Tom Morris

PZ has a good take on Ron Rosenbaum’s fluffy and ridiculous posturing about agnosticism. I love the bit in Rosenbaum’s whiny rant about how he doesn’t know what evidence there is to reject the God of Leibniz. A related question: what possible evidence could you summon up to dismiss a concept that has been specifically designed to be irrefutable by evidence?

Also, for the agnostic “we’re so much less certain than thou” brigade, some philosophical trickery for you to untangle: if you believe we shouldn’t hold to any opinion dogmatically, what about the opinion that that we ought to not hold to any opinion dogmatically? I don’t understand why the prattling wing of the agnostics don’t go off and join the “oh my, religion is filled with so many nuances and subtleties” crowd. Both are quite wrong and tremendously boring.