On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 02:33:03PM -0800, Dennis Higbee wrote: > On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Rick Castello wrote: > > Scott Raun said: > > > My favorite definition of agnostic is 'I don't know and I don't care'. > > > These are two different meanings, and do not track. > > > > One is a merely logical statement: > > I do not and cannot with existing evidence know if there is > > a being matching current agreed-upon definitions of God. > > > > The other is making a value judgement: > > If there were a being matching God, I would not care about it. > > > > Not the same, and though the second may be an opinion of SOME > > agnostics, it is NOT part of the definition of agnostic. > > They're put in the same sentence because they are connected statements. > "I do not and cannot with existing evidence know if there is a being > matching current agreed-upon definitions of God. Given that this is the > case, I have no interest in pursuing the question." > > At least that's how I read the above statement. Thank you - that's a very accurate expansion of the way I interpreted it when I first heard it. The AND is very important! Admittedly, if irrefutable evidence became available, I would expect some sort of reaction from the agnostic. Ignoring the evidence would be ... out of character for all the agnostics that I know. -- Scott Raun sraun at fireopal.org