In conversations over the last few days, I’ve been told that I’m not an atheist, but that I’m “agnostic”. Perhaps I should have business cards printed up with definitions.
Both “atheism” and “agnosticisms” are words which describe what someone isn’t. We don’t have a lot of these types of words in the English language. These two terms can only be defined by what they are not, so in that vein, I’ll describe what they are, what they are not, and why I’m not one of them.
(Confused yet?)
Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities. Atheism is the absence of such belief.
Gnosticism is the belief one can be privy to secret or sure knowledge regarding God or gods*. Agnosticism is the absence of such belief.
Agnosticism is not some “in-between” position of disbelief bridging the divide between theism and atheism. It is rejection or absence of a specific belief that you can know truths about supernatural beings. There are many highly religious, theistic people who are, in fact, agnostics, since they don’t think they can come to a secret or sure knowledge of the Divine.
I am not an agnostic. Since I have no belief in the supernatural of any sort, I’m not in a position to form an opinion as to whether I can come to have secret or sure knowledge of beings I don’t believe in.
I am an atheist. This does not imply a positive non-belief in a god or gods. I think they are no more likely than invisible pink unicorns or the giant spaghetti monster, but just because I think something is silly doesn’t mean I think it cannot possibly exist.
* Yes, I understand Gnosticism can actually have a much broader meaning than this, and that there’s a huge history associated with it. This is the most convenient definition, and the only easy one to target in a modern context. An “agnostic” could, of course, just be someone who does not hold to the beliefs of or who rejects gnosticism, but that’s most of the world today so it’s a meaningless distinction.
Agnosticism
Actually, a common definition of agnosticism is the belief that the nature of God is not only unknown but unknowable. That is, agnostics believe that we do not know what is going on in the universe, and that is it impossible (beyond our human comprehension) to know what it going on in the universe.
I agree with that most of the time.
— Ben
Used to…
I used to think that, if we knew all the variables, we could predict future events with exactness.
Well, over the past year I’ve begun to research quantum mechanics, and realized I was way off-base. We can predict future events according to a statistical model, but an individual event is, and probably will forever remain, unpredictable on a very small scale due to quantization.
Larger-scale, though, we can be pretty good at estimations.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Yep
Interestingly enough, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle works just as well as a religious idea as a scientific idea.
Justin, do not speak harshly about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or he will smite you with his Noodly Appendage!
— Ben
Positive non-belief
I think it is safe to say that there is a tendency toward positive-non-belief for you, my friend.
Here’s why. The giant spaghetti monster is not a commonly held belief. You never believed it, no one you care about believes it, you did not put aspects of your life on the line to reject it, you did not become an outspoken member of ex-spaghetti.com, you don’t talk about it a lot, you don’t think about it a lot.. your former relationship and now non-relationship with the non-existent pasta terror is not a defining aspect of your adult life.
As for the “science must prove it or it is silly” concept.. Science cannot explain Love, beauty, music, poetry, comedy, or many other things adequately, yet we all agree they exist. Now, I support your right to conclude there is not a God. But to call the concept silly is an ignorant thing to say. Its just far too prevelant with far too many reasons to believe it for it to be silly. You can say you’r enot sold, you can say it is unlikely in your estimation, you can even say it is entirely untrue based on what you have concluded.. but no, not silly.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Safe to say…
Safe to say, sure. A tendency? Absolutely, right there with my tendency to be scared of very tall people, offended by odors from those with diets different from mine, and to want to ignore the homeless. Yep, those are tendencies that, if I want to be the best person that I am, I get over. Same way with tolerance for irrational beliefs. My instincts would have me dismiss those beliefs out-of-hand, yet my conscience mandates that I listen with interest.
Never actually said that. I said, “just because I think something is silly doesn’t mean I think it cannot possibly exist.” There are plenty of things which science cannot yet prove which aren’t silly. And there are an infinite amount of things science cannot yet prove which are.
Wow, that straw man took a beating, didn’t he? If he could bruise, he’d be a deep shade of purple in a lot of places right now 🙂
Not a conclusion I drew. Conclusions are provisional, and although I goof up sometimes, I try to make that clear. I have not read or seen any compelling evidence indicating the hand of an Almighty Creator at work in the universe after the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang? Well, time and space have no meaning before the singular event, and we have no idea what triggered it or what would have happened “before” that event.
I don’t have a philosophical objection to an omniscient, omnipresent being. Like I’ve said before, if God is a chick in a lab coat who set off the Big Bang and hasn’t intervened since, sure, that’s a God without any specific testable claims that sounds pretty cool. And it helps if she’s hot.
Back to the “silly” question, though. * Is belief in Thor silly? * Is belief in Mithra silly? * Is belief in Zeus silly? * Is belief in Santa Claus silly? * Is belief in the Easter Bunny silly? * Is there any mainstream belief you would currently refer to as “silly”?
Unfortunately, the word “silly”, like “faith”, has many definitions. I tried to find a better alternative, and “irrational”, “unreasonable”, and “nonsensical” are also far too loaded of words for the purpose.
Perhaps I could weasel-word what I actually said from “just because I think something is silly doesn’t mean I think it cannot possibly exist” to “just because I think something has no provable, empirical data to support its existence doesn’t mean I think it cannot possibly exist”. Or just let it stand and live with the fact that language is imprecise. Your pick.
“You can’t reason someone out of something they weren’t reasoned into.” -Jonathan Swift
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Terms..
I do like your second phrase better.. mostly because it is not a demeaning, belittling phrase aimed at my core beliefs.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Demeaning…
I recently re-discovered a tape I had made for my then-girlfriend, Tammy, back in high school. On the tape, I was at the piano, and listened to myself as a teenager yammering away to the tape recorder. At one point, I suggested something ridiculous and said, “You’re so stupid, of course that isn’t the way it is.”
Well, I would never dream of calling someone stupid as an adult. I’ve mostly substituted the word “silly” instead. Live and learn where appropriate boundaries are, I suppose.
(Note: I have, on the other hand, told people “that was really stupid”. Like my co-worker who decided to check if a fiber-optic cable was live by putting his eye up to the fiber and peering down it. You have a laser in there powerful enough to melt stuff. Not smart.)
What, however, is a good word to substitute for “preposterous”, “unreasonable”, or “silly” which is, itself, not already weighed-down by decades or centuries of usage as a euphemism for “something I find extraordinarily implausible” and makes people defensive?
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Implausible
Implausible is a good word. It is an arguable word.. you can debate around that word.
Preposterous, unreasonable, silly.. they all have value judgements about the person who believes it, as well as slamming the belief itself.
Look, in your mind, I know you may find my beliefs silly… and I’m okay with that. Even to me personally, in our discussions, I don’t mind it.
Truth be told, I don’t even mind it here.. but it severely weakens your argument. It implies a prejudice and closed-mindedness. It shows that you not only have come to a rational conclusion about a widely held belief – that’s okay.. it shows you have made a decision that those who follow said belief.. those who have reached alternate conclusions are not only incorrect, but foolish.
That is, ironically, the opposite of your argument. You say on one hand you do not hold a positive non-belief, and then say that a positive belief is not only unlikely, but that it is ridiculous.
You often make cogent arguments.. but until you can disprove the existence of God.. or until it ceases to be an overwhelmingly held belief.. you need far stronger arguments to be able to call it “silly” or “unreasonable”.
If I decided the world is flat, and no one agreed with me, and there was no real reason to think it was flat, then I would be silly.
If I decided the world was flat, and everyone agreed with me, but there was no reason to think this, I would be incorrect – and I would only be unreasonable if I rejected evidence to the contrary to hold my belief.
If I decided the world was flat, and I had some compelling reasons to think that, and most people agreed with me, and a minority disagreed based on lack of evidence that the world was flat, but no evidence that the world was round.. I would be incorrect, but my incorrect conclusion would be a reasonably achieved mistake.
So, you may believe my belief in god is a mistake, but I think i have argued well enough over the years.. as have MANY scholars and reasonable people – to show that it is not an unreasonable or silly conclusion. We have REASONS to believe what we do.
To this day, I think your LDS experience makes you think that the only reason people believe in God is because a religious ultra-mega-corp religion has brainwashed them into not asking too many questions. You may have even come to the conclusion that YOUR reasons for believing were silly – BUT – it does not follow that everyone’s or even most people’s are the same way.
I LIKE that you think I’m wrong. Its fun to argue these points.. but the minute I say “Matt, your belief that there is no God is ridiculous” – I have negated myself as a worthy opponent.
You ARE a worthy opponent, and you deserve to be held to high standards of rational argument.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Memory
Matt,
I recall a discussion of the word “nonsense” on this very blog, after your son threw it at you. You weren’t a fan of the word, and I daresay “silly” has the same impact on dialog.
.a good point
And let me be clear.. we luvs us some matt.. its not a personal or offended thing.. but part of what we do here is train our brain to argue well.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Silly
I agree – “implausible” is a good word. But I’m also a big fan of “unreasonable” when used correctly.
Believing in a literal interpretation of Creation is, in my opinion, implausible. Which is not to say that it’s impossible – I just don’t think it’s likely.
Stating that there is a great deal of disagreement in the scientific community about whether evolution exists, however, is unreasonable. An empirical look at scientific literature shows that most scientists agree on the existence of evolution, and those expressing the opposing viewpoint, while vocal, don’t represent a large percentage of the scientific community. That’s not to say either side is right or wrong, but it’s unreasonable to create disagreement where little exists.
As for “silly” – religious beliefs, by and large, are not silly. This is silly.
— Ben
Well said!
And.. even most creationists will acknowledge evolution. I certainly do.
Even those who don’t recognize that most scientists agree on it.
It is unreasonable and, furthermore, dishonest – if you say that scientists disagree about the existence of evolution.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
*sigh*
If only more Christians were like you, Master Timpane!
— Ben
Synonyms, antonyms, have at hims
The problem with “implausible”, though, is that they lacks much rhetorical power. For the purpose of this discussion, sure, it’s useful, and we can settle on a definition of it as a synonym for “unlikely”. But it doesn’t grab the ear like “ludicrous” does.
If you were the victim of a financial con, say, a Ponzi scheme, and you lost $20,000, are you foolish? If I call the scheme a con, a fraud, and a lie, am I implying that those who are bilked by it are fools, or victims? Every day, people are bilked out of tens of thousands of dollars through the well-known Spanish Prisoner gambit, usually by con men from West Africa. Sometimes they end up beaten up or worse. I think they are victims of the fraud, and insofar as they continue to perpetuate it to others, they are unwitting co-conspirators.
What is a good, non-offensive term for someone who spreads an untruth in ignorance of its veracity?
“People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.” — Terry Goodkind as Zedd, ‘Wizard’s First Rule’
On another topic, is a lie worthy of respect because someone — or many people — believe it? If someone I care about is being conned, is it right to follow my conscience and attempt to dissuade them from their folly? If I asked these same two questions about a Spanish Prisoner gambit rather than religion, would your answer change?
Religion seems to be some sort of special case, shielded from criticism about claims which are “implausible” in order to avoid offending people. I still dance around that in my private life, but I’m becoming increasingly concerned about how much power religions are wielding in public life. Totally separate discussion, that.
But the belief the world is flat itself is untrue regardless of how many people believe it*. In a world of flat-earth-believers, such a belief might be accorded special status due to its antiquity and popular support. In fact, those who know the truth of the “controversial” round-earth theory, while manifestly having facts on their side, would be unlikely to win public office. They would find very little support.
To conjecture more about this round-earther’s life, it’s likely that since their opinion is the minority, they would correspond with other like-minded people in order to discuss this taboo topic where such discussion would not be immediately and sternly shut down. They may even feel that they have to divert discussions among friends or family regarding the theory, because to even broach the topic offends people who aren’t aware of or who believe in spite of the facts. They will be accused of belittling or denigrating other people’s beliefs because of their devotion to truth over error.
The round-earther has to go to other rooms in family gatherings when the talk roams toward flat-earth belief; if he contributes his knowledge to the discussion, he’s being disruptive and disrespectful by refusing to pay deference to an untruth. The round-earther has a vehicle to express his opinions — say, a blog — but even that periodically results in flat-earth relatives and friends getting upset with him and not speaking to him any longer.
Welcome to the life of a round-earther.
That round-earther’s life sounds familiar. I feel a little sorry for him, but would encourage him to get a life and stop feeling sorry for himself. And to spend a little more time getting laid and a little less time blogging.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
* There may be special cases in which mass can be seen as two-dimensional, or in which it’s handy to talk about space and time in two-dimensional terms… but to use the term “flat earth” implies all the baggage that accompanies the belief, even if there may be some very limited use cases in which it could be used descriptively without being wrong.
To retort:”The problem with
To retort:
True enough.. but ludicrous grabs the ear because it is attacking and inflammatory and is used almost exclusively as an insult.
Neither.. or both.. but you’re getting down to the point here. You didn’t call religion those things.. those things are debatable. “Silly” is so subjective, is is not debatable. As a secondary note: a scheme is a deliberate plan, and cons, lies, and frauds share deliberateness. In order for religion to be a con, a fraud or a lie, id must be deliberately perpetrated by those who know it to be untrue.
Well, it would come down to whether it was detrimental to them. Again.. you say con, which implies a deliberate fooling of someone else. To be mistaken is not necessarily folly. As for your first question, we’ll get to that.
Whu.. what? This is a “silly” idea. Okay.. not really. Seriously, is there a more widely criticized topic than religion? Almost everyone I know, including myself has a criticism of religion. Everyone I know is openly critical of religion.. even my pastor.. heck, even Mother Theresa openly questioned god. The Daily show has “This week in God”, Conan has Jesus as a comic character, Monty Python has the life of Brian.. Christians are slammed constantly. This is an untrue statement.
As for the “Round-Earther”. I deliberately chose a topic that was known to be untrue to point out the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable belief (held by another) in something that you (collective “you”) disbelieve wholeheartedly.
That being said, you have constructed an interesting ( if paper thin) metaphor that deserves examination.
For the sake of honesty, let us assert that you believe your disbelief in a God to be akin to being a “round-Earther”.
You assert that discussion of religion is sternly shut down. You assert that disbelief in God is Taboo. You assert that it cannot be a subject broached with family and friends. Well, shame on your family and friends if that is true. They claim to hold an informed belief in an evangelical religion – it is in their mandate that they discuss these things with non-believers.
At this point, I draw the following conclusions:
1) If you truly relate to the round-earther, then you have un-argued your initial assessment that you have simply decided that there is not enough evidence to prove a God. You use words like “truth over error”, and “spreading untruth” and “con” and “lie” and “scheme” and “bilked” – and pretty much over and over again assert that feel that belief in God IS an error. That God is false, not just unprovable. That is the opposite of the statement.. “just because I think something has no provable, empirical data to support its existence doesn’t mean I think it cannot possibly exist”.
2) I stated before that your experience with the LDS church may have informed your feelings on this matter. In that case, you may have uncovered specific contradictions – and those in power may or may not have responded honestly to those findings. In that case, you have evidence to present, and others reject that evidence to their own detriment.
It is safe to say you have “positive non-belief” in the LDS church. It may even be that the terms used above which require deliberate obfuscation jibe with your experience in that particular case.
The fact is, you have NO evidence against the existence of a creator – and while that lack of evidence may be not enough to convince you of said existence, you have no proof that general theistic belief is an error or folly.
True enough.. but ludicrous grabs the ear because it is attacking and inflammatory and is used almost exclusively as an insult.
Finally, I submit the following: There are overwhelming numbers of smart Christians willing to throw down in a religious debate with an atheist. They may fail utterly to convince you, but they will proceed with integrity, logic, and a dearth of “you shouldn’t cause trouble”.
With you on the getting laid though.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
EDIT by matthew: Blockquote-ey quotiness & punctuation/grammar mods (no content changes)
Cons, frauds, and lies
I’m making a small exception to the family-friendliness of this site by using a swear word below. I do not see a way to adequately discuss the topic without disempowering it if I don’t.
If I recall correctly, you have a little book on the back of your toilet at home dealing exclusively with a category of statement in which little regard is paid to whether a statement is true or not, but whether it serves a useful purpose for the speaker. I have read the essay several times, and re-read it in full sitting on your toilet while expelling the contents of my intestines after a particularly satisfying meal with you at the Hard Luck Cafe.
The book? “On Bullshit“, by H.G. Frankfurt.
Since we are defining terms, if “lie”, “con”, and “fraud” imply someone intentionally perpetuating a falsehood, the only adequate word to describe those unintentionally perpetuating a falsehood is “bullshit”.
Clarification: God-belief is not provably a falsehood. Many specific claims made by religions are. Subtle difference, but important. Since no provable claims can be made about God, though, I can surely be safe calling such beliefs “bullshit”.
There are too many points covered in your retort for me to feel that I can adequately address them all, but as far as religion being a sacred cow… Sure, in entertainment, people feel free to poke fun at religions. But try running for public office in the US and learn what people really think about nonbelievers. Hint: only one US Congressman has admitted he’s an atheist, and I think I know what’s going to happen next election cycle.
Criticism of a person’s belief is not the same as criticism of a person. Just because I call a belief humbug doesn’t mean I think the humbugger is annoying or untrue.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
In that case..
Calling belief in god a “Falsehood” implies a positive non-belief.
Time for pie?
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Pie et al
Let me quote myself again. Somehow you just said that I said the exact opposite of what I said. Bolded for clarity.
Yeah, we’re arguing circles at this point, I think I’ll take some of that Costco Caramel Apple pie. Oh, dear Deity, that stuff is delicious.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
CAP
Something we can agree on..
Do they still make it?>
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
The pie…
I think the pie is seasonal, but my wife just bought us a membership so I have to show up and check it out 🙂 That stuff is sinful.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Unicorns…yummy
Can something be pink and invisible at the same time? How’s that work?
Absolutely!
Pink and invisible… as long as we’re allocating properties to an imaginary thing, why not? I think the Invisible Pink Unicorn was begotten, not made, by the Giant Spaghetti Monster. I’m not certain on the distinction — and neither is anybody else — but it has something to do with being the Only One.
—
Matthew P. Barnson