UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 7 to Meditation 810
I don't quite see what the fuss is about

by: Christian Bieck

To add to this exchange of views (or any other,) please use the Contact form.

Interesting discussion. I don't quite see what the fuss is about, though (maybe because I take the "I don't care" part of apathetic more seriously? ;-) ).

Massimo (and the blog Kristine links to) are quite right when they say that the 1962 definition of atheists, i.e belief there is no god, do not reflect current definition. Even Richard Dawkins does not define himself in the 1962 way - he is a "de facto atheist - very low probability, but short of zero." (Quoted from "The God Delusion", chapter 2.). That is the position in which I also see myself - which to me means I (and Dawkins) are agnostic, because we simply don't know. With the 1962 definition, I doubt you will find a lot of atheists.

And with current scientific knowledge, we also very probably can't know. Is it forever unknowable? That simply depends on the definition of the god we are talking about. For the definition of the UCTAA, i.e. a supreme being that is apathetic to the world, forever unknowable is very likely. That is not the definition of the Abrahamic religions, though - they want a god that takes part in the world. And if it does, then it is not forever unknowable - if there is an effect, we will be able to measure it and understand the cause. If magic is real, then it is not magic, but physical reality, and we will be able to measure it with the right tools and explain it with the right models.

All this is why I like the word "non-theist" better - but then apathetic non-theist sounds funny... ;-)