More Agnostic or Atheist

Agnosticism, by its very conceptual status as a statement of uncertainty, implies there is a reasonable probability of either position - atheism or theism - being true. That probability doesn't have to be 50/50, it just needs to be enough to provide each position with credibility. No reasonable probability of theism's accuracy exists. That is to say, no arguments or evidence provide a compelling enough case to make theism a viable option. More than the mere fact of possibility is required to leave one undecided. Therefore agnosticism is an inappropriate position to hold.

I agree with Lovecraft's take on the situation:

"In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of rational evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist. The chance's of theism's truth being to my mind so microscopically small, I would be a pedant and a hypocrite to call myself anything else."

However, I also concur with Penn Jillette's sentiments as expressed in The Portable Atheist (a compendium of work put together by the late Christopher Hitchens). Specifically I am thinking of his statement about being "beyond atheism". Not believing in God is a starting point that allows one to move beyond the metaphysical confines of archaic culture and open up new vistas of thinking, feeling, and life experience.

Atheism is not an identity. It is a position held in the context of a certain debate - an answer to a very specific question. It doesn't even cover every notion of God nor belief in the supernatural. It neither provides nor supplements anything beyond one's stance as to the existence of the theistic God.

Brief Research Note: HPL

One of the papers I am currently working on features H.P. Lovecraft. Yesterday, while watching a presentation by Richard Dawkins and Laurence Krauss on youtube I came across an interesting thought. Dawkins had pointed out (as he done in the past) that the human brain is evolved to cope with certain time frames which are far smaller than the geological scale across which evolution happens and the universe was formed. Reflecting on several comments that HPL makes in his letters and fiction writing which display acute awareness of geological time scales, I wondered if it was not this aspects of his thinking which caused him to be dismiss religious and supernatural explanations in favour of science and unbelief. It is a matter of his philosophical thinking that I will likely follow up on in a specific paper of its own.

Here is one of my favourite quotes from HPL:

"It is only the inferior thinker who hastens to explain the singular and the complex by the primitive short cut of supernaturalism."