User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2018/September

Redefining neutral as agnostic as opposed to secular
I notice you assume the stance on behalf of Wikipedia as that that comes from 'secular academia'. Please understand that Theism and Atheism are at opposite ends of a spectrum, both making a claim to knowledge (God exists, God does not exist respectively). In the middle of the spectrum you find agnosticism, which does NOT make a claim in either of those directions. I would ask you to reconsider your base line for what you allow Ito stance. Agnosticism is a stance that is on the path of inquiry, like science, and is not predisposed in either direction, but allows the evidence to lead where it will lead.

Usul1980 (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It's possible that you refer to philosophical skepticism and methodological naturalism more than agnosticism? Although I've commonly seen "secular" in relation to science and academia, "agnosticism" is mostly used in relation to an individual's beliefs.  If we think about the roots of the word, "agnostic" relates to lack of knowledge, when science generally seeks knowledge...  And of course, science can be practiced by people of various persuations, as long as they follow its methods and do what is necessary to avoid/correct common pitfalls like confirmation bias, etc.  In any case, we do not do science and original research (WP:OR) on Wikipedia, but summarize academic reliable sources (WP:RS), which is what Tgeorgescu's message was about.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Secular does not mean atheist, it simply means that the clergy does not have by default the upper hand in all matters of scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)