What fun! :)

Actually, I can understand why you don't like that usage of the word. But I am at a loss for a better one. What I am talking about is neither probability nor precision.

But all of the synonyms of certainty have the same problem, they all talk in terms of 100% or nothing. There doesn't seem to be a well defined language (in english) for expressing the concept of relative degrees of belief.

Marlow's problem with relativists seems to be that he equates all relativists with absolute relativism. The absolute form does hold the posistion that all firmly held beliefs are ultimatly equal, because without a fixed "truth" to judge them against there is no way to say which is better. This posistion is usually associated with ivory tower academics and radical left wing activists, who if fact do a lot of the sort of whining that Marlow complains about.

I went through excrutiating debates in the old IWE forums proposing the Agnostic position toward Christianity and Atheism, pissing off both sides. The basis of this philosophy is that we are unable to KNOW (determine) whether God (the Truth, Reality, etc...) exists or not. That it is beyond our comprehension to know.

I don't recall any specific debates with you. But I find most agnostics annoying because they selectivly apply different standards of what constitutes knowledge.

The key thing I keep coming back to is that this (agnosticism or relativism) is not a "paralyzing" philosophy. It just is "a" philosophy. I don't know "for sure" anything, but I also believe that noone else does either. That doesn't make me feel superior or inferior. So what's the problem here guys? :-)

The problem is that not every persons posistions are as relativistic as yours. For instance, I believe that experience, logic and evidence let us determine which beliefs more accuratly reflect reality. However, I also believe that this process is error prone and that we can never reach 100% certainty that a belief is correct.

Jay