Re: virus: Re:

Marek Jedlinski (
Mon, 15 Apr 1996 02:44:57 +0200 (MESZ)

On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, Shira Evans wrote:

> As far as agnosticism, I believe you're right. In my opinion, it is
> more of tenable philosophical position. However, I think that it has
> more to due with the individual you're talking with than anything
> else. In other words, some atheists are very philosphical and present
> their case very logically, and some agnosticists really lack logic -
> their position is just faith.

That's true, but a caveat applies: logic goes only so far with
those who believe in God. Religious doctrine (Christian at least)
ultimately defies logic and demands belief *in spite* of it, not
because of it, as in 'presume not God to scan'. It is not my
purpose here to rehash the old, never settled disputes, so I'll
mention only one instance -- because it has been raised on this
very list recently: ommniscience and omnipotence cannot logically
coexist. They cannot. One who accepts faith along with the idea
of God as both omniscient and omnipotent (and, yes, omnibenevolent
to boot) needs to suspend logic. More importantly, however, any
gneuine spiritual experience appears to be untransferable, it is
'trans-rational', hence translinguistic. Therefore logic is not,
I believe, a common ground for debate between the believers, the
atheists and the agnostics. Ultimately belief seems to stand
above (well -- beside...) logic.