...I'm not entirely sure it's complete, because one can argue that such an allowance for unknown (or unknowable) rules is more agnosticism than atheism; a sort of "strong agnostism" that one doesn't know what one doesn't know, so how can one make claims about it, other than to describe its effects on oneself?
Or, the argument can be made that these rules suggest a non-agnostic, non-atheist Belief in an unknowable/ineffible mystery, which is getting awfully close to the kind of faith I find most defendable. Theism, but not Deism, I suppose- where the word "God" stands in for everything that we can't possibly know, but be know is there.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Faith
Date: Wednesday, 22 February 2006 05:09 pm (UTC)This explanation is useful to me, I think.
...I'm not entirely sure it's complete, because one can argue that such an allowance for unknown (or unknowable) rules is more agnosticism than atheism; a sort of "strong agnostism" that one doesn't know what one doesn't know, so how can one make claims about it, other than to describe its effects on oneself?
Or, the argument can be made that these rules suggest a non-agnostic, non-atheist Belief in an unknowable/ineffible mystery, which is getting awfully close to the kind of faith I find most defendable. Theism, but not Deism, I suppose- where the word "God" stands in for everything that we can't possibly know, but be know is there.