Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Thus, he was shamed into groveling for it. Intellectual honesty demands a stand regardless of how others around us receive it. Perhaps even rejection stands in the wings, waiting to reward the cast of our meager singular vote.
But this is my very question: Why, if he was so articulate on his
beliefs about (what he called) God and especially since he defended
himself against the very claim of being an atheist, did he maintain
that he was a theist?
Obviously, he didn't have any shame in making his unorthodox
claims about who he thought God was even though it was radical and
pointed.
Did he have a different understanding of what it meant to be an
atheist than has come to be now? That is, by his criteria (if they are
discussed somewhere), would bbarr, starrman, or rwingett be theists?
I suppose I'm guessing that, somehow, he must have thought there
was a 'remainder' that distinguished him from the atheists of his day.
Whether he articulates it or not, I don't know (I've read nothing
except excerpts I can find on the internet).
Nemesio