(December 21, 2015 at 1:26 pm)paulpablo Wrote:(December 20, 2015 at 11:48 pm)Delicate Wrote: One might say the same about science. Science involves grappling with millions of false claims about reality to discover the truth.
If science can survive this ordeal to discover the truth about reality, atheists can survive this ordeal to discover the truth about God.
Or, you know, one can be intellectually honest and be an agnostic, because they haven't been able to successfully justify atheism.
Or, one can depend on philosophers or other specialists as a filter so only the good arguments remain, many of which are in circulation today.
The situation isn't hopeless.
Being at agnostic and being an atheist aren't necessarily two separate things.
I think they are. And the broader world of intellectual inquiry believes they are.
The only people who think you can be an agnostic atheist are the internet atheist community and the New Atheism that gave birth to them. They do this because they derive their ideas of atheism from Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, who are polemical and not informed about the philosophical work undergirding an intellectually-driven atheism and agnosticism.
One of the benefits of combining the two is purely tactical: You get to taken on the weaker burden of proof of agnosticism, while still holding on to the label of atheism.
I realize this takes the discussion in a slightly different direction, but I think it's worth discussing. For the perils of the New Atheism and their intellectual bankruptcy, see the article linked in my signature.
