Agnostisism and Learning LO30213

From: Greg Haworth (
Date: 05/27/03

Replying to LO30162 --

I have been away from this list for quite some time, but checking back in
as of late. It is interesting and some way comforting to see the "usual
suspects" still here. But enough of that.

At, I must say this post, "Agnostisism and Learning", of yours really
pushed a bunch of my buttons .. thanks. With that said, I feel compelled
to respond with extreme bias. And with bias, blindness.

First: I think this post should have left out the last paragraph. I am
still struggling to see the leap from the human interest story to the
questions relating to LO's. I am sure they are there for you, forgive my
inability to connect the dots.

Second: The response to your elementary reduction of agnosticism could,
and has, lined whole shelves of discourse and thought. Let me point out
just one thing. For you to list the etymology of the word and then to
gerrymander some literature, in no way defines agnosticism. Sorry, not
biting. There are far more uses of the term than, "one can not know god".
Take, god is not worth the effort of knowing, for one.

Third: Because of the way you have framed this post I am lead to conclude
that you believe you must know god in order to express love. This is
obviously an absurd belief. Here is how I made this conclusion.

You state, "My knowledge of God comes from only one source -- my
interaction with those people who had the Spirit of God in them, acting
with deeds of love towards me. God is agape (love) .."

So at the very least, god is requisite in transformative love. Now you
may not believe this, and I may have misinterpreted it ... but as I said,
hot button! Bias and blindness.

And further on this topic, you state, "He is extremely negative towards
the intentions of humans. He just had too little "experiences of deeds of
love" initiated by other humans, including me"

There is that term again "deeds of love" which equals god and actions of
those full of the spirit of god. Now first just what is wrong with
holding, "negative towards the intentions of humans" as a belief, seems
rather realistic to me. You seem to think of it as a disease that needs
to be transformed, that he could change his ways if he just came to know
god. Don't you think that is just a bit pompous? And why does it take
god anyway? Is there no goodness in the world that does not have it's
source in god? Is man so bankrupt without god? Has he no nobility in his
own right? What about the Greeks and other peoples of history that came
before the "word of god" was spread? Did they know nothing of love and

Fourth: you ask these questions, "Does OL have any lasting worth if it is
devoid of unconditional love? Can an organisations emerge into a Learning
Organisation (LO) when love is not the backbone of its capacity for
action? What is knowledge without love?"

In the context of your thesis that god is love, and I substitute god each
time you use the word love above ... well I am sorry I do not believe you
need god to find lasting worth, do not need god as a backbone, nor is
godless knowledge inferior or of lesser value.

Hoping to have pushed some of you buttons too,
Best regards
Greg Haworth


Greg Haworth <>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>

"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.