Religious Agnosia

[adominello]

"Agnosia, from the Greek "not knowing," describes a collection of disorders where the ability to recognize objects or sounds or retrieve information about them is impaired, in the absence of other perceptual difficulties, including memory, intellectual capabilities, and the capacity for communication."

Encyclopedia of Neurological Disorders. Ed.

Comments

[baavgai]

"I believe that everything is knowable" Well, that is absolutely a form of faith, isn't it? The only thing epistemology will allow you to know is that there's nothing you can know.

Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" explores this with rare clarity. He questions the relation of the observer and the observed (noumenon). His conclusion is that there is some thing that spawns what we consider observable phenomena, but it's impossible to for us to truly perceive the thing itself from our vantage. Sidhartha, with different language, expressed the concept long before. Later quantum physics would try to quantify the extent to which we can't quantify.

I'm sure I'd agree with intrinsic intelligence, but I'm a big fan of emergent systems, which from our vantage often looks like the same thing.

The problem, I think, is that humans seem to be hard wired to anthropomorphize everything, even the universe. I suspect my cat ascribes all things it perceives with feline qualities.

[adominello]

You make a good point, and I don't claim exemption from what constitutes religion (hence "religious" agnosia). In fact, I feel deeply religious about many things-- the wonder of the universe, for one. My point was simply that a religion based on the incompleteness of my knowledge (and awareness of it.

I've read some Kant and I have to say I'm not convinced he was on to anything particularly profound-- despite how attractive his ideas seem to be. As a UConn philosophy prof once said, "No-one agrees with Kant; but no-one can say why."

[baavgai]

Most philosophers layout their frameworks and then try to convince you of their correctness. Kant is interesting because he ultimately says "of course I can't know the true nature of something" and by extension, you can't either. After reading the assured pontifications of others, this feels refreshingly honest. Of course, it doesn't really give you anywhere to go after that, which is why it lacks appeal for others who would dream up their own stuff.

As words go, Religion, unfortunately, is probably about as charged as God. I like "belief system" because its more encompassing. Science is a belief system, founded on the faith that the world can be empirically explored reliably.

Atheism is also is a belief system, taking out that nasty religion higher power stuff. Of course, you get the argument that it's not "belief" but "fact". At which point you just give up the discourse, because that road is just as much a dead end as "because it says so".