arunshanker
Active member
Agnosticism is not some kind of weak- atheism. Agnosticism is not atheism or theism. It is radical skepticism, uncertainty in the possibility of certainty, antagonism to the unwarranted inevitabilities that atheism and theism have to offer. Agnosticism doesn't panic on in the case of uncertainty. Neither does it adhere in the dark or even in the light to the dogmas, beliefs, doctrines, canons, tenets, creeds and faiths of orthodox religion or atheism (to say that atheism has all this is again a debate). Agnosticism respects, compliments and may be venerates and celebrates uncertainty and has been doing so since before quantum physics revealed the uncertainty that lies at the very groundwork of being. In fact shades of this can be inferred in Nasadiya Sukta in the tenth chapter of the Rig Veda What about this - Is it possible to distinguish and the limits of rationality, There is one thing interesting here
Whether God exists or not is one. Whether we can actually know and discern the answer is another. So that makes it like agnosticism is not for the unsophisticated or the simple minded which itself sets it in a so called higher plane and is not as affable if I must say as atheism and theism are. But there is one thing - The audacity to acknowledge that we actually don’t know and may never actually distinguish what we don't know is more difficult than saying, sure, we know.
There is a difference between saying I know and can explain but you will never understand and saying I know that I don’t know
Extraordinary developments in space science and cosmology have been made in the past half century with in detailed observations of planetary systems and interactive combinations of neutral particles, ions, electrons, and electromagnetic fields and space-based platforms for astrophysics. The waste bins of history are actually brimming with abundant discarded "facts" which turned out to be wrong or at least not exactly right. This leads to the school of thought that almost no fact is truly secure and permanent in cosmology. Agnosticism In context of astronomical advancement proclaims uncertainty.
The context of many philosophical discussions, arguments and debates, most conspicuously those regarding the boundaries of our knowledge, agnosticism seems a conceivable, and hypothetically and theoretically almost the right, stance to take. In spite of this in order to meet the requirements as an appropriate standpoint, and not just to talk about the rebuttal to adopt any, agnosticism needs to be presented to be in antagonism to both confirmation and denial and to be accountable and even answerable to future evidence.
Whether God exists or not is one. Whether we can actually know and discern the answer is another. So that makes it like agnosticism is not for the unsophisticated or the simple minded which itself sets it in a so called higher plane and is not as affable if I must say as atheism and theism are. But there is one thing - The audacity to acknowledge that we actually don’t know and may never actually distinguish what we don't know is more difficult than saying, sure, we know.
There is a difference between saying I know and can explain but you will never understand and saying I know that I don’t know
Extraordinary developments in space science and cosmology have been made in the past half century with in detailed observations of planetary systems and interactive combinations of neutral particles, ions, electrons, and electromagnetic fields and space-based platforms for astrophysics. The waste bins of history are actually brimming with abundant discarded "facts" which turned out to be wrong or at least not exactly right. This leads to the school of thought that almost no fact is truly secure and permanent in cosmology. Agnosticism In context of astronomical advancement proclaims uncertainty.
The context of many philosophical discussions, arguments and debates, most conspicuously those regarding the boundaries of our knowledge, agnosticism seems a conceivable, and hypothetically and theoretically almost the right, stance to take. In spite of this in order to meet the requirements as an appropriate standpoint, and not just to talk about the rebuttal to adopt any, agnosticism needs to be presented to be in antagonism to both confirmation and denial and to be accountable and even answerable to future evidence.
