In defence of agnosticism (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Saturday, November 24, 2012, 16:38 (4384 days ago)

DAVID (under Shedding Light): Of course no one knows the answers. That is why agnosticism is a refuge from the debate. Most debates declare a winner. In timed sports events that play to a tie, there is overtime to try for a winner. No one likes a tie result. Agnosticism is a tie result. But it is an honest position.-Ah, the pleasures of false analogies! Why should there be a winner? In debates, the winner is the speaker with the most votes. No voting here. Nor is this event timed ... unless you believe the UI will punish anyone who dies without signing up for him, as per his Jewish, Christian, Muslim self (or Hindu selves). And whaddayamean "no one likes a tie result"? If you're a neutral observer, and the sides are evenly matched, a draw is a perfectly acceptable result. The fact is, lots and lots of people don't like lots and lots of other people who have declared their side to be the winner. No one likes anyone who says they're wrong. Only nice, kind, understanding, tolerant, open-minded agnostics make no claim to be right, and while patiently explaining why they don't SHARE the opinions of those who think they know best, they acknowledge the POSSIBILITY that those opinions might be right. What more can one do? If only the world were full of agnostics, how much happier and more peaceful life would be! -But do not mistake open-mindedness and tolerance for weakness. It is customary for theists and atheists to sneer at agnostics as well as at each other, in the mistaken belief that they have no opinions about anything. But you do not have to believe in gods or in chance to make decisions about life on Earth. The god question is unique, but ultimately (if we disregard the dubious, self-granted moral authority of the various religions), it is isolated from the rest of our human, earthly reality. There are no analogies.