Songster.....what I meant was that the data was always available, just the lack of sophisticated data collection methods. Imagine you are living in a cave 10000 yrs ago. You come out of the cave each morning and see the sun, the vegetation, the rains etc etc. all readily available. That's the data. So it is perfectly logical for you to create superior entities than yourself - the sun-god, the rain-god etc etc.
I haven't found it very useful to read ancient or even not-so-ancient texts - that is not to say that they are not valid or interesting to others. It is more useful for me to read updated modern texts where the ancient and not-so-ancient knowledge is integrated. It is of course up to me to pick the best sources for myself.
On hindsight, I shall take Rachel's definition of agnostic one step further...."distancing of oneself from the notion of belief or non-belief" Why even go that route when you are not in a position to decide?
I am not interested in knowing whether god exists or doesnt. I am only interested in knowing the mind of god. The contradiction is intended.
, but I agree wholeheartedly with your response here. It also truly reminds me of Leonard's line, "You can add up the parts. You won't have the sum," or "You can add up the parts, but you won't have the sum" ~ whichever way it goes. It's one of the many reasons Leonard's work appeals to me. I think I may have avoided those courses because of what you noted here, "I'll never be able to understand this." I've made note now of your implicit recommendation of Hannah Arendt's book, 
.
