Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't believe. Ever. Agnosticism is a philosophy that extends well beyond religion. Instead, focus on what you want to be true and figure out how to make that true. You probably don't want PRISM to exist, or more generally, you probably don't want an extensive surveillance program of PRISM's caliber or greater to exist. In America, or anywhere? Be specific. Figure out exactly why each component is problematic. Unders…
> Be specific. Figure out exactly why each component is problematic. Understand that. Totally agree. > But it's better than belief. As someone dealing with what might be called a mild epistemological crisis, I can sympathize with the advice to apply agnosticism liberally, but I'm not sure belief can be avoided. If you want to take action for or against something, you have to ask: what if your information about that t…
No, it can't. You will always believe something, positively (X exists; X is true) or negatively (X does not exist; X is false). The point is, however, is that your final resting point should never be "I don't know what to believe anymore."
> If you want to take action for or against something, you have to ask: what if your information about that thing is malformed or incomplete, due to human error (either your own or somewhere in your chosen network of cognitive authority) or even malice? The answer is that you'll never know for sure. You could always be the victim of your own or someone else's bias.
This is precisely why it's useful to apply agnosticism liberally. What you've described here is agnosticism. You don't know. You never know. If you have the fortitude for it, it is usually reliable to say that you're always wrong in some respect. But you should still act. Paralysis is worse than misjudgment.
Or to use the words of a now famous movie, "There is no certainty, only opportunity." The only reason he turned out to be right was movie magic, and nevertheless, in the movie, he admitted that he didn't know what the right action was after all.