No offense taken, Blue, none whatsoever. I guess I was trying to explain the mindset, or the personality type, of the classic agnostic, of which I am a representative (and you are not).
If "classic atheists" have "mystical experiences," or a "sudden revelations of a Divine presence," they are likely to dismiss them as short-circuits in their own nervous systems. "Classic agnostics" are likely to refuse to ascribe any broader significance to them, one way or the other, although they may speculate about them. "Classic believers" are most likely to take such experiences as sufficient proof of the existence of a God.
We see more or less the same picture where specific beliefs are concerned. The "classic atheist" will dismiss any and all beliefs that cannot be proved logically or scientifically. The "classic agnostic" believes that anything is possible, although not necessarily probable. The "classic believer" is most likely to select a particular belief, possibly, but not necessarily, one that s/he finds personally congenial. (The truth is not always palatable,after all.)
One more thing about the "classic agnostic." If s/he finds a congenial belief, s/he is unlikely to think it true simply because it is congenial. In fact, this particular s/he is more likely to think it untrue, precisely because it is congenial. Figure that one out! <g>
Joan |
