There is a growing debate on the blogosphere on Atheism v.s. Agnosticism (or, heaven forbid, Deism). The lines of battle are set.
On Pharyngula, Atheist PZ Myers slums at accommodationists, almost as hard as he slams the religious.
On Evolving Thoughts, Agnostic John Wilkins claims for disbelief.
And on and on. Take a look at Rosenbaum’s latest Agnostic pamphlet. It is a nice read. For the lazy, there is Elliot Sobel’s video on FORA.tv. He makes it simple, which is the job of a good philosopher.
- a deist believes in god (whatever that is).
- an atheist believes that the is no god.
- an agnostic doesn’t believe either.
The bulk of the philosophical criticism against the “New Atheism” (by Sobel, Wilkins, Rosenbaum, Cristopher Schoen, and others – against Myers, Dawkins, et al.) is that no scientific evidence can possibly refute the philosophical theory about the existence of God. There can be evidence that certain beliefs are wrong (is the earth really 6000 years old? No way!). One can refute some religious views. But one just cannot refute the idea that god exists. Not scientifically, at least.