Go ahead — take the Lord's name in vain

okay then, goddammit.

It's extremely liberating just to see someone refer to Paul Erdös as if he expected others to know who he was talking about and why, to be free from the senseless rule of "I wonder whether they'll get my reference?"

Ed Darrell, are you suggesting there are people out there who may never have heard of Pál?

Over in that comment thread, Greg Kuperberg wrote the following:

One thing that Erdos, Einstein, and Twain have in common is that they are all dead. They may have been atheists, but they could assume an audience of believers in some or many circumstances. Now that the audience itself is more secular, it's both less useful and less fashionable to invoke God in scientific discussions. Feynman didn't talk that way; neither do Weinberg and Witten.

To which I replied,

In the Lectures on Physics, Feynman reflects lightheartedly on the reasons the Universe might exhibit such interesting symmetry properties. He describes a beautiful gate in Neiko, Japan, which was carved with perfect mirror symmetry, except for one small figure deliberately left upside down so that the gods would not become jealous of the perfection made by humankind. Feynman then turns the parable around and says that perhaps the broken symmetries of the Universe were established so that we humans would not be too jealous of the gods' perfection.

Does the indefinite plural form gods sanitize the issue, making the argument more about poetry than theology? If so, we have a problem, because in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Feynman says of the electromagnetic coupling constant, "We might as well say that God wrote that number, and we don't know how He pushed His pencil" (or words to that effect).

All this bush-beating around the issue reminds me of the problems the biologists have when arguing the creationists' assertion "it's only a theory" — an "argument" which only works, of course, because the general public isn't aware of the way scientists use the word theory. Do we start talking about the "principle of Evolution" instead, or do we keep trying to explain what we mean when we say "theory"?

A similar problem besets skepticism in general. When skeptic becomes a loaded and almost dirty word, mixed up with cynic and other baggage, what are we to do? Do we try calling ourselves "Brights" instead, or do we go out and reclaim the good word we already had?

In this context, we can keep explaining Spinoza's pantheism, constantly polishing our sound bites — to physicists, "God" is poetic shorthand — or we can try rhetorical trickery, saying "Zeus" or "Isis" in the contexts where Feynman, Einstein and Aaronson have employed the word "God". (These are not necessarily exclusive options, mind you.) The latter choice might have the incidental benefit of reminding people that whatever lurks in the Planck-time Gap, even though we try to personify it, shares very few character traits and interests with the chap who wrote Leviticus.

God, I love the sound of my own words.

Hell Damn Fart!

Christ on a Cracker!

Etc etc

The idea of a anthropomorphic scribe of scientific law is a useful literary device. The day will come when we can use it comfortable in the knowledge that nobody would ever dream of taking it literally. Until then I think it's best to consider your audience. You're just begging to be misquoted if you use the Literary Device God in popular articles and books; not so much if you use it with fellow scientists.

Hey, maybe atheists should worship the Literary Device God? He's fictional but He loves us.

So, he's saying atheists don't have souls? Real nice fellow, there...

If atheists take the name 'Brights', do they dub theists 'Dims'?

I just wondered.

At the risk of majorly pissing off mathematicians, what would be wrong with Real and Imaginary?

So when a religionist utters some babble, I can say, "Imagine that," hold for a beat, and then bust out laughing. Ridicule pissed them off. I know from experience. They hate being laughed at.

So, he's saying atheists don't have souls? Real nice fellow, there...

No, he's saying nobody has a soul - devout theists and atheists alike. To quote Bart Simpson, "Listen: you don't have a soul, I don't have a soul, there's no such thing as a soul!"

Unfortunately, the rest of that episode went to great lengths to prove him wrong.

Actually, if you want atheists to be called 'Brights', theists are 'Supers'.

@Roy:

Actually, Daniel Dennett (among others, probably) says that the proper antonym for "Bright" is "Super", as in supernatural. Nobody thinks of this, naturally, and despite what I'd consider good intentions "Bright" comes off as incredibly insulting.

On the one tentacle, I'd say, the time for velvet gloves has passed, and if you're getting riled up over a word, you've got problems besides. On the other tentacle, I never thought there was anything wrong with the word skeptic.

(I have to use my tentacles, since having two extra cost me a date with Skepchick Rebecca Watson.)

Well, I for 1 never waited around for someone's okay on the matter.
A presuppositionalist will function on the assumption that unbelievers are believers anywhoways, so it makes no difference what 'loaded' words we use. Most of them make allegorical inferences (read: mountains outta molehills) thanks to that foolish holy book & it's metaphorical crapshoot & parables, based on little or no context.
It's a tough call, but I don't like having my vocabulary hamstrung just because some nutter decides I can't use the words 'design', or 'darkness', or mother nature.
I'll not have my language held at gunpoint.

"It's a liberating feeling to be freed from the senseless rules of nonexistent beings."

Deja vu - when my daughter decided for herself to reject religion, she said "It's such a relief not to have someone watching everything I do."

Come to think of it, that was my feeling too when I decided to stop trying to make myself believe in things that were increasingly clearly not believable - palpable relief.

About the same age too.

It's obviously genetic. Hot damn.

I vote for the use of the word Thoth instead of God. If you're going to use an imaginary being for theatrical effect, why not the god of science? Plus, you can start any scientific statement with, "Well, as Thoth would say...", since Thoth would always agree with science.

I not only use the idea of God as a handy metaphor, but I go ahead and capitalize it. Why the hell not? It's embarrasing to see freethinkers dance around 3000 years of shared cultural history and avoid saying God, or Allah (pbuh), or Jehovah ("He said 'Jehovah'! Stone him!"). I quote scripture as it pleaseth me, and I parody it just as often. (I will also put "The Shield of Haephestus" up against "The Song of Solomon" in a literature contest anytime. Because it's a million times better. I mean seriously, the Illiad and the Old Testament were first recorded at roughly the same time in history, and people say the OT is a great literary work? Please. Solomon was a piker compared to Homer. And if erotic poetry's your bag, check out the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite. Va-va-voom! But I digress.)

I cringe every time a self-described atheist avoids magic words. Hell, televangelists talk about God all the time, and they don't believe it any more than your or I do. Did not Jesus himself say, "Be not like the hypocrites, who say there is no God, yet inwardly they are as seventh-graders"? (Gavin, 24:3)

When using God as in Christian (or Jewish) God it is appropriate to capitalise it. God is being used as the name or title of a specific (ficticious) individual and should therefore be capitalsied.

After all I capitalise Harry Potter, but that doesn't mean I worship him or even believe he exists.

I vote for the use of the word Thoth instead of God.

Lovely notion... but it runs the risk of having your sexual partner think you're having some sort of intracerebral hemorrhage.

"Oh Thoth! Oh Thoth!"
"Darling! Should I call 9-1-1?"

Less than romantic, at best...

It'll never work.

Try saying "Oh for Thoth'th thake"

Damn, I can't even type it.

Hey, maybe atheists should worship the Literary Device God? He's fictional but He loves us.

Only if it advances the plot.

Bob

Like the old joke: What's the worst thing about being an atheist? You have no 1 to talk to during sex. (rim shot)

If only they would make 5 days of community service the criminal sanction for blasphemy, I could do mine with Naomi Campbell.

Every once in a while someone will ask how atheists celebrate christmas. What they do when they are invited to weddings, christenings, funerals etc in churches.

I always found it a silly question. I can fall down to my knees and pray at the alter, I can receive the holy communion, (the Danish church is lutheran and has communion).

Christmas, funerals etc are traditions, they are acts that have meaning by themselves, if the participants finds meaning in them. So my answer is, why shouldn't I do these things. There are no such thing as a atheist creed or religion, I do not blaspheme against atheism if I recite the lords prayer. Hell I am godfather to my niece.

The only limits are the ones you set yourselves (if that doesn't strike fear into the hearts of the faithful I do not know what will).

I go to church when I am invited (weddings, christenings etc), but generally I do not participate in the prayers, or the communion, but that is out of respect for the people attending who believe in the stuff. I will not mock them on their turf.

OK, I will pull a Blake (nice comment, btw), and quote my own comment from Aaronson's thread:

To use God or not to use God - is a personal question, whether in faith or in science. But it is such a vague yet loaded concept that it seems more harmful than not. I agree with those who find it distracting. Mostly IMO because "God" is presumptuous (theory-laden :-), I often find "gods" more appropriate.

It gets really tedious to see the special pleading of the moral argument ride in on the moral justification for souls. Altruism and empathy isn't restricted to humans and has evolutionary explanations. Specifically, it doesn't lead to the golden rule but leans more towards tit-for-tat with forgiveness.

What it is based on, both evolutionary and psychologically, is that some others are sufficient like oneself (humans, dogs, whatever gets your fancy). This basis would extend to the fabled golden rule. There is no requirements for souls, self-awareness, or minds. (But of course mind and self-awareness helps when recognizing "like".)

If it is a lesson in there, it is perhaps that nature has rejected solipsism. ;-)

If I should use a god it should obviously be Tor. ("Thor" for you heathens.) Come to think of it, I quote his name daily!

But "O Tor!" would then be goofy in several ways. Similar sounding "otur" is "mishap" in swedish. Not exactly what the girls need to hear...

Something's Fishy About Political Correctness

(excerpt from "No goddess, no God" by Craig Johnson)

If one allometrically scales the taxon mammals for encephalization quotient the results indicate that man and the porpoise are most equal. This affinity, (i.e. similar brain weight) alone could explain why porpoises and humans interact so well.
Also, whales, followed by elephants, rank highest in brain size surpassing the three-pound brain weight of man and porpoise.
These facts once led me to a complete teleological construct for the animal kingdom, plants included, and the universe.
Simply stated, plants and man, each of carbon and water, seek similar corporal and spiritual nourishment and the "big brains" speak or sing their love of God (generic).
It was a beautiful theory. All existence, all spirituality, gloriously, harmoniously, and ever so upliftingly encapsulated. Man and plants together turn to the same spiritual sun and the hauntingly beautiful whale songs were psalms to God, hymns to the infinite.
Then I found out that female whales can't or don't or aren't allowed to sing.
What a God damn bummer that was.

...

...

HP said:

I cringe every time a self-described atheist avoids magic words. Hell, televangelists talk about God all the time, and they don't believe it any more than you or I do.

The difference between you and televangelists is, the televangelists are clear on this point: Their listeners DO believe it.

It's damned rare for me to use the word "God" in conversation or print. When I do, I'm referring specifically to the conceptual Christian god. Otherwise I say "godS," or "The Big Magic Juju Guy."

It's not just what's happening in YOUR head when you say something, it's what happens in THEIR heads. If you say "theory" and they hear "a wild idea that came to me after a night of heavy drinking" ... YOU have failed to communicate whatever it is you wanted to get across to them. (And yeah, it sucks. We just have to deal with it until this goddy bump in U.S. history passes. A few more years.)

Godders would sieve the whole of a historical figure's life for a single use of the word "God," and then confidently declare him a devout, Bible-believing Christian. They do it with Jefferson, they do it with Twain -- hell, they probably do it with Thomas Payne and Anton Szandor LaVey. (As we all know, "Darwin recanted on his deathbed." ... NOT.)

There are plenty of good reasons to avoid buying into the terminology which they OWN. One of them is, they will always misunderstand you. Another is, eventually, if they want to, they will whore out your words as an advertisement for their beliefs.

They're not magic words. They're lie words, misleading words, deliberately DECEPTIVE words.

In all this current conflict, it helps to remember that the people who are creating the conflict and turning the crank on the other side to energize it, are not just somebody ordinary who happens to believe something slightly different from you and I. Instead, they are professional, aggressive LIARS. People who see you as the enemy, and really want you shut up, and out of the way, while they take over the public square, and everything said and seen and done in it.

It all hinges on words. If they can control the language - if they can get us to use their words (so that when we speak to the public, the public hears THEIR message) - we've lost.

...

...

Well, for sex you could always yell out 'Isis' or 'Athena' or even 'Zeus', but you run the risk of ruining it for your partner, if they think you're referring to a previous participant. And, 'for Set's sake', works well to replace 'for God's sake'.

And, after thinking about it, I don't think I'll ever use God again during sex anyways. At least, a God that is supposed to resemble an old man with a beard. Not the best image for the task, at least for me.

So, as Thoth would say, (p+q)2 = p2 + 2pq + q2. Before he elaborated on it, of course.

Even in the most militantly atheist days of Soviet Communism, loyal Party members at all levels continued to use idioms including "god," without embarassment. They stopped capitalizing it, though.

If I should use a god it should obviously be Tor. ("Thor" for you heathens.)

Þórr in Old Norse. (The extra r is the nominative ending, like all those Latin and Greek -s.)

Khrushchev said "thank God" (literally "glory to God") all the time.

Þórr in Old Norse.

Well, the asa belief is a nordic variant of germanic mythology, which in turn roughly corresponded to roman and greek mythology for many gods. So it is Zeus/Herakles (greek), Jupiter/Hercules (roman), Donar (old german), Þunor (anglo-saxon), Þórr (old nordic), Hora-galles (finno-ugric).

OK, I will pull a Blake (nice comment, btw), and quote my own comment from Aaronson's thread:

To use God or not to use God - is a personal question, whether in faith or in science. But it is such a vague yet loaded concept that it seems more harmful than not. I agree with those who find it distracting. Mostly IMO because "God" is presumptuous (theory-laden :-), I often find "gods" more appropriate.

It gets really tedious to see the special pleading of the moral argument ride in on the moral justification for souls. Altruism and empathy isn't restricted to humans and has evolutionary explanations. Specifically, it doesn't lead to the golden rule but leans more towards tit-for-tat with forgiveness.

What it is based on, both evolutionary and psychologically, is that some others are sufficient like oneself (humans, dogs, whatever gets your fancy). This basis would extend to the fabled golden rule. There is no requirements for souls, self-awareness, or minds. (But of course mind and self-awareness helps when recognizing "like".)

If it is a lesson in there, it is perhaps that nature has rejected solipsism. ;-)

If I should use a god it should obviously be Tor. ("Thor" for you heathens.) Come to think of it, I quote his name daily!

But "O Tor!" would then be goofy in several ways. Similar sounding "otur" is "mishap" in swedish. Not exactly what the girls need to hear...

If I should use a god it should obviously be Tor. ("Thor" for you heathens.)

Þórr in Old Norse. (The extra r is the nominative ending, like all those Latin and Greek -s.)

Khrushchev said "thank God" (literally "glory to God") all the time.

Þórr in Old Norse.

Well, the asa belief is a nordic variant of germanic mythology, which in turn roughly corresponded to roman and greek mythology for many gods. So it is Zeus/Herakles (greek), Jupiter/Hercules (roman), Donar (old german), Þunor (anglo-saxon), Þórr (old nordic), Hora-galles (finno-ugric).