The reason why I recommended the book in the first place is because Doug and Seamus were calling themselves "agnostic" but like most people who call themselves "agnostic" they sounded like they were actually atheists and the book delves deeply into this kind of "agnosticism" in the early chapters. I liken "atheism" to the Scarlett Letter and "agnosticism" to people trying to avoid being tagged with that letter. Everyone is agnostic in a sense, even you and I because we can never prove there a god(s) or that they do not exist just like we can't prove there is no Easter Bunny even though I'm sure we both would agree that there isn't one.
For the record, I never called myself agnostic, and never would. I'm comfortable with the atheist branding. I only added the "for-all-intents-and-purposes" qualifier for the same reason Richard Dawkins (one of the most outspoken atheists out there) rates his level of atheism at a 6 out of 7 - you can't really prove God's non-existence, so I'm leaving myself open to new evidence, but in the meantime I'll continue to assume there isn't a big sky daddy looking out for us, helping football players make touchdowns, etc.
I feel that "agnostic" is too wishy-washy, as it seems to give equal weight to both sides of the argument (i.e. you can't prove either side, so it could go either way). But I don't think reality supports treating both positions equally. Probabilities matter. As we've learned more about the world and the bigger universe through science over the past few centuries, the rationale for believing in God keeps getting smaller and smaller, and I think the scales of probability tipped in favor of non-existence a long time ago.
I guess I lean toward theist. But I'm still an agnostic theist. I like to think that there may be an afterlife and at least one 'higher power.' But I do not believe that one religion or faith is any more accurate than another. If there is is an afterlife and/or higher powers, they could take any form. How are we to know whether or not 'God' takes the form of a male, female, white, black, asian, etc., or a giant spaghetti monster? There could be a multitude of gods and goddesses, there could also be a group of demi-gods.
I can't prove that any of that exists, but It's a more comforting thought than the more logical, "When you die, that's it. No reincarnation, no 'heaven' or 'hell', your spirit or soul will not roam the earth because it poof'd away the second you died." That's no fun.
I want to think that as long as you were a good person in life, you will be rewarded your own perception of 'heaven'
This reminds me a lot of an essay I just read by Martin Gardner (in his book The Night is Large, if anyone likes heavy reading). Gardner's a super-rational pseudoscience debunker, and acknowledges that all evidence points to there being no god, but he still confesses to being a theist for strictly non-logical, emotionally satisfying reasons. The essay gave me more respect for that position than I had before, even though I disagree with it.
Now I should be high fiving you! I couldn't agree with you more. In fact there are ongoing scientific studies about "moral values" and how they are key to the survival of the species. You see it in animals as well as humans (which of course blows a big hole in the "only from religion do we get moral values" idea).
Have you read Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape yet, Shempski? I just picked it up but haven't got around to reading it yet. This topic of a scientific basis for our moral values has been Harris' pet topic lately. I've watched a few of his lectures on YouTube, and they're pretty engaging.
