Okay, since I am alleged as the source of the quote, I should probably chime in here.
Firstly, I believe that I conveyed the quote to Jos during a conversation that explored some of the topics discussed here. It did not originate with one of my professors, but rather with a rather famous scientist, who I of course do not remember. The general gist of it is properly reflected in Jos's piece.
Anyway, I think the argument comes down to how hard it is to prove a negative; it is very difficult to prove that something does not exist. If you acknowledge the possibility, however remote, that their might be a God, much as you acknowledge the possiblity that the table might start playing tricks with your coffee, then in my view, that is an agnostic position.
An atheist is sure. Certainity scares me. Too often the people who I detest the most (say Orthodox *anything*) are very, very, sure.
Of course, just because you are agnostic does not mean that you have to acknowledge Pascal's Wager. You don't have to do anything about it. You don't have to put the towels down. You don't have to go dance with snakes, wear a funny hat (what the hell is it with all religions and funny hats?), or do anything else. I certainly don't.
I do however, believe in something of a reverse Pascal's wadger. I believe that ethics and standards of behavior are independently deriviable things that do not originate in any supernatural experience. Therefore, living ethically is the right thing to do. If one lives ethically, and lives a good life, one should be covering all of one's bases. If there is a heaven, then if I do the things I'm going to do anyway, I should be good to go.
Of course there are those that believe you have to swear fealty to a particular religion, but that doesn't make any logical sense, and seems more easily discarded. The general notion of the existance of God is seperated from the various Biblical requirements.
In the end, this discussion should prove meaningless, as it should not have any consequences on what one actually does. Mostly it's about perspective and being open to ideas of any stripe. I think as I've gotten a wee bit older, I've become more and more willing to listen to new and different ideas.
Unless the idea is Creationism. That's a capital offense.
I started this?
Firstly, I believe that I conveyed the quote to Jos during a conversation that explored some of the topics discussed here. It did not originate with one of my professors, but rather with a rather famous scientist, who I of course do not remember. The general gist of it is properly reflected in Jos's piece.
Anyway, I think the argument comes down to how hard it is to prove a negative; it is very difficult to prove that something does not exist. If you acknowledge the possibility, however remote, that their might be a God, much as you acknowledge the possiblity that the table might start playing tricks with your coffee, then in my view, that is an agnostic position.
An atheist is sure. Certainity scares me. Too often the people who I detest the most (say Orthodox *anything*) are very, very, sure.
Of course, just because you are agnostic does not mean that you have to acknowledge Pascal's Wager. You don't have to do anything about it. You don't have to put the towels down. You don't have to go dance with snakes, wear a funny hat (what the hell is it with all religions and funny hats?), or do anything else. I certainly don't.
I do however, believe in something of a reverse Pascal's wadger. I believe that ethics and standards of behavior are independently deriviable things that do not originate in any supernatural experience. Therefore, living ethically is the right thing to do. If one lives ethically, and lives a good life, one should be covering all of one's bases. If there is a heaven, then if I do the things I'm going to do anyway, I should be good to go.
Of course there are those that believe you have to swear fealty to a particular religion, but that doesn't make any logical sense, and seems more easily discarded. The general notion of the existance of God is seperated from the various Biblical requirements.
In the end, this discussion should prove meaningless, as it should not have any consequences on what one actually does. Mostly it's about perspective and being open to ideas of any stripe. I think as I've gotten a wee bit older, I've become more and more willing to listen to new and different ideas.
Unless the idea is Creationism. That's a capital offense.