As the title suggests, it doesn’t have a lot to do with agnosticism – although it does treat doubt with more courtesy and respect than Dawkins seems capable of. It’s a fascinating read, too, which again scores it above “The God Delusion” – and it has some interesting ideas about both faith and doubt, and the historical context of both.
But I feel it misses the point of its own arguments.
So after yesterday’s Blessay, I got to wondering what a chapel designed for the use of agnostics would be like. Here’s what I came up with:
It’s been pointed out to me that last week, I failed entirely to actually clarify what I thought the difference was between beliefs and assumptions. So this week, I’m backing up a little to define my terms.
Like I should have done in the first place. Continue reading
Or at least, I do. I think most agnostics would probably agree on that point – indeed, I daresay that not a few of us would add that those four words are pretty much the basis of the scientific method.
But doubt can leave one with little in the way of reliable facts. And action can only be based on reliable facts. Well, those or assumptions.
So starting here, I’m going to spend the next few entries of Militant Agnostic talking about the assumptions that I, as an agnostic, find it necessary to make in order to act with any particular certainty in this world. A lot of this is going to seem like philosophical hair-splitting to a lot of you, I suspect, but I make no apology for that. After all, I don’t see very many people at all apologising for their beliefs, so why should I?
Okay, so last week, I covered how I got here. But I know I didn’t really say where here is.
Understand, I can’t really say what all agnostics believe (or don’t believe) – I can only say what I hold to be true.
On the plus side, this isn’t very much, so this will probably be relatively short 🙂