Quote:
Originally Posted by nekokami
Personally, I've found the distinction between "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" quite helpful. A "strong atheist" believes there is no god; a "weak atheist" believes the question is irrelevant. Most atheists are probably "weak atheists" under this reading. It would be nice to have another term ("apatheist" isn't bad, actually) because I can see that putting "weak" in there probably makes people object to the phrase just because it might make them seem wishy-washy or something. But it really is different from agnosticism.
I'm a theist, as it happens. But I don't actually happen to believe that the divine cares whether anyone believes or not. 
HarryT, thanks for the explanation about novae, and for the recommendation on Plato. It'll probably have to wait until the end of the semester, but it's on my to-read list.
Regarding scientists who take certain elements of science on faith, yes, of course there are some. But I don't think that's the point of the enterprise of science, whether we're talking about the GUT or any other theory. At least, the scientists I work with may express that they have hopes that a GUT will help simplify some problems of physics, but I don't know of any who think it will really answer "everything." Even physicists can resort to poetic names for things sometimes. |
So neko, does that make you a "weak theist"?
I used to tell people that my beliefs were a multiple choice depending on how I currently felt.
A. There is no god.
B. There is a god but he doesn't care about us.
C. There is a god, he cares and he is out to screw us over completely.