I don’t post much on the whole religion thing, but I thought (rather unwisely, perhaps – but I don’t see why Sheril should have all the fun) that the latest meany atheist appeaser agnostic blow-out (see here, here, here, here and, of course, here) was an opportunity to wheel out this analysis (slightly modified for relevance) from ye olde blog, which was inspired by the one before the one before the last one…
I’ve been puzzling over why what is a legitimate dispute between members of the pro-science camp, over emphasis and tone in the struggle against the forces of ignorance, always seems to break down into what could charitably be referred to as ‘arguing past each other’.
A common framing of different theological positions is to represent the continuum from theism through agnosticism to atheism as a change in the relative importance of empiricism and faith in a particular person’s worldview. An atheist places a high value on tangible evidence; a theist is more concerned with the greater truths that they feel exist outside of the world that we can subject to experimental verification (please note that this discussion is not addressing the existence (or not) of such truths…)



