2007-03-02 08:04:42 · 7 answers · asked by jim 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Weakness is right? Strong is wrong? Shouldn't people be strong in their beliefs is they really believe in them? Why would a weak belief be better than a strong one, unless it is wrong, then you shouldn't believe in it at all.
2007-03-02 08:07:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Weak agnosticism states that the jury is still out on God's existence. Strong agnosticism states that there's no need for a jury because God cannot be known.
I've never met a strong agnostic. Seems more like a philosophical position rather than anything based in reality. It would also seem that "weak agnostic" is what most people think of when they think of "agnostic".
So who are the strong agnostics that you are addressing this question to? Certainly not the atheists on this board, because given that strong agnosticism makes certain assumptions about God's existence is is incompatible with strong atheism which does not believe in any god whatsoever.
2007-03-02 16:09:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How can I be wrong? lol
I believe we cannot determine the existence of a divine being because that is the realm of metaphysics and so is beyond our intellect which is bounded by the continuum we live in. And even if we could determine a divine being did exist we, with our severely limited intellect, could never understand that being's motives.
Does that make me strong or weak? And you are making out as though the two are mutually exclusive. And I'm not sure there is a difference. Wouldn't weak agnosticism just be a weak I'm not sure, introducing more uncertainty and thus become strong uncertainty?
2007-03-02 16:10:49 · answer #3 · answered by Elizabeth Howard 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I fiddled with it and came to the conclusion that if you could fix a probability on the existence of God, you would have sufficient knowledge to fix the probability at 1 or 0. In order to prove my hypothesis, you probably reach that level of knowledge. Since you have set up a recursive system, if each layer required less knowledge, then some layer would be easily learned. None has, so it is likely (but cannot be proven) that the knowledge is above us. Of course, I could be wrong.
2007-03-02 16:28:57 · answer #4 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How can an Agnostic be right or wrong?
He doesn't have an strong opinion either way.
Can you be strongly unsure and weakly unsure, is that what you mean
2007-03-02 16:17:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess I don't know the difference between weak and strong agnosticism.....
2007-03-02 16:09:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Weird.
2007-03-02 16:08:08 · answer #7 · answered by Magus 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋