[Buddha-l] Agnosticism and skepticism

[Richard Hayes]

Hell, all my students use Wikipedia. Why shouldn't a professor? Answer: 
because a professor should know better than to use reliable sources of 
misinformation and unreliable sources of information. But what the hell. 
Let's see what Mr Wiki and his children have to say about our favourite 
topic:

\begin{plagiarism)
Agnosticism (from the Greek "a," meaning "without," and Gnosticism 
or "gnosis," meaning knowledge) means "unknowable," and is the philosophical 
view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly theological claims 
regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), deities, or 
even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, 
inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain 
knowledge of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while certainty may be 
possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases 
involves some form of skepticism.
\end{[plagiarism}

Given these reflections (which are pretty close to those found in two desk 
encyclopedias of philosophical terms that I have on my desk), I'd say that 
Stephen Batchelor and that guy who keeps saying that Batchelor is the 
greatest living Dharma teacher on the planet (that guy would be moi) are 
agnostics in the sense of not knowing the truth claim of some Buddhist 
doctrines, but not always in the stronger sense of thinking that these 
doctrines are in principle unknowable. (Well, now that I think about it, I 
think I may be an agnostic in this latter sense about the doctrine of 
rebirth; I think it is a doctrine so poorly defined that the truth value of 
cannot be known. I also think the truth value of the doctrine does not at all 
matter in any practical way whatsoever. I'm not sure whether Batchelor is an 
agnostic in the same way.)

As I have said many times, I think rebirth is a myth (by which I mean a 
value-laden story the literal truth of which is not at all important). It is 
an element in a story. I even think it is an indispensable element to a 
particular story, as indispensable in its way as Doctor Watson is to the 
story of Sherlock Holmes. I also think that the overall story in which 
rebirth is an indispensable element is itself a story that is dispensable to 
any practitioner of the contemplative exercises advocated by Buddhist 
tradition. And that series of claims is, as I understand it, one of the main 
points in at least two books on Buddhism, namely, "Buddhism Without Beliefs" 
and "Land of No Buddha." (I may be wrong about both books; it has been years 
since I read either one, and my memory is becoming quite faulty, the modern 
milagro of neuro-plasticity notwithstanding.)

Pacifically yours,
Richard