Not that anyone should care, but Richard Dawkins describes himself as an agnostic rather than as an atheist. The word "atheist" suffers from generic/specific ambiguity. Generically, it means nontheist, which includes both disbelief in God and nonbelief in God. Specifically, it refers to disbelief in God. Michael Martin distinguishes between negative atheism, which is the absence of belief in God, and positive atheism, which is the presence of belief in nonGod. I explain it to my students as follows. Some people have a watch and some don't. Some of those who have a watch have a blue watch and some have a nonblue watch. The agnostic has no watch (of any color). The theist has a blue watch. The atheist has a nonblue watch.
Many years ago (1986), one of my brighter students described agnosticism as a "weeny position." She thought people should be bold and either believe or disbelieve. This seems wrong. In fact, it can be argued that the only rationally defensible position, given the conflicting evidence, is nonbelief (i.e., agnosticism). It might also be wondered what God (if God exists) will do with agnostics. Blaise Pascal evidently believed that agnostics are in the same position as atheists, since neither believes in God. I'm not so sure. Wouldn't God respect the indecisiveness of agnostics, or at least that subset of agnostics who continue throughout their lives to examine evidence and arguments for and against the existence of God? If I were God, I'd reward agnostics with eternal happiness and either punish or exclude theists and atheists, both of whom believe on the basis of insufficient evidence.
What say you, dear blog reader?
