Dubito quia absurdum est.

From: Robert Owen (rowen@technologist.com)
Date: Sat Mar 11 2000 - 23:19:07 MST


My intent is not to resurrect an old and contentious
thread, "Atheism vs. Agnosticism vs Theism", but to
post my own resolution of this vexed trinity.

The key to proper differentiation is, in my opinion,
the concept of "doubt" and the "doubtable".

Regarding any proposition that must be either "true"
or "false", or any two positions one of which may be
true but both of which cannot be "true", then if one
"willingly suspends belief" in either and postpones a
logical judgment one may be called a SKEPTIC.

If, on the contrary, one affirms that either but not
both is true (i.e. one is true and one is false)then
one may be called a DOGMATIST.

In this sense, the meaning of "Agnostic" is softened
from asserting that the logical status of a proposition
is undecidable, to one that implies withholding judg-
ment given the current state of knowledge. And,
pari passu, propositions advanced by BOTH the
"Atheist" and "Theist" must be classified as "Dogmatic".

All this, of course, has the air of the profoundly trivial
about it. But it does deal with several issues that have
never been resolved.

Bob

=======================
Robert M. Owen
Director
The Orion Institute
57 W. Morgan Street
Brevard, NC 28712-3659 USA
=======================



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:54 MDT