Discussion 3 to Meditation 810
Not much enlightenment in discussions of meaning
by: Clay Chesney
Discussions on the meaning of agnosticism and atheism never seem to end with much enlightenment and it seems to me they seldom reflect what most people think.
From what I've seen of human nature I would have to say that most non-religious people decided they couldn't accept the vision of God presented to them so they rejected it and simply suspend judgment on the issue of God's existence. This does not require supporting or defending any belief, which is the easiest path intellectually and emotionally. I've never been convinced that any further decision is required. Those who believe that the existence of God can never be proven are probably in the distinct minority, and those who believe God does not exist are a smaller minority. Our esoteric discussions on terminology are stirred by the more passionate few with a selective viewpoint, when in fact the categories we recognize should be along the lines of natural divisions rather than in support of a philosophy.
Am I the only one who saw Will Petillo's second quote from Pigliucci as containing an obvious non-sequitur? The trouble with debates is that we begin to say the words that we believe are the better cudgels, rather than the reasoned response. And sometimes we are even fooled by our own hasty reasoning to magnify our convictions.