Rabbi Sacks (Introduction)

by romansh , Wednesday, January 02, 2013, 17:59 (4135 days ago) @ dhw

As I see it, they can only be mutually exclusive for fundamentalists on either side. The essence of agnosticism is that it remains open to both possibilities while accepting neither.-I disagree dhw - they can be mutually exclusive for moderates who hold on their definitions too tightly as well. A fundamentalist (strong) atheist might be open to having weak atheists and some agnostics fall within the atheist definition.
 
> On one level, we are ALL agnostics, because none of us can KNOW whether any sort of god exists or not. The title The God Delusion, however, should tell you all you need to know about Dawkins' degree of certainty concerning the existence of a god. But even here, under the silly chapter heading 'The Poverty of Agnosticism', he places himself on a level of 6 "but leaning towards 7", the strongest category of atheist. "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." -This is getting close to gnostic or strong agnosticism; fundamentalist agnosticism if you like. I would put myself in the weak agnostic camp. "I don't know and that includes what you may or may not know". Rather than the strong camp: "I don't know and neither do you".-Rgarding Dawkins scale, I thought it childish, but at least a starting point for discussion.
A while back I did this for myself:
http://www3.telus.net/romansh/juris/beliefbubbles_files/slide0001.htm
it is for discussion and not some absolute logic map. Ideally I would like to have separated deism from theism and some of the bubbles should overlap.-> Another instance of arrogant intolerance (which of course Dawkins shares with his fellow fundamentalists in most of the religions he attacks). Deuteronomy, Chapter 13, instructs that any prophet who suggests serving other gods should be put to death, and we all know the bloodthirsty history of Christianity and Islam, in which even members of different sects murder one another for having different views of the same God! Sacks is right in that religion builds communities, but it is just as divisive as it is unifying.-I am always careful about accusing others of arrogance, partly for Jungian reasons, but more so another person's passion might come across as arrogance to me. Ultimately the label of 'arrogance' that I might utter, is a reflection of the chemical processes that go on in my brain.-But you are right agnostics have not built strong communities. That is why I spend some time here to show support for the little community that has grown here.