here’s the link to it again: http://www.solstice.us/russell/agnostic.html

I don’t see any point in reposting it like Wilkins did – the piece is set very convenient in the source page, so go read it there.

And I’m not very keen to comment it either, although it’s a long text, and as such has many “handles” to base an argument on. (that is – i do not totally agree with everything in it :) )

But like in the case with the Humanism definition, it’s put good enough and it is interesting enough, and the extent to which I agree with it is also enough to throw it on the haystack of arguments and save me some time and effort of wording it myself.

The article itself is presented as an interview. I don’t know for sure if it’s an actual interview, or just summed up answers to expected questions, but I’m more inclined to think it’s a real one, because of the genuine stupidity and weirdness of some of the questions. I for one would be ashamed if the interviewer was somehow associated with me! So – pity the Americans (and not only them ;) ).

But the other interesting thing is how it sheds some light on the picture of the world during the Cold War, and which is more valuable – on the part of it, which we couldn’t have seen or known from our own experience.

Back on topic – I can’t help but wonder if Russell’s view of Agnosticism has anything to do at all with the Religious question – whether or not a deitiy exists. Although the word itself derives from one of the possible answers, it seems to me that his view is more concerned with ethics and focused on how we should handle knowledge instead of weather or not what we know is true?…

In this regard is Agnosticism just Modesty + Tolerance?

общо взето, не оставя място за коментар, ама аз все пак да добавя един полуцитат, който ме грабна наскоро – “Не че имам нещо против равноправието на религиите, ама… абе, все пак няма будистки терористи, нали?”