Knowledge, belief & agnosticism (Agnosticism)

by David Turell , Tuesday, March 18, 2008, 18:25 (6092 days ago) @ clayto
edited by unknown, Tuesday, March 18, 2008, 18:31

George Jellis wrote: "If a natural process is found it will clearly be of the step-by-step kind, not the "now an instantaneous miracle occurs" variety - To clarify my [Jellis] position: It may be that a radical change in the paradigm will prove necessary to explain the beginnings of life. On the other hand a radical change certainly will be needed to incorporate ideas of life after death.
dhw leaves out part of the quotation from Dawkins. It should be (p.137): "But the spontaneous arising by chance of the first hereditary molecule strikes many as improbable. Maybe it is - very very improbable, and I shall dwell on this, for it is central to this section of the book." Note the maybe." - Clayto wrote: "we do not know what dark energy is or its many implications (if indeed it does exist or is another 'ether') 'no way to prove a cyclical universe' ---- or disprove? yet?
I hope a current consensus, impressive though the evidence ad maths might be, is not being taken as revealed truth!
 Quote: "although it could be argued that agnostics in the "pure" sense of the word have the inner conviction that it is impossible to know whether God exists." I disagree. I as a "pure" (!) agnostic say otherwise. I am agnostic about my agnosticism. I do not have an "inner conviction" it is impossible, I just strongly doubt the possibility of knowing." - George Jellis is an atheist, and Clayto is a pure agnostic. To me both appear to be unwilling to accept current scientific findings as able to guide oneself to reach conclusions for now. No decisions are irrevocable. I had an internal desire to leave agnosticism as I wanted some conclusion to my struggle, and not keep balancing intellectually on the fence. So I accept current scientific findings when they are broadly accepted. For Clayto, I don't care that we don't fully know why the universe is rapidly expanding, but it is expanding more and more rapidly, and that is very well proven. To my mind that make the Big Bang a form of creation with a small 'c'. For George Jellis, I agree that a chance chemical start of life must be tiny step by tiny step, but each one is hugely improbable. Life may have been a creation of sorts. I can change my mind if the science changes its findings, but I think Spinoza- and Einstein-style that some type of general intelligence exists in the universe, and we developed a little of it in our consciousness.