InfraBlue wrote:Craven,
You are making an inference, "an implied belief that the available information is not sufficient to draw a conclusion other than that one," from that statement that is not necessary.
Correct, I am making an inference. As to what is and what is not necessary that is subjective and also a matter of belief.
I have yet to meet anyone who claims to be an agnostic merely out of ignorance. All the agnostics I know also assert that this is a preferrable position given the currently available information.
So in my personal experience the agnostics both claim they do not know as well as claim they should not know (given the available information).
Quote:In the statement, "About god(s), I am ignorant," one isn't saying that the available information is not sufficient, one is stating that one is ignorant of the available information.
One could be doing either. And like I said, I have never met an agnostic simply claiming that they are ignorant. All the ones I have encountered claim that they are ignorant *because* the available information to them does not support a conclusion.
Quote:Is it belief to say, "I am ignorant of the information available to draw a conclusion"?
If we get into splitting philosophical hairs, definitely. Some can argue that we know nothing (including our ignorance) and that
all is belief.
But I won't go there. What I will say is that even then the individual believes that the information they currently have (regardless of what they do not have) indicates a certain conclusion.
Different individuals can come to different conclusions with the same amount of information. This is why it's subjective and can result in different beliefs.
To give an example, Frank says that the information available to him does not lean one way or the other and as such he believes agnosticism is the most sound course.
I think that the information available to Frank should point to atheism. I *believe* that this conclusion is sound.
With pretty much the exact same information, we believe different conclusions are the best.
Now even if you try to make it a total void of information there is differing beliefs on what consitutes relevant information at all.
For example one person could see human nature as evidence of no god, another could see it as evidence for a god, and another could see it as irrelevant information altogether.
So even if someone says they are ignorant of any such evidence it's possible that this belief comes into question. The belief that certain items are evidence to one way, or the other, or not evidence at all.
I think agnostics are rejecting the "belief" label because of the stigma associated with specific beliefs. Thing is, we all believe something, Setanta believes he will have a sammich.
So I see no harm in them ceding a belief, this does not rquate them to believers of any type.
For example, a comparsion between a man who believes he is alive and a man who believes he is Napoleon is not fair.
