Notes from Evil Bender

Via PZ, I note that Scott Adams is attacking atheists despite claiming to (sort of) be one. He’s really claiming to be an agnostic, despite claiming not to believe in Intelligent Design, yet somehow concluding good science is “bullshit.” Yeah, he’s a genius alright.

PZ’s already covered most of Adams’ claims, including the “don’t be an atheist because you might go to hell”–a claim, which as PZ notes, can be made equally (and equally spuriously) well against any religion. But I couldn’t resist noting this bit of stupidity at the end:

 I sometimes call myself an atheist because it’s too hard to explain Spinoza’s version of god. And it’s too hard to explain that agnosticism is the only intellectually defensible position.

I’m waiting for that explanation, especially for the part where, as Adams implies above, he explains how Spinoza was really an agnostic. You need to stretch a lot of terms to make that go.  As anyone who knows the least bit about Spinoza knows, his conception of God/The Universe/Reality was an interesting an nuanced one, but it can hardly be described as an agnostic position.

And by the way, Scott, given that you’ve just said that complete certainty is impossible, how can you defend the claim that only agnosticism is “intellectually defensible.” I will ask you this: what is wrong with refusing to believe in that for which there is no evidence? Seems pretty defensible to me.

Atheists–including such prominent anti-God-types as PZ and Dawkins–note that you cannot completely rule out the possibility of God, but note that what we observe makes the existence of such a divine being highly improbable. We don’t need complete certainty: we merely need to follow the evidence.

Or is Scott Adams an agnostic on the subject of the magical invisible dragon that lives in my garage? What about unicorns? Does he really think dinosaurs might be hiding behind the furniture?