09
Author Profile Mail author
That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.
(Huxley,"Agnosticism and Christianity", 1889)
Huxley invented the word 'agnostic'. He was primarily focused on 'proof' or 'evidence'. He used it to mean, basically, a scientist: one who only accepts something when he has sufficient evidence.As this applies to God, I think my definition fits.
It is an alternate, but just as accurate definition, that agnosticism holds that God is unknowable. I simply don't believe that is the only definition. It has never been the definition that I use, and I have rarely heard anyone use it that way. That doesn't make it inaccurate, but I believe my def. is just as valid.
-Dan
Modified by nofaith at Mon, Sep 16, 2002, 06:59:27
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
STILL wrong Re: Re: WRONG!! -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
09/17/2002, 18:36:50
Author Profile Mail author
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
To Dan and diehl and Vicki: The Proper Definition Re: Re: Define Agnostic -- diehl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
09/16/2002, 10:17:56
Author Profile Mail author
Huxley is indeed credited with coining the term, but Huxley himself later refined his thinking on the issue along more general epistemological lines. Allow me to quote, for example, from the Catholic Encyclopedia which provides the more refined position:
The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós "knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas.Here's the actual definition provided by the same source:AgnosticismThe Catholic Encyclopedia's full entry is surprisingly extensive and fruitful (considering the rather biased and judgmental editorial comments in parts of its exposition). Here are additional excerpts:a philosophical theory of the limitations of knowledge, professing doubt of or disbelief in some or all of the powers of knowing possessed by the human mind.
(2) Agnosticism, as a general term in philosophy, is frequently employed to express any conscious attitude of doubt, denial, or disbelief, towards some, or even all, of man's powers of knowing or objects of knowledge. The meaning of the term may accordingly vary, like that of the other word "Scepticism", which it has largely replaced, from partial to complete Agnosticism; it may be our knowledge of the world, of the self, or of God, that is questioned; or it may be the knowableness of all three, and the validity of any knowledge, whether of sense or intellect, science or philosophy, history, ethics, religion.The article then proceeds to knock down a straw man argument about total agnostics (of which there are probably zero).(4) Modern Agnosticism differs from its ancient prototype. Its genesis is not due to a reactionary spirit of protest, and a collection of sceptical arguments, against "dogmatic systems" of philosophy in vogue, so much as to an adverse criticism of man's knowing-powers in answer to the fundamental question: What can we know? Kant, who was the first to raise this question, in his memorable reply to Hume, answered it by a distinction between "knowable phenomena" and "unknowable things-in-themselves". Hamilton soon followed with his doctrine that "we know only the relations of things". Modern Agnosticism is thus closely associated with Kant's distinction and Hamilton's principle of relativity. It asserts our inability to know the reality corresponding to our ultimate scientific, philosophic, or religious ideas.
(5) Agnosticism, with special reference to theology, is a name for any theory which denies that it is possible for man to acquire knowledge of God. It may assume either a religious or an anti-religious form, according as it is confined to a criticism of rational knowledge or extended to a criticism of belief...
(6) The extreme view that knowledge of God is impossible, even with the aid of revelation, is the latest form of religious Agnosticism... [it then goes on to heap insults on this view, which is a pretty awful example of the biased editorial comments I referred to earlier].
From perhaps the most highly respected and widely used dictionary of religious and philosophical terms, Penguin Book's Dictionary of Philosophy:agnosticism (Gr. a- (privative prefix) + gnõsis knowledge) n.a theory according to which things within a specified realm are unknowable. Especially: (1) the view that we cannot know whether or not God exists; (2) the view, to be found in positivist theories like those of du Bois-Reymond and Spencer, that ultimate reality is unknowable.
This excerpt from Webster's is imprecise but may be somewhat helpful:
Specifically: (Theol.) The doctrine that the existence of a personal Deity, an unseen world, etc., can be neither proved nor disproved, because of the necessary limits of the human mindDan, I think what's happened to the definition and usage of the term "agnostic" is that a precise, formal, philosophical/theological term has, over time, been adopted into casual, everyday usage and then "rounded-off" as it were by frequent mishandling. The web, for example, is thick with conflicting definitions of the word, which I believe reflects the very widespread unfamiliarity with the philosophical/theological definition throughout our casual culture.
The reason I have been so extremely frustrated and have been lashing out in this thread is that, unlike a newcomer such as yourself, I have seen this exact question go through the same pattern over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again: Someone asks for the definition or else misuses the term. A tiresome debate ensues in which various people report the loose, casual "definition" instead of the actual (dictionary) definition. Various people then go out of their way to provide the correct definition (Kevin, for example, in the round WE JUST WENT THROUGH before Vicki -- LESS THAN A FEW DAYS LATER -- makes a fresh fuss MERELY BECAUSE SHE IS TOO LAZY TO LOOK IT UP FOR HERSELF!) Those using the loose, incorrect definition generally protest. The defenders of the correct, philosophical/theological definition emphasize the true meaning of the word, and the issue is thought to be settled. Vicki has always been a part of this, had always gotten the definition wrong, but apparently refused to learn (she's done this now perhaps a dozen times!). In her defense, her error and stubbornness, I suspect, is a consequence of people continuing to insist that the sloppy, casual definition is the correct one, contrary to the most reliable sources. Which is where I spin out of control because IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN!!
I'm sorry for blowing up at you (and diehl, too) but can you at least begin to understand my frustration?
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Mon, Sep 16, 2002, 10:21:25
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
...defoliate a 6-mile raduis... Re: To Dan and diehl and Vicki: The Proper Definition -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: diehl ®
09/16/2002, 10:34:14
Author Profile Mail author
As for the Soft Atheist, that’s what I go by (well I usually just say "Atheist" and let them take it as they want...).
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Thanks, diehl! Re: ...defoliate a 6-mile raduis... -- diehl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
09/16/2002, 10:54:07
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
To Martin who is too lazy to read my posts Re: ...defoliate a 6-mile raduis... -- diehl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/16/2002, 10:56:23
Author Profile Mail author
It is just as I said. The definitions on the Agnostic Theism thread varied. I posted this thread to gather individual definitions. Now, if you're ignoring me...ignore.
Victoria
;)
Modified by Jersey Girl at Mon, Sep 16, 2002, 10:58:38
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I apologize for the knee-jerk, Marty Re: To Martin who is too lazy to read my posts -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/16/2002, 12:18:28
Author Profile Mail author
Modified by Jersey Girl at Mon, Sep 16, 2002, 13:11:12
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: The Proper Definition Re: To Dan and diehl and Vicki: The Proper Definition -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
09/16/2002, 11:39:14
Author Profile Mail author
I understand both your frustration, and your position. However, as you can note, the reference I gave was from 1889 (20 years after Huxley had coined the term). At that time, he still supported the definition I gave. Your quote from the Catholic dictionary, while interesting, does not convince me that Huxley changed his mind in the last 6 years of his life (died in June of 1895).
The latest thing that he wrote that I am aware of is "Science and Christian Tradition," in December of 1893 (about 1.5 years before his death). From that I quote:
It really is unreasonable to ask any rejector of the demonology to say more with respect to those other matters, than that the statements regarding them may be true, or may be false; and that the ultimate decision, if it is to be favourable, must depend on the production of testimony of a very different character from that of the writers of the four gospels. Until such evidence is brought forward, that refusal of assent, with willingness to re-open the question, on cause shown, which is what I mean by Agnosticism, is, for me the only course open.
I have a hard time believing Huxley ever changed his mind about this, in spite of that quote from the Catholic dictionary. On the other hand, I don't think that words should always mean the same thing as they used to, or were intended to mean. Your definition is commonly found in dictionaries, and I haven't researched when it became common use. But I maintain it did not come from Huxley, and I will think that until you show me otherwise. Yours is a perfectly reasonable definition, and is useful.
My personal opinion is that Huxley's definition became a trend of philisophical thought, which defined its own limits (expanding his view to saying that it was literally impossible to know, not just that evidence was lacking). Huxley's definition simply seems to be that of a logical scientist, who will not accept the truth of something until he has sufficient evidence. As such, a definition of agnosticism that says, "believes there is too little evidence to decide the God question" seems perfectly fine to me.
Again, I understand you frustration, but you must realize there is a huge difference between not learning or remembering, and simply disagreeing. I understand precisely what you're getting at, and I refuse to accept the single definition as absolutely accurate--I have an alternate one that is in common use, and there is an arguably good reason to use it: the originator seems to have used it that way, and the distiction the word offers with this def. is useful. It describes me and many others, I believe.
-Dan
As JAK would probably say, it's language--it all depends on what you mean by what you say.
Modified by nofaith at Mon, Sep 16, 2002, 11:50:15
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Definitions Re: Re: The Proper Definition -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
09/16/2002, 11:55:43
Author Profile Mail author
You might look up that Catholic definition to which Martin refers. The copyright is 1907 at the very bottom of the lengthy definition of agnosticism.
In addition, it is important to keep in mind that the definitions, and there are many in that reference, have a wide variety of nuances which make for some internal contradiction.
Near the bottom of the post, Martin states: “Vicki has always been a part of this, had always gotten the definition wrong, but apparently refused to learn (she's done this now perhaps a dozen times!).”
He writes there as if there were a single definition. He is wrong to imply that as his very source demonstrates. There is no “the definition” as he states. There are in fact definitions (in the plural) for agnosticism.
In addition, one would be justified in criticizing a copyright of 1907 on a term which has undergone the developments this term has over the past century. If there ARE changes, such changes demonstrate the evolution of the word, its use, and its understanding over the past 100 years.
At the bottom appears this:
“The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I
Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York”Extended definitions always give expansion of meaning and applications of that meaning.
As you read through all the definitions in his link to the Catholic E. see what you gather from them.
My compliments to you for keen observation.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Let me run this by you JAK Re: Re: Definitions -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/16/2002, 12:02:41
Author Profile Mail author
If you're still online, I'd like to run a few questions by you in sequence...one at a time. Here's the first:
1. Can it be said that an Agnostic, whose position is that God is "unknowable", likewise feels/thinks there is no evidence for the existence of God...there is no proof for God?
Victoria
;)(with smile)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Question 2 Re: Let me run this by you JAK -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/16/2002, 12:04:24
Author Profile Mail author
Victoria
;)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Question 3 Re: Question 2 -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/16/2002, 12:06:20
Author Profile Mail author
Victoria
;)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Question 4 Re: Question 3 -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/16/2002, 12:10:32
Author Profile Mail author
Victoria
;)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Question 5 Re: Question 4 -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/16/2002, 12:13:03
Author Profile Mail author
Victoria
;)p.s. stubbornly trying to get to the bottom of the labels.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Question 6 Re: Question 5 -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/16/2002, 12:17:13
Author Profile Mail author
That was 4 questions, sorry!
Victoria
;)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Some websites. Re: Question 6 -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
09/18/2002, 10:43:37
Author Profile Mail author
Here are some cites which offer considerations you might like to read.
here is one.Catholic Encyclopedia has some definitions.
Notice in the first two line definition this: “a philosophical theory of the limitations of knowledge, professing doubt of or disbelief in some or all of the powers of knowing possessed by the human mind.”
“Doubt” and “disbelief” are not necessarily the same thing. They could be, but they are not required to be -- hence the word “or.”
This one is interesting because it deals with definitions in an analytical way.
here.
There are many more, Vicki.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Thank you again, JAK Re: Re: Some websites. -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/18/2002, 11:20:27
Author Profile Mail author
I will need to read the links over the weekend. And yes, the definition from the Catholic Encyclopedia is a two-part definition. I agree with you on this. JAK, I have to tell you that I am not as committed to learning about the "history" of Agnosticism as I am it's contemporary meanings. Do you think I am doing Agnosticism a disservice in that? Do I need to go back first and move forward in order to understand? Is it important that I understand the development of the Agnostic perspective? I assure you that I will have read your links by Monday. Especially if it snows...which is predicted for Thursday. I am NOT kidding!
Victoria
;)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Point of Perspective Re: Thank you again, JAK -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
09/21/2002, 05:26:21
Author Profile Mail author
The point for various websites was to suggest that there are numerous perspectives which may not entirely agree. It was not my intention to suggest that all understandings of a term such as “agnostic” or “agnosticism” were of equal value. Rather, my references coupled with the statement to you that there were many others was to convey just what my words stated.
Interpretations to the contrary by Martin are distortions and misrepresentations of what I stated earlier. marg has raised fine points of issue as have you and some others.
The declaration that I had somehow defined this term and was “wrong” in my definition is not correct. It was and is a straw man attack. ...quite pointless to refute. It requires one to restate and declare that one has not stated what an attacker writes.
Now for your questions:
Do you think I am doing Agnosticism a disservice in that?
Do I need to go back first and move forward in order to understand?
Is it important that I understand the development of the Agnostic perspective?I think or hope you are continuing to explore a wider scope of thinking that that of any single person or resource.
I do not think it is your intention to do a “disservice.”
Depending upon how much interest you have, of course the history of a term and its application are relevant. “The Agnostic perspective” as you state in the question here could be stated more accurately. One could say an agnostic perspective.
If you have read some of the sites I gave and some or all of marg’s thinking in her posts and responses to posts, you have some sense already that there are “perspectives” in the plural.
Anyone who declares otherwise has blocked from view “perspectives” with which he disagrees. That in no way is to suggest that there are not serious misunderstandings about what those terms (agnostic & agnosticism) mean or can convey.
Vicki, in better and more complete definitions there are elements of equivocation. Whenever a definition has in it the word “or”, such a word suggests multiple meanings or interpretation. Likewise, when a more complete definition has the word “and”, the definition becomes inclusive.
You remember “fundamentalist”? I have little doubt that you can recognize varying degrees of Christian fundamentalism. That is, not all Christian fundamentalists think alike or see things alike.
Not all agnostics think alike or think alike. The statement that this is the case or that there is only one view cannot be justified if one looks at the various statements made about and surrounding “agnostic” or “agnosticism.”
All one has to do is read a wide variety of material to recognize that.
You earlier had asked some questions which included words like “soft” and “hard” and some others (I think). adjectives can (but not necessarily will) clarify or refine that to which a writer is thinking.
One should always be suspicious of absolutism with regard to conceptual ideas, Vicki. I feel confident you recognize the validity of that. One must always be mindful of the context of words if one is to gain greater understanding.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Sat, Sep 21, 2002, 05:27:19
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Aaargh!!! (revised) Re: Thank you again, JAK -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
09/21/2002, 20:56:31
Author Profile Mail author
Why must you persist in being so moronic? There is ONLY ONE definition given by the Catholic Encyclopedia, and it only has ONE part!
LOOK AT THE DAMN WORDS AND TRY HARDER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE AUTHOR IS ACTUALLY SAYING!!:
Agnosticism:THAT IS THE BROAD, GENERAL DEFINITION AND IT MATCHES EXACTLY WHAT THE DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY REPORTS AS THE GENERAL DEFINITION!!!
a philosophical theory of the limitations of knowledge, professing doubt of or disbelief in some or all of the powers of knowing possessed by the human mind.Notice the complete lack of any reference to God or any other theological concepts in that general definition! That would tell an intelligent person -- a group to which you clearly do not belong -- that the given definition does NOT refer only to theological agnosticism, but also to agnosticism in other, utterly non-theological domains!
A broad, general definition can't reasonably be expected to cover all the details of each specific domain of inquiry, so it is often necessary to use conditional terms such as the word "or" because in some specific domains of philosophical study the word describes active disbelief in the knowability of certain things, and in other specific domains the word describes passive doubt about the knowability of certain things.
The absolutely shockingly terrible reading comprehension skills of you and a few others here stands as stark PROOF that our education system has miserably failed FAR too many people! It never would have occurred to me that people contributing to this forum (you and marg foremost among them) would so desperately need remedial study in reading comprehension, but the desperate need is all too obvious!
You are one of the most deliberately shallow-minded people I have ever encountered! You are just about as stupid and deliberately ignorant now as you were when you blathered about Noah's Ark all those years ago! You don't seem to have learned very much at all from your participation here!!
And your continuing to capitalize "Agnosticism" should tell everyone (even the lackwit pseudo-pedant JAK) that you grotesquely misunderstand and mischaracterize the context of the term! You are treating it quite ignorantly as if it were some kind of church or sect or school of thought or body of believers! That's WRONG and STUPID! Didn't you see how Huxley so sarcastically ridiculed those people who (like marg, apparently) imagined him to be a kind of "pope" of a "sect" of "Agnostics"??? When Huxley capitalized the word, he was deliberately mocking people like you who would be so foolish as to consider that there's such a thing as Agnosticism rather than agnosticism!
READ MY POST: marg, Vicki, JAK: PLEASE READ THIS
Kevin and I have given you the ONLY correct definition of the formal philosophical term "agnosticism". Your continued brainless vapidity and willful stubbornness in trying to understand the term by opinion polling for personal opinions is a perfect example of why your miserable, wretched "thinking" is held in such low regard by the clear thinkers around here!
You clearly did not speak honestly when you claimed that your intent with this thread was to learn! You have been taught the correct meaning of the term, yet still you persist in rejecting the plain truth of the matter and instead continue with your specious, low-brow blither!
VICKI!!! There is a universe full of issues about which honest, intelligent people can legitimately disagree. BUT DEFINITIONS OF TECHNICAL, PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS IS SIMPLY NOT ONE OF THEM!!
You are behaving much the same way as you did with your astonishingly stupid Noah's Ark thread -- refusing to learn from informed people and stupidly refusing to learn from your mistakes.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Sun, Sep 22, 2002, 15:17:01
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Martin Re: Thank you again, JAK -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
09/22/2002, 11:40:50
Author Profile Mail author
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Sun, Sep 22, 2002, 11:44:16
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Separating the wheat from the chaff Re: Re: Some websites. -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
09/19/2002, 11:02:05
Author Profile Mail author
(1) ReligiousTolerance.org: Very good site for the true neophyte and the low-brow; very bad site for sophisticated thinkers, as it lacks precision, accuracy, and philosophical depth. It's definition of agnosticism is wrong and low-brow.
(2) 2Think.com: Very good site (thanks rpcman!). It's self-admittedly personal definition of agnosticism is generally close to the right ballpark in that it reports that agnosticism is about a lack of knowledge, and is especially helpful in trouncing marg's ridiculous and almost religious Huxley-worship bugaboo. However, the author's understanding of the requirements for genuine knowledge seem to me to be a bit weak and based on a subtle but important misconception. On the big plus side, it does link to a mostly correct (but still understandably brief and possibly misleading) definition from Webster's.
(3) The Catholic Encyclopedia: Excellent, if overly polemical, site. It's very much a high-brow site and get's the theological definition of agnosticism quite correct. Some people (marg and Vicki) apparently don't understand the goal of an encyclopedia, else they would not have made such uninformed statements regarding this one. The greatest and least excusable error came from marg when she asserted that the cited page represents the views of the Roman Catholic Church!! That's preposterous nonsense, of course! It is extremely difficult to provide a concise statement that covers the nature of all of the encyclopedia's articles and topics, but here are excerpts from that encyclopedia's original preface that are relevant to this question:
The Catholic Encyclopedia, as its name implies, proposes to give its readers full and authoritative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine... It differs from the general encyclopedia in omitting facts and information which have no relation to the Church. On the other hand, it is not exclusively a church encyclopedia, nor is it limited to the ecclesiastical sciences and the doings of churchmen... The Editors are fully aware that there is no specifically Catholic science, that mathematics, physiology and other branches of human knowledge are neither Catholic, Jewish, nor Protestant; but when it is commonly asserted that Catholic principles are an obstacle to scientific research, it seems not only proper but needful to register what and how much Catholics have contributed to every department of knowledge. ...Even the writings of the best intentioned authors at times disfigured by serious errors on Catholic subjects, which are for the most part due, not to ill-will, but to lack of knowledge. It would be fatuous to hope to call into immediate existence a Catholic English literature adequate to supply this knowledge and correct errors. The Encyclopedia, therefore, is the most convenient means of doing both, enabling, as it does, the foremost Catholic scholars in every part of the world to contribute articles in the condensed form that appeals to the man of action, and with the accuracy that satisfies the scholar.
Designed to present its readers with the full body of Catholic teaching, the Encyclopedia contains not only precise statements of what the Church as defined, but also an impartial record of different views of acknowledged authority on all disputed questions. In all things the object of the Encyclopedia is to give the whole truth without prejudice, national, political or factional.
(4) Theodore Drange's interpretation from Internet Infidels. It's an interesting (if mid-brow) article about noncognitivism, but Drange profoundly errs regarding the true definition of agnosticism (of which the article is not focused). To his credit, though, he also takes a few moments to undercut marg's Huxley idolatry and also to explain that etymological "definitions" can be justifiably suspect. JAK lauds the article's "analytic" approach, but his analysis on the question of the definition of agnosticism is plainly flawed.(5) Some random guy's personal opinions from an association of Gay and Lesbian Atheists and Humanists: It's another terribly ignorant, low-brow essay from someone much like some of the contributors to this thread who have no accurate idea of what knowledge and epistemology are!
The most obvious and fatal flaw in his trite pseudo-reasoning is a very common, but deeply flawed, misconception that has infected a huge number of people: That the term "agnostic" is an alternative to either theist or atheist! That's just plain stupid. Agnosticism is NOT such an alternative. It is NOT some "middle of the road" or "fence-sitting" or "open to new evidence" or "unsure" or "fabricated to be inoffensive" position! Agnosticism is the position that no transcendent entity can ever possibly be known, as a direct consequence of the formal, correct definition of transcendent:
transcendent adj.READ AND RE-READ THAT SECOND PARAGRAPH, MARG, JAK, AND DAN, UNTIL YOU FINALLY GRASP THE UNDISPUTABLE FACT THAT EVIDENCE OR THE LACK THEREOF HAS ABSOLUTELY ZERO RELEVANCE -- AND IN FACT CANNOT POSSIBLY EVER EXIST -- FOR OR AGAINST A TRANSCENDENT ENTITY SUCH AS GOD!!! This is because in the absence of experience (i.e., perception), evidence CANNOT exist one way or the other that is perceivable to humans!1 The general meaning of the word is 'going beyond' or 'being beyond'. It is used in many contexts. For instance, in medieval philosophy God is said to transcend himself when he creates the world.
2 The word is used particularly and frequently in the sense of being beyond the limits of any possible experience; beyond the limits of the world of experience.
