Is it going against Atheism if I want to have sex with Crash Bandicoot?
I personally like neither Dawkins' "science proves atheism" (paraphrase) nor Gould's "nonoverlapping magisteria." Just thought you'd like to know.
Actually the latter of those two positions seems monumentally crappy to me.
I don't want to identify as Agnostic, because that so often has connotations of a commitment to philosophical skepticism. I'm coining the adjective pretheistic. If it already exists in anthropology (which I doubt), then I should consider myself delighted.
What I'm trying to capture in pretheism is the optimism that one will have better knowledge about these things in the future than one does now. The coinage is a bit ironic, since it really doesn't presuppose theism as an endpoint. I guess it's like agnosticism without the resignation.
The coinage is ironic.
Actually the latter of those two positions seems monumentally crappy to me.
I don't want to identify as Agnostic, because that so often has connotations of a commitment to philosophical skepticism. I'm coining the adjective pretheistic. If it already exists in anthropology (which I doubt), then I should consider myself delighted.
What I'm trying to capture in pretheism is the optimism that one will have better knowledge about these things in the future than one does now. The coinage is a bit ironic, since it really doesn't presuppose theism as an endpoint. I guess it's like agnosticism without the resignation.
The coinage is ironic.
posted by Linguo @ 3:41 a.m.
1 Comments:
At 2:07 a.m.,
Vega said…
I very greatly agree with you. Imagine all the things we (as a species) were unaware of 200 years ago. Who can even begin to guess what we will have discovered 200 years from now.
Nonetheless, I'm still convinced that a deity is NOT one of the things that we'll find... But who knows, perhaps I will live to eat my hat about that one.
Post a Comment
<< Home