Agnostic Apology

In the true spirit of the agnostic, I do not know if this will be an adequate point to address. From the tool-kit: "Atheism and Theism are (mostly) metaphysical claims, the one denying and the other affirming the existence of God. Agnosticism is the (mostly) epistemological claim that the question is undecidable on the basis of present evidence."

These characterizations of atheism and theism are essentially correct. Agnosticism is, yes, the mostly epistemological claim that the question is undecidable. I do not agree with the connotations of stating that the reason for the agnostic's assertion is on the basis of present evidence. The position of the agnostic is not begotten by a lack of evidence, but rather by the definition of god. An omnipotent being exceeds our ability to understand. The very logic of such a concept denotes an inability for us to understand and therefore, ever know. It is not that there is some seemingly mundane gap in evidence that may be bridged with a few more years of space exploration; it is that the very nature of god is not subject to any of our tools of knowledge. It is in this way that the agnostic and atheist are distinct.

Explication of Self

My name is Jacob Wheeler. I am a senior Philosophy major and as my enrollment in this class may indicate I have a fondness for great literature. That's enough about me:

Someone asked in class yesterday if there was any value in this assignment. The point is potent; we will likely forget these facts (the ones we even read) and there may be little benefit gained here. I'd like to offer a counter point. Posting and reading these brusquely brief bios is a humanizing activity. It reminds all agents participating in these discussions that the views we are responding to are the views of people; it reinforces possibly one of the most fundamental aspects of a free flow of ideas: courtesy and respect.

Question: do you find any value in this assignment or is it, as suggested in class, a waste of time?