<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Buttle&#039;s World]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://buttle.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[clgood]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://buttle.wordpress.com/author/buttle/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Neural Buddhism]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>David Brooks&#8217; <a href="Adding crew capability to the current Falcon/Dragon combination will only involve incremental changes, Musk said. " target="_blank">column</a> has sparked a lot of interesting discussion. John Derbyshire got the ball rolling on <em>The Corner</em> with <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzgwMDMwNDM0NmRlNDVjNzJlYTM3NTZlYTUyZGYyNWM=" target="_blank">this</a> and posted a reader&#8217;s response <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzkxMzM5ZTNmMjFkMmYxOWI2MDZiZTJjMmJhZjYzZWE=" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p>I particularly liked <a href="http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=293" target="_blank">this analysis</a> by Steven Novella.</p>
<p>What resonated for me personally was his comment responding to a reader who claimed that agnostics are just atheists in denial. I quote Novella&#8217;s response liberally here because it perfectly echoes my own reasoning as I arrived at thinking of myself as agnostic rather than atheist. Emphasis is my own.</p>
<blockquote><p>Here is my position &#8211; very briefly. <strong>It is important to distinguish between propositions that are false and those that are outside the arena of science.</strong> Those ideas that cannot be tested, even in theory, are simply not science, and they are unknowable (I am talking about factual claims, not value judgments).</p>
<p><strong>Unknowable propositions are worse than wrong &#8211; they are unnecessary</strong>. As I said &#8211; deism is unnecessary. That doesn’t mean there is no god &#8211; it means that the notion of a god (depending upon how it is conceived, but the basic idea of a being outside the confines of our physical universe and its laws) is simply unknowable. It is simply wrong to say that we can know god does not exist. <strong>The only logically consistent position is agnosticism.</strong> But you can combine that with the notion that such unfalsifiable claims are unnecessary. If someone chooses to have faith in such a thing, like the FSM, I really don’t care &#8211; as long as they keep it pure faith and do not make any logical or empirical claims &#8211; that’s cheating.</p>
<p>Regarding the term agnostic &#8211; I would rather have the opportunity to explain to people why I am agnostic than to create the other misconception (which is absolutely used as often as possible by believers) that atheists have faith in the non-existence of god. You’re burned either way, and you will have to explain yourself, so don’t shy away from philosophical purism.</p></blockquote>
<p>Or, in bumper sticker brevity, <strong>Militant Agnostic: I don&#8217;t know and you don&#8217;t either.</strong></p>
<p>Seriously, though, note that the above implies that being an agnostic allows me to co-exist peacefully with faith, even if I don&#8217;t share it. I&#8217;ll never get into an argument about whether or not god exists, because I don&#8217;t think there can even <em>be</em> an argument. That may or may not be a comfort, depending on who you are.</p>
<p><strong>Update</strong>:</p>
<p>I forgot to link to <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjQ3MTEzYzBmMzA4ZDdhYzZjMDFhYjVkNjc4OTJiYWQ=" target="_blank">this post</a> by Derb.</p>
]]></html></oembed>