Welcome, truth seeker
|
People are natural born truth seekers. They start dropping out when they see what it's going to cost them. Once you know something, it's difficult to un-know it, unless it's trivial enough to forget, or painfull enough to block out. But a life-relevant truth, once discovered and known, is difficult to un-know. Unfortunately, some truth is not worth the price of knowing it. Much truth is depressing. So if you have a problem with depression, you should probably seek faith rather than truth.
Depressing truths include those which carry a moral imperative to act in accordance with them once you know them. Moral accountability is no fun. It generates a class of people dedicated to evading it, and therefore dedicated to evading any knowledge that would impose it. They become incorrigible agnostics, rejecting knowledge by force of will. Most of them flee in the opposite direction - beer and ball games and the like. But a few agnostics retaliate. These take on a religious zeal in opposing the knowledge of truth, often developing this skill to an art form.
Surprisingly, aggressive agnostics gravitate toward the company of truth seekers. Posing as fellow truth seekers, these counterfeits offer just enough interesting material to lure us into discussion, hoping to score a juicy young one, whom they can out-argue, thus reinforcing their confidence that nothing can be known. When they encounter a competent opponent, they shift their strategy to catch-me-if-you-can, taking pride in their ability to evade any effort to pin them down. Rather than pursue logical conclusions, they pursue irrelevant tangents and other creative distractions.
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and is generally seen in the company of ducks, it may still be a decoy.
If you've never met an incorrigible agnostic, join an online philosophical discussion group.
If you are one, go away.
What's the difference between an epistemic nihilist and an incorrigible agnostic?
If you're not offended, please proceed.
Who cares?