I repeat:
Quote:
|
Intellectual agnosticism presupposes that atheism is closed to the unknown. It is not.
|
Atheism has a very specific definition. How people choose to argue their atheism, how they choose to interpret their atheism and their reasons for that stance, are an individual affair. But to presuppose atheism as a closed-minded state is incorrect. Intellectual atheism bases its conclusions on a lack of evidence for God and a lack of reason to suppose his existence. By that definition, intellectual agnosticism is unnecessary. If the evidence existed for God, then the conclusions drawn by intellectual atheism would be different than they are.
Intellectual agnosticism does not differ from atheism in that it allows for the possibility of God, it differs from atheism in that it allows for the possible value of faith.