"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote:
>
> At 01:23 PM 7/4/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote:
> >iaamoac wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should
> > > > probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration.
> > >
> > > But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that
> > > one does not seriously believe? Why should those who disagree with
> > > agnostics be forced to adopt their viewpoint?
> >
> > "Agnostic" means "not knowing", right? I don't really
> >see that there is much to DISAGREE with there. You might personally
> >KNOW, but should be open to the possibility that others don't.
>
> I'm not sure what you are getting at in the last paragraph. Let's change
> the topic under discussion from religion to astronomy (or math, or physics,
> or some other subject at which you may be considered an expert). When I go
> into the classroom, it is assumed that I know something about the topic,
> and that it is not just a possibility but a certainty that the students in
> the class do not know as much about it as I do.
No, our situation is more like a seminar. We all know a lot
about some subjects, and less about others. You need to be
respectful, and not assume you know more than others. We have
different data and viewpoints, and are trying to work out what
is true. In that sense, I'm asking for a spirit of scientific
inquiry.
---David
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
