Yes, there are model agnostics. There are skeptics. However, this position in itself isn't a dogma. There are two reasons why it's wrong to think of this opinion as dogma. First, it's completely antithetical to a dogma. It is the recognition that every "truth" people believe in is actually subjective and incomplete. In other words, no "truth" is ever certain enough to justify a dogmatic belief. Secondly, it's a position on the nature of knowledge itself, not about the objective world beyond human knowledge. In other words, dogmas are beliefs about states of affairs beyond yourself: religions, worldviews, metaphysics . . . objective assertions. But skepticism (or model agnosticism) isn't about states of affairs beyond our knowledge. It doesn't make a claim beyond our subjective consciousness, but instead highlights the difficulty in doing just that. So there is no way it can be dogmatic.rusmeister wrote:I think you are right that a great many (people who consider themselves) agnostics are open to being convinced of something else - but there certainly are formal agnostics - whose most fundamental belief is that the truth is unknowable.
And on the surface, skepticism is absolutely right. It's undeniable that our experiences are "in our heads," or subjective. That's the whole reason why there's a branch of philosophy called "epistemology." One of the basic questions of epistemology is: how we can transcend our own subjectivity to know the objective world? This problem wouldn't even arise if it weren't first true that our senses are obviously of a different kind of existence than the objects of our perceptions. To crudely paraphrase the skeptic . . . it IS theoretically possible that what we are experiencing as a world and a life is an illusion. Sure, we could be in the Matrix. Sure, maybe I'm still asleep, dreaming this post. The simple fact that we *are* often fooled by illusions, bad reasoning, wishful thinking, poor memory, lies, propaganda, marketing campaigns, etc. allows the skeptic to point out the simple truth that the possibility of being wrong can never be completely eliminated. That's true. And it's not dogmatic to point it out. Again, it's just the opposite of dogma to say that we could be wrong.
In a way, we don't ever know The Truth. We are imperfect, fallible, and finite. Whatever little nuggets of truth we do find, it is always filtered through our perceptions and biases. Even your own personal "truth," Orthodox Christianity, had to first pass your own personal "truth test." It had to convince you, and in doing that, it had to meet a whole set of unique personal criteria (that you may not even fully know yourself). And this is the case for most of our beliefs about the world. It's not dogmatic to say human consciousness is subjective. It's just a fact.
[If a skeptic moved on to solipsism, then maybe you'd have a point that he's being dogmatic about it. That would be a move that is unjustified by he evidence. Just because our consciousness of the world is subjective, doesn't allow one to conclude that there is no world and there are no other minds. But I don't think there is any skeptic who actually goes this far.]
I'm not trying to limit the discussion of God. I'm trying to argue for a view of atheism which isn't dogmatic. If someone decided that there is no god--and had no evidence to back up this belief--it would be dogmatic. My point was that there are ways to approach atheism with reason, rather than blind faith in his nonexistence.Human existence can not be limited or defined by science, so even the best science has to stop when it reaches the limits of science. It seems that, in speaking of God as a hypothesis ("little thesis (theory)" you are attempting to limit discussion of God to scientific terms - what humans know and experience via other media are left out of this equation - art, poetry, music, etc.
Yes. That's why I stressed reasons for not believing in God. Reasons presuppose questions.If a person holds a bottom-line belief that is not open to questioning, then it's a dogma.
That's not what I said. I said, "We are clear about our "dogmas." You need to be clear about them, too." By them, I meant our "dogmas." You are characterizing them wrong, imo.Since I believe I have made my dogmas clear, I find it rather odd that you should suggest that they are not clear to me.
You're right to point out that people can have dogmas that aren't necessarily of religious nature. And you're right that a lot of people might be shocked to discover them within themselves. However, the last people likely to hold dogmas--or to be shocked by them--are skeptics and atheists.
Politicians have to be at least a *little* self-serving to get elected/re-elected, yes? Or do they hire minions for that? 
, I know that replacing each ' with %27 works around the bbcode issues.
Thanks. 
