I wanted to talk about agnosticism again today. I feel like all I did yesterday was complain. From what I gathered from the reading, I think that agnosticism is very undetermined. It seemed that that it was trying to provide proof for being a middle of the road theory. I seemed as though it made attempts to show the existence of God and also suggesting that God doesn’t exist. What I like I’m trying to say is it doesn’t make a definitive claim and argue completely for it. Its like the theory/argument is unsure of what its all about. Let me know what you think.
roug0413 Daily 50
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
3 Comments
I completely agree with you. I think the whole idea of arguing for agnosticism is an oxymoron. I think that was probably the part which confused me the most about the article, because you think you get the sense of what the author’s arguing for, but then two paragraphs later you’re lost again (or at least I was). I don’t think that was the author’s fault though because, like you said, the author was trying to argue for a middle of the road theory, so it’s bound to get confusing.
I agree also. I felt like the whole point of agnosticism was that if you did or didnt have enough evidence to believe in something, then you cannot believe in it. Thus have you can really believe in agnosticism, it is basically having no real belief in anything. And I feel that is not really realistic. Everyone has a belief in something. We also have to remind ourselves there really is no sure way to prove any of these arguments. With that being said, I find it hard to be a complete theist or a complete atheist because there are so many objections that do not have complete answers.
I don’t think Agnosticism believes that we are unsure “what it’s all about,” but rather we don’t have enough evidence yet to believe in these explanations. The Agnostic is simply explaining that we do not yet have enough data to claim the things that we do. The Agnostic believes that we may have an idea “what it’s all about,” but in order to have firm belief, further evidence is necessary.