Hi Jason,
you said:
>Things like the existence of God are only disputed by atheists and
>agnostics. Not all dispute is equal indeed. :)
Bertvan:
I never heard an agnostic dispute the existence of God. We either claim the
concept is irrelevant, that it is beyond human comprehension, or that it is
simply unknown. Atheists state categorically, "God does not exist". Most
agnostics would never make such a dogmatic statement. On philosophical
questions I find myself more often agreeing with Theists. I am inclined to
believe the universe is designed. I haven't seen any proof, maybe none
exists. Atheists state categorically, "It is not designed."
If "design" can not be proved, I suspect those scientists philosophically
inclined toward the concept will, in the long run, be more productive. For
instance, an atheist would be forever content to regard mutations as
"random". Someone inclined toward the "design" concept would be more
inclined to investigate the possibility of directed mutations. An Atheist
would be forever content to consider 95% of the genome "junk". Someone with
"design" in mind would suspect everything in nature served a purpose and look
for some function served by that "junk". An Atheist might spend his time
trying to create life in the laboratory. A design theorist might look for
evidence that life is a common and natural component of the "design" of
the universe. An atheist might see imperfections in nature. A design
theorist would look for the purpose behind each of those so-called
imperfection. (Death and disease, for instance.)
So please don't lump Agnostics with Atheists. Not that I dispute anyone's
right to be an Atheist, nor do I demand that anyone prove (or produce
evidence on) the question. It's just not the position of most Agnostics.
Bertvan