I’d prescribe Douglas Adams’ speech “Is there an Artificial God?”

I read that, but didn’t like it. I find Adams’ simile of the puddle to be rather flawed, though I do see the point he is making. I actually feel that Adams’ writing suffered a lot when he became obsessed with Dawkins. It became a lot more juvenile, in a way.

What does being “agnostic” mean for you?

To me it means that I don’t know and don’t pretend to know the ultimate meaning and nature of the universe, though I would quite like to find out. It does not mean that I am any kind of relativist, though.

I have read and enjoyed many of Richard Dawkins’ books. However, I do find his “fanatic” atheism and complete dismissal of religion kind of… silly, I guess. To those who dismiss religion out of hand I’d prescribe Douglas Adams’ speech “Is there an Artificial God?” and then David Abrams’ article “The Ecology of Magic”. The book A Story as Sharp as a Knife, by Robert Bringhurst is also good, for showing why myth is valid and interesting. There’s a review of it on my blog. Have you read any of those?

I’ve never read any Carl Sagan, but at least at this point in my life I am writing from “the position of pure awe and wonder at the universe” and emphasizing the spiritual and artistic aspects more than the science-y stuff. When I was 16 was actually about the time I started reading a lot about evolution and artificial life and the mind and those popular science kind of books… I don’t know if I would have identified as “atheist” but the concept of a “God” or “gods” certainly had little place in my worldview. Now, I understand better what people mean when they use that word. What does being “agnostic” mean for you?

And that about ranting about atheism being 16, some years ago (when I was 16) I was exactly the same