Slashdot Mirror
Search
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
I'm replying to my own post here but I noticed this response further up in the thread. I just want to say that I am aware of agnostic theism but chose to ignore it (perhaps erroneously) because the position has grown so unpopular lately. Most people calling themselves agnostic today think of themselves as noncommital to the belief or disbelief of God. I am also aware of 'agnostic atheism' but consider this more a sign of confusion than a philosophical position.
-Al
I agree with you that in the practical sense Atheists only exist in the affirming variety. It's interesting that you mention young children and people in a vegetative state. I would say that they are non-affirming athiests (sometimes known as weak atheists). I would also say that agnostics are all weak atheists (although it seems to upset many of them to hear this). I don't like the way that people today use agnostic to mean that they are noncommittal. Agnostic in the religious sense means that you are committed to the idea that man can not know if God exists. This ends up leading to agnostics being a type of non-affirming atheist. It's true that the agnostic has not rulled out theism, but at the same time the agnostic lacks the positive belief "A God exists" making him a type of weak atheist. Again I agree with you that weak atheism is not a practical reality. This leads to some uncomfortable truths about agnosticism that I won't bother to get into.
I would define these groups as follows:
Weak atheist:
non-affirming; lacks the belief in a god (e.g. maybe the brain dead, infant children)
Agnostic:
a weak atheist (non-affirming) who also believes that man can never know if God (or gods) exists
Strong atheist:
affirming; believes that God doesn't exist; has some reasons for this belief (faith, logical argument, or something else)
Theist:
affirming; believes that some god (or gods, or God) exists; also has some reasons for this belief, mainly faith
You say that the nonexistence of God has not been proven. Are you sure about that? The thing that annoys me about Philosophy is that it never makes any progress. I often hear atheists say that it is not possible to prove a negative, but that is not really true. There have been logical arguments made against the existence of God (in the Christian sense) and other arguments against gods in general. The problem is that nobody noticed or cared (except a few old philosophers), and so we still argue about these topics today. (I won't get into the arguments against the existence of God here; a debate among atheists about atheism is one thing, a debate about the existence of God betweeen ahteists and theists just turns into chaos). Whether you accept the arguments against the existence of God or not I just wanted to point out that there are strong atheists who believe that there are logical proofs for the nonexistence of God. So atheism doesn't have to be faith based. Likewise there are theists who believe their are logical arguments for the existence of God, but the reason faith is so important to theism is because the major arguments have all turned out to be circular.
In conclusion I'll just say that Atheism is not a religion to all atheists, though for many of them it might as well be.
-Al
Let me be clear in this matter. I accept your explanation of Atheism. It is correct in the philosophical sense. But the Atheist, as a practical matter, only exists in the affirming variety. (Actually, I suppose that some young, pre-self-aware children, and some people who are in a permanent vegetative state may qualify as non-affirming atheists, but we'll never know...)
You seem to be trying to group specific anti-theists [those who disagree with one or all particular theism(s)] into your atheist group, and to produce as a result a large group of atheists who may still have latent beliefs about divinity. To be clear here, people who believe in god(s) specifically (Praise Allah!), and even those who are unsure but have not ruled out the existence of god(s), must all be considered theists. (At least, that is what I consider them. Perhaps we need a word to describe them?)This last group is often considered to be "Agnostic" by the society at large. This link may prove helpful in understanding this.
Atheists DO have an affirmative belief then. They (we) believe that there IS [no god(s)]. But we can't prove this to everyone's satisfaction, or even to our own (since it is very difficult to prove a negative). Lacking proof, we nonetheless believe this. Why else claim to be atheist? See this.
A fanatic theist may cry "death to the infidels!" or "Praise Jesus!". He may wish to require compliance with his particular theism and dogma. He may burn or vandalize a restaurant that serves a forbidden food or which does business at an "unholy?" time. A fanatic atheist sees these beliefs and their resulting actions as wasteful since the basis of the theism is false, or even as harmful since it serves to affirm a false belief, but his views are no more "logical" than the views of the fanatic theist.
Atheism [to the atheist and to any observer] is a religion(check the #4 definition), or at least is [in]distinguishable from religion.
Everyone is an athiest toward at least some of the many theistic faiths. Most people nowadays are athiests with respect to Ra, Zeus, Bumba, A'akuluujjusi, Yingarna, Odin, and Quetzalcoatl... or at the very least are atheistic with respect to some of the gods on that list. Most people identifying themselves as atheist are simply atheistic with respect to one more theistic belief system than their 'theistic' counterparts. Furthering the confusion, people who are theistic with respect to god(s) other than the locally popular one(e.g. Hindus in the United States) are sometimes labelled "athiests" by those believing in different god(s).
Some people label as 'weak atheists' those who lack any faith (I think you're labelling these 'agnostics') and 'strong atheists' those who actively believe that no god exists. I don't really care for those labels, but it is an error to lump all atheists into second category. Calling strong atheists religious is in itself arguable- it seems to me to be a redefinition of the word religious- but a case could be made for it.
Lacking a belief in any theistic belief system does not constitute a religion, and is accurately described as atheism.
The first amendment is to protect political speech, or the ability to criticise government without fear of getting locked up in a gulag.
The first amendment is specifically aimed at preventing government from trampling on a right that is inherent in every human -- one that is God-given or natural depending on your theism or lack of it. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Our founding fathers would have not cried out against anything our governments do today, they would have rebelled again, spilled the blood of many, and stood firm against tyranny. In fact, they did this. When the U.S.'s greatest tyrant Abe Lincoln attempted to control the People, millions seceeded to form a new union of individual States, and were ultimately destroyed for their free thinking.
Most of the people on slashdot don't understand that campaign finance is a free speech issue. http://www.realcampaignreform.org/ attempted to fight this issue. The average slashdotter is very authoritarian, and doesn't understand that campaign finance would do NO harm (even if Al-Qaeda openly financed a campaign) if you shackle the hands of government by limiting the scope of their power.
But many religions question each other. And there are many religions, at least in the Christian world, that are questioning themselves and whether they are right in their assertions. The Evangelical Theological Society is questioning whether Open Theism is compatible with Biblical Inerrancy. The Episcopal church determined that in their view openly homosexual persons should be allowed as Bishops. The Southern Baptist Convention, of which I am a part, is having some very interesting debates about Calvinism. Religion is actively questioning itself, but unless you're in on it you probably are missing it.
If I could come up with a really good argument for a universe with a beginning that simultaneously made the idea of a god transparently irrelevant, then I'd accept the Big Bang as a point of departure.
But I dislike religion more than I like tidy theories, so I'll continue in my disputatious mode.
I'm not a scientist - just a networks guy who knows some stuff, so it's not going to stop me from advancing the cause of cosmology or anything ;P.
I'm not sure you get what I mean. When I said "What would that imply?" I meant it as "What does that do to our understanding of how the universe works, i.e., science?" not "Does that mean there's a god?"
The universe is wonderful enough without asking whether it means anything
Right, and that's not what I'm doing. But if the universe does in fact have a beginning, as the big bang theory suggests, then that certainly has implications.
and my atheism is of the sort that actively disapproves of theism, so any theory that removes one more of the theists planks is attractive to me.
Which I find, as I stated before, a dangerous mindset. Science is not about disproving religion, it's about observing how the universe works and trying to explain it. If the universe has a beginning, well that's really cool and it makes me wonder about how it all works. If it doesn't, and is some sort of steady state phenomenon, well, that's cool too and it makes me wonder about how it all works. Make sense?
Now if you want to view the whole universe as an intellect of sorts, then that's up to you.
Myself, I ask 'what would a beginning imply' - and find the whole doctrine of first causes creeping into whatever scenario I can imagine.
The universe is wonderful enough without asking whether it means anything, and my atheism is of the sort that actively disapproves of theism, so any theory that removes one more of the theists planks is attractive to me.
While humans in the Star Trek universe don't seem to be explicitly theistic, they are clearly not non-religious. The whole thing is drenched in a sickly-sweet california-hippy-in-space spirituality. What is Troy if not a priestess, there to give mystical blessing to all the goings on. For explicit theism, consider Scotty playing Amazing Grace at Spock's funeral in WoK.
Maybe the lack of the major current religions in ST reflects a (quite justifiable judging by the current state of the world) assumption that if we don't lose them in the near future, the odds of there being any people in the 23rd century are minimal.
On the whole, I think B5 called this one correctly. After at least thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of years of religion, it is unlikely to dissapear in the next couple of centuries. Christianity looks more or less knackered and decaying, and I wouldn't be suprised if the big denominations collapse, but Islam is young (as religions go) and still growing, Judaism has survived so much it's hard to image what it would take to knock it out, Hinduism, Bhuddism and Daoism have strength through flexibility which has kept them going through huge changes over their histories.
That's not quite accurate. An atheist doesn't necessarily *reject* the notion of a physical God;
My point is that one doesn't have to believe in an immanent God, he should be provable/demonstable. The whole difference between agnosticism on one side and atheism and theism on the other, is the difference between knowledge and faith; the atheist rejects God on (lack of) faith, the agnosticist rejects God on (lack of) knowledge.
Well, Christianity does. Not every religion defines their gods as such.
Correct, though proper theism is not my invention but one by theologians and philosophers of religion. (By the way the wiki page about agnosticism is informative too.)
I think we do agree about the uselessness of trying to discuss metaphysics, but where we disagree is that discussions of God by necessity must incur the metaphysical realm and therefore God can never be meaningfully discussed.
Well, Christianity does. Not every religion defines their gods as such.It's a delicate affair :) Firstly, the agnosticist rejects "proper theism" just like the atheist does, he rejects the notion of an immanent (physical) God, which leaves a God that's transcendent (metaphysical) only (proper theism defines God as both transcendent and immanent).
Secondly, metaphysics or the supernatural implies that laws of physics/nature are broken, hence all methodology to investigate natural phenomena (logics, reason, etc.) don't apply to metaphysics. This leads the agnosticist to conclude that metaphysics can't be discussed meaningfully, or to put it in other words that metaphysics are unknowable.
To aswer your question: the (hard) agnosticist thinks that all metaphysics can't be discussed meaningfully, and since any proof of an immanent God is lacking, this confines God to transcendence; the unknowable/meaningless realm of metaphysics where everything is both true and false at the same time (so it's both true and false that God actually exists in that metaphysical realm).
Though I agree with much of what you say, you make an assumption about atheism that's false. Atheism is a lack of belief in God. If you don't know what a god is or don't have an understanding, then it's not very likely that you'll believe in god either (though there are some that do). It just happens that a fair share of those that lack a belief in god also deny God's existence, but don't let that distinction go unnoticed.
Don't project your opinions on the group you think you belong to. To a lot of geeks, atheism is just as stupid as theism (you're still assuming things about "God", but can't define what "God" is), and uncontrolled libertarianism is just as stupid as unbridled socialism (why trust business more than government?).
There seems to be this big misconception that anyone who likes computers is therefore a "geek" and also therefore has a similar political/philosophical outlook.
Yes, and the misconception is yours. There is nothing that says you have to be a libertarian or an atheist to be a geek. Why would there be a PS geek code if we're all libertarians?
This isn't to say that I think everyone in Saudi Arabia is some kind of crazy religious zealot, but if you grow up in that kind of environment, a lot of it would probably rub off on you.
Probably just as much as that feeling of cultural superiority rubs off on a lot of westerners. There are a lot of little kings out there who think it's their godgiven right to pass judgement on everyone in the world (but get utterly nasty if you treat them the same way). It doesn't really matter if the superiority attidude comes from a religious or from a socio-economical background, the result is the same.
The Saudis, at least the people in charge, are like the Taliban with gold Rolexes.
Yeah cool, but what has this got to do with Saudi geeks?
What is funnier? A theist ignorance of science, or a scientist (or man interested in science) ignorant of theism?
> Do you seriously doubt the existence of an infinite God when confronted with the silliness these "great minds" babble about?
Theism would gain much more respect if it didn't rely so heavily on non sequiturs for its supporting arguments.
Personally, I have more respect for someone who says "I believe it because that's what I was taught as a kid" than for someone who says "I believe it because of $BADARGUMENT".
This is untrue. For instance, here are Darwin's words, in his diary, on the death of his father in November 1848:
"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished.
"And this is a damnable doctrine."
But he was not quite an atheist. In later life, he wrote in his Autobiography, intended only for the consumption of his family:
"[A] source of conviction in the existence of God ... follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting ... I deserve to be called a theist."
His beliefs wavered constantly, and for this reason he avoided making public statements on his religious beliefs, but reserved his statements to constantly stressing that evolution was compatible with theism.
In his last years, he wrote in his autobiography:
"A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life ... only to follow those impulses and instincts ... which seem to him the best ones ... I believe that I have acted rightly in steadily following and devoting my life to science."
Source of all the above:
Darwin's Diary
The concept that belief itself is more important than practice is a rather American and Protestant sort of religious belief, and is quite compatible with the kind of theism that these same people justify. So I don't really see the merit in the kind of argument you reference - except as a counter to religious zealots who think their religion is right, they are going to heaven, and anybody else whose practices differ in any way is going to hell.
I don't care if you're arguing for theism. I didn't comment on your beliefs; only on what you wrote.
Contrast what you wrote with Pascal's Wager.
Far too similar for you to retrospectively claim innocence. The essential core of Pascal's Wager is a false dichotomy combined with entirely fabricated outcomes. That describes your earlier comment perfectly.
I have apparently read more widely than you because there are dozens of refutations of Pascal's Wager that have nothing to do with "disproofs [sic] of God's existance [sic]".
BTW: I appreciate that you were not stating Pascal's Wager in an attempt to prove theism. I understood your point was to explain the "psychology" of people who do believe in such things. But that's irrelevant. Using Pascal's Wager is faulty logic whether it's to explain somebody elses belief or to explain your own.