[Dragaera] agnosticism (no flame) (was, long ago: (no spoilers) The 17 [Great Weapons])

[Will Frank]

Also Sprach Frank Mayhar:

> Atheism is simply the absence of theism.  Since when does the absence of
> belief require faith?
> 
> Flawed dictionary definitions written by theists notwithstanding.

I don't think I've ever seen a discussion/debate about agnosticism and
atheism, conducted among theists and atheists, not devolve into a game
of definition. Honestly, I haven't really figured out a single,
concrete set of definitions yet. But here's what I'm given to
understand. Please, correct me if I missed something critical.

Theism and atheism are not really beliefs or religions--it would be
more accurate to call them philosophical/theological positions.

Theism, all forms of theism, posit a god or gods, which may
be roughly, but incompletely, described as beings not bound by the
same physical laws as we humans are bound. Atheism posits that such do
not exist.

You may call atheism a matter of belief, but if you're going
to say "well, that's what you believe, so it's a faith" to anything,
then nothing can ever be debated. It would be more accurate to say
that theists think there is or are a god or gods, and atheists think
there aren't.

Within theism are all religions; at least, all which believe in
something, and I've yet to find one that doesn't. Well, that's not
true. I suppose some Eastern religions (such as Taoism) don't, but
those have always seemed to me to be more philosophies than religions,
anyway. Religion is normally defined in terms of theism, anyway.

People can come to either of those philosophical positions, theism or
atheism, from any number of philosophies, approaches, or reasons. Many
people come to atheism through scientific reasoning, in the style of
Richard Dawkins, whose rigid following of the observable evidence in
the proper forms of the scientific method (which is not a
philosophical position, but a way of looking at the world and drawing
conclusions from data) leads him to conclude that there is no such
being as a god, because if there was, there would be evidence of
it. One of the principles of science is to conclude only from the
data.

This is why belief or faith in a god is sometimes described as
anathema to science--faith, according to Hebrews 11, is "the substance
of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." However, it is
not uncommon for some people, including scientists, to specifically
refuse to apply such rigid scientific reasoning to the question of
a god, choosing instead to have the "evidence of things not seen."

While some people (such as Dawkins) believe this to be collective
delusion, personally I find that the best advice on the matter comes,
amusingly, from the Wiccan Rede ("An it harm none, do what ye
will"). As long as no one else is adversely affected by his or her
beliefs, I hold that any man or woman may believe whatever they want.

The definition of harming, of course, is flexible. Some theists
believe that only those who believe as they do will find eternal life
and happiness after their death, and all others will find eternal
torment. As such, they believe it not only not harmful, but
beneficial, to preach to those who believe differently than they
do--an act which many find to be harmful. But that's another topic.

Agnosticism is, I suppose, a form of theism, but it is probably more
accurate to call it, too, a philosophical position. It's a straddling
of the line, in a way...it posits, as I understand it, that the
question of whether or not there is a god is fundamentally
unknowable.

So, am I missing something?