|
Enneagram Main Board Archive Re: When you die ...Posted by Tal on May 01, 1999 at 05:11:01: In Reply to: Re: When you die ... posted by Matches on April 30, 1999 at 23:10:18: > As far as agnosticism, I don't find any difference between atheism and agnosticism. Say you and a friend are looking out at the ocean, and he points out and says, "Do you see that boat out there with the white sail?" If you don't see the boat, then you don't see the boat. There's a big big difference between agnosticism and atheism... atheism is probably closer to theism than agnosticism. I'll probably take flak for this, but I personally consider atheism to be somewhat typical of an entranced Five mindset, and theism to be typical of an entranced Six mentality (not to say any type can't be an atheist or a believer, just that the difference between these two is embodied in the difference between types Five and Six). Even so, both are strategies of seeking a definite conclusion--one unchanging answer to provide security. I find agnosticism to be the only truly rational system of belief. So much for my opinion. Now as to what is more difficult to dispute: an atheist swimming in the ocean sees no boat so he says "there is no boat. There can't possibly be a boat because I don't see one." An agnostic swimming in the ocean, in contrast, says "I don't see a boat, so it's not likely that one's around. But still, that doesn't mean one isn't there. It might be beyond my range of vision; it may be behind some waves; I may be looking in the wrong direction..." etc. etc. The point is that an atheist does not believe in something unless he can see it or has tangible proof of it, whereas a theist believes in something precisely *because* he can't see it (if you can't disprove the existence of something, your belief system will forever be secure, so long as you're not engendering challenges to it on rational grounds). On the other hand, an agnostic is different from both in that he considers both possibilities valid (though he may certainly think one more likely than the other). The agnostic believes that lack of proof does not necessarily negate something's existence; by the same token he also believes that one cannot know the nature of something for which there is no evidence, even if it does in fact exist. Thus an agnostic can believe in God (in the sense that there is something higher, and to the extent that he also believes it's possible that God just may not exist at all), but he does not believe anything can be known about its *nature*. > BUT, to put a greater perspective on it.... If you and your friend are stranded out in the middle of the ocean, floating around in your ... and your friend says, "Is that a sailboat out there?" Even if you can't quite see it and aren't sure if your friend is right or just imagining things, wouldn't you try to swim towards the boat? It seems like some of you are content to float around and get eaten by a shark or some such nasty sea monster. Well let's consider all possibilities. The atheist says "there's no boat because I can't see one." So he drowns. The believer thinks "I don't really have to worry about anything. God will come and save me." He does nothing and probably drowns too, though if he's a smart believer he may at least make some effort to seek out God (which will probably raise his chance of survival a notch or two). The agnostic thinks "well I don't see a ship, but let me keep my eyes and ears open and see what happens, maybe a ship will come along". Well to be honest, it's a big ocean, so he'll probably drown too, eh. But nonetheless he has the best chance of the three to be found, because the atheist has condemned himself to die and the believer is so sure he'll be saved that he refuses to accept any other possibility (even if it just happens to be the truth).
|
|