[Dragaera] agnosticism (no flame) (was, long ago: (no spoilers) The 17 [Great Weapons])

[Ken Koester]

Philip Hart wrote:

>Snarkhunter:
>
>  
>
>>it would be galling to have to admit that ultimately
>>your arguments against a set of beliefs amount to a belief in
>>themselves, there being no objective evidence of any kind to bear on the
>>issue, either for or against.
>>    
>>
>
>But of course there is objective evidence against Rudolph the Red-Nosed
>Reindeer's cosmic battles with Mr. Mxtlplk and every other religion -
>none has any evidence for it, or explanatory power, or susceptibility
>to disproof, or moral utility, or compatibility with reason.  I don't know
>the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist - I just don't believe in Him.
>That doesn't require some special belief in itself.
>

Belief is belief, special or no.  And the question of an afterlife is of 
an entirely different order than that of a rednosed reindeer:  there are 
plenty of reindeer on display, but no credible reports of an afterlife 
(there may be some tantalizing hints in near-death experiences, but it 
is not clear that they aren't simply a natural artefact of the way the 
brain starts to die).  Repeat:  there is *no* evidence either way.  So 
any assertion about it amounts to belief.  Similarly, an assertion about 
a super-natural entity, in the original sense of the word.  (And yes, a 
denial is an assertion in this context.)

Snarkhunter