I often facepalm hard whenever I see news outlets try to present “balanced views” on their programs. Usually they pit expert and scientific opinion (by giving them 5 minutes) vs the views of the Average Joe (and giving them the rest of the program), and then ask the viewers to “decide for themselves”, as if all opinions are of equal merit.
Unfair as it may sound, not all opinions are equal. When you want to build a house, do you ask a random guy on the street, or do you ask an architect? How about when you’re sick? Or need to have a contract checked? Do you ask the experts or do you ask random people?
It’s called “False Balance”. It may sound good and egalitarian, but giving airtime to those who have very little understanding about a specific subject is a great disservice to the rest of us. Not all views and opinions are valid, and some are more valid than others.
When Fox News (surprise!) gives moon landing hoaxers or anti-vaccination nutjobs a platform to spread their inanity, it gives them false credibility as an equal and valid opinion. When Larry King gives UFO conspiracy theorists airtime, the general public will likely perceive that both sides have equal merit.
I’m sorry to say, Andy, that when I read “Middle Ground”, I saw False Balance written all over it. Inadvertently or not, you used False Balance as a crutch to support theistic views while appearing to be “neutral”. The fact is, your views fall squarely into the Theist side.
I’d like to take a few minutes to point out where I disagree.
But if atheism is defined as “ the rejection of belief in the existence of deities“, I don’t think I’m quite there yet. So far, the atheism that I have seen is first and foremost, a rejection of the Christian deity (or the Christian definition of god as portrayed in the Bible). So far also, most of the atheists that I know who are actively espousing their non-belief come from some sort of Christian background. I do not know of any prominent atheist who started out as a muslim, a jew, a hindu, or a druid.
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is simply “a lack of belief in deities”. It’s not necessarily a “rejection” of belief in deities. Newborn babies are technically atheists, because they are incapable of forming a belief in deities. They can’t reject what they can’t even conceive of yet. There’s a simple question you can ask to determine if someone is an atheist. Just ask them: “Do you believe in the existence of a supernatural deity?”. If one cannot answer “Yes”, then one is an atheist.
Andy, I find it quite disingenuous of you to lump us all as just “Atheists” as if that word alone is enough to describe us all. You can only glean one thing when a person says that he/she is an atheist: That the person does not believe in deities. That’s it. Atheism says nothing about my personal beliefs, wants, hopes, and dreams. It says nothing about my attitudes towards other people. It says nothing about my views about myself and the world we live in.
Most atheists (not all mind you!) are skeptics, humanists, naturalists, secularists or a combination of them. It is from this point of view that I am responding to this article of yours.
My friend, the biggest reason most atheists you know come from a Christian background is because you live in a country that is predominantly Christian. The second reason is probably because you haven’t done much research on atheists and atheism. Maybe that’s why you’ve never heard of Salman Rushdie, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or Sanal Edamaruku. (Atheist Jews are a dime a dozen, if you care to do the research)
Because of this, most atheists speak out on issues that involve rejecting the Christian god and Christianity. Once that is done, this disbelief in god is expanded in a less hostile fashion to other religions (Islam is probably next in line in terms of getting atheist flak).
“Less hostile fashion”? How so? I am just as critical of Islam as I am of Christianity or any other religion that wishes to force itself upon all of us. It’s just that we almost never hear about non-Christian fundies here in our country.
However, just because an atheist has written off the existence of the Christian god does not automatically mean that there is no god of any sort. What is “god” after all, but just a word people use to represent and define some unknown higher power? People have tried to define this god by using words such as creator, source, omniscient and omnipotent. They have tried to characterize this god by attributes such as loving, kind, just, merciful, and so on. But these are just words,
I agree with much of what you say here…
and I believe in the possibility of a being that exists beyond these words.
…but I’d have to ask for proof here. Just because it’s “possible” doesn’t mean we should entertain it, much less assume it to be real, especially when facts and evidence point the other way. It’s much more possible that a ten meter asteroid would suddenly crash on your head right now, but will you bet on it? Will you hide in a bunker for the rest of your life just because it’s “possible”?
There is a lovely zen saying that goes, “When the sage points to the moon, the idiot looks at the finger.” The words and concepts we have for god are just parts of the finger pointing to something possibly out there, possibly greater than ourselves.
Lovely quote Andy, but we have proof that the moon exists. We have no proof that gods exist. Your analogy fails in this regard.
I cannot explain it other than saying that there is a feeling, an inner sense of something more profound than words can express.
Then what is the difference between your inner sense and the inner sense that tells Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc that THEIR religion is real? What makes your inner sense more valid than theirs? Because that is EXACTLY the same thing they will tell you about THEIR beliefs. It’s EXACTLY what they will use to say why YOU’RE wrong, and THEY’RE right.
You see, that is the reason why we atheists do not believe in gods. There is no evidence other than anecdotes. And the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
When Christians and atheists fight over doctrines and belief systems, it is like watching them fight over the pointing finger. It is briefly amusing and I won’t deny deriving a bit of satisfaction seeing my former belief questioned. However, this can’t go on forever. If we keep fighting over the finger, we will never get to see the moon.
Again, this presupposes that there IS actually a god of some sort. I suppose you feel a bit smug and superior watching us “fight over doctrines and belief systems”, but we atheists/agnostics don’t fight over doctrine and dogma. We fight against it.
For the atheists, ask yourselves whether it is possible to have a being higher than yourself. This being does not necessarily have to love you, nor listen to your prayers, nor conform to ANY concept of god that we currently have. If you think about the universe and what we yet don’t know about it, you’d have to at least consider the possibility of such a being, else you would be as close-minded as the fundamentalist you so despise.
You’re working under the assumption that all atheists ” believe there is no god”. The truth is, the vast majority of us only “disbelieve in gods”. Even the so-called militant atheists such as Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens allow for the small possibility that there might be a god. We realize we don’t know everything, unlike many devout believers.
And what do you mean by “being higher than ourselves”? In terms of what? Technology? Physical or mental capability? I think it is likely that aliens exist somewhere in the universe (and no, I don’t believe they’ve visited us already). Maybe they have greater technology, or greater mental and physical abilities, but they’d still be governed by the laws of nature. Also remember, we call ourselves A-THEISTS,not A-ALIENISTS. If you broaden your definition of “god” so much that you include mortal beings from other star systems, then you have rendered the term “god” meaningless.
As for your suggestion that we open our minds to the possibility that there might be a god, we’ve already done that. Give us solid proof of your god, and we’ll believe. However, worshiping him/her/it is another matter and I assure you, a far more difficult one to get us to do.
I believe in a middle ground, a place of mutual respect, where acceptance triumphs over bigotry, and where love triumphs over fear. After all, if we humans don’t get our act together, who will do it for us?
And so we go back to my original point. What you’re espousing is False Balance. In the Science vs Religion debate, one is supported by facts, reason, and evidence, and the other is backed by dogma, faith, and ideology. There is NO BALANCE there.
No my friend, yours is not the middle ground. Yours is the ground that enables the theist to make ridiculous claims without fear of backlash because it gives religious opinion equal weight vs scientific fact. Yours is the ground that enables extremists to commit horrible acts because it minimizes the efforts made by saner heads to expose extremism for what it is. Yours is the ground that enables Creationists to scream “teach the controversy“, “teach both sides”, and “evolution is just a theory” and actually be taken seriously. Yours is the ground that is smugly amused and snickers equally at both the side that brought us modern technology, medicine, and the Green Revolution and the side that upholds bigotry, fear, and blind obedience.
No, the middle ground isn’t yours. The middle ground is atheism/agnosticism/secularism. You are free to believe whatever you want so long as you do not force it upon everyone else. The only reason we are vocal and sometimes angry is because religion repeatedly tries to force itself upon our daily lives, when we just want to be left alone. If religion did not impinge upon our freedoms, you wouldn’t hear from us about it at all.
And no, the enemy of Theism isn’t Atheism. The enemy of Theism is Theism itself. What greater enemy does a religion have than other competing religions? Nothing incites a mob better than telling them that “Our God wants them destroyed”.
Besides, since when has religion ever fought for “mutual respect”, “acceptance over bigotry”, and “love over fear”? Slavery, misogyny, bigotry, infanticide, genocide and all the other evils of the world are espoused in the Holy Scriptures. The Bible is being used today to block the Reproductive Health Bill in our country (and the Quran used to justify misogyny in Islamic countries) the same way it was used back then in the United States to try to keep slavery legal.
In the words of UK Labour MP Jamie Reed:
“Seven years as an MP. Still waiting for a Christian to send me a letter on child poverty. Plenty on homosexuality and abortion.“
So go on, be amused as we atheists/agnostics/secularists fight against dogma and ideology, but if you really want “mutual respect”, “acceptance over bigotry”, and “love over fear”, I invite you to check out Humanism (not necessarily atheism) as a position, instead of your imaginary Middle Ground.
Alright.
First of all, let me apologize to the people whom I’ve been quite snarky with (Miguel and XIII). I’m sorry, but the Corona and American Idol idiocies have left me fuming. It’s my fault for posting comments while angry. So, I extend my apologies.
Secondly, I wish to clarify my position. I am a 6 on the Dawkins Scale. I don’t believe in a god and I live my life as if there is none, but I allow for the possibility that there might be one. Call me an agnostic atheist, weak atheist, implicit atheist, negative atheist, or whatever you like, but I simply call myself an atheist.
Lastly, I have to point out that while there has been much said about the so-called errors in my post (which may or may not exist), they are all just nitpicking. I have yet to read any real critique of the whole message: That Andy’s Middle Ground is False Balance. I’d love to hear where and why I might be wrong on that, please.
Thanks for taking the time to read.
Bruce, look, man, I'm sure you're an O.K. guy. No need to apologize –least of all to me. We're just kicking some ideas around.
_XII_,
May I ask, what part of science, reason, and logic led you to belief in God?
_XIII_,
“Academia disagrees with you (and popular parlance as well). A-theism is not non-theism. They are two very different terms and they always have been.”
You do know what the “A” in “Atheism” means right? Here’s a clue: It means “non”.
“Uh, one can’t help but admire such confidence in people who haven’t yet studied the issue in any depth whatsoever. For myself, I could never bring myself to proclaim such confident assertions without any solid backing.
See, I was under the impression that the three things you cite are the very same three things that I base my theism on. One of the reasons that I am a theist is because through science, logic and reason, I have come to the conclusion that God exists.”
According to 93% of the National Academy of Sciences and 97% of the Royal Academy of Sciences, academia disagrees with you.
"According to 90% on the National Academy of Sciences and 97% of the Royal Academy of Sciences", babies, pets and inanimate things are atheists?
You do understand what was being argued right?
Yes. He was saying that science, reason, and logic have led him to believe in a god. And I’m saying that science, logic, and reason DON’T point to the existence of god.
It was not a response to the babies and pets thing ok? As I already said, I was merely giving an example of the broadest sense of atheism. Can we drop it now?
No. This is what you quoted from him and responded to:
"Academia disagrees with you (and popular parlance as well). A-theism is not non-theism. They are two very different terms and they always have been."
Here he was saying your definition of atheism is wrong, and that scarcely anyone whose job it is to know these things will agree with you. That's what you responded to.
Your "broadest definition" justification is absurd, and we've been exhausting all efforts to show you why it is. So, we really must drop this –it's about time I think we did– seeing as you hitherto fail to understand your critics, making it likely any further objections from them will be greeted by you with the same incompetence displayed thus far.
Don't get me wrong. Available evidence seems to indicate you're a smart guy, just not very knowledgeable about this issue. No problem with that.
Sigh. Please read my post again. THIS is what I replied to:
QUOTE
“See, I was under the impression that the three things you cite are the very same three things that I base my theism on. One of the reasons that I am a theist is because through science, logic and reason, I have come to the conclusion that God exists.”
UNQUOTE
Clearly, he says that science, reason, and logic have led him to the conclusion that god exists. I responded by saying the vast majority of elite scientists disagreed with him. Got it?
I don’t see how defining atheism as a “lack of belief in deities” is absurd.
I don't see how defining atheism as a "lack of belief in deities" is absurd.
Yes, we've established that you "don't" –and won't– despite the reductio. The corollary being, as I've said previously, a reduced estimation of your competence.
Now, like you said, we might as well "drop it".
Miguel,
“Thanks for begging the question yet again about theism being ridiculous to “science, logic, and reason” and by saying theists are irrational.”
By “Theism” I mean the mainstream religions we have today. Tell me, which of those religions are well supported by science, logic, and reason?
“Don’t say you’re capable of having a “reasonable discourse” then.”
I have no problem with Deists telling me that they think there might be some supreme being who made the Universe, but doesn’t meddle in it’s affairs.
“Bruce: “Oh I’m capable of having a reasonable discourse! Let’s talk about your ridiculous beliefs that violate ‘science’, ‘reason’ and ‘logic’. And, maybe we can discuss your irrationality too!””
Nice. Putting words into my mouth really shows how brilliant you are. Straw man much?
“Tell me, what is the difference between a negative atheist and a positive atheist?”
One doesn’t believe in a god but allows for the possibility that there might be one, while the other asserts that there is absolutely no god. See strong vs weak atheism, implicit vs explicit atheism. Both are STILL atheists.
“So, according to you, pets –dogs, cats, birds, fish– and, well, everything inanimate, are atheists. Well done!”
Technically yes, but I don’t really give a shit about technicalities right now. Atheism isn’t helped by having babies and pets being included in it’s numbers. I only gave an example on what atheism is IN THE BROADEST SENSE. You do understand what “in the broadest sense” means right? If you can’t process that, it’s not really my problem.
Oh no XIII, you just can't process it, he says. He's merely using "atheism" in the "broadest sense"! Why can't you "process that"?! Lol.
Seriously, that was either a very brilliant subversion, or a very, well, shall we say, slow-witted attempt at one. The rest of your response, however, doesn't really give us the slightest confidence it was the former.
Oh yeah, nothing personal Bruce –no need to apologize for the snark.
Hi! I'm one of those dime-a-dozen Jewish atheists, and I live in the Chicago area. This is the first time I've visited this website, and this is the first article on it which I've read. One of favorite bloggers, PZ Myers, has a colorful saying to describe the "middle ground" between rationality and irrationality: halfway to crazy-town. Recently I read that a study revealed that 99.3 % of filipinos are religious. If this is true, I shudder–the US is bad enough with its 90%-plus believers.
Thanks for reading! 🙂
Andy, whom author of post is criticizing, says:
"There is a lovely zen saying that goes, “When the sage points to the moon, the idiot looks at the finger.” The words and concepts we have for god are just parts of the finger pointing to something possibly out there, possibly greater than ourselves."
to which author of post responds:
"Lovely quote Andy, but we have proof that the moon exists. We have no proof that gods exist. Your analogy fails in this regard."
My response:
Er. You might want to have another looksy at what Andy said because you missed his point so badly. He wasn't analogizing the moon for God ('we have proof for moon, ditto God!') but what we miss when focusing on religion rather than God for what we miss when focusing on the finger rather than the moon.
Found more errors in this piece, but, that will do for now.
focusing on religion (finger) rather than God (moon). Nuff said.
Thank you very much for reading!
Your concluding paragraphs seem to miss the mark. I am certainly not pro-creationist and I fail to see how my position enables extremists to commit horrible acts. Perhaps you were too caught up in your own rhetoric that you rebutt a position I never made in the first place.
The middle ground I'm espousing is not a position (e.g. atheism, secularism, deism, etc.) but an attitude of respect and openness to others. It is possible to be extreme on both sides of the spectrum – there SURELY is a god vs there SURELY is no god. All I'm saying is to avoid this kind of extremism, to meet in the middle and have a reasonable discourse – and have a coffee or beer afterwards with no hard feelings.
So I do agree with your saying that people are free to believe what they want without forcing that belief on someone else. As a position, I also agree that agnosticism/secularism is a middle ground. But I understand the term "atheism" as an extreme position that doesn't allow for the possibility of a god (I know someone like this) – else, if an atheist allows for that possibility, wouldn't he be better classified as an agnostic?
I never said you were pro-creationist. I said your position of false balance and middle ground inadvertently enables creationists and extremists, because your position more or less gives equal value to both sides, when it shouldn’t be the case.
Respect is earned, not taken. If someone believes that he needs to sacrifice your child to his god, would you respect that belief? My guess is you won’t. So why should other untenable beliefs be exempt?
I am perfectly capable of having a reasonable discourse, so long as the other party is able to. But having a reasonable discourse doesn’t mean we should set aside facts and reality, in order to “accommodate” ridiculous beliefs. Let’s call a spade a spade.
As I already explained, atheism is not “the belief that there is no god.” That would be “anti-theism”, a small subset of the much broader term of “atheism”. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in gods. That’s all. Agnostics are also atheists, since they cannot answer “yes” to the “do you believe in a supernatural creator god?” question.
>>"But having a reasonable discourse doesn't mean we should set aside facts and reality, in order to "accommodate" ridiculous beliefs. Let's call a spade a spade."
How can the other side have a "reasonable" discussion with you if you've already begged the question about their beliefs being "ridiculous"? That's exactly what the "reasonable discussion" should be about –the differing beliefs. And, don't try to weasel your way out of this one by saying young-earth creationism is ridiculous, because, while that's true, it was YOU who conflated theists of all stripes.
This is a very valid point. By already pre-judging others' beliefs as ridiculous, what makes you different from the fundamentalist who pre-judges your unbelief as equally ridiculous?
All I'm saying is to suspend pre-judgment and listen, REALLY listen to the other side, and draw your own conclusions afterwards.
Miguel,
I brand them “ridiculous” because they ARE ridiculous according to science, logic, and reason.
Again, there is NO MIDDLE GROUND when it comes to rationality.
Andy,
Listen? I already have. Many, many times. And the truth is, it’s always the same shit over and over again.
Thanks for begging the question yet again about theism being ridiculous to "science, logic, and reason" and by saying theists are irrational.
Don't say you're capable of having a "reasonable discourse" then.
Bruce: "Oh I'm capable of having a reasonable discourse! Let's talk about your ridiculous beliefs that violate 'science', 'reason' and 'logic'. And, maybe we can discuss your irrationality too!"
Right.
Oh yeah, the little matter of those naked assertions of yours, while now's not the time, you may want to tend to your little orphans in your next debate.
Uh, one can't help but admire such confidence in people who haven't yet studied the issue in any depth whatsoever. For myself, I could never bring myself to proclaim such confident assertions without any solid backing.
See, I was under the impression that the three things you cite are the very same three things that I base my theism on. One of the reasons that I am a theist is because through science, logic and reason, I have come to the conclusion that God exists.
By respect, I meant to respect the other as a person, to respect the other person's humanity – not necessarily to respect his belief — but to give him the benefit of the doubt, to listen to his point of view.
Re: atheism – I was referring to the definition set out by wikipedia which I linked to in the article. So if you have a different definition for it, then that's not what I was referring to.
From wikipedia's definition of agnosticism: "In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who is undecided about the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively."
Those are the definitions I'm operating on.
//Those are the definitions I'm operating on. // – Andy Uybuco
…definitions which were, unfortunately, viewed as ambiguous by some.
Nevertheless, I made it clear in the article that that's what I was referring to. A rebuttal to my statements using a different definition than the one I said I was reacting to hardly seems fair.
Respect is EARNED. It is not something that’s automatically bestowed upon you. Make no mistake, I can easily respect people (although some do not deserve it at all). But I certainly don’t have to respect their beliefs.
Yes, atheism is a disbelief. It is not automatically a DENIAL, which is the definition you used in your article.
I find it ingenuous that you lump me as a theist then. I'm really more of an agnostic in that I do not believe that it is possible to truly know 100% the answer to the god question. But that doesn't stop me from trying.
And yes, I will claim mea culpa to not having done extensive research on atheism. I'm still relatively new at this game after all and do not have all the time in the world to google away. But I think the wording in the article made it clear that it was my own perception and not a statement made as fact.
You said you believed in a higher power. That would make you a Deist, which is still a part of Theism.
I don't see any part of Andy's article where he claimed to believe in a higher power. He only challenged the atheists to consider the POSSIBILITY of a higher power. That makes him an agnostic.
Agnosticism does not preclude atheism. Challenging atheists to consider the possibility of a higher power is only valid for gnostic atheists.
So is Andy a theist/deist or an agnostic?
He could be an agnostic theist (believes in a god but does not think certain knowledge of this is possible) or a deist (believes that a creator made the universe and has left it to proceed without further intervention).
Let me make this simple for you guys and just tell you what I think instead of you trying to figure me out. All these labels you're trying to pin on me just confuse me.
I don't know if there's a higher power or not (and I don't mean alien life forms. I mean something akin to what we commonly conceptualize as god/creator) but I'm open to the possibility of one. I'm also open to the possibility of there not being one.
Depending on the day and time, I fluctuate between these two possibilities as I try to figure them out. I may be more atheist one moment and more theist the next. This happens because I am constantly learning, changing, thinking.
Many people seem to have this concept that we have to take a stand and say we are this or that. I am of the opinion that I am a living being, flowing through time. Every moment brings a new thought, a new realization, a new me. Like the rushing river water, who I am cannot be pinned down by a label. The moment you pin a label on me, that label no longer holds because it is already in the past and I have moved on.
You are confused. Nothing wrong with that.
You don't know. That means you are agnostic whether you like it or not.
Do you believe in god? If you don't you are atheist as well. If you do, then you are a theist.
Now, whether you are open to the possibility of the existence of a god or not, I think because we don't know, that is a reasonable position. Am I open to the possibility of the existence of god? Well, if you cannot define "god" coherently, there is nothing to talk about. Sabi nga nung kakilala kong wala sa ayos, kung ang diyos mo ay walang buto at walang laman, anong pagkakaiba ng diyos mo sa wala?
Then how about this for a coherent definition of God?
God is a being/entity that is omnipotent (for him all actions are possible that does not entail a logical contradiction), omniscient (has knowledge of any and all true propositions including counterfactuals), omnibenevolent (being the font and foundation of moral value and incapable of wrong action), perfectly free (free from the influence of non-rational forces) and a person/ tri-personal (having one/three centers of consciousness exhibiting mental events).
If you can find anything incoherent with that, I would be much obliged.
Then you are an agnostic. 😉
Keep it simple
Religious:
Theist: I KNOW there is a god and I feel the need to suck up to it
Non Religious:
Deist: I KNOW there is a god and I don't feel the need to suck up to it
Agnostic: I DON'T KNOW if there is a god
Atheist: I KNOW there is no god.
It wouldn't be fair to lump deists with theists. US founding fathers were deist, their dislike for organized religion is well documented.
there is a scale; as not everyone one is truly 100% atheist. the likes of Dawkins included.
Simplification works best here… Nice one. In Andy Uybuco's predicament, he may fall under the deist or the agnostic category, since he wrote that:
"I am of the opinion that I am a living being, flowing through time. Every moment brings a new thought, a new realization, a new me. Like the rushing river water, who I am cannot be pinned down by a label."
>>"US founding fathers were deist"
Name 5 founding fathers who were deist. Are you making things up, Basti?
There are 2 groups of founding fathers –the signers and the framers– a
majority of whom are all Christian. It is therefore disingenuous to say "US founding fathers were deist (or to say they were atheists, or even that they were predominantly non-Christian). So what are you talking about? –to say even nothing of the puerile distinctions you've come up with for those categories.
Miguel, what do you think of this:
http://www.deism.com/deistamerica.htm
It's basically saying that while most of the founding fathers were officially Christians, they were leaning towards deism.
Sadly, I think that this is true.
The 18th Century is when Deism began to take hold on culture at large. N.T. Wright, for example, often points out the theological rot that this deistic coming-of-age has had on contemporary Christian Theology.
The website makes claims, yes. But claims that can be refuted. Some of those names are of people who clearly aren't deist.
If you can give me 5 names that I can't refute, then you win, innerminds. Won't be the first time I've conceded to you.
Fact still is, the founding fathers were predominantly Christian. And, the thing about Locke's 'natural rights' –the basis for the bill of rights– is that, "the taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all". At least according to Locke. So, atheists can give themselves pats on the back and say Western moral tradition wasn't founded on Christianity all they want, but it's not true.
[If you can give me 5 names that I can't refute, then you win, innerminds.]
Why is it that with you it's all about winning? If you notice the tone of my previous comment, I wasn't trying to refute your statement that the majority of the founding fathers were Christians. I was asking what you thought of the article, because I myself am quite skeptical of its claims but unfortunately I am very poor in history so I don't know what to make of it. If with you it's all about winning, for me it's all about learning, and I'm really glad you're spending time on the FF website.
Winning, learning; tomeyto, tomahto. From thoughtful people like you, yes, learning. But, from the majority of people in platforms like these, not so much. No offense to anyone of course (I think it's safe to say the just about everyone here has at least an above average I.Q.) –just calling it like it is.
But yes, touche. You're orders of magnitude more of a freethinker than I can hope to be.
Agnosticism and atheism are not on opposite ends of a spectrum. Agnosticism is a modifier of either theism or atheism.
Here is a more philosophically sound nomenclature:
Agnostic theist: I believe that there are gods that intervene in the world but it is not possible to have certain knowledge of the existential status of gods.
Gnostic theist: I believe that there are gods that intervene in the world and it I have certain knowledge of the existence of gods.
Deist: I believe in a god that created the universe and no longer intervenes.
Agnostic atheist: I do not believe that there are gods and it is impossible to have certain knowledge of the existential status of gods.
Gnostic atheist: I do not believe that there are gods and I have certain knowledge of the non-existence of gods.
There may be permanent agnosticism in principle, neither choosing theism or atheism. Unless one could finesse outside the existential dichotomy, I would think that this is also permanent ignorance in principle.
If you guys scroll up, I think you'll already see that I said " I'm really more of an agnostic…"
I don't see why you keep pointing out something I already know.
If you allow for the possibility of a god, do you think that such god, if it exists, intervenes in human affairs, or are you more inclined to believe that it simply jump-started the universe at the Big Bang then stepped back to let creation unfold based on natural laws?
On the days that I believe in god, I tend more to a panentheistic view. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism)
Yes, you already know… However, your readers were like running around in circles. They got lost in the poetry and drama of ur article. 😐
nice posts though……
😉
Exactly Mr. Li. Please read carefully before claiming I said things I never did.
Good point. He may not have directly said that, but his writing certainly implied it.
You raise valid points against "False Balance", many of which I agree with, but I think we should all consider the point that 'religion' and 'theism' (also 'god') can be very broad concepts to deal with. Like the atheist label, theist merely states a person's belief in god/s; doesn't say what is meant by 'god' or what religion that person belongs to, etc. Hinduism, for example, is hardly just "Hinduism". It's more appropriate to say, "Hinduisms", really.
Just a side note.
I think the Middle Ground article is just plain BS. In summary, it said: what if we can imagine a higher being that doesn't do what we ascribe it can do: love, care, take a shit and all. What use is a god like that? We like our god to be proactive, present in our souls and guide our actions. When we kill and maim, we can say it's because our god commanded us to do it. We do not want an indifferent inconsequential god.
So judging by this comment, you will only accept a god that conforms to your idea of it? Isn't that pretty narrow-minded?
Your proposition is not any different from:
Imagine that a being called Santa Claus really existed but we don't and cannot know it. This Santa Claus doesn't deliver gifts on Christmas eve, doesn't make a list nor check it twice.
What you have proposed has no value in it. It doesn't make your mind more open.
Hmmm, perhaps you should read what I wrote again without muttering BS to yourself while doing so. Maybe you will understand what I'm driving at.
"For the alephrechaunists, ask yourselves whether it is possible to have a being called a lephrechaun. This being does not necessarily have to love you, nor hear you, nor conform to ANY concept of a lephrechaun that we currently have. If you think about the universe and what we yet don’t know about it, you’d have to at least consider the possibility of such a being, else you would be as close-minded as the fundamentalist you so despise."
There. Changed it for you. Still BS.
Because we all know leprechauns and God are exactly the same in terms of existential relevance. Why, Leprechauns are little green-wearing men guarding pots of gold, and God is only the ontological foundation of morality, creator of the universe, and to whom various arguments –like the kalam– point to; why obviously there's not much difference between the two. You are a genius.
(Being sarcastic. You clearly aren't.)
Well, god was made to be more important than the lephrechaun by its believers. Other than that, what has god more to offer in terms of evidence, as compared to a lephrechaun? So if a cult is to grow in relevance and have sway on the fates of nations, we should then treat it differently?
So if we imagine that god (god and lephrechauns are just imaginary beings) is actually a giant green lephrechaun, will that satisfy you? You are the genius here. You invent and then you worship it. What do we call that?
What about the words "existential relevance" don't you understand? Even if God wasn't "made to be more important than leprechauns", if you understood both concepts –which you DONT– you'd find one is necessarily more existentially relevant than the other. If leprechauns really did exist, it wouldn't matter as much as it would if God did.
And that's even all to say nothing of those concepts not being epistemically parred –Garricks point.
Whether people spoke about my foot in a more reverential tone then they did about, say, human rights, does that make my foot more relevant than human rights? Wait, don't answer that –we all know you'll say yes. What matters –what SHOULD matter (yes, even to you)– is that which is more objectively relevant, all the more something more existentially relevant.
You really OUGHT to get it by now.
Sorry, Miguel, but in the interest of impartiality, I have to point out that I'm not seeing how the "existential relevance" of P (or more accurately, the relevance of P given that P is true) is in any way a truth marker for P.
To clarify, I'm not seeing the connection between P's truth (of which we are questing) and the relevance of P if P is true. If anything, that's completely circular.
XIII,
The comment which you're responding to wasn't really for the one directly above it, but was for KapanaligSaWala's original point about open-mindedness to God being scarcely different from the same to leprechauns.
I'm not saying God's existential relevance makes him real. I'm saying God's existential relevance should make him much more worth being open-minded about than 'leprechauns'.
KapanaligSaWala's original point was this ( where he quotes Andy but substitutes 'leprechaun' for God to make his point):
"For the alephrechaunists, ask yourselves whether it is possible to have a being called a lephrechaun. This being does not necessarily have to love you, nor hear you, nor conform to ANY concept of a lephrechaun that we currently have. If you think about the universe and what we yet don’t know about it, you’d have to at least consider the possibility of such a being, else you would be as close-minded as the fundamentalist you so despise."
Ah, I see. You were trying to point out that the existential relevance of the theistic claim, P, is such that it would serve to be properly cautious in assessing the truth of P because of P's relative relevance vis-a-vis a Leprechaun.
What you're perhaps saying is that given the possible ramifications that theism has (and does, in fact), KSW is being a bit too hasty in his conclusions.
Let me point out another: KSW's argument is fallacious. Theism, call it T, is a completely different truth claim from Leprechaunism, L, and you cannot judge the truth of T using the truth or falsity of L. The truth or falsity of Leprechaunism is in no way a truth-marker for theism. When you see arguments like this, just calling it out as a non-sequitur is usually the simplest route.
In other words, you're saying theism and leprechaunism aren't epistemically parred, an idea I hoped would be implicit in my first response to KSW. Sometimes the simplest route is the least fun 😀
But, yeah, you say things more pithily than I ever could.
Miguel is right. Comparing God's existential status to various mythical creatures is indeed largely unfair. I understand and share the skepticism, but the rejection of leprechauns and gods follow very different lines of argumentation.
What they said. 😀
Bruce: "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is simply “a lack of belief in deities”. It’s not necessarily a “rejection” of belief in deities."
This is in response to Andy's following statement: "But IF atheism is defined as “the rejection of belief in the existence of deities“, I don’t think I’m quite there yet."
I think Andy is well aware of the different definitions of atheism and that's why he qualified his statement with an IF. In fact, I believe he got his definition from Wikipedia: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."
The "broad" definition is the "rejection of BELIEF" (in the existence of deities) – not "rejection of the POSSIBILITY" (of the existence of deities). To believe means to accept something as true, so in that case even agnostics (or agnostic atheists) reject the belief in deities since they don't accept as true the claim that deities exist – even though they allow for the possibility, no matter how infinitesimal, of their existence. In short, to reject the belief in deities simply means to not believe in deities.
Hey innerminds! Well, the definition of Atheism I gave was “in the broadest sense”. As simple as it can get, which is why I included babies as atheists. Babies can’t reject belief, because they can’t form beliefs yet.
Would you agree that your definition includes agnostics (not agnostic atheists, but agnostics who are at #4 in Dawkins' spectrum of theistic probability – "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.")?
Yes. As long as you cannot answer yes to the god question, you’re an atheist. So yes it includes agnostics. Again, that it atheism “in the broadest sense”.
You wish.
Tell me, what is the difference between a negative atheist and a positive atheist?
This is a trap question, by the way. Let's see if you can spot it.
That's ridiculous. Babies are, according to you, atheists because they "can't form beliefs yet", and therefore cannot believe in God? Then they might as well be 'a-everything' since babies scarcely have any beliefs about anything. You've broadened the definition so much that it's become meaningless.
Again, Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Do babies have belief in gods? NO.
And yes, you CAN a-everything them. Go ahead. Nobody is stopping you.
Like it or not, the meaning is still there. Unlike defining “god” as to include mortal beings.
So, according to you, pets –dogs, cats, birds, fish– and, well, everything inanimate, are atheists. Well done!
Academia disagrees with you (and popular parlance as well). A-theism is not non-theism. They are two very different terms and they always have been.
Just as an aside as I have no wish to be totally sidetracked with this issue.
Truth is, the verdict is still out on those definitions, innerminds. While I understand whatever motivations some atheists may have with the redefinitions of the word atheism (perhaps due to prior prevalence of positivism?), the fact just is that the redefinitions are arbitrary and unnecessary. Previous definitions were already in place and had within full explanatory powers to properly adjudicate and place the different types of positions vis-a-vis God.
The very reason Huxley coined the term 'agnosticism' was to provide a middle ground between the two positive assertions, theism and atheism. That contemporary atheism is trying to subsume this traditional demarcation is something I find to be utterly unnnecessary.
I agree. That's why I often say that I'm technically an agnostic (because I do not claim to know that there is no god) but practically an atheist (because I live my life on the assumption that there is no god). I tend to agree with the following article about the definition of atheism:
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1….
Thanks for that website, though I found another website that's just as good.
THE DARK BIBLE : http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleConte…
Isn't that a propaganda site? How can that be defined as 'good'?