Hi Luis,

I have some differences with a 'gnostic' approach (which maybe I wasn't exactly forthcoming in stating). Btw, has gnosticism ever been used to imply that we can know knowledge? I am somewhat acquainted with the Christian gnostics of the first few centuries of our era, but I've never heard of this applied as the opposite of agnosticism.

>>>Perhaps the fact that I do not believe gnosticism is genuinely possible, and the fact that you believe gnosticism is necessary prevents us from "talking with" each other, and causes us to "talk around" one another every time we get this far into a debate.>Are you sure it's an elementary particle, or is this belief tentative? (Keep in mind -- 'tentative' is hardly the same as '50/50 chance.')>You might describe the electron as a wave detector detects it, or you might describe it as a particle detector detects it, but what, precisely, is it? (This alone is testimony to the agnostic's point of view).>>LOL. Possibly, but it would be a moot gesture as Creationists don't seem to understand agnosticism (or anything of philosophical tentativeness, for that matter). That is, only the agnostics, scientists, skeptics, and atheists would understand exactly what this admission would signify (which is really nothing, anyway).

• Correction - harvey1 - October 5, 2001 - 03:18 UTC
• Some similarities surface - luis_hamburgh - October 6, 2001 - 02:39 UTC
  • Look down further - harvey1 - October 8, 2001 - 05:39 UTC