We’re not talking Intelligent Design here.

We’re talking “Intelligent Design (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean)”.

I understand the basic idea of Intelligent Design. It’s an updating of an old Christian philosophical tradition: “Natural Theology” — the idea that God was orderly and Lawful and uncovering the laws behind Nature would be “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”. Learn about the creation, learn about its Creator. Not so much science as a philosophical foundation for science which was prominent from the 17th through 19th Centuries.

But when Young Earth Creationists (under the name “Creation Scientists”) were defeated in the courts, they re-attacked under the banner of Intelligent Design (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean).

And so an old and respectable theological/philosophical tradition became nothing more than a fresh coat of camouflage paint for Young Earth Creationism.

Perhaps all national scientific and medical societies should consider omitting Louisiana from the round of conference locations? And informing the government why, of course.

Although I do understand the point Robbie’s trying to make, that a firm belief that there’s no God is (arguably) a faith-based opinion. Which is why I mentioned that to him before, that going after “strong” atheists would be his best bet. He’s already shown by his logic that if atheism=religion then disbelieving the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a religion, and he said he was happy with that. Now I don’t really believe* he thinks that the latter is true, but you never know. Poe’s law and all that.

*Have I just invented a new religion?

I think here is the distinction. To many self-professed atheists there is no distinction between being a weak/negative atheist and being an agnostic. Both positions state that there is not enough evidence to conclude that God exists, ergo there is no justification for positive belief. They see the scale as the 2 position scale – belief, or not belief.

Most self-professed agnostics see the scale as 3 position – belief, unknowable, disbelief. That unknowable is inherent to the nature of God’s existence, not just a matter of digging deeper or taking more time or evolving mental abilities or whatever. As I said, they think any conclusion is not evidence-based, so it is faith-based. Thus, they don’t like the term “atheist” because they focus on “cannot know” rather than “do not believe”.

No. I think I understand Robbie’s position, and will attempt to explain.

It goes back to what I said about the foundational position. To Robbie, there is a three state position – disbelief, unknowable, belief. The fundamental position is that any knowledge about God’s existence is unprovable – logically, perceivably, inherently unprovable. It is not just that the evidence is incomplete, it is that we can never collect evidence to answer the question.

Given that state, to make any statement as to a conclusion (yes or no) cannot be based upon evidence. And what do we call answers not based upon evidence? Faith. Ergo, what Robbie is saying is that to call yourself an Atheist is to state that God does not exist (or to state you don’t believe God does exist, which is logically equivalent). But that answer cannot be based upon evidence, so it is faith-based every bit as much as the faith-based answer that God does exist.

Ergo, it is a religious position – a position taken from faith rather than from evidence.

Does that make it a religion? Depends on how you define the word. If you take the word to mean any faith-based belief about the nature of the afterlife, deities, etc, then yes, by definition, atheism is a religion. Of course, that abuses the word “religion” and is contingent upon the assertion that to not believe in something is fundamentally different that to remain undecided to believe in something.

If it makes it any easier to grasp, Robbie, don’t call it a religion, call it a “faith-based opinion”. It more accurately represents what you’re trying to say.

I guess he’s more of a Chick Tract fan. Yick!