The other type, PAP, Permanent Agnosticism in Principle, is the type where we cannot answer a question no matter how much evidence we gather. An example of this (and again, one must be careful when using the term “forever”) is the way I see a color: I can see a red dot and you can see the same dot, but your brain interprets as green or as any other color combination. Philosophers cite this example as one that cannot be answered, at least not yet. Think about it, there is no conceivable way for me to “get inside your brain” and see that dot the way you see it.
Now when it comes to God, there is a lot of people who place the existence of God in the PAP category: “We’ll never know”. But to understand the background one has to be aware what people just 100-150 years ago considered “We’ll never know” types of facts.
What would be like for man to walk on the moon? We’ll never know. (We do now)
What is the biological and chemical makeup of stars far, far way? We’ll never know. (We do now).
Let’s back up further: The God Thor, in Nordic mythology is the one that causes thunder. Skeptics said: “Well. We’ll never know if that is true or not” – we do now!
Back even further: If we perform this particular dance, the rain god will be pleased and rain will fall. Are we agnostic about the truth value in that statement?
Bertrand Rusell’s parable about the china teapot revolving around the sun is so telling:
If I were suggest that such a teapot exists nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even with the most powerful telescopes. BUT, if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought of as talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or the Inquisitor in an earlier time. It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it.
So, to my agnostic friends, the question you must ask yourself, is this: are you a china teapot agnostics or are you an a-teapotist? The former is supported by the fact that we cannot know, for sure, that Russell’s China Tea Pot does not exist. But in Practice – we would most likely all be a-teapotsits.
Draw your own conclusions! And please submit your comments here!
