hi David— thanks for this! Here’s my hot take

I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing.

That’s a lovely, warm & fuzzy thought, from Feynman, but let’s point out, this is a qualitatively different statement coming from a singular polymath genius, than it is from some average schmo who flunked H.S. algebra.

Feynman was a populist educator and ambassador of humanity, first, and a theoretical physicist second. I am generalizing. He was many other things, from his books I recall he dabbled in Brazilian percussion and Chinese calligraphy.

Agnosticism, as I argued in that thread, is a tainted, toxic label, misused to excuse blissful ignorance and reject empirical acknowledge by many who seek comfort in religion or ‘spirituality’ or whatever. Not by thoughtful academics like you, Jack, marjorie, you guys have the good sense to apply this label in a constructive way, but many don’t.

Hitchens didn’t beat around the bush:

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Leading atheists aren’t interested in rejecting schools of thought, they dont “believe” in not believing. What they do is rail against ignorance, they protest the marginalizing of logic on grounds of dogma.

I received my Master’s for describing why phylogenetic DNA studies are non-empirical, among other things.)

Now that is intriguing, can you share some materials or wiki links?

Cheers, Joe Varadi