On 20-1-2014 1:20, clipka wrote:
> Am 19.01.2014 23:08, schrieb andrel:
>
>> I don't think I could base a morality on an agnostic point of view, so I
>> stick to being an atheist if you don't mind.
>
> I actually find it pretty easy:
>
>
> * I can't tell for sure whether there is a supreme something or not, or
> what its nature is, and I suspect that it is impossible to known for
> sure.

nitpicking: a true agnost is sure (s)he is not able to know. That is 
what distinguishes her/him from an ordinary person that simply does not 
know.

> Therefore, whatever my personal current belief on this matter may
> be, it may be wrong.
>

> something, nor try to prove what its nature is, neither to yourself nor
> to anyone else.
>

> believe in a supreme something or not, or what they believe its nature
> to be.
>

> fear ponder alone or discuss in groups whether there is a supreme
> something or not, or what its nature is, within the limits imposed by

>

> fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current belief
> re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the limits

>
>
> I think these few rules, derived from what I consider the essence of the
> agnostic point of view, make for a formidable set of fundamental ethics.

I am afraid that I don't see how this helps in deciding what to do in 

follow that.

>

> currently think the supreme something's nature is:
>
> * I believe (even though I can't prove it) that there is a supreme
> something; I believe (even though I can't prove it) that hints about its
> nature can be found scattered among all world views and all throughout
> the universe, including science; I believe (even though I can't prove
> it) that its nature is very witty and humorous, very forgiving (to such
> an extent that the word is actually meaningless, because there is
> nothing to forgive in the first place), and very benevolent.
>

> humorous, forgiving and benevolent, and leave the rest.
>

>
>
> Pretty much everything else in terms of moral springs from the
> "commandment" to be forgiving and benevolent.

Going for the roundabout way of trying to second guess what a god would 
want if it did exist does not appeal to me.

BTW thinking about it, I think there is an agnostic way. Just find the 
common ground. If god exists do A and if god does not exist do A implies 
do A.
The problem is again in second guessing a non human. I am not good at that.
Another problem is that we seem to assume a single god, what if there 
are a large number of them and each has, just like us humans, different 
opinions.

OTOH if you take the assumption that if god exists it does not want us 
to be sure (insert THHGTTG quote here) you may only have to consider the 
situation that it does not exist.

-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message