Affects of Agnostic World-view on Belief and Critical Thinking.

[NeitherExtreme]

Ok, this feels like a long and poorly worded quesiton, but it's the best I could do. :

First, I'm staring from the assumtion that much of today's society (western, post-modern) has agnostic phillosophy woven through out it's world-view. I (for the most part) would put myself in this category, and to date, I would say that agnosticism is the only phillosophy that I find %100 intellectually defendable (my current opinion, of course, and I do hold beliefs that are not agnostic). As such, I don't have a real problem with it being a part of our society, though I am wondering about it's affects on people and society as a whole... Does having agnostic ideas as a part of the basic world-view (understanding) affect a persons, and society's as a whole, ability and desire to believe or think critically. By "believe" I mean to simply believe something because it seems true to that person (ie religion, stereotypes, etc.). By "think critically", I mean using logic and reason and applying it to the world around, both as you experience it and as you think about it.

Personally, I think that people have a natural desire to know what is true, and having an agnostic backdrop to their lives (from media, education, etc.) to some extent de-motivates people to think critically and to some extent takes away their ability to beleive, since objective truth seemingly doesn't exist.

What do you think? And do you think the net affect is positive or negative? I'd see a positive affect in that everyone is alowed to make their own decisions, and a negative in that people live their lives without ever really believing anything or understanding their lives.

[404erased]

I don't think that people have a natural desire to know the truth, I think they have a natural desire to eat, drink and have sex.

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by 404erased

I don't think that people have a natural desire to know the truth, I think they have a natural desire to eat, drink and have sex.

Haha, well that's one way to look at it... and I guess agnosticism sure fits the bill there.

[Didymos Thomas]

All people may not be interested in the truth, though you'll have a tough time convincing me that I have no interest in knowledge.

Agnosticism can be, of course, both positive and negative. To say "I do not know" in response to a question can be evidence of intellectual honesty, of being able to keep quiet when we do not know that we might still learn.
The problem is when people become unconcerned. To say "I do not care" is a shame.

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

All people may not be interested in the truth, though you'll have a tough time convincing me that I have no interest in knowledge.

Agnosticism can be, of course, both positive and negative. To say "I do not know" in response to a question can be evidence of intellectual honesty, of being able to keep quiet when we do not know that we might still learn.
The problem is when people become unconcerned. To say "I do not care" is a shame.

I couldn't agree more with all three of your points: At least some (I included) have interest in knowledge, Intellectual honesty will say "I don't know" when it doesn't know, and "I don't care" is a terrible waste.

Do you think that agnostic thoughts (active agnostic, not passive) being taught in educational and other cultural institutions hinders people's (in general) ability to believe anything? Also, does it increase the likeliyhood that they will end up saying "I don't care"?

Those seem like the likely negative affects to me, and I feel like I see that happening in my society.

[Didymos Thomas]

Do not be disheartened by society. I say this, and I know it is not easy - I often have trouble following my own advice. But here is my pessimistic optimism: most people are fools, society is a wreck, government is corrupt - it all sucks. The good news is, none of this is new. These have all been constants in human history, so be not discouraged. Press on as best you can. Live as best you can. Make the most of everything. To quote Sting: "When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around".

Do you think that agnostic thoughts (active agnostic, not passive) being taught in educational and other cultural institutions hinders people's (in general) ability to believe anything?

I think it will hinder people's ability to believe silly things, and in turn, strengthen their faith when the beliefs are not silly. Skepticism promotes thought. Thought is dangerous.

Also, does it increase the likeliyhood that they will end up saying "I don't care"?

Probably, but no more than it would increase the chances of them saying "I do care", which is infinately better. Better to have ten thousand say "I dont care" and one say "I do care" than for no one to care at all.

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Do not be disheartened by society. I say this, and I know it is not easy - I often have trouble following my own advice. But here is my pessimistic optimism: most people are fools, society is a wreck, government is corrupt - it all sucks. The good news is, none of this is new. These have all been constants in human history, so be not discouraged. Press on as best you can. Live as best you can. Make the most of everything. To quote Sting: "When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around".

Thanks, you brightened my day.

[Billy]

Originally Posted by NeitherExtreme

Ok, this feels like a long and poorly worded quesiton, but it's the best I could do. :

First, I'm staring from the assumtion that much of today's society (western, post-modern) has agnostic phillosophy woven through out it's world-view. I (for the most part) would put myself in this category, and to date, I would say that agnosticism is the only phillosophy that I find %100 intellectually defendable (my current opinion, of course, and I do hold beliefs that are not agnostic).

Does having agnostic ideas as a part of the basic world-view (understanding) affect a persons, and society's as a whole, ability and desire to believe or think critically. By "believe" I mean to simply believe something because it seems true to that person (ie religion, stereotypes, etc.). By "think critically", I mean using logic and reason and applying it to the world around, both as you experience it and as you think about it.

You said a mouthful with that question.

Where I come from, any position is defendable in philosophy, Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism, etc. Those in submission to scientific authority are intolerant of this viewpoint, as are some of those in submission to GOD.

Your hypothesis is testable. Take one group of agnostics, and a group of atheists and another group of Faithful for comparison.

1. test a persons ability to "believe": I mean to simply believe something because it seems true to that person

Ask everyone: Do you believe the President/Monarch/Dictator of your nation is doing a good job?

Most people have a response, which tells you they believe something because it seems true to that person. Are you thinking the agnostics will say: We cannot truly be sure. ?

2. test a person's ability to "think critically": I mean using logic and reason and applying it to the world around.

Ask everyone to support their response to the above question. Score the response for logic and reason, or lack thereof. Do not let your own opinions get in the way.

Compare the Agnostics with the other 2 groups.

You might also want to assess level of agnosticism. For example, some agnostics have thought long and hard about it, and are Confirmed Agnostics. Others haven't, and simply arrived at the position by default.

How do you think the 2 types of agnostics will differ in outcome of the experiment? Why?

Billy