However, translating that Unlocking Transcendence Review belief into a prescriptive world view is something else. At the most, I hold that agnosticism must strictly be a subjective conviction that the agnostic, himself, theoretically cannot share or impart to others without being enmeshed in contradiction. To put that simply by way of illustration - an atheist who denies the existence of God can tell others, like the atheistic communists, to stop in believing God because one way or another, it is bad ethics (e.g., Marx called religion the opium of the masses). But not so with an agnostic. If you assert that you don't know, my position is you should stop at that. You have nothing more to assert about the thing you claim to have no knowledge of. That ought to be a commonsensical conclusion. An agnostic who claims that he does not know cannot tell another person that he or she does not also know. We can only share what we know but we cannot share what we don't know. If you do not know anything, then the only logical thing for you to do is to just keep silent. How can you talk about that which you don't know?. An agnostic cannot also make the further presumption that if he or she doesn't have the capacity to know God, then others also do not have the capacity to know. The capacity to do something can be very subjective and personal. What I cannot do, I have no right nor basis to assert that others cannot do. What if God chooses to reveal Himself to another person but not to me? I have no capacity to know God but suddenly, the other person acquires that capacity because of God's grace. That seems to be the case of mystics or saints, like St. John of the Cross who, through his writings, claims to have known God in a direct experience.
Unlocking Transcendence
by Francene Frayer (09.10.2020)
Email Reply
However, translating that Unlocking Transcendence Review belief into a prescriptive world view is something else. At the most, I hold that agnosticism must strictly be a subjective conviction that the agnostic, himself, theoretically cannot share or impart to others without being enmeshed in contradiction. To put that simply by way of illustration - an atheist who denies the existence of God can tell others, like the atheistic communists, to stop in believing God because one way or another, it is bad ethics (e.g., Marx called religion the opium of the masses). But not so with an agnostic. If you assert that you don't know, my position is you should stop at that. You have nothing more to assert about the thing you claim to have no knowledge of. That ought to be a commonsensical conclusion. An agnostic who claims that he does not know cannot tell another person that he or she does not also know. We can only share what we know but we cannot share what we don't know. If you do not know anything, then the only logical thing for you to do is to just keep silent. How can you talk about that which you don't know?. An agnostic cannot also make the further presumption that if he or she doesn't have the capacity to know God, then others also do not have the capacity to know. The capacity to do something can be very subjective and personal. What I cannot do, I have no right nor basis to assert that others cannot do. What if God chooses to reveal Himself to another person but not to me? I have no capacity to know God but suddenly, the other person acquires that capacity because of God's grace. That seems to be the case of mystics or saints, like St. John of the Cross who, through his writings, claims to have known God in a direct experience.
https://consumerscomment.com/unlocking-transcendence-review/