…and this is a 
My brain has been blasted by the confident inanity of Ron Rosenbaum. He's a chipper flibbertigibbet who is proudly agnostic (no problem with that) and as dumb as they come (which is a problem). He has written an essay on Slate titled "The Rise of the New Agnostics" which has a few little quirks. No such movement exists, which he admits, it's strikingly unoriginal to invent a 'new' epithet for your nonexistent movement by appropriating a three letter modifier from the "New" Atheists which we all detest and groaningly disavow over and over again, it is a remarkably incoherent manifesto, and he says so many stupid things that I was confused into thinking it was a comedy piece for a while. It's like he's ripped off the worst theistic arguments and repackaged them into a mess that he proudly calls agnosticism. John Wilkins, who is a proud agnostic, should be embarrassed by it. More about John in a moment.
Rosenbaum begins with one of the hoariest old cliches around. Groan along with me, please.
…I think it's time for a new agnosticism, one that takes on the New Atheists. Indeed agnostics see atheism as "a theism"--as much a faith-based creed as the most orthodox of the religious variety.
Picture the first meeting of the New Agnostics, Ron Rosenbaum presiding.
Ron: That New Atheism is just another religion, and I reject religious dogma! Therefore, I have established this new and unique view, the New Agnosticism.
Fred: Errm, Ron…but isn't the New Agnosticism just another religion, then?
Ron: No, it's not. We have none of the characteristics of a religion, unlike atheism.
Bill: Wait, Ron, I think Fred is onto something. I'm a true agnostic, and I reject your attempt to shoehorn me into your dogma. I'm leaving your cult to form the New New Agnosticism.
Fred: I'm so confused. Isn't that another religion? You've got a name for it after all…
Walt: Exactly right, Fred! So come join my new group, the Revised Agnostics!
Ron: Splitters! Heretics! Schismatics!
It's awfully easy to sit there and call anything a religion, so we often get this absurdly circular argument: religion is bad, we don't like people who say we shouldn't follow a religion, therefore the non-religion is a religion. I wish people like Rosenbaum — and there are a lot of them — would stop and think for once. Atheism is not a religion, and it's ridiculous to assert that it is. It's fine for people to dislike [group that opposes religion] for some reason, but it's ludicrous to use the argument that it's because [I dislike religion]. It puts them in the same set! Please try to formulate specific objections.
Now Rosenbaum does have some gotchas that he throws at the New Atheists as reasons why they are wrong other than that they're "just another religion". The problem is that they're either ignorant or hilarious. First, you have to read the funny one. This is the remark that had me wondering whether this was comedic satire. Notice that now science has become a religion:
Let me make clear that I accept most of the New Atheist's criticism of religious bad behavior over the centuries, and of theology itself. I just don't accept turning science into a new religion until it can show it has all the answers, which it hasn't, and probably never will.
Read it again. Savor it. Contemplate it. I'll understand if you are ready to stop right now — Ron Rosenbaum has declared himself a world-class idiot. To quote Dara O'Briain: "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop."
One other specific issue I have to take with Rosenbaum is that he's lazy. He's got one question that he's absolutely sure will stump the atheists, and justify his rejection of them. It's an old and distinguished philosophical question, but hardly relevant.
Faced with the fundamental question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually. Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing. But the question presents a fundamental mystery that has bedeviled (so to speak) philosophers and theologians from Aristotle to Aquinas. Recently scientists have tried to answer it with theories of "multiverses" and "vacuums filled with quantum potentialities," none of which strikes me as persuasive.
He's even phrased it as a direct challenge.
In fact, I challenge any atheist, New or old, to send me their answer to the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I can't wait for the evasions to pour forth. Or even the evidence that this question ever could be answered by science and logic.
Allow me to bounce that right back to him. What is the New Agnostics' answer to why there is something rather than nothing? If the failure of atheists to be able to answer it (which he affirms by simply throwing out physics as unpersuasive) is grounds for rejecting their philosophy, then why isn't it equally damning to his New Agnostics?
I can guess. Because the New Agnostics take great pride in answering "I DON'T KNOW" to as many questions as possible. Probably in a Mr Gumby voice, too.
Although, actually, some of us do have pretty good answers to the question, and it's apparent that Rosenbaum hasn't even tried to look them up before posing with his challenge. He could have looked up Sean Carroll, who gives a characteristically thoughtful and rather philosophical answer.
Ultimately, the problem is that the question — "Why is there something rather than nothing?" — doesn't make any sense. What kind of answer could possibly count as satisfying? What could a claim like "The most natural universe is one that doesn't exist" possibly mean? As often happens, we are led astray by imagining that we can apply the kinds of language we use in talking about contingent pieces of the world around us to the universe as a whole. It makes sense to ask why this blog exists, rather than some other blog; but there is no external vantage point from which we can compare the relatively likelihood of different modes of existence for the universe.
Or perhaps he could have looked up Victor Stenger, who is a bit more blunt.
What this example illustrates is that many simple systems are unstable, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since "nothing" is as simple as it gets, we would not expect it to be completely stable. In some models of the origin of the universe, the vacuum undergoes a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter. The transition nothing-to-something is a natural one, not requiring any external agent.
As Nobel Laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would then be that 'nothing' is unstable."
Of course, those guys are mere physicists. Nothing they could say would be at all persuasive.
Rosenbaum goes on a mad scramble to drop names in a scattershot fashion, including such luminaries as Eagleton, Berlinski, and Plantinga, which ought to dazzle you right there, but unfortunately among all the twits he also dug up a friend, John Wilkins. John is a nice guy, but he does have an ugly blind spot when it comes to atheists, despite being one himself (oh, he will hate me for that). It might be because we Affirmative Atheists have been poking him in the eye with this stuff for so many years. Anyway, Rosenbaum wrote to Wilkins and asked him to do his homework for him, and list some of the nasty habits of the New Atheists.
For now my objections to the "New" Atheists (who are a vocal subset of the Old Atheists, and who I call Affirmative Atheists) are the same as my objections to organized religion:
1. Too much of the rhetoric and sociality is tribal: Us and Them.
Oh, that is just too much. I can guess John actually will be a bit embarrassed about the fact that Rosenbaum is using his argument to justify setting up a new tribe, Usagnostics, in opposition to Themtheists and Thematheists.
It's a silly argument in the first place. Whenever we take a position on anything, it immediately opens up the possibility of opposition and segregation into multiple camps. We don't like brussels sprouts; They love the slimy little things. Tribes are what people do, naturally and spontaneously. The question is always about how they deal with other tribes — shall we execute Brussels Sprouts Eaters, or is it sufficient to merely deport them, or shall we just have an information campaign and make fun of the crazy people who eat the awful green balls?
John throws out another canard. We've been over this so many times…
4. Knowability: We are all atheist about some things: Christians are Vishnu-atheists, I am a Thor-atheist, and so on. [Which is why the "are you agnostic about fairies?" rejoinder is just dumb.] But it is a long step from making existence claims about one thing (fairies, Thor) to a general denial of the existence of all possible deities. I do not think the god of, say John Paul II exists. But I cannot speak to the God of Leibniz. No evidence decides that.
"Are you agnostic about fairies?" is a good question, because it highlights what people actually think. John gives the right answer; he doesn't believe in fairies. Most people say the same thing. The point is that it is not only possible, it is reasonable to reject major categories of belief. John also gives the right answer about the Catholic god, which is just as phantasmal as fairies, and he also gives the very same answer about deist or pantheist gods that all the New Atheists give. Neither I nor Dawkins nor Larry Moran nor any atheist I've ever talked to will say that we have evidence that the remote and abstract God of Leibniz does not exist.
I know he hates it when we say this, be Wilkins is awfully hard to distinguish from any other atheist, except for the fact that he insists on the label "agnostic". If it makes him feel any better, he can always call the rest of us agnostics, too. We'll humor him.
You get the idea — I'm not going to try to take apart every word in Rosenbaum's disjointed agglomeration of poorly thought out nonsense. But I will leave you with one little phrase from the article that tells you everything you need to know:
Having recently spent two weeks in Cambridge (the one in the United Kingdom) on a Templeton-Cambridge Fellowship…
Goodnight, Ron Rosenbaum.
Comments
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
June 28, 2010 5:57 PM
I used to like Ron Rosembaum, but then (about two years ago) he wrote a scathing column against crossword puzzles and the people who solve them. Yes, I realize that the column was meant to be funny and that some of his more derisive insults were tongue-in-cheek. And yes, I also realize that he is probably right that at the end of the day crossword puzzles are nothing but a waste of time.
However, I have no intention of ever stopping. Period! Ron Rosembaum, you are dead to me!
:-)
Posted by: vanharris
|
June 28, 2010 6:01 PM
Just to cavil, "What this example illustrates is that many simple systems are unstable, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy."
That ain't nothing - its got energy, even if not matter, & e = mc2.
I agree with the rest of PZ's post. The non-existence of a deistic god can't be proven, & i acknowledge that, but i still call myself an atheist, or anti-theist.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
June 28, 2010 6:02 PM
I guess RR has never read Dawkins' theist-to-atheist continuum description, where most people who describe themselves as atheists are, in fact, "strong" agnostics. There aren't very many total theists or atheists, just like very few people are at the extremes of the Kinsey scale. Why is this difficult to understand?
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 28, 2010 6:04 PM
Atheism isn't a religion, it's a personal relationship with reality!
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 28, 2010 6:05 PM
Rosenbaum's just like an IDiot.
Science can't be a religion unless it claims to know everything. So, why doesn't it claim to know everything like the religion I say it is?
You can bet that he'll soon be quoted by those as ignorant as he is, the IDists.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Legion
|
June 28, 2010 6:05 PM
Meeting at Legion's place next Thursday for the debut of the New, New, New, New, New, Atheists movement.
See, we're different from the New, New, New, New, Atheists, cause we've got, like, five 'News' and they only have four.
Posted by: Birger Johansson
|
June 28, 2010 6:05 PM
Off-topic: Just in at HuffPo "Vatican Slams Cardinal For Accusations Over Abuse Cases
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/vatican-slams-cardinal-fo_n_627645.html
The one cardinal who advocates greater openness and a revision of celibacy for priests was publicly rebuked by the Pope for criticising another cardinal that had delayed an inquiry into pedophile allegations..
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
June 28, 2010 6:09 PM
This is the same Ron Rosenbaum who wrote a book called Explaining Hitler, for whom the only question involved in that subject was why A.H. killed Jews. The matters of setting up a world-class nasty police state, starting the biggest war in European history, killing millions of non-Jews, etc, apparently need no explanation.
As a fluff travelogue writer, though, he's adequate.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
June 28, 2010 6:09 PM
PZ:
*Groan*
"Wafflers" isn't a strong enough word. It sounds too delicious to describe dumbasses like Ron Rosenbaum.
Posted by: PeteJohn
|
June 28, 2010 6:12 PM
Well that's... something.
Rosenbaum actually wrote a pretty good book about Adolf Hitler. Put in a ton of work, ten years interviewing all these people who were seen as leading Hitler experts (or as he calls them "explainers") and trying to figure out the best way to explain Hitler. The thesis was basically that the evidence isn't complete enough to fully explain the guy, that there are gaps in the more prevalent interpretations, and that sadly the best answer may never be found. It was a pretty respectable book. Not perfect, but pretty good. Rather interesting as a sort of pop-historiography tract. It took a bit of thought to write, and it was a decent effort for a non-professional historian type guy.
This bit of drivel is, however, not worth the energy it took to type out. Several strawmen, one being this
Who argued that, Ron? Someone with a name? Or is that detestable group, "Some scholars," that people with no sense like to attribute unsupported assertions in order to bully the reader around.
And there's this nugget:
Do they "have faith" that everything will just work it out or do they think the scientific method is the best tool for figuring out these mysteries? The first would, in fact, be a foolish position, but it's not the one that anyone I've spoken to or been around has used. And besides, the majority of non-believers I've read or read about, or that I know, would point out that they have no idea about many of these issues such "Something from nothing" or whatever the hell pseudo-intellectual question Rosenbaum and his ilk cook up, and that it also doesn't matter. The arguments belivers use to defend or define their beliefs make little to no sense and as such there's no reason to believe them.
So I'll say right now that I have no idea why there's something rather than nothing or how something came from nothing, nor do I "have faith" that Scientusis, All-Mighty Lord of Science, will provide an answer. Frankly, I don't care. I'm an atheist because nothing any believer has said to me has convinced me and I don't see any reason to believe nonsense. That's it. Simple, huh?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 28, 2010 6:12 PM
New Agnosticism, if it wants to live up to its name, ought to categorically refuse to say that fairies do not exist. It must not take a stand on the existence of Bigfoot or Santa Claus, because who knows? Anything is possible with New Agnosticism, and everyone is happy as a clam (and you can't show me evidence that clams are not always happy). New Agnosticism FTW!!!
Posted by: James R. Palmer II
|
June 28, 2010 6:13 PM
The best retort to a passive audience is one I got from Athiest Experience, Atheism is an answer to a question. The question is do you believe in god. The answer is no do to the fact of lack of evidence.
Posted by: Personal SinR
|
June 28, 2010 6:15 PM
How close minded... I should have known you were part of the anti-brussels sprouts faction!
Posted by: Tulse
|
June 28, 2010 6:22 PM
What evidence decides the non-existence of Thor, or fairies? Does it make sense to say that "I do not think the invisible pink unicorn exists, but I cannot speak to the non-existence of all invisible pink equines"?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 28, 2010 6:22 PM
I always wonder why people ask why is there something rather than nothing. It's pretty obvious, there has to be something. Even believers realise this and posit a deity as the something.
Posted by: Numad
|
June 28, 2010 6:23 PM
There does seem to be nothing new at all about these "New Agnostics." It's like a rehashing of every fake agnostic internet poster who's ever set themselves up as the fallacious "middle ground" between atheism and, well, everything vaguely theistic.
Oh, and Agnostic not being a base word, I see a lot of obfuscation, confusion and false equivalencies in this new fake movement's future.
He should have went with "non-significant."
Posted by: James F
|
June 28, 2010 6:24 PM
"Well I've always said, There's nothing an agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not."
/Monty Python
Posted by: A.M. Kuchling
|
June 28, 2010 6:24 PM
Rosenbaum's book "The Shakespeare Wars" was also good. Like "Explaining Hitler", it discusses the state of scholarship and the various competing camps of interpretation; it was like an extended version of an article in the now-gone Lingua Franca magazine.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 28, 2010 6:25 PM
All things being equal, there are infinity to the infinity power ways, of there being Something: assuming the concept is even coherent, there could only be one way, of being absolutely Nothing. That puts the odds of Something over Nothing at infinity to the infinity power ... to one. Just how freakin' high do they have to be, before people are no longer astonished that wow, something exists? What are the odds of that!
Not sure if that works, but it's a rather pointless question. Do they really think it can be answered with "there is something rather than nothing because GOD exists, and He HAS to exist." Let's just say reality HAS to exist, because reality has to be real. God is extra unnecessary baggage, piled on.
As for terminology, there is no dichotomy between atheism and agnosticism. They measure different things. One deals with conclusion, the other deals with epistemic level of certainty. Does God exist? I don't know. Do I believe it does? No. The first answer makes me an agnostic; the second an atheist. I'm an agnostic atheist, or atheist agnostic.
I prefer the term 'atheist,' because people tend to misinterpret an agnostic as being "on the fence." Of course, they misinterpret atheist as "being 100% certain." But I'd rather face the misunderstanding head on, than seem to accept it.
Technically, I prefer 'secular humanist' (or 'scientific humanist') because it's more descriptive. I also like to use it because people often ask what it means, instead of making assumptions, and telling me what I must believe.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 28, 2010 6:28 PM
I have no problems with the way John Wilkins and Michael Shermer use the word agnostic. In a strict philosophical sense they are right to use it that way. What I object to are those agnostics who treat the existence of
Santa ClausGod and the non-existence ofSanta ClausGod as equal viable options where we can't make a value judgement either way.Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 28, 2010 6:28 PM
One important datum: There are no "New Agnostics". There is one, Ron Rosenbaum, who has just invented the term to tout a nonexistent movement.
Although, who knows, maybe in a few years they'll achieve critical mass and start having agnostic conventions where they cuss out both religious people and atheists.
Posted by: natural cynic
|
June 28, 2010 6:31 PM
Brussels sprouts are not slimy, unless they are badly cooked. They just don't taste very good. Now, squid, they're slimy, but they taste better than Brussels sprouts.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
June 28, 2010 6:31 PM
Flibbertigibbet?
Wonderful word..!
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
June 28, 2010 6:35 PM
The 'agnosticism vis fairies' question is perfectly reasonable. Even John Wilkins must accept that, from a purely rational standpoint that does not acknowledge social priviledge, the existence of fairies and the existence of a godhead have an equivilent evidential basis. There is no evidence for either one, so why elevate the idea of a creator sky-fairy over the type that supposedly lives at the bottom of the garden?
He is right that everyone is an atheist about something. Any given theist is an atheist in relation to every religion that exists other than their own, and toward the thousands of defunct religions. Atheists simply take that final step, and abandon the need for the psychological crutch of a happily-ever-after fairy tale altogether.
I suspect that one of the reasons why Wilkins will not describe himself as an 'atheist' boils down to the old 'framing' argument again. He probably thinks that the word is polarizing or intimidating in the eyes of some people. Personally, I do not think that running away from an accurate descriptor of your position helps you get your argument across. It merely confuses the issue.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 28, 2010 6:40 PM
Repeating (again--and now and then I think I should just get a stamp made for when idiots like Rosenwhatever start rabbiting on) something I'm almost certain I've said somewhere 'round here before: while I'm pretty happy with that as a capsule, myself, I'd also add: at the level of epistemic certainty we're talking, here, there's a near infinitude of things I'm not, technically, certain about, and cannot be technically certain about...
And, generally, one doesn't bring that up about anything else. Doesn't make much sense, generally, as it tends to go without saying.
So 'agnostic' is pretty much a redundant label, in my mind. I mean: of course I'm one. Everyone is, technically, at the level I am. But emphasizing this fact is kinda silly when there's something far more relevant and interesting to point out: the far-more-than-tentative conclusion I do feel more than confident enough to draw on this question, and where I feel the (extremely ample) balance of evidence lies.
... And beyond this: what I think everyone else has--and hasn't--as evidence. And what I think (frequently very clearly and trivially fraudulent) claims of knowledge of gods really reveal about humans and human cultures. And so on. All of which any listener is far more likely to be properly prepared for if I introduce myself properly as 'atheist'*.
(*/Granted, mebbe they'd be better still prepared if I were to append to this 'and really not fucking kidding about it, either, asshole'. Must consider for next time.)
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
June 28, 2010 6:44 PM
Rosenbaum: Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing.
He doesn't actually argue that it is a logical impossibility -- just claims that it "could be"!
What the hell does that even me? It could be that Goedel was wrong, that we've all missed the error in his proof, and R&W PM can be closed. It could be that the earth is actually flat, and we've screwed up all physics for 3 millenia. It could be that Rosenbaum is a figment of Rosenbaum's imagination!
Why should I bother refuting an argument that isn't even put forward? First try to argue that "something from nothing" is actually impossible and we have a place to start. Don't just give me references to podcasts and random medieval philosophers. For every Aquinas you have, I'll give you a Wittgenstein.
Otherwise, STFU.
Posted by: Mobius
|
June 28, 2010 6:48 PM
Well, I have to admit that Wilkins' stance was the one I held until about 2 years ago. I had his view of what constituted atheism until reading Dawkins' The God Delusion. After seeing his definition of atheist, and thinking about it for a while, I came to the conclusion that I had actually been an atheist for a long time.
Apparently, Wilkins has not reached enlightenment yet.
Posted by: Utakata
|
June 28, 2010 6:48 PM
Little does this Rosenbaum know that this agnostic is firmly entrenched with the "New Atheists*. Since I am a temporary agnostic...and so should any agnostic who believes skepticism is any of its worth. Nice way to wedge issue us apart...I really hope this bites him hard in the ass.
Posted by: Marella
|
June 28, 2010 6:49 PM
So an agnostic is someone who isn't sure whether he believes in god or not, right? Some days he feels the presence of a transcendant being, other days, nope not today. Maybe there's pills you take for this.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
June 28, 2010 6:53 PM
Did he see the "Militant Agnostic" bumper sticker and take it as a serious rallying cry?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 28, 2010 6:53 PM
Maybe there's pills you take for this.
like LSD?
oh, wait, you mean pills to AVOID seeing visions.
:)
Posted by: ckitching
|
June 28, 2010 6:53 PM
I'm still trying to pin down when the "New Atheists" thing is supposed to have started. I read an article by George Eliot named "Evangelical Teaching" written in 1855, which would clearly put her in the "New Atheists" category. At 155 years ago, this doesn't really seem 'new'. Worst of all, after 155 years, the exact same things she mentions in the article are still very real in American Evangelical churches.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
June 28, 2010 6:54 PM
I thought it was pretty simple. Do you believe in god? It's a yes or no question. Yes? Theist. No? A-theist.
'I don't know' means 'No, I don't believe in god.'
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
June 28, 2010 7:03 PM
Per ckitching (#32):
Fixed that for you, George Eliot . . .
Posted by: dexitroboper
|
June 28, 2010 7:03 PM
Nothing spontaneously decays into everything because there's nothing to stop it from doing so.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/NxE_lE0Lh_9JksaAqRedu6R7Vg--#bf6f6
|
June 28, 2010 7:07 PM
*Harump* Judean Peoples' Front. Fuck OFF! We're the Peoples' Front of Judea!
Posted by: Screechy_Monkey
|
June 28, 2010 7:09 PM
It's interesting to me that people like Rosenbaum rarely seem to be consistent in their invocation of the "if you don't claim to be 100% certain, then you're an agnostic" rule.
According to them, atheists claim to be absolutely certain that there is no god. Meaning that if you acknowledge the slightest possibility that there could be some sort of deity, you aren't a True Atheist, but presumably an Agnostic like them.
I have yet to hear such Agnostics tell self-identified believers that they, too, are Agnostics, if they are less than 100% certain that there is a god. Somehow being "pretty confident there is a god but acknowledging you could be wrong" still leaves you in the theist camp.
Also, the way I'm seeing the term "ignostic" gain popularity these days (which -- ugh! Do we really need yet another term to argue over?), I expect to start hearing about the New Ignostics any day now.
Posted by: Marella
|
June 28, 2010 7:14 PM
And another thing ... he's got the atheism/religion thing the wrong way round. It's only religion that claims to have the answers to everything, if science made those claims then it would be a religion too, the fact that it doesn't is one of the things that makes it totally unlike a religion. This is an important point.
The agglomeration of science and atheism as the same thing is silly, just because most scientists are atheists, most atheists aren't scientists by any means. The vast majority of atheists are just normal people who have a personal relationship with reality, they think the truth matters.
When people confuse atheism with science it makes me wonder if their real beef is with modernity and change. Science is certainly responsible for most of that and if you have emotional difficulties with things not being like they were when you were a kid then science is the obvious culprit. But atheists are so much easier to pick on, aren't they?
Posted by: nonsensemachine
|
June 28, 2010 7:15 PM
I understand not wanting to take sides or anything, but to attack one side because you have similar beliefs but they are actually willing to affirm it is retarded. Plus, in the long history of religious v. areligious, the religious have always and still are the bigger, more offensive asses. Both the religious and agnostic have rightfully determined that atheism have the upper hand in plausibility (though certainly not in numbers), so it seems to them like adults beating up kids.
To answer his question, it is most logical to assume something is better and more logical than nothing, or else nothing would exist. It's also more logical to assume that everything has always existed in some form or another rather than being created out of nothing by a deity, since we know the universe exists, we don't know if the universe can NOT exist, and we don't know and have no proof of deities existing or how THEY would come to be. It's as simple as that. Trying to get the logical upper hand by insisting the universe has to come from somewhere and it may as well come from a deity because why the hell not is laughable.
Posted by: mck9
|
June 28, 2010 7:16 PM
The shorthand formulation I use is that I'm an agnostic in theory, an atheist in practice.
Posted by: Camels With Hammers
|
June 28, 2010 7:16 PM
PZ, what I don't like is playing into the dichotomy of "agnostics" vs. "atheists" anymore. As I developed at some length in my post, "Disambiguating Faith: How A Lack Of Belief In God May Differ From Various Kinds Of Beliefs That Gods Do Not Exist", we need to relegate the term agnostic to refer merely to the extent to which one thinks that they have rationally compelling justification for their belief or to which they think anyone could have rationally compelling justification for it. This is a totally distinguishable matter from the content of the belief itself. One can say that they don't know and that no one know that there is a God and yet they believe on faith and we should call them an agnostic about the knowledge question just as much as we call agnostics who are default atheists agnostic, since with respect to the knowledge question, they agree: we either can't have any.
Then separately we can talk about the content of the metaphysical and/or physical belief itself about God. Regardless of whether one thinks knowledge is possible in the matter, does one affirm or choose not to affirm the existence of a specific god. If you affirm the existence of that god, you are an agnostic theist, if you refuse to affirm that god (even if you do not claim to have a conclusive proof against it) you are an agnostic atheist---which is a FORM of atheism. SO, you're right in my opinion to needle John Wilkins that he's an atheist. But I don't think it makes him less of an agnostic either.
He sounds to me like a gnostic atheist about Thor and Yahweh and Vishnu in that he seems to think he has rational justification for concluding they decidedly do not exist and an agnostic atheist with respect only to some species of philosophers' gods. That makes him an all-around atheist and just an agnostic atheist about a small subset of possible deities.
And for practical purposes, in the culture war between rationalists and the defenders of irrationalism, his own standards of belief should side him with us atheists in nearly everything, regardless of whether some atheists think they can make knowledge claims about Leibniz's god too.
Since no one pushing religion really believes in Leibniz's god insofar as they promulgate and advance the interests of superstitious forms of religion, Wilkins should ally himself with the atheists against religion.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 28, 2010 7:21 PM
(Looks puzzled...)
People who wish to emphasize that they are not certain about the existence of Iggy Pop?
(/In fairness, Mr. Pop does sometimes seem a bit unlikely.)
Posted by: alysonmiers
|
June 28, 2010 7:21 PM
If you're trying to tell us that there must have been a "something" other than what we can observe to create the "something" we now know, then: what was that something? And how did it come to be?
Show us a good reason to believe there might actually be a God of Leibniz, and then we'll talk. You don't get to just make shit up and then tell us we can't prove it doesn't exist.
Shit, the atheist-shunning agnostics can have this twerp. With friends like him, and all that.
Posted by: QuarkyGideon
|
June 28, 2010 7:23 PM
So much whining and wibble dribble over one flucking word...
Seriously good on you PZ for giving him a slap he needs.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
June 28, 2010 7:23 PM
Short and (hopefully) sweet, before I head back to the practice room.
The best possible answer to the question of why there’s something instead of nothing is that of the anthropic principle. If there were nothing, we wouldn’t be here to observe the fact. We do observe that there is something; therefore, there isn’t nothing.
Of course, the theist mindset (which most agnostics seem to share) always associate “why” questions with intelligent intention; therefore, to them, the only possible answer to a “why” question is, ultimately, “goddidit.”
Further, it’s also the case that the Ultimate Answer to any sort of “why” question is provably unknowable. If you’re familiar with Turing’s Halting Problem, the answer should be obvious. But, in short, there is no way to distinguish your best answer from “Yes, that’s what you think, but you’re really a brain in a vat who’s been tricked into believing the evidence that led you to that conclusion.” And, no, no deities get a free pass out of the dilemma, either.
Therefore, since it’s impossible for any agency to ever know where it all came from, it’s entirely reasonable to answer the question with, “The Universe exists because it exists.” Any further answer is meaningless babble, even if it’s interestingly meaningless babble.
And, finally, a challenge for the dogmatic agnostics out there: can you posit a definition for a god that you think might maybe perhaps be hiding under one of those proverbial rocks?
Because, if you can, then it seems to me you’ve given something no theist has ever succeeded in doing: providing us with something testable that we could go looking for. That alone would be a most remarkable achievement.
If you can’t, then what is the significance to this “god” word you’re using? None, obviously.
Most agnostics, of course, respond with some sort of blather about how gods sprinkle faery dust on anybody who gets close, thereby making them stupid. Strangely enough, the typical dogmatic agnostic provides the best evidence to date that such a deity might actually exist.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: inkadu
|
June 28, 2010 7:30 PM
When I hear exceptions made for "deities as a class," I think of the time that Calvin informed Hobbes, "I don't know if I like ice cream until I've tried every kind." In this case, "I don't know if I believe in deities until I've considered every kind."
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 28, 2010 7:31 PM
How about:
A god is real. T/F?
If T, theist.
If F, atheist.
If there is a problem answering the question, it is because the person to whom the question is posed doesn't understand, willfully or ignorantly, what a god is supposed to be. Agnostics are playing a never ending game of constantly changing definitions of "god" while overlooking all that science has corrected in philosophy, particularly that the universe works just fine without introducing a creator, guardian, or guide with a mind or intention into any corner of it.
Posted by: boboniboni
|
June 28, 2010 7:33 PM
Agnosticism or Probabilistic atheism is the most reasonable philosophical position.
Even fairies can exist in certain conditions. The thing is that in the observable universe, fairies are highly unlikely to exist.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 28, 2010 7:40 PM
I'll answer this non sequitur with another non sequitur: Because nature abhors a vacuum.
Posted by: boboniboni
|
June 28, 2010 7:51 PM
Our cognitive system works in a probabilistic way when it comes down to making temporary choices that may translate into a lifestyle or religion.
If you suspend your judgement on fairies, you become agnostic about fairies, in a way that you are probabilistic atheistic towards fairies. You cease to be agnostic the moment you are 100% sure about the ability to know about fairies absolute existence. You could theoretically know about fairies existence if you analysed every space-time instance in the observable universe, which could allow you to state that fairies are non-existent in the whole history of the observable universe.
The same applies to god. You can't be sure about gods existence, a creator or mind of any kind. So you suspend your believe on it, temporally, knowing that its a stupid task. So you deny its existence from time to time, becoming probabilistic atheistic towards it, or agnostic. Ontologically, every bet on any type of creator is equally sound, presenting no substantial value over other type of creator that can be instantiated or fancied. Epistemically, you choose to be probabilistic atheistic towards the lack of evidence of a creator.
Denying its existence for time to time and assuring yourself that probably its a silly task: probabilistic atheism + agnosticism
Posted by: Divalent
|
June 28, 2010 7:53 PM
This kind of reminds me of the George Carlin routine (I think it was him):
"Non-flamable, flamable, and inflamable. Why are there three of them?"
Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing
|
June 28, 2010 7:58 PM
If human beings had restricted ourselves to 'how' questions, rather than 'why' questions, we would not be in this mess. Indeed, had the 'how' questions not been forbidden by the people who think they have the answer to 'why', we may already have been travelling amongst the stars.
I wonder where I can find the research into the reasons that humans are wired up for 'why' questions in the first place. We start asking "Why?" at around the age of three (as far as I can tell, "Why?" is practically diagnostic for three-year olds, like "NO!" is for two-year-olds and unintelligible grunts are for teenagers) and we never stop unless someone comes up with a plausible (to us) answer.
"Because God does it" is a satisfying answer to a three-year-old and a get-out answer for harrassed parents who probably couldn't answer the "How?" question that the child should be asking.
In fact, I used to get a lot of stick from friends when I gave my small children comprehensive answers of the 'how' variety instead of fairy-tales. That I could do that was down to my Aspieness, not any rationality; because I was, at the time, still trying to force myself to believe in the God of the Catholics. I felt my failure to believe absolutely was a personal failure, not a failure of the doctrine. Just as my failure to 'get' most social rules and rituals were a personal failure.
I'm pretty annoyed that I wasted decades of my life being wrapped around by the complex culture of God when, ultimately, the question 'why' is itself meaningless and thus any answer is spurious.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 28, 2010 8:08 PM
Which conditions and how do you know that? And do you mean life forms that look like fairies (basically bat or dragonfly sized flying humanoids) or do you mean fairies with magical powers, like Tinkerbell, who have the ability to gift the power of flight to non-flying creatures with pixie dust—whatever that is?
Posted by: ThirdMonkey
|
June 28, 2010 8:12 PM
If a thing can not be observed or if there is no observable evidence for a thing then for all practical purposes it does not exist. That doesn’t mean that it can’t, doesn’t or ever will. It means that there is no evidence and it is pointless to argue over the existence of things for which there is no evidence.
In matters of proving / disproving the existence of a thing the burden of proof is on the person making claims of existence.
I am atheist because there has never been any evidence for the existence of any god. The only logical position to take is that until such evidence is observed, there are no gods. It is not my responsibility to prove that there aren’t but the believer’s to prove that there are. However, it is my responsibility to change my position if credible evidence is ever provided.
Posted by: mck9
|
June 28, 2010 8:14 PM
Janet Holmes #38:
It's a little simplistic to say that religions claim to have the answers to everything. They offer answers mainly to questions that science can't answer, or that science hasn't answered yet, or that don't even make much much sense.
What role, if any, does the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus play in the regulation of blood pressure? No theologian would claim that his theology can answer that question. His theology would be too much at risk of refutation by the march of scientific progress.
Are there intelligent species elsewhere in the galaxy? Here the theologian can safely say "No, we were uniquely created by God," or "Yes, God's bounty is not limited to our own planet". Neither answer is likely to be empirically refuted any time soon.
Do we possess free will? What would it even mean if we did? How would a world with free will differ from one without? The question is just a verbal game designed to assign or deflect blame.
Granted, some religionists don't hesitate to offer answers that are subject to refutation -- and cling to their answers, unfazed, when the refutation occurs. However such recklessness is not inherent in religion per se. Other believers are more circumspect, and are willing mostly to respect the non-overlapping magisteria.
If neither science nor religion claims to have all the answers, then what's the difference?
1. Science is a process of testing propositions, not just asserting them. Propositions that can't be tested, even in principle, are out of bounds.
2. The conclusions of science are always provisional, subject to change in the light of better evidence.
Posted by: Darrell E
|
June 28, 2010 8:14 PM
It has come to the point where I can't fucking stand the word "indeed" anymore. My mind now automatically adds "the author is a pretentious ass" every time it reads "indeed" on the Internet.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson
|
June 28, 2010 8:24 PM
John Wilkins wrote:
Did Wilkins ever explain why it's okay to reject fairies as a class, while deities have to be accepted or rejected individually? He looks awfully like he's applying double standards here.
Posted by: Schenck
|
June 28, 2010 8:29 PM
Surprised to see the (few) posts blasting John Wilkins' position. If he says he's an agnostic, then you can be certain he's specifically thought it through and arrived at the correct conclusions.
Posted by: rajesh.s.shenoy
|
June 28, 2010 8:30 PM
Loved the ending, PZ! This has been a very enjoyable weekend on your blog - extremely good posts! Looking forward to more such posts!
Posted by: Dr Van Nostrand
|
June 28, 2010 8:35 PM
QFT
People who agree with the first quote have defined God to be so vague, pointless, and undetectable that it hardly even matters if their "God" exists.
Posted by: Ternon
|
June 28, 2010 8:36 PM
There Is No Such Thing As an Agnostic
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
June 28, 2010 8:42 PM
My mind now automatically adds "the author is a pretentious ass" every time it reads "indeed" on the Internet.
Indeed.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
June 28, 2010 8:42 PM
If he brings up the "how something comes from
nothing" crap with the implication that atheists are wrong, then it is disingenuous on his part to call himself agnostic. He is theistic, plain and simple. Agnosticism is an intellectually defensible position-that I don't subscribe to-but he does not represent it.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
June 28, 2010 8:45 PM
Agnosticism is an intellectually defensible position.
Does a position have to be intellectually honest to be defensible?
Agnosticism doesn't claim to judge whether the universe was purchased from WAL-MART. It doesn't claim to judge whether the universe was created by grandpa smurf. It doesn't claim to judge - oh - wait - it sort of does ignore all the ridiculous possibilities except for the god hypothesis.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
June 28, 2010 8:50 PM
Tigger Wing: I wonder where I can find the research into the reasons that humans are wired up for 'why' questions in the first place.
Why do we ask why questions? Why would it be good for me to ask why did Momma smack me? Why would I wonder why the kid in kindergarden stole my fruit roll up?
Why would someone be interested in researching "Why?" questions -- especially when it's so damn obvious why?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 28, 2010 9:00 PM
ThirdMonkey wrote:
I would add this at the end of that:
...and the arguments presented by advocates of religion to justify holding a belief in any of the proposed gods, despite this demonstrated lack of evidence, are not sufficiently compelling to overcome this.
Really, the lack of evidence for god isn't, in and of itself, a problem; all you need do is posit that said god has the power to disguise its existence - no problem for a god, even if it's only superpowerful, rather than omnipotent (since that comes with its own logical problems).
But if that's the case then it casts incontrovertible doubt on the validity of any religion that claims to understand the needs/wants of that god, since there's no way that can be verified or falsified.
Or, in short, if they're pushing anything more than deism then they're just making shit up.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
June 28, 2010 9:09 PM
Or, in short, if they're pushing anything more than deism then they're just making shit up.
What about deism isn't making shit up? It's exactly what you refer to, as far as assuming that said god has the power to disguise its existence and went to some pains to create a universe in which there is no sign of him or his handiwork. Such a god casts incontrovertible doubt on the ability of the deist to know anything - including having any suspicion that there is a god - so the deist is just another bullshit artist living in bad faith.
Posted by: Ternon
|
June 28, 2010 9:23 PM
PZ: flibbertigibbet
One can learn something new here every day...
Posted by: bullofthewoods
|
June 28, 2010 9:23 PM
Atheism is about belief(or lack of same)and agnosticism is about knowledge.Do you believe in gods? No, then you are an atheist.Do you disclaim knowledge of gods or even such knowledge is possible? Then you're agnostic.Austin Cline has a wealth of information on this subject here.
Posted by: Miles670
|
June 28, 2010 9:25 PM
It's a good job you didn't start the post with that last quote because i'd have scrolled up to the next blog post immediately xD
Posted by: PS9
|
June 28, 2010 9:25 PM
Agnostics are Agnorant.
Being wishy washy on the "god" myth is like being wishy washy on a criminal charge against someone. You can take a "maybe it is, maybe it isn't" view when just talking opinion, but when it comes to a court of law or the science lab, it's false until proven true, the same burden of proof in all cases.
And as for the idiotic statement about atheism or science being "religions", he sounds like a wool-over-the-eyes in sheepish clothing.
Posted by: boboniboni
|
June 28, 2010 9:28 PM
A universe with dragonfly sized flying humanoids
whose nervous system cognitive processing is based on the manipulation of quantum operations, in a universe whose laws of attraction and repulsion evolved differently, which allows that creature to create anti Higgs boson-like particles that mediates mass from their their nervous cells metabolism. In this case, these particles would cancel the Higgs boson particles that naturally give us mass according to the Standard Model.
Then, the faerie would spread the pixie dust made of anti higgs particles that would give your atoms massless properties temporally.
LOL. See, its possible, in imagination, for fairies to exist, even though its an exercise of entertainment and fiction. Actually, the chances for fairies existence is higher than the chance of a creator. Every argument for the existence of a creator leads us to philosophical malaise and paradoxes.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 28, 2010 9:29 PM
Googleperson, #67, wrote:
Yeah, good point. It's probably more accurate to say that there are fewer ways a deist can be wrong - i.e. only one as opposed to, if we're talking most major theistic religions, a metric fuckton - and so therefore it's less problematic from the position of parsimony.
Posted by: circleh
|
June 28, 2010 9:30 PM
When I was a child, I read the following definitions in a couple of dictionaries (both editions of Webster's New World Dictionary) that I still have:
atheist: A person who beleives there is no God.
atheism: the belief that there is no God.
agnostic: a person who beleives that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God.
dogma: any belief held as a truth not to be questioned
religion: belief in, or the worship of, God or a group of gods.
Thus, I concluded from reading these that atheism was a dogma, but not a religion. Agnosticism was not a dogma because, unlike atheism, it did not assert anything as true.
But then I met some atheists who insisted that
atheism: lacking belief in God. (Then what would agnosticism be?)
dogma: belief asserted as true without evidence.
Therefore, they insisted that atheism could not be a dogma, but was the default position for people to have ("We are all born atheists.") and that I was either lying or defending religion for insisting on the definitions in a PRINTED DICTIONARY I had read.
So I call myself a skeptic, an agnostic, a secular humanist and a non-theist, but NOT an atheist. The word seems too hateful for me to swallow. And whenever someone asserts that there is no God, there is no point arguing to me that he is claiming a "tentative" position. Dogmatism is as dogmatism SAYS and DOES. I can say, "I don't beleive in God", or even "There is no known evidence to support beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists." But I won't say, "There is no God" because that would make me guilty of the dogmatism I have fought against from religious fanatics. Only a few decades ago, atheists who were also Communists ruled much of the world and practiced bigotry against the religious. The New Atheists led by Richard Dawkins seem little better.
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
June 28, 2010 9:41 PM
Yes, Ron Rosenbaum, a very mixed bag.
The book on Hitler has some value. He also wrote an absorbing book on Shakespeare, The Shakespeare Wars, about equally devoted to modern scholarship on Shakespeare and modern productions of Shakespeare.
But he shows a penchant even in these pretty good books for superficiality and glib assumptions. Elsewhere, he (quite rightly, in my view) criticizes Noam Chomsky for his signing of the notorious Faurisson petition--but then (in a completely evidence-free leap) accuses Chomsky himself of Holocaust denial,
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
June 28, 2010 9:43 PM
I'm pretty sure my good friends Erin and Harun have mixed feelings about Rosenbaum, too.
Posted by: bullofthewoods
|
June 28, 2010 9:44 PM
Agnosticism isn't about "sitting on the fence"as it were.There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge, not a lack of commitment — agnostics still either have a belief in the existence of at least one god or they lack any positive belief in the existence of any gods. The first would make them an agnostic theist while the latter would make them an agnostic atheist.
Posted by: florakinz
|
June 28, 2010 9:46 PM
Circleh @ 74...
You realize dictionaries are not infallible, right? They were written by people? They typically provide basic, not exhaustive definitions of words? Have you ever looked those terms up in any other dictionaries? You realize atheists know more about their own viewpoints than a line in a dictionary?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 28, 2010 9:53 PM
circleh,
Are people who do not believe in fairies being dogmatic? What about people who do not believe in Smurfs? More to the point: circleh (Dale I think it was), are fairies real? Are Smurfs real?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
June 28, 2010 9:56 PM
Wowbagger writes:
It's probably more accurate to say that there are fewer ways a deist can be wrong
Not by much - because where did the concept of god come from in the first place? It's intellectually dishonest for a deist to say that they reject "religion" but feel that the universe might have a purpose or creator - when the whole idea of the universe having a creator or purpose comes to us from religion. Have you ever noticed how many deists' creator is singular, unlike the many creators in some other religions? And, of course, the whole notion that creation might have a purpose is an idea from religion. Deists merely play at rejecting religion; they cherry-pick the wooey parts that make them feel good then claim to reject the branch they're sitting on.
Posted by: bullofthewoods
|
June 28, 2010 9:56 PM
In Huxley And Agnosticism (1889), Robert Green Ingersoll wrote:
The real difference is this: the Christian says that he has knowledge; the Agnostic admits that he has none; and yet the Christian accuses the Agnostic of arrogance, and asks him how he has the impudence to admit the limitations of his mind. To the Agnostic every fact is a torch, and by this light, and this light only, he walks.
The Agnostic knows that the testimony of man is not sufficient to establish what is known as the miraculous. We would not believe to-day the testimony of millions to the effect that the dead had been raised. The church itself would be the first to attack such testimony. If we cannot believe those whom we know, why should we believe witnesses who have been dead thousands of years, and about whom we know nothing?
The Agnostic takes the ground that human experience is the basis of morality. Consequently, it is of no importance who wrote the gospels, or who vouched or vouches for the genuineness of the miracles. In his scheme of life these things are utterly unimportant. He is satisfied that “the miraculous” is the impossible. He knows that the witnesses were wholly incapable of examining the questions involved, that credulity had possession of their minds, that “the miraculous” was expected, that it was their daily food.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 28, 2010 10:10 PM
Googleperson, #80, wrote:
Do they? The only deists I've encountered have 'cherry-picked' away every single aspect of religion beyond the concept of a creator, including anything that could be described as a 'wooey part'. If there's any woo left, it's theism, not deism.
So I don't really understand how that's supposed to make them 'feel good' since the creator no more cares about them than the universe cares about an atheist; it's really more about intellect than emotion.
Posted by: circleh
|
June 28, 2010 10:13 PM
Yes, my name is Dale.
The answer to the first two questions is, of course, no. NOT believing in the existence of something is not being dogmatic. Believing that something does NOT exist may be dogmatism. From a scientific standpoint, one simply considers smurfs and fairies irrelevant. Science textbooks do not go out of their way to DENY the existence if smurfs, fairies, gods, angels, or anything else without empirical foundation. They simply don't mention them, period. Nor do they mention anything that would require the existence of such beings.
And that is a compelling reason to fight to the bitter end to stop any forms of creationism from being taught in science classes. It would force biology teachers to either sell themselves out by not critiquing creationist teachings (which would make science itself meaningless), or doing so and make science classes direct promoters of atheism.
Posted by: Ternon
|
June 28, 2010 10:14 PM
There, fixed.
Agnosticism is an incoherent nonsense.
Posted by: Harbo
|
June 28, 2010 10:20 PM
Ah Templeton.
The colouring in club for god.
You find the gaps and we will fill em.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 28, 2010 10:20 PM
Seriously? Dawkins = Stalin? Dumbass.Posted by: circleh
|
June 28, 2010 10:22 PM
KOPD, no. Try to respond to what I actually said, not spit out that moronic strawman you just did. Did I even say Dawkins was a Communist?
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 28, 2010 10:26 PM
I quoted your words. If you don't like what they imply, that's your problem and you should choose them better.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 28, 2010 10:28 PM
circleh, you did write this:
Which means you see 'little' (your word) difference between actual persecution - i.e. imprisonment and execution - which is what the communists did, and what Dawkins does, which is to speak out against religion, a lot.
Do you expect to be taken seriously after writing that?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 28, 2010 10:29 PM
circleh #83,
I don't get it. Are you saying that it is not dogmatic to say that fairies and Smurfs do not exist, but is dogmatic to say that gods do not exist? If there is no dogmatism inherent in the statement, "Smurfs do not exist; there are no Smurfs", then how can there be dogmatism inherent in the statement, "Gods do not exist; there are no gods"?
Like you said, science textbooks make no mention of either Smurfs or gods, for good reason! Should a science textbook fill its pages with whole lists of things that do not exist? No, of course not. Yet, you find some compelling evidence for a god or a Smurf and subject it successfully to peer review, and you can bet that it will be mentioned in a science textbook in the appropriate field.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD
|
June 28, 2010 10:40 PM
Well you said
immediately followed by
So how is that any different to KOPD's interpretation of Dawkins=Stalin and is any other interpretation even possible with two such closely linked sentences. No really, please do explain, as I would be interested in your logic of first equating the two and then denying the linkage when challenged. Have you actually read or listened to and understood anything written or said by Dawkins? I suggest not.
Ironically, the only one coming across as dogmatic here is you. Talk about ignoring the mote in one's own eye. As bugs would say, what a maroon.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 28, 2010 10:46 PM
For some reason circleh was frightened by the definition of "atheist" in a dictionary. As a result, he's decided that not believing in fairies or smurfs is non-dogmatic but not believing in god(s) is dogmatic. circleh aka Dale Husband is quite dogmatic about atheists being dogmatic.
circleh aka Dale Husband is quite dogmatic about atheists being dogmatic. There is no point arguing with him about what he's claiming about atheists. Dogmatism is as dogmatism SAYS and DOES.
Posted by: circleh
|
June 28, 2010 10:49 PM
[actual persecution - i.e. imprisonment and execution - which is what the communists did]
My actual words were:
{Only a few decades ago, atheists who were also Communists ruled much of the world and practiced bigotry against the religious.}
Thus, I said nothing about outright persecution. The Stalin reference that came at me later thus puzzled me. Later Communists rejected what Stalin did as "despotism". Or do you want to paint all Communists with the same brush? That's exactly the mistake the USA made for decades.
[Are you saying that it is not dogmatic to say that fairies and Smurfs do not exist, but is dogmatic to say that gods do not exist? If there is no dogmatism inherent in the statement, "Smurfs do not exist; there are no Smurfs", then how can there be dogmatism inherent in the statement, "Gods do not exist; there are no gods"?]
Facepalm!
If you keep distorting what I said, I can only infer you only want to insult me and NOT have an honest discussion!
Posted by: bullofthewoods
|
June 28, 2010 10:51 PM
Ternon@84 Sorry, but your link @84makes the same mistake that you're making. Atheism and agnosticism deal with two different subjects knowledge and belief.In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.
Although Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term agnosticism, it did not spring fully-formed from his mind. On the contrary, Huxley was relying upon a long philosophic tradition of religious and epistemological skepticism when he argued that we should approach the question of the existence of God in the “agnostic” fashion he described.
No one before Huxley would have described themselves as agnostics, but we can identify philosophers and scholars who insisted that either they didn’t have knowledge of Ultimate Reality and gods, or that it wasn’t possible for anyone to have such knowledge — both positions associated with agnosticism. Perhaps the simplest and earliest statement of a basic agnostic position was made by Protagoras, who according to Diogenes Laertius said:
As to the gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or do not exist. For many are the obstacles that impede knowledge, both the obscurity of the question and the shortness of human life.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 28, 2010 10:56 PM
Funny you don't mind painting atheists all with the same brush. This is what happens when you jump to using communism in your hyperbole. Consider it a corollary to Godwin's Law. Most people know better than to expect to be taken seriously after comparing large diverse groups of people to communists. Why don't you?Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 28, 2010 10:58 PM
We do not judge atheists by Chris Mooney's standards, so don't judge agnostics (new or old) by Ron Rosenbaum's.
First If someone really defines God as "sum of laws of nature", does God exist?
And if you say well that's not what people really mean by God - You are essentially saying fundies you get to define what God means. White haired scientist - you cant. Its not an agnostic that came up with the above definitions so don't blame Agnostics for the problem that different definitions of God DO exist. (Hence first and foremost Im an ignostic).
But does it matter? We don't see God interfere in our universe so whether he exists or not , the point is moot (Hence Apathetic Agnostic)
And finally I dont live my life by any rules that are determined by some God nor do I believe a theistic one exists - Hence an Agnostic Atheist.
We are often asked Why stick to the term Agnostic then - Why not just call yourself Atheist (and that agnosticism is a knowledge proposition whereas Atheist is a belief one)? And the answer is the same - Why does an Atheist not call himself an Agnostic because surely no reasonable Atheist makes a claim to *know*. So until Atheists label themselves Agnostic Atheists , don't expect Agnostics to call themselves Atheists either.
Im not sure why Atheists like to go out of their way to label Agnostics as wishy-washy.
All in all however labels are stupid.
Posted by: circleh
|
June 28, 2010 10:59 PM
[As a result, he's decided that not believing in fairies or smurfs is non-dogmatic but not believing in god(s) is dogmatic.]
Another fuking strawman! No, what I think is:
{Not believing in fairies or smurfs is non-dogmatic and not believing in god(s) is ALSO not dogmatic. Likewise, asserting that there are no fairies, smurfs, or gods IS dogmatism. You can avoid dogmatism by simply never totally denying the existence of what you don't see. You CAN say, "There is no known evidence for fairies, smurfs, or gods." and be nondogmatic.}
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 28, 2010 11:00 PM
circleh #93,
All I did was ask you some questions for clarification, hoping for an answer that will increase our mutual understanding.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 28, 2010 11:04 PM
Circleh:
Hmmm. Rather like your dogmatism in regard to dogmatism, eh? Talking yourself into a dogmatic hole here.
Posted by: circleh
|
June 28, 2010 11:06 PM
Funny you don't mind painting atheists all with the same brush.
I don't recall doing that, KOPD. If you saw that, you need your vision checked.
Most people know better than to expect to be taken seriously after comparing large diverse groups of people to communists.
You seem to be unaware that Communists in the 20th Century also claimed to be atheist. It was indeed their DOGMA!
Posted by: bullofthewoods
|
June 28, 2010 11:07 PM
Shit I hit submit inadverdantly.This is to continue my post @94.We can also find expressions of agnostic principles or at least inclinations among those ancient thinkers who were members of the skeptical school of philosophy. Skeptics like Pyrrho and Sextus Empiricus argued that humans were unable to acquire knowledge of many, if not all, things — and this, by implication, included gods and any Ultimate Reality.
Many in the modern era who continued the tradition of skepticism also continued the promotion of agnostic principles. David Hume was an important skeptic when it came to religious matters and he argued that there isn’t enough evidence for anyone to believe in miracles, God, or immortality on purely empirical or logical grounds — arguments still used today in one form or another by agnostics.
Hume also made room for agnostic theism by arguing that faith in things like gods or immortality might exist even in the absence of independent evidence. Immanuel Kant furnished further support for agnosticism by arguing that belief in God must rest on faith and cannot be achieved through unaided reason and empirical investigation. This, then, would assert that all theists must be agnostics.
When Huxley first coined the term agnosticism, he had in mind a methodology which limited our claims to knowledge to only those ideas which are adequately supported by evidence and logic. This did not last long as the only definition. R.H. Hutton, a colleague of Huxley and writer for the Spectator who helped make the term agnosticism popular, himself frequently misrepresented the concept in his writings by describing it as “belief in an unknown and unknowable God.” This might serve as a description of agnostic theism, but leaves out the possibility of agnostic atheism.
Herbert Spencer influenced the way we understand agnosticism by arguing that the term should be used to apply to the idea that the existence of God or any Ultimate Reality is unknowable in principle. Hence, we should not make any positive or negative statements about its basic nature. Because Huxley’s understanding of the term was already commonly described by the name rationalism, Spencer’s usage gained a great deal of popularity.
Spencer himself was influenced not only by Kantian agnosticism, but also by the arguments of Scottish philosopher Sir William Hamilton. According to Hamilton, the limits of human philosophy serve to justify theology. Because the divine cannot be known through human reason and evidence, it must therefore be true that humans have to rely upon revelation, faith, and the fruits of theology. While Hamilton’s agnosticism was strongly religious and theistic, Spencer’s ended up being just as strongly secular.
It was inevitable that the term agnosticism would come to be used in so many different ways, given the social and intellectual context of the time. Those who adopted the label of agnostic for themselves were part of a cultural milieu in which the established Christian orthodoxy was fighting a desperate but losing battle against the march of science — in particular evolution as espoused by Charles Darwin.
It is no coincidence that Thomas Henry Huxley, originator of the term agnosticism, was also known as “Darwin’s Bulldog” for his fierce defense of evolution and attacks on Christian intolerance. Intellectuals, philosophers, and people from all walks of life were finding the dominance of Christianity to be stifling, while the discoveries of science and technology were taking on their own air of transcendence and promised salvation.
Thus, those who were interested in giving a label to their opposition to Christian orthodoxy but who found the concept of deism outdated, and the term atheism to be carrying too much negative baggage, quickly leapt upon agnosticism. It was fashionable for a while to be called an agnostic because it expressed an intellectual and philosophical rejection of Christian doctrines in a manner which was considered safe and respectable — even if the actual definition was variable and indistinct. *
Philosophic Origins of Agnosticism
Agnostics Before Huxley
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 28, 2010 11:07 PM
Well that'll teach ya.Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 28, 2010 11:08 PM
circleh, let's look at exactly what you wrote:
Rearranging that we get: 'The New Atheists led by Richard Dawkins seem little better than the atheists who were also Communists and practiced bigotry against the religious.'
History tells us that Richard Dawkins acts against religion by speaking about it using harsh terms. History also tells us that the Communists acted against religion by imprisoning and executing people who practice it.
You are therefore saying that speaking out harshly against religion is (again, your words) little better than imprisoning and executing people who practice religion.
Do you dispute that that's what Dawkins does, or that that's what the Communists did? Or do the words 'little' and 'better' have a different meaning for you than they do for the rest of the English-speaking world?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 28, 2010 11:11 PM
circleh:
I think that's silly. *shrug* Sure, there's no evidence. There's not even a hint of evidence. I'm atheist, full stop. If you wish to call yourself agnostic or evidence-based or whatthefuckever, have at it. You aren't, however, making a good case for not using atheist.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 28, 2010 11:11 PM
I'm not unaware of it. I'm aware that it has nothing to do with anything and I'm becoming more and more aware of what a fucking idiot you are. You've ceased to be worth reading.Posted by: circleh
|
June 28, 2010 11:15 PM
Rather like your dogmatism in regard to dogmatism, eh? Talking yourself into a dogmatic hole here.
I give up. If people can't even agree on the basic definitions of words, then you can rightfully say this is a battle of different dogmas. Are you saying that dictionaries are dogmatic works and therefore we are ALL dogmatists? If so, then I have proven my point, that atheists are also being dogmatic when they assert that, "Atheism is lacking belief in God."
And that is why I'm convinced the New Atheism will fail, because it is prone to the same spirit of intolerance and distorted preceptions as followers of many religions. It is indeed rejection of dogmatism of ALL kinds I'm concerned about, NOT merely the rejection of RELIGIOUS ones! STOP THE DOUBLE STANDARDS!
Goodbye.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 28, 2010 11:17 PM
Does anyone think that if we point out to circleh that he's a dogmatic adogmatist his head will explode? The sudden onslaught of all-caps in his posts suggests it's a possibility.
But hey, I wouldn't want to be dogmatic about it - because, you know, that's the worst thing ever. Not that I'm certain of that, mind you.
Posted by: john.marley
|
June 28, 2010 11:20 PM
Who cares? There is something. Deal with it.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 28, 2010 11:21 PM
WowbaggerOM:
I did point that out in #99. I don't think circleh is paying attention though...I'm pretty sure a starfart is building.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 28, 2010 11:35 PM
Yawn, haven't we discussed the strong/weak atheist/agnostic to death in the last few years? I will be an atheist until conclusive physical evidence is presented to changed my mind. That is based on parsimony. Since no real evidence for a deity exists, the null hypothesis is non-existence of all deities. The non-existence of deities is atheism. Agnostics are too cowardly to accept the null hypothesis, because they see baggage with word atheism. But at the end of the day, there is little difference. Certainly not enough to make a big deal of.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 28, 2010 11:36 PM
Caine, Fleur du mal wrote:
He appears to have left the building - or, at least, found himself a fainting couch - for the moment.
I don't think there's a lot of value in what boils down to a semantic argument. We can either focus on what atheism means in practice or we can debate endlessly about why group (a) uses the word to mean one thing while group (b) it to mean something slightly different.
While I don't particularly like the term 'atheist' - I resent the need to define myself in such a way - I'm pragmatic enough to realise that it's not as important as what it represents, i.e. that I adhere to no religion, believe in no god, and feel that those who do either (or both) should bloody well keep it out of government and public policy unless it's also demonstrably useful by secular standards.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 28, 2010 11:39 PM
circleh #97,
Looks like 'Tis got you to say what you meant more clearly after all.
I see. I think there is a problem with that way of looking at it. Like the science textbook that lists everything that does not exist, if you go down that road then you must not tell me that my imaginary friend Bob does not exist, nor can you tell me that Icy the blue dragon is not my guardian protector while I sleep. And did you know that hay can be spun into gold? It's true, and you cannot deny it! By the way, you will fall up if you walk off a certain spot from that cliff over there. Again, it's true and you cannot deny it. It opens the door to any crazy notion, things like Santa Claus being real. Nothing can be refuted. Anything is possible.
Which is fine, I guess, for sane people or a friendly discussion on the limits of what we can know, but I think we need to get real. The difference between Smurfs, fairies, and gods and something real like oranges is that there is substantial reason to believe that oranges exist while there is no known reason to doubt that Smurfs, fairies, and gods do not exist. In fact, there is much evidence against the claim that Smurfs, fairies, and gods exist (see boboniboni's fairy fantasy above as an example of why fairies very probably do not exist :) ). That is not dogmatism, it is being realistic.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 28, 2010 11:44 PM
@WowbaggerOM
Exactly.
But if you state this and refuse to call yourself an Atheist , then are you an ineffectual waffler?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 28, 2010 11:46 PM
This is all really pathetic, argument by labels is merely shallow squabbling. You can't get people to agree on what different terms mean, this essentially boils down to "I think the term X is wrong because X implies Y", "I don't think X implies Y but merely means Z". Gets people absolutely nowhere.
Why not discuss the underlying themes sans labels? Might be a little more productive...
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 28, 2010 11:57 PM
WowbaggerOM:
Right. This is why I find the whole "argument" silly. It might be worthy of a Monty Python sketch, but that's about it. This is no different from the person who was yelling "use base words!" and arguing for 'non-superstitious' and 'rationalist'. It didn't matter that it was pointed out that it doesn't, and won't, make a difference to theists. Not believing in gods is not believing in gods.
Exactly and very well said. I don't particularly care for the need to define myself in such a way either, however, in a predominantly theistic world, it's necessary. If a group of gods did show up at my door one day, I'd invite them in for a chat, a cuppa and happily tell them "okay, you exist. Don't expect me to go believin' in you and don't expect any sort of worship." As Esme Weatherwax says, they don't need encouragement.
Posted by: bullofthewoods
|
June 28, 2010 11:57 PM
Nerd@110
I don't doubt that there are agnostics who are like that but not me. In everyday conversations I am an atheist and I am many things but cowardly ain't one of them.The "baggage" associated with the label atheist doesn't matter to me at all.But when I define my position I try to be accurate, especially amongst folks who appreciate accuracy.So, I define myself as an agnostic atheist because that is accurate.Not because of anything else. sheesh.Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 29, 2010 12:00 AM
Deepak Shetty wrote:
Only if you tried to defend it beyond 'I don't like being called an atheist'. I think it's inaccurate to do so - mostly because I feel the term 'agnostic' is redundant, since it applies to every single person - but I've no right to tell you that you can't.
I'd love a blanket term that avoided this unneccessary differentiation, but I don't hold out a lot of hope that that's ever going to happen. People are too caught up on the labels.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 29, 2010 12:08 AM
Sorry its inaccurate because it applies to everyone? You do seem to have a different definition of accurate :). Indeed. I totally agree with what you have said. I wish we didnt have this silly discussion of Atheism v/s Agnosticism because it actually comes down to religious v/s not religious. I do have a problem being characterised as "a waffler" or having "wishy-washy" views or being cowardly or having baggage though.Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 29, 2010 12:18 AM
bullofthewoods:
I don't think Nerd of Redhead meant people like yourself, but people who want to dig holes in their quest to claim atheist is a bad, bad descriptor. You haven't been claiming Stalin! and the like, so you're good. You treat the descriptor the way it should be treated, as a descriptor, nothing more.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
June 29, 2010 12:27 AM
Smurfs do not, have never, and will never exist.
Is that so hard to say, circleh?
If somehow the claim about smurfs (or interventionist sky daddies) is false, I will retract it, if and when the necessary evidence becomes available -- is that what you mean by "Dogmatism"?
The way I look at it (along with many others), atheism and agnosticism are about two rather different topics. One can quite reasonably be both, but I don't think there's a good reason to only label oneself an "agnostic" and avoid an answer, or even avoid thinking about the question.
Given an arbitrarily definite meaning for the words "God," "soul," "afterlife" or any other such horseshit, it seems reasonable to assume a proportional degree of epistemological certainty. The more meaningless gods of course require less certainty, but they also tend to induce in me a proportionally non-dogmatic reaction like "What's the point?" or "What is that supposed to mean?", or perhaps even "That sounds like gibberish" and "I think you're just making shit up".
Sometimes, if I'm feeling particularly belligerent (read: New and Militant!), I might even say "You're crazy!" That's usually about it. If they actually have mental problems (which are no laughing matter), I will sincerely apologize and try to get them some professional help if they seem to require it. No dogmatism, religiosity or bigotry here. So fuck off or get a clue.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 29, 2010 12:28 AM
It's inaccurate to use it in a way that suggests it's a state in and of itself and one that's incompatible with either atheism or theism, and that's due to the redundancy, i.e. it's redundant because there isn't a person on the earth who isn't agnostic - by which I mean no one (at least that I'm aware of) who 'knows' that gods definitely do or definitely don't exist.
To me 'agnostic' just means 'human' - and every human is a human, after all. Therefore, to point out that you're agnostic isn't necessary or especially useful in the discussion unless you also specify your position on religion.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 29, 2010 12:55 AM
My comment about accuracy was in jest , I recognize the point you are making
Plenty of theists will state that they *know* - but yes I know what you mean.
But most Atheists don't call themselves Agnostic Atheists do they - and not for the reasons you mention (that its redundant). Stating you are an atheist isnt that helpful either - You might be like Mooney or Ayala (I think) or you might be like P.Z. I agree that its your views on Religion that matter, but then the Atheist label is as useless as agnostic. I see very few people arguing that you should drop the Atheist label.
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
June 29, 2010 12:57 AM
Hi Deepak, (replying to your #113)
No, but you probably stand to be accused of evasiveness or fence-sitting. Dawkins’ discussion of his scale of theistic belief pointed out the essential difference between the two endpoints of the spectrum: while some people claim to “know” there is a God with unswerving certainty (take the well-known Job 19:25 for example), it would be a very unusual type of atheist who claimed knowledge with complete certainty that there is no God.
In practice, many of those calling themselves atheists would be likely to agree to the next most credulous point on Dawkins’ scale. On the spectrum of 1 to 7, this is what he put as 6: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
In short, although the position I’ve quoted from Dawkins is actually an agnostic one, it is far from being representative of all of the possible flavours of agnosticism, which is why he asserts that in practice, it resembles the completely 100% incredulous atheist, except for that very small niggling doubt that yes, we could be wrong, but it’s extremely unlikely and goes against the huge weight of evidence.
Writing for circleh/Dale, should he flounce back: every so often this argument flares up and we get someone in here claiming that we absolutely have to obey the dictionary definitions of agnostic, atheist, theist, deist, blah blah blah, if we’re to have a meaningful discussion. (I remember some blatherer named Martin from a few months back – why didn’t he stay?) Here’s your answer: no, we don’t.
For one thing, like the proponents of these different positions themselves, it is unlikely to find dictionaries agreeing with complete parity on the definitions, so that most of the discussion is wasted on chasing the tail of how what X means by “agnostic” is different from what Y means by it. Kel hits it right on the head with post #114 by suggesting you drop the labels and get at the nitty-gritty detail of what you mean.
Wowbagger @ #111:
There are obvious reactions (especially in the US) against the word “atheist”, and I have sympathy for those who don’t want to be pigeon-holed by a word, so perhaps it is time for us to thumb through our Thesauruses in search of synonyms that we can throw out at the drop of a hat, if we’d rather not use “atheist” because of it being potentially made into a dog-whistle.
While I am unafraid of “atheist” as a self-description I also quite like words such as “incredulous”, “disbeliever” or “disbelieving”, “unconvinced”, before one gets to “freethinker” or “skeptic”, or going to the religiously-loaded terms such as “infidel”, “heretic”, “heathen”, or even “apostate”.
If there is a problem it is that the Thesaurus does attribute a negative cast to disbelief: you’ll also find “distrustful”, “suspicious”, “dubious”, etc. You should ally yourself with the antonyms to these which lack the positive qualities of trust: being “gullible” or “naïve” are not useful qualities to have in spades when you’re going about your daily life.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 29, 2010 1:14 AM
Deepak Shetty wrote:
That's why we have the term 'faitheist' - just for folks like them...
I think many atheists (including myself) feel that it's a less-than-perfect term, given the spectrum of opinions that it encompasses. But, since no-one's come up with a better term - and even if they did I suspect it wouldn't get a consensus anyway - we're kind of stuck with it.
Posted by: An Immunologist
|
June 29, 2010 1:26 AM
I read this blog everyday but never comment; however I've read (and reread) certain stenger passages to try and get a better understanding of the points he's trying to make and:
This may be nonsensical, and if there's a physicist reading please feel free to comment, but given that the total energy of the universe is zero--could one argue that there is 'nothing' in the universe to begin with?? Thus, the question is illogical to begin with?
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
June 29, 2010 1:45 AM
Deepak Shetty (love the name):
I, for one, am an atheist and call myself an agnostic atheist. Generally the discussion isn't sufficiently involved to make the distinction, because even theists will admit a lack of knowledge; hence, their almost proud reliance on arguments from ignorance and gods-of-the-gaps. I don't make it a point to argue my non-belief from a similar position of ignorance, as one might imagine a strawman Strong Atheist doing. However, emphasizing ignorance doesn't help when we also have to contend with arguments from faith, in which certainty comes from emotional and traditional sources rather than knowledge -- that is, ignorance can even be admitted by faithheads, with little or no change in the certainty of belief. Also, as I alluded to in my previous comment (not directed to you), a god exists only if someone is capable of giving it a meaningful definition. So far, I've seen nothing of the sort, which means all supposed gods I've ever had to contemplate do not exist. Personally, I think that's much more to the point than "I don't know and neither do you".
I agree that labels themselves aren't particularly helpful, but with an atheist one can have a better idea of his or her beliefs regarding religious claims. Agnostics who don't identify as either believers or non-believers seem not to understand what the question is. The question is not "How did you come to know all the secrets of Life, The Universe, and Everything?" That's not an interesting question, because I'm fairly sure no one has come upon such knowledge. It's a bit more like "Seriously, do you believe that particular piece of nonsense?"
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
June 29, 2010 1:48 AM
I’m only an undergraduate level physicist (and a decade and a half out-of-date at that), but would point out that while our knowledge of the universe may extend to approaching its beginning, so that we can theorise about the early state of the universe post-Big Bang, it is extremely unlikely to ever reach t = 0. Even if one could, would this allow physicists to determine with certainty the beginning conditions and parameters of the Universe? That seems a very, very doubtful proposition.
So physicists like Stenger use theoretical models to investigate the ideas – like for example, thinking about an inflationary universe where total energy of the matter balanced against gravitational expansion sums to zero. Such ideas are indeed plausible, but don’t help to answer your question, since there are other models that could also be plausible such as the possibility that our universe’s expansion occurred as the result of another universe’s contraction (some people describe this as a cycle of Big Bang leading to a Big Crash).
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 29, 2010 1:54 AM
Pope Maledict DCLXVI
Why? I specifically stated my position(that I am an ignostic(no fault of mine), apathetic , atheistic agnostic) and you need to justify why you believe that me being accused of evasiveness is deemed acceptable? It's this general idea being pushed around that Atheists are in some ways more courageous or more intellectually honest or not wafflers as compared to agnostics - inspite of the fact that a believer is just as likely to discriminate against non believers.
Absolutely. so lets hear encouragement to drop the label Atheist/ Agnostic label shall we. The first label I had for myself was anti-religion. And this is still the best label that describes what I mean.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 29, 2010 2:02 AM
WowbaggerOM
Come on. Atheists who aren't pure(or whatever) enough get their own label? By any definition Mooney is an atheist. Using another label to maintain I dont know the purity of views is silly. We are trying to avoid labels no?
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 29, 2010 2:03 AM
John is a nice guy
No so much. Here is his comment to Rosenbaum's article:
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 29, 2010 2:08 AM
Mr T
Whats to love about my name ?
My reading is that some of the most vocal critics (atleast the blogs I see) of New Atheists are atheists themselves.
People who identify themselves as Agnostic Atheists usually dont have a problem with the label Agnostic or Atheist but it looks like some Atheists do have a problem with the Agnostic label - even if our views on religion match. And I cannot figure out why this even matters...
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
June 29, 2010 2:09 AM
Deepak:
But you're not simply an agnostic. but an agnostic atheist. I have every reason to believe you and I agree about the meaning of those terms. In fact, I would bet that there's little difference between you and 99% of the Pharyngulite hordes, or most atheists in general. Thus, you're probably not one of those dastardly dishonest wafflers all the kids are talking about.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 29, 2010 2:22 AM
Deepak Shetty wrote:
Sorry, that was me being facetious. Faitheist is more of an indictment on their actions than a description of their underlying beliefs (or lack thereof).
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
June 29, 2010 2:24 AM
Hi Deepak @ #128,
you have perhaps construed my post as being somewhat more adversarial towards you than it actually is. If I look up to #111, it seems it was Wowbagger’s dislike of the term “atheist” that started off this line of commentary.
So while I might not accuse someone of fence-sitting by denying the term “atheist” – on the other hand, there are possibly quite a number of others who might. You see the distinction? I’m not passing judgement on whether such accusations are acceptable: I’m simply observing that it’s what happens when these terms get thrown around.
I have nothing against the term “ignostic” but would tend to view it as confusing – as its a neologism I have no working definition for what it means to either its proponents or the general public. The other compound term “agnostic atheist” is at least a fairly clear combination, if using three more syllables than either word taken separately.
Lastly, “anti-religious” is not quite the same as “non-religous”, and so would probably need further clarification of which particular aspects of religion should be opposed: all of them, or a more selective antipathy?
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
June 29, 2010 2:30 AM
Deepak:
No. It's a bit like the word agnostic. It has nothing to do with their beliefs about whether gods exist, and thus nothing to do with their "purity" as atheists. To put it briefly into my own words, faitheists are atheists who think there is some reason to respect others' faiths in gods (but not their own, of course, since by definition they are atheists). It describes a category of atheists who share common properties other than their atheism (which all atheists share by definition). We could coin a similar word for atheists with mustaches if the distinction ever became useful.
Would you agree that agnosticism is not really a part of a continuum between theism and atheism, but a different kind of claim entirely? Some peoples' versions of agnosticism may be between belief and non-belief (these are wafflers, or undecided voters if you like). However, I think a consistent set of beliefs requires that knowledge about a belief is not the same as the belief itself. Do you agree?
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
June 29, 2010 2:35 AM
Oh crap, please ignore spelling and occasional missing apostrophes above @ #134.
Just one question, why are people capitalising ordinary nouns like “atheist” all over the place – for emphasis, perhaps, or to emphasise that it’s a label?
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 29, 2010 2:38 AM
I know he hates it when we say this, be Wilkins is awfully hard to distinguish from any other atheist, except for the fact that he insists on the label "agnostic". If it makes him feel any better, he can always call the rest of us agnostics, too. We'll humor him.
Wilkins is just plain stupid on this subject. At
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/06/29/in-which-i-upset-pz-again-by-not-knowing/comment-page-1/#comment-29811 he first misconstrues a statement that he does not believe there's a god as a statement that he believes there is no god, and then claims that you disagree that there might be a god.
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 29, 2010 2:56 AM
Come on. Atheists who aren't pure(or whatever) enough get their own label? By any definition Mooney is an atheist. Using another label to maintain I dont know the purity of views is silly. We are trying to avoid labels no?
The bold part is the only valid part of your statement.
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray
|
June 29, 2010 3:37 AM
A Templeton leech clubs up with a professional philosopher?
The offspring can only be ugly and crippled.
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray
|
June 29, 2010 3:48 AM
I just cobbled together a neologism:
"askatágnostic"
(Don't know shit)
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 29, 2010 4:34 AM
I honestly don't think it should be dropped, my objection is to arguments being around the label rather than what it entails.Posted by: John Morales
|
June 29, 2010 4:59 AM
An Immunologist @125,
I'm not a physicist; however, I note that energy is but one constituent of the Universe — more precisely, mass-energy. There is also space-time (at least 3 spatial, one time dimensions).
'Nothing', I submit, should refer to all its constituents, not just one aspect of one of them, for your putative argument to be applicable.
Posted by: lykex
|
June 29, 2010 6:19 AM
Personally, I would like to see someone demonstrate that it is even possible for there to be "nothing".
We know that "something" is possible, but I doubt that there could possibly be "nothing" and therefore the question is premature.
Only when we've established that "nothing" is possible, can we ask why we have the one case of affairs, rather than the other.
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 29, 2010 7:05 AM
Only when we've established that "nothing" is possible
Really, the burden is on you to establish that it isn't, since it seems easy enough to conceive. All you have offered is your "doubt" there could possibly be nothing, but no reason for it.
But the question of why there is something rather than nothing has a simple answer: it's a tautology of sorts, since the question can only be asked if there is something. There may be possible worlds in which there is nothing, but no one is around to ask why there is nothing rather than something in those worlds.
Posted by: abb3w
|
June 29, 2010 7:27 AM
It sounds like Rosenbaum confuses Religion with more generic varieties of high-RWA social phenomenon, confuses prestige with dominance, and thus confuses the new Atheism with a high-RWA organization.
That said, there may be some valid grounds for concern (see here) if INGROUP orientation is increasing. However, the Hunsberger/Altemeyer study suggests to my mind that although the base level is higher than among Atheists than Agnostics, it's still far lower than among Fundamentalists. On the other hand, the abstract of (doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2008.00249.x) suggests the attitudes could change in a hurry.
Rosenbaum: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
(Too lazy to look up how to put in the Gumby.)
Well, in the first place, that's presupposing the conclusion that there IS something rather than nothing. The usual Axiomatic premise taken (implicitly or explicitly) to avoid this is Affirmation that "reality produces experience with a pattern", presupposing that experience, reality, and the pattern exist; however, it's equally valid to take the Refutation instead. While surrealism, solipsism, and nihilipsism (disbelief in even the self) are somewhat silly, they are philosophically valid positions to take as consequences of the Refutation.
Within the context of Affirmation, some answers can be inferred to a limited sense beyond the "Because we took as an Axiom that there is something instead of taking as an Axiom that there is nothing." Notably, one can infer Science as a method.
In the second place, my current understanding is that it's a result of mass and space-time curvature having opposite magnitudes when considered as energy; the first law of thermodynamics not being violated by the creation of +X and -X from 0; that such +X/-X has higher log-permutations (entropy, of positive sign) than 0 (which has only one, for an entropy of 0); and the second law of thermodynamics tendency to favor the high-entropy condition. (And, since in the 0 condition the lack of space-time means no time, that means that there isn't anything to keep everything from happening At Once.) Basically, Stenger's explanation, aside from "higher disorder" rather than "lower energy".
Screechy Monkey According to them, atheists claim to be absolutely certain that there is no god.
One of the more interesting things the H&A study turned up (pp 91-92) is that Atheists tend to have fewer doubts than even most "certain" fundamentalist theists. It's not the same as absolute certainty, but it does make the confusion more understandable.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 29, 2010 7:48 AM
Atheism faces a catch-22 when it comes to discussions on certainty because if we say we aren't sure then it's god-of-the-gaps time - i.e. if we answer 'I don't know' to anything, the automatic response from the religious is 'aha - then it must be God!'; alternatively, if we say we are certain then it's 'Oooh, certain, are we? That's religious talk - atheism is a religion and you're a fundamentalist!'
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 29, 2010 7:49 AM
you seem confused. most atheists, if pressed for a more precise definition of their standpoint, will say they're agnostic atheists (or skeptical atheists which is similar). it's because of that that "agnostic" as a sole descriptor seems nonsensical and waffly. doubly so for those agnostics who throw hissyfits about atheism being dogmatic and insist on being only agnostics, rather than agnostic atheists (or agnostic theists, for that matter; those exist too)Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 29, 2010 7:57 AM
i suspect that this is simply the effect of cognitive dissonance; the fundie worldview is clearly and demonstrably incorrect, and it takes a lot of mental effort to maintain the level of required certainty. atheism OTOH doesn't require certainty while at the same time having no evidence against it. IOW, if atheism turns out to be wrong, it would still less obviously and blatantly wrong than fundieism is, and there's no cost to the atheist for finding out that they were wrong.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 29, 2010 7:59 AM
I find it easier if the null hypothesis for any mythical creature, be it unicorns, bigfoot, or dog, is that they don't exist. This puts the burden of proof directly on those trying to persuade you of the existence of those creatures. It is much easier then to require conclusive physical evidence. Which usually isn't there. If one says just "I don't know", which may be a totally accurate description, they seem to think you can swayed with dodgy evidence, and demanding conclusive physical evidence is changing the rules midstream.
Posted by: Moggie
|
June 29, 2010 8:02 AM
#142:
But dimensions are just ways of measuring stuff and events. If there is nothing, and no possibility of any events, in what sense can there be dimensions?
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 29, 2010 8:11 AM
tm @144(gross!), yes, though I note that was earlier said by Ben Goren:
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
June 29, 2010 8:24 AM
You ever actually tried to wrap your mind around the concept of nothing?
Not blackness, because that's something, not grey void or swirling chaos, but nothing?
Got that? Actually managing to see nothingess in your head? You've done better than me.
Now, remove yourself from the picture. Go on, I'll wait.......
...
...
Yup. Can't be done. The very concept of nothing is so counter-intuitive and impossible to even imagine that it really can't be considered the default state of things.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 29, 2010 8:25 AM
Of course, but we're talking about agnostic atheists who identify only as agnostics because the word "atheist" makes them uncomfortable.
You have that completely backward. We're pointing out that if your views on religion match ours, then you are an atheist, regardless of whether or not you like the term. I can't recall coming across any atheists who have a problem with "agnostic" -- most apply it to themselves, after all -- only with the term's common misuse as an alternative to "atheist".
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 29, 2010 8:30 AM
@John Morales #142: Right. The universe may have zero net energy, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in a sense, just that its existence doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 29, 2010 8:41 AM
Naked Bunny With a Whip #153 wrote:
Or, rather, we have a problem with the term's common misuse as the reasonable alternative to "atheist," because atheism presumably entails 100% certainty and an absolute unwillingness to change your mind no matter what. Such agnostics are allowing theists to define atheism, and feeding a negative stereotype. It would be like saying you're an agnostic because "atheists want to put the religious in concentration camps," and hey, you sure don't.
Of course, there are some atheists in this category, as well as some who have problems with the term "agnostic" even when people make it clear they're simply being philosophically precise. Any large group of people is going to contain The Frustrating. Consider the fact that, in virtually every poll ever taken of self-described atheists, there's always a certain small percentage who answer "yes" to questions like "Do you believe Jesus Christ was the son of God?" or "Do you believe you're going to heaven?" Who knows what the hell is going on in some people's heads, if anything. Never say never.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 29, 2010 8:53 AM
@Kieranfoy #152: Agreed. I've read and been involved in too many discussions revolving around "what's outside the universe" to think that nothingness is easy for people conceive.
Personally, it seems to me that "nothing" is ruled out as a legitimate state simply by definition. Asking "why is there something rather than nothing" is like asking what happens between instants of time.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 29, 2010 9:00 AM
True. It's the insult embedded in that misuse that leads to the vehemence of our reaction against it.
Posted by: Aufwuch
|
June 29, 2010 9:04 AM
Can't find the really great article for the layman at this time...but this is ok for "Why something rather than noting..." One of several theories out there.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/02/what-came-before-the-big-bang-leading-physicists-present-a-radical-theory-weekend-feature.html
Posted by: crankycrank
|
June 29, 2010 9:22 AM
Ah, but you are all now leaving out the most important point upon which to take a stance. That is, where there to be one or several deities, what would your attitude towards it/them be? That's why I describe myself as an agnostic, misotheistic atheist. That is, I don't believe there are gods, though I could of course be wrong. But in the case where deities do exist, I am against them. For the same reason that I am against dictators in general, even if they happen to be of the benevolent despot variety. (I would also dispute the all to common assumption of benevolence in deities. Malevolence would seem at least equally likely.)
As silly as the idea of gods are, the idea of getting down on my knees and worshipping them is yet more distasteful.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
June 29, 2010 9:29 AM
The idea that the Universe has "zero energy" is easily misinterpreted. First, the mass-energy of the Universe is clearly nonzero, since we are here and the particles that make us up are real (i.e. on mass-shell). Zero energy in a cosmological sense merely means that the Universe expands forever, but only just. Positive energy means that the expansion accelerates and negative energy means that it will eventually contract and splat together. All indications at present favor positive energy.
Be careful when interpreting what a cosmologist says--they use terms of everyday life that have a very different meaning in the context of cosmology.
The question of what is "outside" the Universe is in some ways merely an exercise in mental masturbation. By definition, what is outside is that with which WE cannot interact. It may have been in contact with us prior to the inflationary epoch...or maybe not. It might have the same physics...or maybe not. Personally I'll wait 'til we understand this universe.
Posted by: windy
|
June 29, 2010 9:30 AM
What's that got to do with atheism? We're aTHEISTs not asomethingexisted'before'ouruniverseists.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
June 29, 2010 9:55 AM
Right now I'm trying to decide which is the worse book to seek guidance from: the dictionary or the bible. How old are you Circleh? Have you ever attempted to cite the dictionary in any formal accademic setting? Were you rightly slapped down for it? If so, why didn't you learn your lesson?
That said, I am agnostic about religion (in that gnosticism deals with knowing and theism deals with believing as has been covered a thousand million times). I am also agnostic about whether I live in the matrix or I am just the dream of an autistic child staring at a snow globe. These hypotheses are presented in such a way to DEFY knowing, so by definition EVERYONE is agnostic about them. Heck, given that those things are even the remotest of posibilities, I have to be agnostic about EVERYTHING. When I put bread in the toaster, will it come out as toast or as a jar of pickled ham hocks? I JUST DON'T KNOW.
Luckily, as a human being, I have the ability to look at these probabilities and decide what I don't believe based on what I see. This is not really an option, but a necessity of functioning in the real world. People who label themselves as agnostic are dishonest because the only thing they are actively agnostic about is religion. If they truly accepted even the most spectacularly low-probability events as reasonable possibilities, they would lose the ability to make predictive decisions.
I feel my labeling is more consistent than they: I am an atheist, an amatrixist, an ageneralhospitalist, and a firmly asserted toastist.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 29, 2010 9:56 AM
I understand why some people may not want to use the atheist label. It does carry baggage (due to thousands of years of uninterrupted slander). And I have no problem with people who prefer agnostic if they're honest about why. But the one's who use the agnostic label as an intellectual high ground to claim superiority over those dogmatic others, those are the ones that get my goat. And especially when their opposition is due to a dogmatic adherence to dictionary definitions. Dictionaries are useful, but they are written by people, and they tell you more about how a word is used than what it really means. It wasn't that long ago that the dictionary definition of atheist included "amoral". (I'd say that I hope we've moved past that, but circleh probably agrees with that definition.)
I've wandered from my point. To Huxley (who coined the term) agnosticism wasn't even actually a position on the existence of gods, it was a methodology. "Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle ...Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable." This is not incompatible with weak atheism. It's even compatible with strong atheism in some usages.
Someone who says "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" sounds like someone saying "I'm not white, I'm American!" (though I'm sure somebody has said that before) One is about accepting a claim that gods exist, the other is about being certain of it.
Unfortunately, word usage does change over time, often to the detriment of our language. The word "titular" used to mean "in name only," as in "the titular king will accomplish nothing." Now it has come to mean "the character after whom a work is named" such as the leader of the revolt in Spartacus. The problem is we already had a word for that (eponymous), but we have no other word for the original definition.
Agnosticism has come to mean something other than its original definition. It is being used to describe the fuzzy warm middle ground between fundamentalist faithers, and mean atheists. And by using it that way, the kind of intellectually-superior self-described agnostics I referred to above are themselves contributing to the thousands of years of uninterrupted slander against those who aren't afraid to say that they find religious claims unconvincing. This is annoying because we already had a term for people who don't accept religious claims - atheist. The changing of agnostic away from a methodology concerning the certainty of conclusions and to this cuddlefuzzy non-committal middle ground has both undercut atheists and cheapened agnosticism. And that is why I'm an atheist first, but an agnostic atheist when relevant.
(And I'm pretty sure that was my longest post ever. Sorry if it's tl;dr.)
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 29, 2010 10:00 AM
@windy: Rosenbaum complains about us turning science into a religion as though it "has all the answers", and then he challenges us to send him "all the answers" because we have turned science into a religion. Then he confidently predicts that we will evade his demand and not give him an answer, which will prove his point that we have turned science into a religion. Somehow.
Posted by: Deen
|
June 29, 2010 10:32 AM
If Circle/Dale Husband is still insisting that he is right because the dictionary tells him so, he's lying. He has already publicly admitted that dictionaries list two definitions of atheism, and that one coincides with the one that atheists use. Of course, he still prefers to think that the atheists sneakily broadened the meaning of the word, and are still dogmatic, no matter what they say.
But the definition of "dogma" that he himself quotes ("dogma: any belief held as a truth not to be questioned") is quite different from the way he applies the term to atheists. He already calls atheists dogmatic simply for having a strong conviction. Atheists themselves, on the other hand, are telling him that they welcome questioning, and are willing to look at conflicting evidence. But apparently, atheists are not to be believed.
What annoys me most is that people like this claim they are neutral (and take lots of self-righteous pride in it), but come to the discussion with clear prejudices. They will happily adopt the preconceptions of atheists from atheism's opponents, but won't listen when the atheists clarify their beliefs and the common misconceptions people have about them.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 29, 2010 10:38 AM
Atheists themselves, on the other hand, are telling him that they welcome questioning, and are willing to look at conflicting evidence. But apparently, atheists are not to be believed.
Yeah its the old trick of asking a question then telling the person you asked that that isn't their real answer.
Do you like carrots?
Why yes I do.
Um, no you don't You think they are too sweet.
uh what?
Posted by: James Sweet
|
June 29, 2010 10:50 AM
Doubtless someday else has already pointed this out, but I don't want to scan 166 comments to find out, so here goes:
This is yet another illustration of why we need to point out that, for any definition of "agnostic" that doesn't make them look like complete idiots, agnosticism-ness is orthogonal to atheism-ness. The former is about knowability while the latter is about presumptive belief.
(I insert the word "presumptive" to make it clear that I am talking about the "I believe there are five beers remaining in my fridge" type of belief, not the "I believe in Jesus" or "I believe emacs is better than vi" type of belief [though emacs is indubitably better than vi, but I digress...])
By this definition, very few atheists are not also agnostics. A non-agnostic atheist would be the rare bird who says something along the lines of, "Your claims may be unfalsifiable, but I have received personal revelation which says they are false!" Yeah, I don't know anybody like that either. Virtually all atheists explicitly reject falsifiable gods (like Thor or Yahweh) and tentatively reject unfalsifiable gods, while recognizing the by-definition unknowability of the verity of unfalsifiable claims.
IMO this is the only useful definition of agnosticism. The alternative is to say that not only does an agnostic insist that unfalsifiable claims are unknowable, but that the odds of any given unfalsifiable claim being true are close to 50/50. First of all, I doubt many people actually think that. And second of all, if anybody does think that, they are grade A stupid.
Posted by: Deen
|
June 29, 2010 11:12 AM
@James Sweet in #167: exactly. My problem is that if you identify yourself as an agnostic (period), I still don't know what you believe. Are you an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist? And besides, even the most neutral agnostic has made a decision whether they live their life as if there is a God whose rules they should follow or not. They have to make the exact same assumptions about God's existence that everybody else have to. They just think it's somehow more noble to pretend they didn't make such an assumption.
If find it a little ironic: where this strain of New Agnostics is accusing the New Atheists of adopting religion's dogmatism, they appear to have adopted religion's self-righteousness.
Posted by: k-dub
|
June 29, 2010 11:26 AM
The question, I think, is not Why is there something rather than nothing but Why are there brussel sprouts? They have no reason to exist as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: James Sweet
|
June 29, 2010 11:57 AM
Anyone who says they like carrots is either lying or else they don't know what a carrot is.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
June 29, 2010 12:16 PM
As a side note, brussel sprouts can be delicious. Just boil the shit out of them and apply butter liberally.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
June 29, 2010 1:33 PM
and the opposite is true of carrots: best fresh out of the garden with most of the dirt rinsed off.
Posted by: fishfork
|
June 29, 2010 1:55 PM
I would be in favor of new secularism, one that eschews all public declarations of faith or lack thereof. I really don’t care what people believe. I care what people do with their beliefs. We all face the task of creating the meaning out of which we choose or refuse to act. To that end many of us are bricoleurs, using whatever scaffolding is available and adding and subtracting to fit our project. It has been my experience that many whose beliefs I find incomprehensible are kind and generous as well as brilliant, while many with whom I largely agree are stingy, mean-spirited dullards. Of course the reverse is also often true. If you are using your beliefs or unbeliefs to support a life of kindness, artistic or rational brilliance and, most of all, moral courage, then I may be interested. If not, then not so much.
Posted by: Divalent
|
June 29, 2010 1:56 PM
@ James Sweet # 167
I donno. I still think "agnostic" is one term too many to categorize the answers to the question "Do you believe in (a) God?". The term seems to me most commonly employed by a person who intellectually is an atheist, but emotionally wants to keep hope alive.
And I see little point in retaining the term for the sake of distinquishing that minor subset of atheists who resemble theists: we already have good terms (of general applicability) for that.
Posted by: fishfork
|
June 29, 2010 2:15 PM
I would be in favor of new secularism, one that eschews all public declarations of faith or lack thereof. I really don’t care what people believe. I care what people do with their beliefs. We all face the task of creating the meaning out of which we choose or refuse to act. To that end many of us are bricoleurs, using whatever scaffolding is available and adding and subtracting to fit our project. It has been my experience that many whose beliefs I find incomprehensible are kind and generous as well as brilliant, while many with whom I largely agree are stingy, mean-spirited dullards. Of course the reverse is also often true. If you are using your beliefs or unbeliefs to support a life of kindness, artistic or rational brilliance and, most of all, moral courage, then I may be interested. If not, then not so much.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
June 29, 2010 2:24 PM
The bigger problem doesn't even require *any* amount of physics information to point out. The huge problem with this line of argument is that it is built on the bullshit notion that answering the question with "I don't know" is somehow incompatible with being an atheist. There is nothing that gets you from "I don't know what caused the universe" to "therefore it must have been caused by such-and-such a god". Therefore there is no contradiction between someone being an atheist and that same someone not knowing how the universe began. And that's true even for strong atheists who positively claim there cannot be a god because you don't have to have arrived at a final answer in order to start eliminating some. It's perfectly reasonable to say, "I don't know what caused the universe, but whatever it was, I can eliminate the possibility that it was a god..."
Just like I can say without a doubt that even though I don't know how tall PZ Myers is, I can still say with certainty that the answer is NOT one mile. (To give an example of equal absurdity to the claim that the reason there's something instead of nothing is because of god.)
Posted by: fishfork
|
June 29, 2010 2:35 PM
Dear mikerattlesnake,
I am sorry, but your comments on brussels sprouts betray a virulent vestige of religious superstition: Just as sprinkling with holy water makes everything good, so applying butter cancels out all sin. While the butter theory does have much more robust credentials, I am afraid it will not save your soggy overcooked petit choux. No, the rational palate finds salvation through the following:
preheat oven to 400
halve the little darlings
toss with olive oil, salt and pepper
place cut side down and roast Undisturbed for 30- 40 minutes.
Delicious
May math have mercy on you non-existent soul!
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
June 29, 2010 2:55 PM
Each tentacle like a skyscraper, swinging wildly through the air as Big Paul Myers rides his giant blue dino into the sunset, chopping down superstitions hither and thither....
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
June 29, 2010 3:20 PM
@177
That sounds pretty good, similar to a recipe for baked kale (seriously) that I had once. I would recommend adding a spritz of lemon juice.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 29, 2010 4:06 PM
Mr T
And so are most atheists. But they dont use the label agnostic atheist , right?
By definition? yes of course. But it isnt what most people think of when they they use the term *agnostic* or *atheist*. To take an analogy - The figure of speech oxymoron was used to represent a phrase that seemed contradictory but made sense when you thought about it. (The kind cruelty of a doctors knife) - But a lot of people use it to just represent the contradiction part (possibly because of the latter moron)- and i even find that this is a valid interpretation in some dictionary. As such this oxymoron word has now become useless to me, I cant use it because i dont know how it will be received - not because its defined in a way , but because it is used in a way. And its the same with the labels agnostic/atheist. We already have sub categories - new Atheists - old atheists - faitheists whatever and really I dont care about whether you know or believe there is no God. What I really want to know is
a. Do you think there is a *special* place for religion in Science/Government/laws etc (given that an individual can believe practice whatever he wants subject to no others being harmed or by consent)?
If the answer is NO! then Im with you and I dont really care whether you are a liberal religious/agnostic/atheist/pastafarian whatever , and I really regret there is no real label for this (closest was secular humanist or something).
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 29, 2010 4:13 PM
Pope Maledict DCLXVI
I didnt take it as adversarial , and my tone is probably rough , but thats the way it is even when I am agreeing with you. Yes anti-religious isnt clear enough - but thats sort of what I want to say, there really is no clear way to state your beliefs.
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys
|
June 29, 2010 4:19 PM
There are so many ways of categorising the behaviour of people who do not believe in a personal god:
Agnosticism
Antitheism
Apathesim
Apathetic agnosticism
Atheism
Buddhism
Cosmicism
Deism
Freethought
Hegelianism
Humanism
Ignosticism
Implicitly Atheist
Indifferentism
Irreligion
Materialist
Naturalism
New Agnostics
New Atheists
Nontheism
Omnism
Pandeism
Pantheism
Philosophical Naturalism
Post-theism
Rationalism
Secularism
Skepticism
Strong Atheism
Taoism
Theological noncognitivists
Transtheistic
I guess I must be at least one of those, with perhaps an extra New-, Post-, Anti- prefix or two.
I think the heat of the argument is the 'lumpers' vs the 'schismatics'. There are many people who hate being lumped in with 'agnostics' or 'atheists' (or for that matter 'christians') because the big 'lump' does not fully explain their detailed views.
Perhaps we could say "I have agnostic-ish views" or "atheism-ish views" and concentrate more on improving the world rather than drawing false boundaries?
Posted by: Deen
|
June 29, 2010 4:23 PM
@Deepak Shetty: I agree that the labels are often misused, but that in itself is not a reason to stop using them. Others will keep applying them to us, and what's worse, will keep trying to redefine them to our disadvantage. I think it just makes it more important for atheists to make clear what we mean by "atheism", rather than giving atheism's opponents full control over the term.
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
June 29, 2010 4:28 PM
Taoism as practiced isn't necessarily non-theistic. (I claim no expertise here: I've read only the Tao te ching, only in translation, and not in several years.)
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 29, 2010 4:39 PM
Naked bunny with a whip
Are we? Sorry most people dont make a distinction.
e.g. http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/05/21/why-are-you-agnostic/
Again people have various reasons why something makes them uncomfortable , why do you care. You might object if an agnostic calls you unreasonable or an extremist or a fundamentalist or just another reason - which is fair, you should object. But the labels one chooses for onself - why do you even care?
The only time I felt this New Atheist label might have some relevance is when I came across the above post - "Whats that- Your an agnostic- how wishy washy!" Views on religion have nothing to do with belief in God- see Mooney. The term believe and knowledge/ fact are also not as clear as one would like them to be. When the Pamela Gay topic came up for the "How Do you believe the universe will end?" , I believe(see what Im doing here) people posted definitions of the word 'believe' that are for all practical purposes indistinguishable from knowledge/fact(acceptance of something as fact)
Also Im pointing out that if your views match mine , you are an agnostic, regardless of whether you like it or not. So Richard Dawkins IS Agnostic. P.Z. Myers IS Agnostic. When they publically label themselves 'Agnostic Atheist', let me know. Really who do you have so much baggage with the term Agnostic.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 29, 2010 5:05 PM
No, overcooked brussel sprouts are nasty. Cut them in half and sauté them in butter with minced garlic. That's the way I like brussel sprouts.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 29, 2010 5:06 PM
I agree. But that wouldnt be fun :).Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 29, 2010 5:13 PM
@Deen
It is when the meaning has been changed. Look at oxymoron does it mean a contradiction that makes sense or does it mean "your a moron for stating a contradiction" But an atheist just means that you dont believe in God - personally I could not care less whether you do or you dont. It says nothing about the stuff that matters. How should science deal with religion? Should religion have a say in matters of the law? What should children be taught with respect to religion? and so on. The atheism label is no good because it doesn't state anything of the above.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 29, 2010 5:24 PM
It is when the meaning has been changed.
all the more reason to embrace it, and then explain, just like the term "liberal".
The atheism label is no good because it doesn't state anything of the above.
the atheist label is precisely good BECAUSE it doesn't include reference to anything else other than "without theism".
In fact, it's this very thing that we keep stressing, and keeps getting abused by theists.
I couldn't disagree with your assessment more vehemently.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 29, 2010 5:30 PM
Ichthyic
Sure if you like arguing or debating. The fact is if someone says he is an atheist I have no way of knowing whether we are on the same *side* or not - which I suspect is the reason for having a label in the first place."liberal" - Ah yes , this means something different to me then it seems to here in the USA.
Posted by: windy
|
June 29, 2010 5:37 PM
First, did you read Rosenbaum's article? *baggage*
Second, if we accept that all knowledge is provisional, it seems completely superfluous to insist on attaching the label "agnostic" to a particular subset of truth claims.
I can't "KNOW" that a theist god doesn't exist, but I'm reasonably sure that it doesn't. I can't "KNOW" that aliens haven't genetically experimented with Earth life, but I'm reasonably sure that they haven't. I can't "KNOW" that I'm not a brain in a vat, etc.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 29, 2010 5:46 PM
The fact is if someone says he is an atheist I have no way of knowing whether we are on the same *side* or not
that.
the fucking.
point.
say, there's this thing called "communication", next time you want to know someone's views on things?
...you might actually try asking them, rather than assume a one word answer contains everything you need to know.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 29, 2010 5:58 PM
So the essence of your complaint about the atheist label is that it doesn't entail anything beyond the negative? Good! You shouldn't be arguing by labels in the first place.Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 29, 2010 6:26 PM
Ichthyic
One last try.
We agree that the word Atheist means just what it does, nothing more, correct?
You seem to think "great!", calling yourself an Atheist and hanging out with other Atheists/non - believers means something to you, for some reason.
Whereas I am saying that this label is pointless - what we really need is a label that says how you want religion to be treated- because ultimately thats what matters. I don't really care whether your an atheist or not so Im not sure why you are so hung up on a label that means so little.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 29, 2010 6:30 PM
Only as a vehicle for cheese sauce. Lots and lots of cheese sauce...Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 29, 2010 6:31 PM
Kel, OM
The complaint that I began with is that the label agnostic is treated as a derogatory term by some (not all) Atheists. And as sub complaint that the labels we currently have are useless. whether you need new labels or whether you need to *communicate* with every person to figure out his exact views is an open question.
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
June 29, 2010 6:47 PM
Doesn't agnosticism imply the rejection of the gods of all conventional religions anyway? The Old Testament god is, according to the stories, knowable; talks to some people, sets fire to others. This leaves us with agnosticism as "I can't disprove any undisprovable gods".
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 29, 2010 6:56 PM
Stephen Wells
To some agnostics(including me), yes , these are rejected in the form stated.
>. This leaves us with agnosticism as "I can't >disprove any undisprovable gods".
Or Gods of the form sum of the laws of nature - which emphatically exist.
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 29, 2010 6:57 PM
D Shetty:
It's polysemous.
Only when it's used as a way to equivocate regarding god-belief is derogation appropriate.
Posted by: windy
|
June 29, 2010 7:04 PM
And I assume you aren't agnostic about the laws of nature?
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 29, 2010 7:21 PM
[laws of nature | Laws of Nature]
Teleology is wooish.
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 29, 2010 7:28 PM
I note that what D Shetty refers to by "Gods of the form sum of the laws of nature" constitutes reification if taken literally, and obfuscation/equivocation otherwise.
Very mealy-mouthed, that seems to me.
Posted by: Leon
|
June 29, 2010 7:58 PM
Which New Atheist? I thought there were lots of us.Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 29, 2010 8:37 PM
@windy
And I assume you arent aware of what an ignostic is?
@John Morales
Am I supposed to care how something seems to you?
Its not my definition - It is someone's definition of God. And I give no more or less importance to it than a religious fundies definition.
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 29, 2010 9:06 PM
D Shetty:
Why then write this: Or Gods of the form sum of the laws of nature - which emphatically exist.
1. Who, and why do you bring it up?
2. I must have missed your point, then.
Would you please elaborate?
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 29, 2010 10:16 PM
John Morales
1. Who, and why do you bring it up?
Because the commenter believes that the only valid definitions of God's are theistic ones or disprovable ones. I merely stated that other forms exist. I believe that Einstein / Spinoza had a view like the above, I cant quite remember where I read it, but you can Google as well as I can.
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 29, 2010 10:51 PM
Deepak Shetty:
Then please substantiate your claim — enumerate the valid definitions of 'god'.
What is the cardinality of that set of definitions to which atheism need not apply?
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 29, 2010 11:01 PM
From Wikipedia:
Einstein: In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
Spinoza: It is a widespread belief that Spinoza equated God with the material universe. However, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg he states that: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken"[22]
Specifically: Spinoza has a version of the ontological argument which takes place in the first eleven propositions of his Ethics, by which he purports to establish the necessary existence of an absolutely infinite substance. This version of the argument differs somewhat from that of Anselm. The most significant difference is that it is not a straightforward move from conceivability of 'the being than which no greater can be conceived' to the existence of the Christian God, but rather, it is a deductive argument from the definition of God as an absolutely infinite substance to the fact that such a substance must necessarily exist.[3]
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 30, 2010 12:19 AM
@John Morales
Sigh. This Einstein fellow surely was a waffler and had wishy washy thoughts, no?
Anyway
Google query for sum total of laws of nature
Leads us to
http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/immoral_religions_of_atheism_and.htm
So I suppose I read it from Sagan , who might have misconstrued the views per the article itself. Ive read this years ago so I dont remember and yes Ive never bothered to find this out in detail
And also to
http://www.answers.com/topic/agnosticism-and-atheism
Happy now? again Im not sure if these are the exact views of spinoza or not - and Im not too bothered to find out.
You actually do beautifully illustrate someone who would rather waste his time chasing these meaningless statements. Do you really care if someone defines God this way? It doesnt impact you in any way nor does it harm anyone or anything.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 30, 2010 12:21 AM
John Morales
I replied but i think it had too many links or something and went into moderation or was blocked and I cant type it again - Essentially i might have got this from Sagan , Im not sure - who in turn had these as the views of Spinoza / Einstein. Google it if you want.
Finally why do you care if someone defines his God in this fashion?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 30, 2010 12:42 AM
I can understand why that is. Agnosticism in the popular sense is essentially fance-sitting on the question of the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. After a number of believers try to paint you as an agnostic in that sense, I can see why there would be such an aversion to the label. Because hey, it's not like anyone can truly deny the reality of God! ;) And as sub complaint that the labels we currently have are useless. But they aren't useless, they are only made useless when people argue by them. Is my position or anyone elses going to change by calling it something else? I used to use the term ignostic since I thought it was more a reflection of my position. Turns out very few people actually knew what it meant, and besides there are those who already define what they mean by God so the position is unreasonable.In a general sense though, I think the word atheist is useful. When I say it, people know that I don't believe in their god and I don't replace it with anything else. Beyond that I prefer to just argue points rather than labels.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 30, 2010 1:14 AM
Kel, OM
Well I do hold Atheists to higher standards than the religious :) so I expect them not to make blanket statements - condemn behavior if you wish. An agnostic who says atheism is just another religion or whatever deserves what he gets - but too often I see .
To a guy with an Indian name? Youll obsess too much on Yahweh!. For those who think the Bible is good literature or poetic or whatever should really read some Indian stuff - the stories if treated as fiction are vastly superior (e.g. the Mahabharata - no soap opera has beaten this yet) And perhaps this is where we differ. Do we really go about telling people I dont believe in your God? Only if provoked right? If the religious kept his religion to himself who would care?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 30, 2010 2:40 AM
I'm not sure where you're from really. You speak English so I assume you understand the prevalence of Christian-derived thought in western culture. No, the problem is other people obsess too much over Yahweh. I just happen to live that is de facto Christian Honestly, I live my life without religion being a big deal. When people ask I'm quite forward with my atheism, but most the time it never comes up. Meanwhile there's a lot of issues concerning scepticism that are much more of a worry...Posted by: Deen
|
June 30, 2010 6:23 AM
@Deepak Shetty:
Exactly. But not if it were up to certain Christians and (apparently) certain agnostics. If it were up to them, "atheist" would mean "fundamentalist dogmatic godless zealot" or something. Which is why these discussions will remain necessary.
Good for you, have a cookie. Unfortunately, most us us still live in a society where it matters if you believe in God or not.
That's like saying a screwdriver is a bad tool because it can't make toast, tie your shoelaces and do your homework for you. "Atheist" is a perfectly fine word for what it does: differentiating belief in a god from unbelief in gods. There is no reason to expect more from it.
Posted by: koremano
|
June 30, 2010 1:09 PM
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
Even in an absolute nothing mathematical laws would apply, which would break that nothing up into something. The universe is pure mathematical in nature and that is no coincidence.
It's rather ridiculous to assume that a nothing must be the norm 'because everything must have been created'. Invoking a super life form is a big no-no. Such a being must be somewhere and this somewhere is something he could not have created himself, even if he himself is eternal, everywhere, created himself and cr@p like that.
Besides that, this being would be bound to mathematical laws that are as they are because these laws can't be different. This would render such a being, if it did exist somehow, into an advanced alien with a lot of technology. At most. Anything but a deity. Since there are absolutely no traces of something like that (either) it's rather safe to say that we are not controlled as some kind of bots in an advanced virtual reality video game, or zombies living in an illogical non-reality with an uber-zombie who is talking to billions of people simultaneously.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 30, 2010 3:40 PM
Kel, OM
Yes that's what I mean. The question of belief rarely comes up. But the question of separation of church and state does - and saying you oppose it because you are an atheist/non believer isn't a good answer, right?
Some of my comments like the Indian name are tongue in cheek :).
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
June 30, 2010 3:52 PM
Deepak--
You're assuming that we're never going to use these terms in discussions of anything other than policy. Yes, if the question is separation of church and state, the basic positions are yes, separate them; no, have an official religion; and no, ban religion (which is neither separation nor establishment). But I know plenty of secularists who are also religious: they are secular because they have seen that secular society works, because they realize that theirs might not be the one that was established, or because they realize that anyone can be wrong, including themselves and their religious leaders.
That doesn't mean that, on other political questions, their religious beliefs won't affect their positions. For example, Catholicism might affect a person's opinions on abortion rights, the death penalty, welfare, or the war in Afghanistan.
It certainly doesn't mean that someone's religion or lack thereof won't affect other aspects of their lives in ways I might care about.
If someone is a friend of mine, it's relevant that she's not going to attend a convention on Easter weekend because it matters to her to go to services at her own parish church.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 30, 2010 3:55 PM
Right because you have managed to convince so many fundies and apparent agnostics (but you left out apparent atheists) by debating the semantics of the label 'atheist'? For me the analogy is if you want to make toast , dont use a screwdriver.Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 30, 2010 4:15 PM
Welcome to the point. If you want to know something other than simply whether a person believes in gods or not, there are words other than atheist for that. Atheist is a simple word that does a simple job. There's no reason to go messing around with it and trying to make it mean other things. Ask them what you want to know and they'll give you other words as well. Perhaps they are a "Libertarian", or a "nihilist", or a "secular humanist", or whatever. The point is that "atheist" means "doesn't believe in gods" and that is fine. Stop complaining that the screwdriver doesn't make toast when there's a perfectly fine toaster right next to it.Posted by: Deen
|
June 30, 2010 4:50 PM
It's not just debating the semantics of the label. It's explaining what real-life atheists actually believe, not what their opponents think that atheists believe.Sadly, some people won't be convinced by that, since their prejudice against atheists just runs too deep. Can't win them all, unfortunately. But you can't really blame atheists for trying.
So what are you standing around complaining about screwdrivers for? If it's toast you want, go find yourself a toaster!
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 30, 2010 10:25 PM
Correct. Which is why for church/separation matters stating you are religious means nothing. And neither does Atheism defines ones position on the above right? And thats my point for any meaningful discussion the Atheist label is virtually useless (as are agnostic or any religious label). The argument seems to be that yes the Atheist label is useful for some discussions - I dont think so And I havent seen any useful examples.Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
June 30, 2010 10:29 PM
KOPD, Deen
Again the point is that your simple label is virtually useless - but much time and effort is spent debating its semantics. The label says you dont believe in God, so what ? (I should have substituted lucky charm for screw driver in the analogy).
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 30, 2010 11:15 PM
That doesn't make it useless. Shit, if you think that's useless, let's try some others.American - well that just means you live in America. So what?
Male - that just means you have a penis. So what?
Desk - that's just the thing under my paper pile. So what?
Simple ≠ useless
You = fail
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
July 1, 2010 12:41 AM
You ever actually tried to wrap your mind around the concept of nothing?
Not blackness, because that's something, not grey void or swirling chaos, but nothing?
Got that? Actually managing to see nothingess in your head? You've done better than me.
Indeed I have ... by conceptualizing nothingness rather than trying to "see" it.
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
July 1, 2010 1:03 AM
Personally, it seems to me that "nothing" is ruled out as a legitimate state simply by definition
It's amazing what some people seem able to find in dictionaries.
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
July 1, 2010 1:18 AM
@windy
What's that got to do with atheism?
Rosenbaum believes that atheists worship science and are certain that science has all the answers, and so that would include the answer to his question.
Yes, he's an idiot.
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
July 1, 2010 1:37 AM
Right now I'm trying to decide which is the worse book to seek guidance from: the dictionary or the bible.
That's really not hard to decide.
How old are you Circleh? Have you ever attempted to cite the dictionary in any formal accademic setting? Were you rightly slapped down for it?
It would be wrong to slap someone down for citing the dictionary in a formal academic (sic -- you could use one) setting. But it is right to slap down a cretin like circleh (Dale Husband) for insisting that a specific dictionary he read as a child is the final word on the meaning and usage of a word -- especially when he can't even comprehend the definitions he reads, as in the case of "dogma" -- the definition he gave does not apply to the mere assertion that there is no God.
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
July 1, 2010 1:50 AM
saying you oppose it because you are an atheist/non believer isn't a good answer, right?
It is when many violations of the separation of church and state are discriminatory against atheists. Your argument is like saying that you oppose institutional racism because you're black isn't a good answer because there are people who aren't black who oppose institutional racism. But blacks have a personal, pragmatic reason to oppose institutional racism.
Posted by: aggressivePerfector
|
July 1, 2010 5:36 AM
Silly thought:
I guess the person quoted means the equivalent of "the rules imply that 'nothing' is unstable."
If so then I am led to wonder why such rules would exist if there was nothing for them to apply to.
My instinct tells me that any attempt to answer this question is destined to be unsatisfactory.
(Whether or not physics is in principle incapable of answering this question is of course completely irrelevant in arguments for the existence of supernatural beings. Postulating the existence of God does not explain why there is God rather than nothing!)
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 1, 2010 5:57 AM
aggressivePerfector:
What rules?
A rulemaker is a purely speculative and unnecessary proposition.
Therefore I dislike your terminology, on the basis that it superfluously injects agency into the semantics.
Posted by: aggressivePerfector
|
July 1, 2010 8:05 AM
Hi John.
I didn't say anything about a rule maker.
Physical systems evolve in a manner that is not entirely random. This implies rules. Take a brick, hold it up in the air and let it go. Observe the direction of its motion. Repeat a hundred times then perform a significance test to determine the likelihood that the strikingly similar results on each occasion occurred by chance. Something must be governing the behaviour of that brick
Sorry if I seem to be talking down to you, I'm just trying to establish my position clearly.
Why would nothingness be an unstable state if there were no rules to make it so?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2010 8:10 AM
Why wouldn't it be? Since we haven't observed it, we can't say anything but speculation about it.Posted by: John Morales
|
July 1, 2010 8:30 AM
aggressivePerfector:
By their very nature, rules need a rulemaker; your phrasing implies the necessity of such.
Hidden assumptions are not a good thing, and I've already pointed out teleology is, at best, redundant.
1. This is an empirical observation.
2. Regularities means theory can be developed.
3. No. This is done as a way to confirm (i.e. attempt to disprove) one's theory.
4. No. Governance is not necessary.
All it tells you is that the degrees of freedom in the system are not unlimited.
First, it is not known to be so, but only theorised.
Second, seeing the final configuration of a system is not sufficient information to determine how many degrees of freedom it has.
Quantum thermodynamics is what informs us about that aspect.
Posted by: aggressivePerfector
|
July 1, 2010 8:44 AM
#232 - Why wouldn't it be stable?
If X is an unstable state, then a system starting at X has a natural tendency to evolve away from X. Something must govern that tendency.
The non-stability of a state must be governed by the rules acting on the system.
Otherwise, you seem to be in agreement with me that invoking the instability of nothingness is an unsatisfactory explanation for why there is something. I wouldn't automatically complain about speculation, though. Science is one massive exercise in speculation. Take the example of the brick above. Having performed the test 100 times, I would speculate that I will get the same result again if I repeat it another 100 times, but I have no direct knowledge of that fact. We speculate the existence of rules then try to figure out the consequences of those rules. I admit, however, that speculation about the brick might be more justified than speculating about the evolution of nothingness - I just mean that speculation is in principle at the core of scientific activity.
If you think that speculation specifically about nothingness is in principle beyond the scope of physics, then I suspect you are probably right, hence my statement:
"My instinct tells me that any attempt to answer this question is destined to be unsatisfactory."
but I don't have a good argument to clinch it right now :)
Posted by: aggressivePerfector
|
July 1, 2010 8:59 AM
#233 - Honestly puzzled by your response.
Is that the same way that objects, by their very nature need an objectmaker?
Also, can you explain to me how the degrees of freedom in the system being not unlimited is not exactly synonymous with there being rules governing the evolution of the system? (Sorry, that sentence reads awfully!)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2010 9:10 AM
Nope, no argument at all. I suspect you are trying to find a gap to slip an imaginary deity into. Your arguments have that undertone.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2010 9:15 AM
Sorry, science is the speculation followed by experimentation to demonstrate the speculation. Speculation per se is meaningless. Which is why philosophers don't add much to human knowledge these days.Posted by: aggressivePerfector
|
July 1, 2010 9:41 AM
Nerd of Redhead,
You suspect wrongly.
Did you read the bit in parenthesies at the end of my first comment (#229)? Its in brackets because its irrelevant to my point, but I added it because I felt people would probably get the wrong end of the stick about my intensions.
Of course speculation on its own is worthless. I never said speculaiton was all there was to science. That would be beyond absurd.
I'm not bashing science. I happen to think its the only systematic way of asigning truth values to propositions, and a beautiful process too. But when an experiment fails to falsify a hypothesis we have no right to claim the absolute general truth of that hypothesis. That leaves us with ongoing, justified speculation. Its a pity, but its the reality we have to live with.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
July 1, 2010 9:42 AM
Aggressive Perfector says, "Physical systems evolve in a manner that is not entirely random."
Ah, spoken like a man who has never taken quantum mechanics!
People often make the mistake of thinking quantum mechanics is somehow mystical. Quite the contrary. For example the statement that "nothing" is unstable simply indicates the near tautoloty that "nothing" can stay "nothing" (in which case we are not having this conversation and I don't have to mow the lawn this weekend) or it can evolve into "something". The thing is, we don't know what "nothing" is. We cannot experience it by definition. We don't know what the laws of physics were like before the first few milliseconds after the Big Bang, and there may be some "time" beyond which we cannot determine what was going on.
Science involves speculation, but it is not frivolous or unguided speculation. The speculation must conform to the evidence and be testable by generating new evidence. And clearly, it works.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2010 9:55 AM
Science doesn't claim absolute truth. It can't. Absolute truth is for deists. You are obviously not a scientist. Scientific truth is always tentative, even if 99.99999% certain. And QM seems to have extremely good certainty. QM isn't intuitive, so it can take advanced degrees in physics to truly understand most of it. I know just enough to shut up and listen to the experts.Posted by: aggressivePerfector
|
July 1, 2010 9:59 AM
Wow, people need to read my comments and stop making incorrect assumptions. Is this a conspiracy to keep me from getting any work done?
Or an initiation ceremony because I'm new? (I'm not literally new of course, I'm over 30.)
a_ray_in_dilbert_space,
Where do you see ignorance of quantum mechanics in my statement? Before answering, take note of the word 'entirely' in the sentence you criticise.
Again, you make a statement that seems quite in accord with my suggestion that resoning about nothing may be futile:
Thank you, though, for the insight that science is not frivolous or unguided speculation, I'll sleep better tonight :)
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
July 1, 2010 10:00 AM
aggressive Perfector,
Your description of "science" is really not recognizable to a scientist as what we do. I can't say that it's wrong necessarily, but the vagueness of it makes it impossible for me to recognize. Yes, we scientists speculate, but the speculation is guided by a validated model. That model itself will evolve as aspects of it are strengthened or invalidated by further experiment, but it is always there guiding both experiment and advancement of hypotheses.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
July 1, 2010 10:12 AM
AP, the fact is that quantum systems are entirely random. Random just means that any single event or measurement is indeterminate. A coin toss may be random, although it only has two possible outcomes. There is absolutely no problem with a system being both random AND following rules. I believe the term you are looking for is "stochastic" although even there the possibilities fill only the available phase space (e.g. consistent with energy conservation, symmetries, etc.).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2010 10:13 AM
We see no evidence you have experience in it. You may have read a popular book on QM, but that doesn't make you an expert. Too many folks come here and try to pretend they are experts in a field. Unfortunately for them, we have real experts in almost all fields, so they are quickly exposed as charlatans. For example, both ARIDS and myself are both experienced scientists and still working in our fields. We both find your definition of science questionable.Posted by: aggressivePerfector
|
July 1, 2010 10:18 AM
Nerd of Redhead,
Am I being deliberately goaded?
I am a scientist. Also, I can read, can you? Try it with the piece you quoted:
"we have no right to claim the absolute general truth"
Does it look like I am saying that science claims absolute truth?
Posted by: aggressivePerfector
|
July 1, 2010 10:42 AM
Nerd of Redhead (#244),
I never mentioned quantum mechanics!
It never entered, even indirectly, into any of my points. I certainly didn't claim to be an expert in it. But I am a physicist and I have studied it, so don't jump to conclusions. Am I required to demonstrate evidence of experience in quantum mechanics before writing on any topic?
I never gave a definition of science, by the way, but if you disagree with what I have to say about science, then thats fine. Maybe we could even have a constructive dialogue. In order to do that, though, you have to say what you are uncomfortable with and why.
Posted by: aggressivePerfector
|
July 1, 2010 10:58 AM
a_ray_in_dilbert_space,
Thanks for the (irrelevant) lecture.
You don't say. I thought that when an electron orbits a proton, its localized wavefunction is a matter of pure chance. Just a shear fluke that it turns out that way every time we look.
By the way I did write this earlier:
"Physical systems evolve in a manner that is not entirely random."
Is that what you are trying to inform me of?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2010 12:02 PM
I don't think you do dialog, as you appear to preach your gospel. Here's a bit of advice. Lose the attitude that you know more than us if you want a discussion. If you are afraid to be wrong, you will never be right. Your avoidance of any real evidence is also noted.Why not start out "this is what I believe, and this is the evidence [citation] to back it up." That works to get everyone's attention, and gives a proper starting point for true scientific discussion.
Posted by: Deen
|
July 1, 2010 1:46 PM
Actually, you are showing once more why the concept of "nothing" is all but meaningless, and the question "why is there something rather than nothing" ill-posed. You seem to suggest that even "nothing" should follow a set of rules. But in that case, it wouldn't be "nothing" anymore, would it? It would be a system, or a state of a system, which the rules could act on, so it's clearly a "something".
Or, if you say that the rules existed before the universe did, you still can't say that there was ever "nothing". After all, you've just said that the rules themselves existed before the universe started, and rules are also more than "nothing".
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
July 1, 2010 3:02 PM
Bloody fecking rotting zombie brains, when the hell did you become a presuppositionalist?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
July 1, 2010 3:10 PM
It seems pretty clear to me that aggressivePerfector's use of "rule" is touching on the problem of induction; noting that it is indeed a problem does not in any way imply that there is a solution in "Goddidit".
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
July 1, 2010 3:13 PM
AP, Actually, given that you continue to misuse the term "random" to mean "not following any rules or law", I would say my lecture is quite relevant to your education.
Random has a very definite meaning when applied to science and/or mathematics. You are misusing the term. A flip of a coin can be a random event--even though there are only 2 possibilities. If you want to argue about science, LEARN THE TERMINOLOGY.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
July 1, 2010 4:55 PM
>American - well that just means you live in >America. So what?
The label American would mean citizen of America. Its useless when talking about a lot of things but not useless when you meet an immigration officer.
>Male - that just means you have a penis. So what?
Useless when discussing ethics or so- useful when you meet a doctor. Also a biological classification isnt the same as a voluntary one
and so on.
The label Atheist is used in discussions related to religion - usually also dealing with matters like separation of church / state or gay rights or discussions on reason / rationality etc. Hence useless . Similar to a label saying non stamp collector.
Again if there is some context in which this label adds value give an example.
>Simple ≠ useless
Strawman?
>You = fail
If you say so. But then I already know how useful your opinions are
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
July 1, 2010 5:20 PM
Yes it is. What? You just said what it's used for!
Well, if there were laws that were applied unequally to stamp collectors and non-statmp collectors, wouldn't you be glad to have a term for non-stamp collectors? Jesus Hussein Christ, how hard does this have to be? True, but only until you posted #253. You earlier said virtually useless. But then in this post you said "Hence useless". So, you are now saying that because atheist is a simple label it's useless. So how is it a strawman for me to address that argument?
No less useful than yours.Posted by: Miranda
|
July 1, 2010 6:05 PM
I just came across this response to PZ's post.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 1, 2010 6:14 PM
Why would a non-believe oppose the separation of church and state?Honestly, being an atheist has little to do with the promotion of secularism. One is a philosophical issue, the other is a political. Thus when discussing the separation of church and state, I'm making pro-secular arguments, not anti-god arguments. It's not a bad answer, just an irrelevant one. Everyone should be pro-secular, because the separation of church and state protects the rights of believers and non-believers alike.
Posted by: Paul
|
July 1, 2010 6:26 PM
Church of Stalin? Noble Lie? One doesn't need to believe in religion to want to found one for influence or social control. Perhaps they're a faithiest and think religion provides more stability than secular governance (hey, they're already faitheist, so it's not too much more of a leap).
I of course agree with your subsequent argument. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to conceive of someone thinking otherwise.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 1, 2010 6:37 PM
Good point, I hadn't considered that. Stupid IS / OUGHT. No non-believer OUGHT to oppose the separation of church and state for the reasons specified above.
Better?
Posted by: Deepak Shetty
|
July 1, 2010 7:03 PM
KOPD
>Yes it is.
Just because you say so? I thought everyone agreed being an atheist means you do not believe in God. It has no bearing on your other views. So while this label is used in such discussions it adds noting to the discussion. Hence useless
>because atheist is a simple label it's useless.
No the uselessness didn't have to do with its simplicity . Since I have posted numerous times why I think its not useful I'm not going to repeat - You can choose to disagree or you can choose to answer why setup strawmen (I believe your point that certain laws do discriminate against non believers (which is broader than atheist) is a good one
>No less useful than yours.
If you say so. But then...
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
July 1, 2010 8:40 PM
Much broader. Non-believers in what? Western medicine? Democracy? Frank Zappa? It's such a broad term that it requires context to be useful.Posted by: aggressivePerfector
|
July 2, 2010 5:20 AM
Hi Deen (#249)
There has been some misunderstanding about what I wrote.
Its not my suggestion. Its what I infer to be the suggestion of the physicist quoted in PZ's article and by me in my initial comment (number 229).
I have tried to defend that inference by noting that saying that something follows a pattern is synonymous with saying that it follows rules.
Thanks for the comment,
Tom
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 2, 2010 5:48 AM
Sigh.
aggressivePerfector, I've already noted I dislike the use of the term rules — most of its senses impute design.
(Note: 'regulations' would be even worse, though it's colloquially synonymous with 'rules'.)
I take it you're using the term in my emphasised sense, below.
Noun
* S: (n) rule, regulation (a principle or condition that customarily governs behavior) "it was his rule to take a walk before breakfast"; "short haircuts were the regulation"
* S: (n) convention, normal, pattern, rule, formula (something regarded as a normative example) "the convention of not naming the main character"; "violence is the rule not the exception"; "his formula for impressing visitors"
* S: (n) rule, prescript (prescribed guide for conduct or action)
* S: (n) rule, linguistic rule ((linguistics) a rule describing (or prescribing) a linguistic practice)
* S: (n) principle, rule (a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct) "their principles of composition characterized all their works"
* S: (n) rule (the duration of a monarch's or government's power) "during the rule of Elizabeth"
* S: (n) dominion, rule (dominance or power through legal authority) "France held undisputed dominion over vast areas of Africa"; "the rule of Caesar"
* S: (n) rule (directions that define the way a game or sport is to be conducted) "he knew the rules of chess"
* S: (n) rule (any one of a systematic body of regulations defining the way of life of members of a religious order) "the rule of St. Dominic"
* S: (n) principle, rule (a rule or law concerning a natural phenomenon or the function of a complex system) "the principle of the conservation of mass"; "the principle of jet propulsion"; "the right-hand rule for inductive fields"
* S: (n) rule, formula ((mathematics) a standard procedure for solving a class of mathematical problems) "he determined the upper bound with Descartes' rule of signs"; "he gave us a general formula for attacking polynomials"
* S: (n) rule, ruler (measuring stick consisting of a strip of wood or metal or plastic with a straight edge that is used for drawing straight lines and measuring lengths)
Posted by: markbknight
|
July 2, 2010 12:59 PM
http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/77/510036/128252973/KERA_128252973.mp3
Marcelo Gleiser (Dartmouth professor of physics and astronomy) seems to dislike 'Radical Atheists' but doesn't mention PZ as one of them. Odd...
Posted by: Tim
|
July 6, 2010 6:13 PM
"Why is there something instead of nothing?"
This question just repeats Aquinas' "First Cause" argument. That argument is still not valid.
Ultimately, as any five-year-old can demonstrate, every question in English that begins "Why ... " is unanswerable.
Posted by: jollybee
|
September 17, 2010 5:50 AM
@Deepak Shetty:
Thank you.