I'll just note that I'm not here to argue over anything so much as to just note that I've had some thoughts recently which seem to run closely enough to the current topic as to be worth sharing. But first...
About having the courage of your convictions: I get pretty ticked off when people on one side or another of an argument see those on the fence as wishy-washy and unwilling to stand up for anything. I rather like to think that the people with the most courage are those who are committed to reasoned views and are willing to stand in the crossfire between the two extremes and argue that reason.
After some recent reading (including Dawkins' The God Delusion) it occurred to me that some portion of the problem, at least from a semantic perspective, might be word construction using the Greek model for indicating when something is not. What I'm about to propose doesn't really work etymologically speaking, but it seems sensible...
If we use moral/immoral/amoral as a model, and we acknowledge that amoral means, 'a lack of morals,' (I've read 'morally indifferent' in one definition) then it strikes me that the same model applied to theism would suggest atheism is, 'a lack of belief,' which I don't think is an active position. The model would map as theistic/antitheistic/atheistic. With this model we can then grant that some claiming to be atheists might be better described as antitheists (a more active position).
The only thing about your post that specifically bothers me is the claim that science is agnostic. While I'm sure I was at one time agnostic, I've since abandoned that approach because it seems no less limiting than religion itself. Both religion and agnosticism claim, so far as I can tell, that there is something in the universe we can't know anything about. Religions, oddly enough, claim to know about the thing that can't be known (through revelation and such), while agnosticism seems to throw up its hands. I don't think science says there are things we can't know. Science might say there are things we can't know right now given a variety of limitations (physical, technological, cognitive, etc.), but I don't think science is often given to throwing up its hands. (Some scientists are. Even Einstein blew it when it tried to undercut his own theories in an attempt to maintain an orderly universe.)
Here's a quote from your post:
Me? I'm agnostic. I don't have the hubris to think I've got the final answer. I'm still watching and waiting, and I'm keeping an open mind -- to all sides of the question.
And then here's the relevant entry from dictionary.com's definition of agnostic:
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
That definition doesn't fit with your claim, nor what I typed in my previous paragraph about the proposed agnosticism of science. It seems to me your desire to maintain that open mind, to seek to understand that which others claim cannot be understood, is far more ambitious than mere agnosticism. It's the ambition of science.
I'd leave that last statement as my tagline, but I should also make clear that my definitions aren't those of others, and there's far too much flexibility in the use of these words for comfort (or at least comfortable arguing). Defining agnosticism is like trying to catch an eel with your bare hands. :)
a late arrival
About having the courage of your convictions: I get pretty ticked off when people on one side or another of an argument see those on the fence as wishy-washy and unwilling to stand up for anything. I rather like to think that the people with the most courage are those who are committed to reasoned views and are willing to stand in the crossfire between the two extremes and argue that reason.
After some recent reading (including Dawkins' The God Delusion) it occurred to me that some portion of the problem, at least from a semantic perspective, might be word construction using the Greek model for indicating when something is not. What I'm about to propose doesn't really work etymologically speaking, but it seems sensible...
If we use moral/immoral/amoral as a model, and we acknowledge that amoral means, 'a lack of morals,' (I've read 'morally indifferent' in one definition) then it strikes me that the same model applied to theism would suggest atheism is, 'a lack of belief,' which I don't think is an active position. The model would map as theistic/antitheistic/atheistic. With this model we can then grant that some claiming to be atheists might be better described as antitheists (a more active position).
The only thing about your post that specifically bothers me is the claim that science is agnostic. While I'm sure I was at one time agnostic, I've since abandoned that approach because it seems no less limiting than religion itself. Both religion and agnosticism claim, so far as I can tell, that there is something in the universe we can't know anything about. Religions, oddly enough, claim to know about the thing that can't be known (through revelation and such), while agnosticism seems to throw up its hands. I don't think science says there are things we can't know. Science might say there are things we can't know right now given a variety of limitations (physical, technological, cognitive, etc.), but I don't think science is often given to throwing up its hands. (Some scientists are. Even Einstein blew it when it tried to undercut his own theories in an attempt to maintain an orderly universe.)
Here's a quote from your post:And then here's the relevant entry from dictionary.com's definition of agnostic:That definition doesn't fit with your claim, nor what I typed in my previous paragraph about the proposed agnosticism of science. It seems to me your desire to maintain that open mind, to seek to understand that which others claim cannot be understood, is far more ambitious than mere agnosticism. It's the ambition of science.
I'd leave that last statement as my tagline, but I should also make clear that my definitions aren't those of others, and there's far too much flexibility in the use of these words for comfort (or at least comfortable arguing). Defining agnosticism is like trying to catch an eel with your bare hands. :)