Jacques Mallah wrote (to Charles Goodwin): > [...] As for religion, it shows that most people are either >ignorant, stupid, and/or irrational, since those are the only ways to >believe in it.
If you believe that there is a clear frontier between Sciences and Religions, it means you are believing religiously in some pseudoscience. (I know you are not the only one). The only problem with religion, and (in a lesser extent) with science, is the institutionalisation, which transforms creative inspiration into senseless repetition, if not (admittedly sad) fanatical proselytism. To qualify someone ignorant, stupid, and/or irrational for having religious belief is pure megalomaniac superstitious arrogance. I consider atheism as a form of positive religious belief. If D represents the proposition "God exists" (let us say), then -the believer says D (I believe in God) -the atheist says -D (I believe in the inexistence of God) -the agnostic says -D and --D (I don't believe in God and I don't believe in the inexistence of God) The agnostic is either indifferent or is awaiting for more information. I just say this because I consider real atheist as very religious people, and, what is worth is that most of the time they want us to believe they have no religion. Only the agnostic can be said not having still made its religion (yet). The problem arises because the modalities -x and -x are confused in most natural language. Bruno