Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
But that's kind of the point really. Labels I mean. It's not agnosticism that is irritating. It is the suggestion that agnosticism is a superior intellectual position to either faith, or atheism. Intellectual agnosticism presupposes that atheism is closed to the unknown. It is not. That would be as absurd as holding that faith is not open to doubt.
It's not about what we believe, it is about how we arrive at our belief systems. Agnosticism is a perfectly acceptable way to lead one's life, but when you intellectualise it, it is an uncomfortable pairing of two modes of thinking (scientific and non-scientific). It attempts to view the world on the basis of evidence, but allows for the possibility that faith can answer our questions more effectively. It is a chimera.
|
Atheism has multiple positions, so careful with that one as well.
There are atheists that assert that there is no God and there are atheists that simply refuse to take a position based on the evidence at hand.
To me it's the agnostics that have the weakest position morally and the the strong atheists who have the weakest position philosophically.