Thanx Randall. I love Hoosiers. Hoosiers, Badgers, & Wolverines formed the dauntless Iron Brigade. The original soldiers were finally lost at Gettysburg. But the "fellers in the Black Hats" continued to Appomattox. The Civil War makes me weep. V/r, Rich
You asked me: "Is a skeptic the same as an agnostic?" The answer depends on how we define words both as a group and as individual people, words are funny that way.This is known in informal logic as "the natural language problem" since words can mean different things to different people. We can turn to a reliable dictionary for some help: Webster defines skeptic as such: 1: An adherent or advocate of skepticism 2 : A person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion or religious principles. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skeptic For agnostic: 1: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not 2: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic But, that really does not tell us much - the words used are different but HOW are they different? Google result turns up: ag·nos·tic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. Ah - much better then the Webster - what about Skeptic? skep·tic: 1: A person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions. synonyms: cynic, doubter; 2. PHILOSOPHY: an ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere. Okay, so - we have some idea of what these words can be - and how they are similar and yet, different, they are compatible, - one can be a skeptic and agnostic with no issue of conflict. However, perhaps - you wanted MY view of this question, what do I see the difference being. Well, I would go with the more classical notion of agnostic that google has- even though that definition might be changing due to common usage of people and groups to be something else then as it is listed. For me, an agnostic would be one of the two: 1: Someone who claims there is no way to know if there is, or is not a God. 2: Someone who claims we can never know for sure if there is or is not a God. Although anyone can feel free to object and have there own definition that suits them, but if I was to debate someone I would want my definition to be used. For skeptic - it is to doubt and to investigate. I doubt things, I require a set list before I think that things are possibly true. My doubt is dependent on the dialogue I am in. I investigate because I want to learn and explore and expand my knowalge base. My requirements for me to not be skeptical of a thing are: 1 - Empirical evidence. (and/or) 2 - Repeatable tests. (and/or) 3 - A logically coherent argument. The first two can be summonsed as "The scientific method" the last one is where I most likely differ from other skeptics, in that if an argument was put forth that I could find no logical errors in, I would then have no reason to be skeptical of the conclusion - then the second part kicks in - i would then investigate that conclusion more, and I might find in the end, that the conclusion is wrong. However, it might be right, still I have no need to investigate a conclusion of an argument that has logical fallacies in it, as the conclusion is one I MUST be skeptical of. I hope that answers your question, and if you have more questions please ask and I will do my best to answer them. As far as the label - I'm a skeptic, this means I'm an atheist and perhaps an agnostic, although I'm not sure about the agnostic part ;) Thanks for your question, and your time and energy to read this. Best to you and yours, always.
Hi Randell. I was in a duo with my ex for 15 years and played up and down Vancouver island. We were small time but met so many people including musicians from everywhere . Off hand, I don't recall meeting Drew Maxwell, but I am very bad with names lol. We were known as, "Midnight Lace". I am contemplating re-entering the music business on a more casual basis. If your friend is ever booked on the island, let us know and we will try and go listen to him.
It is a term for 'Scientific bent of mind'. It is used to differentiate itself from 'Pure Reason', but an approach based on both logic or rationalism as well as 'empiricism'. Enlightenment rationalism is nothing but the approach of 'science'