Ignorant Wisdom: The Heart of Agnosticism

[wuliheron]

I would think it is the most reasonable of all arguments. It does justice to the fact that there is both no empirical evidence for a god, yet also the nature of knowledge means we can never know anything for definite.

So this stance involves an ontological assertion coupled with an epistemic acceptance. And it is a usage that has been around a while - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

In the broader sense of the word agnostic is generally defined as noncommittal or not having a strong opinion either way. It doesn't mean anything remotely like having infinitesimal doubt or uncertainty as Dawkins insists. Even militant atheists like to define agnostic as something like 50/50 uncertainty (which I disagree with) but, to then extend it to mean infinitesimal uncertainty is a contradiction. Walk down any street and ask any random one hundred people and virtually all of them will tell you agnostic means you don't know and atheist means you believe god does not exist.

That militant atheists have been defining it differently for quite some time goes without saying since their history is almost a century old. Similar examples include born again Christians insisting their definition of a Christian is the only correct one and the dictionary and mainstream definitions are wrong. In each case they are groups who will proudly tell anyone their purpose is to convert the entire world to their way of thinking. It is political doublespeak plain and simple. An obvious attempt to twist the English language beyond all recognition to promote a private agenda, in this case, to suppress the establishment of a viable neutral stance. No different then previous ages insisting you had to be Christian to practice science and attempting to deny the importance of objectivity.

 

[Mentalist]

In the broader sense of the word agnostic is generally defined as noncommittal or not having a strong opinion either way.

It was meant in direct opposition to Gnosticism. My previous post clarifies it a bit more.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html

 

[wuliheron]

It was meant in direct opposition to Gnosticism. My previous post clarifies it a bit more.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html

Again, the whole point of this kind of word salad crap is to make it all but impossible to establish a neutral, objective, stance. The Internet Infidels are militant atheists so you might as well ask a born again Christian to define Christian. You just can't get a more biased opinion on the issue than to quote from a militant atheist website.

As for the exact origins of the word they are no more important than etymology is for any other word. Otherwise "humorous" would still refer to body humors.

 

[Mentalist]

You're comparing the change of a definition to the change of a philosophy.

Almost like someone replacing Kant's metaphysics of morals with their own version of morals. It doesn't make sense, just create your own philosophy at that point in time.

 

[Maui]

While everything that exists appears cold and pointless to the non-prejudiced, it's hard to make definitive statements at a time when physicists have no adeqate explanation for the world we observe that does not involve a serious load of personal theories and mumbo-jumbo. The situation doesn't seem very different in neuroscience and the explanation of mental experience. Yet, i tend to be on the agnostic atheist side. This is a rather sad world full of cruelty and injustice, and while i have no adequate explanation at all of anything that exists in nature and can only say that something appears to be happening, i see little reason to praise a deity that can supposedly make such a terrible mess. Agnostic atheism seems to be the most sensible stance, if not the only sensible one at all(and one must take a side esp. if one is raising children and they start asking the questions)

 

[wuliheron]

While everything that exists appears cold and pointless to the non-prejudiced, it's hard to make definitive statements at a time when physicists have no adeqate explanation for the world we observe that does not involve a serious load of personal theories and mumbo-jumbo. The situation doesn't seem very different in neuroscience and the explanation of mental experience. Yet, i tend to be on the agnostic atheist side. This is a rather sad world full of cruelty and injustice, and while i have no adequate explanation at all of anything that exists in nature and can only say that something appears to be happening, i see little reason to praise a deity that can supposedly make such a terrible mess. Agnostic atheism seems to be the most sensible stance, if not the only sensible one at all(and one must take a side esp. if one is raising children and they start asking the questions)

Agnostic atheist is a contradiction in terms. Either you have no opinion on the issue or you believe there is no God. Likewise calling someone "unprejudiced" for believing everything that exists appears cold and pointless is a contradiction.

 

[Maui]

Agnostic atheist is a contradiction in terms. Either you have no opinion on the issue or you believe there is no God.

How about someone who thinks it's somewhat more likely that the world, whatever it is, was a happenstance, but isn't ready to make definitive statements? Is he/she an atheist?

The world isn't black and white, there are people that do not fit in just 3 categories.

Likewise calling someone "unprejudiced" for believing everything that exists appears cold and pointless is a contradiction.

What is not pointless? It appears pointless and it probably is, unless there is some conspiracy.

 

[wuliheron]

How about someone who thinks it's somewhat more likely that the world, whatever it is, was a happenstance, but isn't ready to make definitive statements? Is he/she an atheist?

The world isn't black and white, there are people that do not fit in just 3 categories.

Atheist is defined as someone who disbelieves in the existence of god, that is, someone who believes god does not exist. Why they might believe god doesn't exist isn't the issue. Whether your cat got run over by a car, you read a book on statistics, or just always disbelieved in god doesn't matter to the definition of atheist and we don't need a special word to describe people who became atheists because their cat got run over.

What is not pointless? It appears pointless and it probably is, unless there is some conspiracy.

It appears pointless to you maybe, but that is certainly not an objective statement. It is as biased and personal a statement as anyone can make. Nor is this thread dedicated to debating your personal metaphysical beliefs.

 

[apeiron]

In the broader sense of the word agnostic is generally defined as noncommittal or not having a strong opinion either way. It doesn't mean anything remotely like having infinitesimal doubt or uncertainty as Dawkins insists. Even militant atheists like to define agnostic as something like 50/50 uncertainty (which I disagree with) but, to then extend it to mean infinitesimal uncertainty is a contradiction. Walk down any street and ask any random one hundred people and virtually all of them will tell you agnostic means you don't know and atheist means you believe god does not exist.

I think your definitions are off - at least according to the ordinary language sources you favour like Dictionary.Com...

ag·nos·tic   noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

ag·nos·ti·cism  noun
1. the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.
2. an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.

So all the stress in these standard definitions is on the general epistemic issue (what we can be certain of) rather than about a strength of feeling on a particular ontological question (is there a god or not).

Quite clearly, an agnostic is someone with a very strong and non-neutral belief about something - "the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study."

And it also seems clear enough that people who proclaim they are agnostic usually do so to qualify a strong position on the ontology - ie: I don't believe in god, there is no evidence for such a thing, but I also have to admit that ultimate truths are in principle unknowable.

It is possible that an agnostic might not care either way, might think the odds of being right are 50/50, or even be arguing that they believe in god, but can't know.

But this shows there is a spectrum of theism/atheism, and people can rank themselves on that, while still accepting the basic truth of agnosticism.

Or do you have a dictionary source that indeed defines agnosticism primarily "as noncommittal or not having a strong opinion either way" when it comes to the ontic question of a god's existence?

 

[Maui]

Atheist is defined as someone who disbelieves in the existence of god, that is, someone who believes god does not exist. Why they might believe god doesn't exist isn't the issue. Whether your cat got run over by a car, you read a book on statistics, or just always disbelieved in god doesn't matter to the definition of atheist and we don't need a special word to describe people who became atheists because their cat got run over.

I wasn't asking what an atheist is. Let me repeat - what is someone who thinks it's somewhat more likely that the world, whatever it is, was a happenstance, but isn't ready to make definitive statements?

It appears pointless to you maybe, but that is certainly not an objective statement.

An objective statement is a statement that fits the evidence. My statement fits all objective evidence and unless there exists a serious conspiracy, this sad world of 6 million* children dying anually of starvation is both cold and pointless. You are aware that people age and gradually lose all their abilities to move, sense, see and hear and more often than not die in slow-paced misery and pain?

It is as biased and personal a statement as anyone can make.

Observations accumulate, at some point the evidence becomes overwhelming. It's just a very small leap of faith to summerize the evidence in a statement. We cannot be talking about a caring, benevolent god but of a demon. Even if materialism proves to be completely false, this doesn't change the fact that the experienced world is a rather sick place.* The figures come from here: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/17/italy.food.summit/

 

[wuliheron]

I think your definitions are off - at least according to the ordinary language sources you favour like Dictionary.Com...

So all the stress in these standard definitions is on the general epistemic issue (what we can be certain of) rather than about a strength of feeling on a particular ontological question (is there a god or not).

Quite clearly, an agnostic is someone with a very strong and non-neutral belief about something - "the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study."

And it also seems clear enough that people who proclaim they are agnostic usually do so to qualify a strong position on the ontology - ie: I don't believe in god, there is no evidence for such a thing, but I also have to admit that ultimate truths are in principle unknowable.

It is possible that an agnostic might not care either way, might think the odds of being right are 50/50, or even be arguing that they believe in god, but can't know.

But this shows there is a spectrum of theism/atheism, and people can rank themselves on that, while still accepting the basic truth of agnosticism.

Or do you have a dictionary source that indeed defines agnosticism primarily "as noncommittal or not having a strong opinion either way" when it comes to the ontic question of a god's existence?

There is absolutely nothing about ontology in that definition which, again, is a metaphysical idea. Some believers are even pantheists who claim the universe itself en toto is god and there is nothing metaphysical or ontological about their beliefs. As far as some are concerned science is the study of the nature of god and just another way to worship and get to know god better.

Clearly the first definition given is the one concerning agnosticism as a theological label:

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

To conflate that label with the broader meanings of the word when discussing theology is nothing more than equivocation. Essentially the same as calling your self a democrat-republican because you believe in democracy. It is political doublespeak no different than calling bombing a tin shack in the third world, "servicing the target" and a "peace action".

 

[wuliheron]

I wasn't asking what an atheist is. Let me repeat - what is someone who thinks it's somewhat more likely that the world, whatever it is, was a happenstance, but isn't ready to make definitive statements?

An atheist. They might define themselves as a "weak" atheist suggesting they don't have a really strong disbelief, but they're still an atheist.

An objective statement is a statement that fits the evidence. My statement fits all objective evidence and unless there exists a serious conspiracy, this sad world of 6 million* children dying anually of starvation is both cold and pointless. You are aware that people age and gradually lose all their abilities to move, sense, see and hear and more often than not die in slow-paced misery and pain?

Science does not determine meaning. Objective evidence does not determine meaning. We are the belief makers, we give it all meaning and decide if anything has any inherent meaning. Is a dying baby meaningful? I like to think it is but that is not something science can say objectively and it certainly isn't something humans can say very objectively.

 

[apeiron]

There is absolutely nothing about ontology in that definition which, again, is a metaphysical idea.

Correct. And that is the point. Agnosticism is a statement about epistemology. Atheism and theism are statements about ontology.

To conflate that label with the broader meanings of the word when discussing theology is nothing more than equivocation. Essentially the same as calling your self a democrat-republican because you believe in democracy.

No, what you are continuing to conflate is epistemology and ontology.

Whether you want to restrict the usage of "agnostic" to a religious context, or accept the more general dictionary.com definition of "an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge" is really of not much concern to me.

But if you are going to insist that agnosticism rightfully means a neutral position on an ontological question rather than a positive assertion concerning epistemic limitations, then please supply a standard dictionary definition as your source.

 

[wuliheron]

Correct. And that is the point. Agnosticism is a statement about epistemology. Atheism and theism are statements about ontology.

No, what you are continuing to conflate is epistemology and ontology.

Whether you want to restrict the usage of "agnostic" to a religious context, or accept the more general dictionary.com definition of "an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge" is really of not much concern to me.

But if you are going to insist that agnosticism rightfully means a neutral position on an ontological question rather than a positive assertion concerning epistemic limitations, then please supply a standard dictionary definition as your source.

As I just pointed out it is quite possible for a pantheist to have no metaphysical or ontological beliefs whatsoever. They can simply have faith the universe itself is somehow divine and worthy of being worshiped without taking any metaphysical or ontological stance. Some believe such things are beyond human comprehension in any ordinary sense of the word. Asians, for example, often make mystical statements such as existence has "suchness" or "isness", but otherwise claim there is no possible way to describe it's ontology or metaphysics.

All this nonsense about agnosticism being epistemology, while atheism and theism are ontological is just that; nonsense promoted from an ethnocentric Abrahamic viewpoint. Which, again, is promoted by militant atheists in their never ending fight with mainstream western religions, and western religions in their fight for dominance as well. Like my original post you are once again entirely avoiding the undeniable fact emotions play a central role in defining any theological stance in favor of purely intellectual ones that are just too narrow.

 

[apeiron]

As I just pointed out it is quite possible for a pantheist to have no metaphysical or ontological beliefs whatsoever. They can simply have faith the universe itself is somehow divine and worthy of being worshiped without taking any metaphysical or ontological stance. Some believe such things are beyond human comprehension in any ordinary sense of the word. Asians, for example, often make mystical statements such as existence has "suchness" or "isness", but otherwise claim there is no possible way to describe it's ontology or metaphysics.

All this nonsense about agnosticism being epistemology, while atheism and theism are ontological is just that; nonsense promoted from an ethnocentric Abrahamic viewpoint. Which, again, is promoted by militant atheists in their never ending fight with mainstream western religions, and western religions in their fight for dominance as well. Like my original post you are once again entirely avoiding the undeniable fact emotions play a central role in defining any theological stance in favor of purely intellectual ones that are just too narrow.

I can't tell now whether you are being serious or satirical. But if you now claim your position is based on emotion and mysticism, there is nothing really to discuss.

 

[wuliheron]

I can't tell now whether you are being serious or satirical. But if you now claim your position is based on emotion and mysticism, there is nothing really to discuss.

No, I'm claiming my position is based on emotion as well as logic. We are human beings after all and to dismiss the importance of emotions in how we define ourselves is absurd.

 

[apeiron]

No, I'm claiming my position is based on emotion as well as logic. We are human beings after all and to dismiss the importance of emotions in how we define ourselves is absurd.

This is another example of how incoherent your arguments are. You cite Damasio whose very point is that emotions are part of our rationality. They are sensible responses learned over biological evolutionary timescales, whereas "intellectual rationality" are sensible ideas learned over cultural evolutionary timescales. They are the same thing - effective modelling of reality - just done on different scales.

Whereas you seem to be taking the mystic route of claiming emotions to be a deeper or broader basis of knowledge. Which is not supported by the science.

 

[chiro]

In the case of the tribe, wouldn't maximizing the well being of the self still be considered irrational? If they are more concerned with maximizing their well-being, it won't offset the aspect of that person maximizing its own death.

The tribe includes the self.

Also you need to define well-being. Some people are ready to die without skipping a heart-beat for their tribe or gang: you should see what happens in real gangs and the mindset of the members.

The same is not for these people, but also for military people as well.

Watching people killing themselves with their own rationalizations on why is nuts to me, but for them, the sense of belonging and contributing purely to the cause of the gang or group at all costs is what they believe in.

In the example for the case for war, to the contractor it is beneficial but not beneficial for the country possibly, and taking that approach would make the action still irrational brought upon by greed. Of course for him, you could set in all types of scenarios but within this one let's say he is still in his home country. Still wouldn't that action be irrational as he is effectively diminishing his own economic value instead of strengthening his monetary value, i.e. if it were the USD for instance dropping in value compared to other countries?

You are look at incentives in terms of monetary value: incentives in general transcend any kind of easy measuring stick and they depend on a variety of factors.

The economic and fiscal measuring sticks are used by the people that are motivated by that kind of thing: most people don't care too much and only care how these things have a relation to other things like feeding their kids or making sure they don't starve.

Also you need to realize that the best thing for a corporation to do is to utilize resources in a wasteful way especially the kinds of corporations that work like military industrial ones or like some certain other ones like "asset strippers".

You should check out stories of the amount of waste that has gone in with the military outfits for the wars: it was beyond necessary even for a war to have that kind of expenditure but it made these people a lot of money and they couldn't care less that they could have supplied a lot less that would have done the job.

This kind of thing happens quite a bit, and it doesn't make economic sense at all in any way, but it makes sense when you see how the wasteful allocation of resources benefits one small group.

You might want to think about what people mean when the say "economical" or "economy effecient" and then realize the complete contradiction this has when you consider what "economics" and "economic policy" is all about.

 

[wuliheron]

This is another example of how incoherent your arguments are. You cite Damasio whose very point is that emotions are part of our rationality. They are sensible responses learned over biological evolutionary timescales, whereas "intellectual rationality" are sensible ideas learned over cultural evolutionary timescales. They are the same thing - effective modelling of reality - just done on different scales.

Whereas you seem to be taking the mystic route of claiming emotions to be a deeper or broader basis of knowledge. Which is not supported by the science.

I am not making any mystical claims, rather, merely asserting it is a perfectly useful word for describing yourself if that's your thing.

Nor have I claimed my philosophy adopts Damasio's theory whole hog. It merely allows for the possibility just as it allows for mystical possibilities and insists like Damasio does that you need both emotions and intellect to "know" something as more than mere data or information. Agnosticism allows for the possibility the individual has no strong bias whatsoever one way or the other so my philosophy must allow for it as well. Likewise my philosophy is pragmatic so it really doesn't matter how someone chooses to interpret it or if they change their interpretation a hundred times. Either they find each interpretation useful or they don't.

 

[Maui]

Science does not determine meaning. Objective evidence does not determine meaning. We are the belief makers, we give it all meaning and decide if anything has any inherent meaning. Is a dying baby meaningful? I like to think it is but that is not something science can say objectively and it certainly isn't something humans can say very objectively.

So it seems you are implying that a creator god might have created an inherently meaningless universe, upon which we later impart our ideas of meaning. If so, that would be a rather weird creator, but maybe meaning isn't part of his game after all as you seem to suggest.

BTW, i am most definitely not an atheist. It's just that i don't find the line of your reasoning convincing.

 

[wuliheron]

So it seems you are implying that a creator god might have created an inherently meaningless universe, upon which we later impart our ideas of meaning. If so, that would be a rather weird creator, but maybe meaning isn't part of his game after all as you seem to suggest.

BTW, i am most definitely not an atheist. It's just that i don't find the line of your reasoning convincing.

No, I'm saying the demonstrable evidence is we give things meaning whether the universe actually has any inherent meaning or not. Science doesn't demonstrably give things meaning anymore than my screwdriver assigns meaning to anything and, by definition, whether the universe has any inherent meaning is a metaphysical issue which cannot be proved.

 

[lavinia]

The word agnostic originated with someone who believed it impossible to know whether God exists. Why bother creating or using a new term if all it means is "undecided" or "don't know"? This is exactly the kind of political doublespeak militant atheists have promoted since the origin of the communist party in the Soviet Union. Richard Dawkins, an evangelical militant atheist, insists that he is technically an agnostic for having .00001% of doubt. This is the height of absurdity and not in any way, shape, or form a reasonable argument. It is nothing more than equivocation and blatant prejudice as your first statement so clearly demonstrated.

I read one book by Richard Dawkins and it seems that he is merely stating that the existence of a God has no scientific basis, that there is no empirical evidence of a supreme being and no scientific theory requires one as a hypothesis. Personally, I know of no scientist that uses the hypothesis of a diety to frame experiments or to formulate scientific theories.

Having grown up in a Marxist home, I would say that Communists, much like Richard Dawkins, also believe that there is no scientific basis for belief in a deity. Perhaps they differ from Dawkins in that Dawkins may believe that the tendency to religious belief was selected for in biological Evolution while Marxists believe that it is somehow a product of social evolution. The genus, maybe not the species, of thinking seems the same though.

I think that when Dawkins says that he has a tiny bit of doubt, he is merely making a scientific statement that some evidence for a deity could possibly be found someday but in light of the enormous body of evidence so far accumulated, he doesn't give it a high probability.

I do not think that scientists believe that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. If empirical certainty were found, they would admit it. For instance,if verifiable and repeatable observations of events similar to those described in the Bible were found, they would gladly admit it.

The strange thing is that this doesn't seem to happen and even more strange it seems that patterns in Nature can not only be described consistently without need for the idea of a Deity but models can be found that actually predict the results of new experiments. To me this is the great mystery.

If one replaces the idea of a Divine being with an idea of a grand unity to Nature, then my small experience talking with scientists is that they believe that this unity exists and might even be discoverable. I do not recall if Richard Dawkins discusses this, but my Marxists aquaintances certainly believe this and I have often kidded them that they really are theists.

In science, there are many questions that can not be answered, but many of them still have scientific meaning because it is at least conceivable that an experiment could be devised to answer them. On the other hand, there are questions which are untestable and therefore have no scientific content. I do not think Dawkins is talking about these questions. I think he means notions of a deity that could be tested for with an experiment - but correct me if I am wrong on this.

 

[uneasyrider]

Agnostic atheist is a contradiction in terms. Either you have no opinion on the issue or you believe there is no God. Likewise calling someone "unprejudiced" for believing everything that exists appears cold and pointless is a contradiction.

An Agnostic atheist is someone who says you can't prove there is a God and I think, or even believe, there is no God but I can't prove it. I don't think it's really a contradiction to say you don't believe but you can't prove it. It's an acknowledgment that you could be wrong and neither side can prove they are right.

A true contradiction would be someone saying that they believe in God but the other hand don't believe and they are positive of both statements. That might also be considered a nut case.

 

[uneasyrider]

...I think he means notions of a deity that could be tested for with an experiment - but correct me if I am wrong on this.

I think you are correct. The term was originally put into context as a "lab experiment", i.e. prove it in the lab where both sides can recreate it. It goes back to the first wave of "modern" scientists running around digging up stuff trying to prove the existence of God. Newton, Einstein and others tried to prove it on paper.

 

[harrylin]

I couldn't care less about your personal philosophical beliefs. If you choose to use anything other than a standard definition of a word you must explain yourself at the very least. [..]

How about someone who thinks it's somewhat more likely that the world, whatever it is, was a happenstance, but isn't ready to make definitive statements? Is he/she an atheist?
The world isn't black and white, there are people that do not fit in just 3 categories.[..]

An atheist. They might define themselves as a "weak" atheist suggesting they don't have a really strong disbelief, but they're still an atheist.[..]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t :
Atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

=> It appears that standard dictionaries disagree with you. Not every opinion can be put inside a standard box.

 

[lavinia]

It ... insists ... that you need both emotions and intellect to "know" something as more than mere data or information.

Out of pure curiosity could you explain this more?

In mathematics, I have found that knowledge is neither emotional or mere data but rather insight that permits one to see relationships among and properties of mathematical structures.

 

[wuliheron]

Out of pure curiosity could you explain this more?

In mathematics, I have found that knowledge is neither emotional or mere data but rather insight that permits one to see relationships among and properties of mathematical structures.

A simplified explanation is that emotions provide context, while the intellect provides content and insights occur when the two are compared. For example, the conscious mind uses fewer neurons than the unconscious, but they both use the same exact neurons. Thus the conscious mind actually requires fewer brains and less energy than the unconscious and even suppresses activity in the surrounding neurons. It is a focusing mechanism that cuts through all the chatter, but still allows that background chatter to continue at a subdued level. Insights occur when there is crosstalk between the two under the right conditions.

Ignorance provides the ultimate intellectual context, while emotions provide meaning and motivational context. By focusing on specific content within these contexts and comparing them with the larger contexts we gain insights in the form of knowledge and wisdom.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Gnosticism concerns one's position on whether or not evidence for/against a deity exists. Theism concernsone's position on whether or not a deity exists. They are not on the same spectrum but perpendicular axes.

This diagram from a former discussion on this is the best way of illustrating it.

 

[wuliheron]

Gnosticism concerns one's position on whether or not evidence for/against a deity exists. Theism concernsone's position on whether or not a deity exists. They are not on the same spectrum but perpendicular axes.

This diagram from a former discussion on this is the best way of illustrating it.

Yeah, yeah, and I can show you plenty of similar diagrams from born again Christians. All the hand waving, blue smoke, and mirrors in the world cannot hide our ignorance. At best it can disguise it enough to satisfy people who want quick easy answers to life, the universe, and everything.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yeah, yeah, and I can show you plenty of similar diagrams from born again Christians. All the hand waving, blue smoke, and mirrors in the world cannot hide our ignorance. At best it can disguise it enough to satisfy people who want quick easy answers to life, the universe, and everything.

Whether or not you can show me different definitions is largely irrelevant given the most widely understood and useful definitions are those posted above.

As for the rest of your statement regarding ignorance, handwaving and mirrors: you're not making any sense.