Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sean
Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts on this. I've long been slightly confused as to the specifics of agnosticism versus atheism, although I've felt in my gut for quite a while that I'm most accurately described as an atheist who, due to understanding and respect for the scientific process, acknowledges the highly unlikely, yet also unknowable possibility that capital-G God could exist. So reading your thoughts on it have certainly helped me at least form some deeper opinions about it. Well done, sir!
|
Happy as I am that it's given you something to think about, I would just want to re-emphasize that this is only my particular take on those terms. Ok, so I didn't just decide on them arbitrarily, but hopefully it goes without saying that neither am I trying to suggest they're in any way definitive. I happen to think they make the most sense, but others will have definitions just as valid (as a glance at most dictionaries makes clear). Some may even find the attempt to file people's views under pre-existing labels as highly offensive (indeed someone once PM'd me on here to tell me as much). But I've long reached the conclusion that agnostics and atheists are, very often, in no disagreement on the philosophy; they merely differ in their terminology. Not always mind you - as Stimpee's post seems to demonstrate. But too many religious discussions get hobbled from the outset by an inability to agree on a single definition of the most fundamental terms (usually the words 'god', 'atheist' and 'agnostic'). One option is to remove every usage of those contentious terms and attempt to carry out the discussion in their absence. Another is simply to reach an agreement on our definitions upfront -
even if only for the purpose of the present argument - so that it can progress hopefully more productively.