Alister McGrath on Atheism, Christianity, Religion and Science

January 24, 2006 2:39 PM

Breaking the Science-Atheism Bond. "When I was growing up in Belfast, Northern Ireland, during the 1960s, I came to the view that God was an infantile illusion, suitable for the elderly, the intellectually feeble, and the fraudulently religious."
posted by brownpau (160 comments total)

And he changed his mind? Proof positive that age and wisdom are not necessarily commensurate.
posted by MaxVonCretin at 2:46 PM on January 24, 2006

"Atheism, I began to realize, rested on a less-than-satisfactory evidential basis. The arguments that had once seemed bold, decisive, and conclusive increasingly turned out to be circular, tentative, and uncertain."

So nice that he chose not to cite any of these arguments. Remind me again why atheists are required to evince the non-existence of a non-existent thing?
posted by milquetoast at 2:53 PM on January 24, 2006

So, in short: Can't we all just get along.

There, now you don't have to read that.
posted by thanotopsis at 2:59 PM on January 24, 2006

I'm a bit surprised the post-modern view hasn't dismissed the word "god" outright. Its not gods or the supernatural, its the monotheistic God of a handful of religions. The inability to jettison this concept sounds like to me that someone has some good old fashioned Christian guilt. I would think a new post-modern spirituality would not use any of the old terminology.

The author may be right about some new spiritual path coming about (there always is, somewhere) but most of what I read is very revealing from the terminology used. It seems to be more about the personal monotheistic god who is kind and loving and watches over you vs materialism/determinism instead of aging atheism vs some new spiritual understanding. Color me skeptical.
posted by skallas at 2:59 PM on January 24, 2006

I find it insulting that he doesn't devote a single line of his essay to the wonder of Pastafarianism. Until you've been touched by his noodly appendage you've never known true happiness.
posted by bshort at 2:59 PM on January 24, 2006

Crappy one link FPP opinion post :(
posted by doctor_negative at 3:02 PM on January 24, 2006

There's no science-atheism bond, just a religion-ignorance bond.
posted by boaz at 3:06 PM on January 24, 2006

Atheism, I began to realize, rested on a less-than-satisfactory evidential basis.

Erm, logic gap or simple total misunderstanding of atheism?
posted by wilful at 3:08 PM on January 24, 2006

To say science is atheistic is 100% correct.

The best proof of this is that you can be a christian, muslim, buddist or any other religion and believe in 100% the same science as a scientist who is atheistic.

Science requires no theisitic belief, just as the atheist has no theistic beliefs.
posted by jboy55 at 3:15 PM on January 24, 2006

Argh. Atheism isn't a belief or a system of beliefs. It's just the absence of a belief. Why do people seem to not understand this?
posted by xmutex at 3:18 PM on January 24, 2006

It's just the absence of a belief. Why do people seem to not understand this?

I think it's because people think that's what agnostic means. They think that atheist means "without god," and not "without belief." Go figure.
posted by JekPorkins at 3:21 PM on January 24, 2006

My atheism isn't simply a 'lack of belief in god' but a rejection of the "supernatural" (including but not limited to "god") which I find inherently pseudoscientific.
posted by dgaicun at 3:27 PM on January 24, 2006

ha! stupid religious people.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 3:27 PM on January 24, 2006

They think that atheist means "without god," and not "without belief." Go figure.

I don't think the literal meaning of the word is an appropriate defintion of the theory as it's held. It's the rejection of a belief. This is not an active, functioning belief that relies on premises and things that can be considered untenable or otherwise. I reject many things that I feel are fantastical or based on otherwise flimsy ideas, and I don't think my atheism is somehow magically different or elevated from those ideas.
posted by xmutex at 3:31 PM on January 24, 2006

Right, I don't just 'not believe' in Smurfs, they are fictional cartoon characters - they don't exist. Period. And neither does "god".
posted by dgaicun at 3:33 PM on January 24, 2006

Can you Believe it ? is a documentary on the subject of religion by professor Richard Dawkins recently aired on Channel 4.

Those who know how to use the torrent can find the two episodes. It's quite interesting, even if not ground breaking, an address the main subject of The God Delusion.
posted by elpapacito at 3:33 PM on January 24, 2006

Who is this guy, and why the fuck should I care?

Boo
posted by Citizen Premier at 3:36 PM on January 24, 2006

I think it's because people think that's what agnostic means. They think that atheist means "without god," and not "without belief." Go figure.

Yeah, well, 'without belief in any gods' is pretty clear. And common usage defines the atheist as taking a harder position than the agnostic.

Anyway, as Sam Harris points out, if you were to substitute some outdated god for the god referred to in most common speech, you'd think the person insane.

For instance if Bush said:
"We are defending the nobility of normal lives, lived in obedience to Odin and conscience, not to government."

instead of 'God and conscience' he'd be laughed out of the presidency. To those of us who are atheists, switching the words around doesn't make you sound any less crazy.
posted by lumpenprole at 3:37 PM on January 24, 2006

I don't think my atheism is somehow magically different or elevated from those ideas.

Sure you do: You think your atheism is correct, while those ideas are wrong. You may not think that there's "magic" involved, but I'm not really sure what you meant by that part of your comment, anyway.

I don't just 'not believe' in Smurfs, they are fictional cartoon characters - they don't exist. Period. And neither does "god".

Of course, where the Smurfs are concerned, nobody's claiming that they're real. In fact, the people who made them up freely admit doing so. So unless you're an idiot, you didn't do any real analysis in order to determine that the Smurfs are fictional. With God, on the other hand, you probably should go through a bit more analysis before reaching the "it's fiction" conclusion.
posted by JekPorkins at 3:40 PM on January 24, 2006

Of course, where the Smurfs are concerned, nobody's claiming that they're real.

So wait, if I were to claim that the Smurfs were real, then, since someone claimed it, you'd be intellectually required to go do some sort of as-yet unspecified analysis to figure out if they really were or not? Must be exhausting being you.
posted by boaz at 3:46 PM on January 24, 2006

I'll mention, at this point, that I've never seen a smurf.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 3:46 PM on January 24, 2006

Of course, where the Smurfs are concerned, nobody's claiming that they're real. In fact, the people who made them up freely admit doing so. So unless you're an idiot, you didn't do any real analysis in order to determine that the Smurfs are fictional.

So what? Does the sole fact that other people express a belief in something, make it any more plausible? No. There is nothing to me that is even remotely more plausible, on its surface or with deeper consideration, about 'god' than there is smurfs.
posted by dgaicun at 3:46 PM on January 24, 2006

jinx
posted by dgaicun at 3:46 PM on January 24, 2006

Why's that, JekPorkins? You can easily substitute "pixies" for "Smurfs". I don't believe in pixies. I'm not agnostic on the matter, I have an absence of belief. That's a stronger position, but I don't think it's a controversial position. Athiests really do equate the notion of the Christian god with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. For athiests, belief in either entity is equally silly.
posted by salmacis at 3:46 PM on January 24, 2006

[self-link warning] A bunch of scientists and tech folks -- including neurologist Oliver Sacks, Perl inventor Larry Wall, biologist Kenneth Miller, and "Gaia hypothesis" co-author Lynn Margulis -- on their spiritual beliefs or lack of same.
posted by digaman at 3:49 PM on January 24, 2006

The distinction between agnostic and atheist is really important.
Most religious nuts conflate the two, and that is one of the prime ways I can tell that they are in fact nuts.

It's like the difference between "nameserver not reachable" and "NXDOMAIN" (with an SOA).
posted by freebird at 3:50 PM on January 24, 2006

I'm not agnostic on the matter, I have an absence of belief.

Um. What do you mean? That's pretty close to the definition of being agnostic.
posted by freebird at 3:51 PM on January 24, 2006

For athiests, belief in either entity is equally silly

Yep. And, like theists, some atheists believe that way because they've thoughtfully considered it, and others believe that way because they are simple-minded dolts who just believe according to what they think their peers will accept.

Does the sole fact that other people express a belief in something, make it any more plausible? No.

Of course not. Does the fact that the inventor of a fictional character admits on the record that the character is fictional make that character more obviously fake than others? Of course.

You can dismiss the idea of God as quickly or as thoughtfully as you want, but if you don't apply any scrutiny at all before doing so, I think that's a bit foolish.

And Pixies most certainly do exist. They are the greatest rock and roll band in the history of the universe, and that's an empirically provable fact.

On preview: people are nuts because they don't properly distinguish two definitionally ambiguous english terms? That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day.
posted by JekPorkins at 3:55 PM on January 24, 2006

I think you (plural) have a slightly wrong idea of what "agnostic" means. It doesn't mean "I have no idea if God exists or not" -- it's a much stronger statement that the truth value of claims about Gods, etc, is inherently unknowable.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 3:57 PM on January 24, 2006

Sure you do: You think your atheism is correct, while those ideas are wrong. You may not think that there's "magic" involved, but I'm not really sure what you meant by that part of your comment, anyway.

I think the point is that there are countless assertions people do not believe, and no one is repeatedly challanged on the basis for the lack of belief. I don't believe in leprechans, Santa Claus, gods, or astrology, though some people do. For most of these things it is sufficient to say "I've not been shown convinving evidence to justify belief in what is claimed."

But with atheism, the burden is often shifted; you cannot simply reject theist claims as unsupported, but must instead somehow disprove those assertions.

Curiuosly, this seem tact does not seem to apply to most theists themselves. If you ask monotheists if they believe in multiple, distinct, gods, gods who create other gods, they never seem to come up with any compelling disproof; they are atheists in their own way.
posted by Ayn Marx at 4:00 PM on January 24, 2006

Does the fact that the inventor of a fictional character admits on the record that the character is fictional make that character more obviously fake than others? Of course.

No, actually it doesn't. I didn't realize that troll from the Billy Goats Gruff folk tale was 'less fake' than Smurfs until now.
posted by dgaicun at 4:00 PM on January 24, 2006

people are nuts because they don't properly distinguish two definitionally ambiguous english terms?

Um. Ambiguous?
atheist: believes that God does NOT exist. This is a belief.
agnostic: does not believe it's possible to KNOW whether or not god exists. This is an absence of belief.

There is no ambiguity, and I think people who insist that "I don't know if there is a God or not" is the same thing as "I believe there is no God" are nuts, yes. Because they are confusing an absence of belief with an actual belief, and judging people on that basis. Nuts nuts nuts nuts nuts.
posted by freebird at 4:02 PM on January 24, 2006

I didn't realize until now that the folk tale of the three billy goats gruff purported to be a true story. I always thought it was an overtly fictional tale.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:03 PM on January 24, 2006

they are atheists in their own way

Right! They already reject an infinite amount of 'gods'. Why is one more even special?!
posted by dgaicun at 4:03 PM on January 24, 2006

freebird: I got taken to task just the other day for relying on your same incomplete definitions of agnostic and atheist. I was harshly informed that the terms are not so neatly distinguished. FWIW, I used to agree with you.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:06 PM on January 24, 2006

I didn't realize until now that the folk tale of the three billy goats gruff purported to be a true story. I always thought it was an overtly fictional tale.

Your statement is quoted right above my comment:

"Does the fact that the inventor of a fictional character admits on the record that the character is fictional make that character more obviously fake than others? Of course."

This condition is met for the Smurfs (I guess) and not for BGG.

If you'd like to shimmy around, fine, you never answered how things magically become "less fake" just because they say they are true, or because others "believe" in them either.
posted by dgaicun at 4:14 PM on January 24, 2006

dgaicun: Please read every word I write, instead of just the ones that make it easier to argue with me. I didn't say "less fake." I said "less obviously fake."

Things magically become more obviously fake when the person who invented them admits that they're fake. If you want to argue with that statement, go ahead, but you're just being pedantic at best.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:17 PM on January 24, 2006

Jek,

If the creators of the Smurfs declared their existance, would you believe? What would it take for you to believe in little blue people?

If you say to a person, prove to me that god is real, we first have to agree on what god that person believes in. Even if you regulate it to Christianity you are still left with 10s or 100s of Gods.

Is that person's god the God that literally wrote the bible through the hands of man, and thus everything is 100% correct?

Is that person's god the one who is unkowable and works in ways 'mysterious'?

Is that person's god the god that created the universe and its mechanics and afterwards let the universe to work as it was designed?

So given a god that is "provable" like the first one, I can very easily dismiss those claims. Likewise, I reject a non-deterministic un-provable god as meaningless and I reject an non-interventialist god as a waste of time.
posted by jboy55 at 4:18 PM on January 24, 2006

Things magically become more obviously fake when the person who invented them admits that they're fake.

No, actually it doesn't. I didn't realize that troll from the Billy Goats Gruff folk tale was 'less fake' than Smurfs until now.

Spin. Dry. Repeat.
posted by dgaicun at 4:20 PM on January 24, 2006

Or excuse me all to hell - "less obviously fake" - talk about being pedantic.
posted by dgaicun at 4:23 PM on January 24, 2006

jboy55: If the creators of the Smurfs declared their existance, would you believe? No. It would take some kind of proof. The same goes for religion. IMHO, people should not believe any particular religion or religion in general without some kind of proof. That said, it is equally foolish to simply dismiss the notion of God without making a thorough and honest inquiry. God's not a cartoon show, as much as you might want to pretend he is.

So given a god that is "provable" like the first one, I can very easily dismiss those claims. Likewise, I reject a non-deterministic un-provable god as meaningless and I reject an non-interventialist god as a waste of time.

To the extent that my understanding of this grammatically strange statement is correct, I agree 100%
posted by JekPorkins at 4:24 PM on January 24, 2006

Freebird, check out infidels.org intro to atheism for more widely (amongst atheists at least) recognised distinctions and a bit of history about the term agnostic. It also points out that people can use the terms in slippery ways (tricksy language english she is), so it's always useful to be able to pinpoint exactly what you're referring to within a common frame of reference. Saves time for more constructive mudslinging.
posted by Sparx at 4:26 PM on January 24, 2006

agnostic: does not believe it's possible to KNOW whether or not god exists. This is an absence of belief.

No, it is not -- it is also a belief. You are believing something is impossible.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 4:26 PM on January 24, 2006

Let's play define our terms. *deep breath*

Agnosticism, commonly defined, is actually an illogical position. That is, if you think agnosticism is defined as one who sits on the fence, religiously speaking - one has no beliefs either for or against god. This is logically equivalent as to being on the fence as to whether or not the Smurfs exist, which should seem a fairly absurd position to take. Importantly, an common-vernacular agnostic can claim to be an agnostic, but it is not clear whether we can be agnostic in our actions - if an agnostic is, in their day to day life, faced with a choice of to sin or not to sin, how can they reach a logical conclusion given that they refuse to make any assumptions about god or not-god?

Contrast the above to the formal definitions of agnosticism: Empirical agnosticism, the belief that evidence for god could exist but we do not have it; and strict agnosticism, the belief that evidence for god could never exist and thus the existence of god is unknowable. Both of these are positive beliefs, NOT an absence of belief.

Atheism is more simply understood - an atheist asserts/assumes/believes that the arguments for God are unsatisfactory and that the burden of proof lies on the claimant, and thus the possibility of the existence of God, while not necessarily utterly refuted, is safely dismissed. This is the general form of "weak atheism." Weak atheism is not a positive belief, the only assumption/belief here is of the subject's past experience of arguments for God and their perceived validity - an epistemological (not metaphysical) issue.

"Strong atheism"s are specific arguments demonstrating the impossibility of the existence of particular conceptions of god.
posted by mek at 4:27 PM on January 24, 2006

God's not a cartoon show, as much as you might want to pretend he is.

No, no, he's a cartoon character. I mean, if we're going to be pedantic, let's not be half-assed about it.
posted by boaz at 4:27 PM on January 24, 2006

talk about being pedantic.

if we're going to be pedantic, let's not be half-assed about it.

Aw, did I teach you guys a new word today? Cute.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:30 PM on January 24, 2006

ok so:

My rather pathetic excuse for this intellectual haughtiness is that a lot of other people felt the same way back then. It was the received wisdom of the day that religion was on its way out, and that a glorious, godless dawn was just around the corner.

and then:

Atheism now seems a little old-fashioned, the establishment position of a previous generation. And in its place, postmodernity has recovered an interest in spirituality. I have no idea where this trend will take us, but certainly it seems to take us away from atheism.

...so this guy is obviously some kind of slave to trends (and probably wears Abercrombe & Fitch, if this is any indication)...he's atheist/non-atheist with the changes in the wind...

...i never was big on the atheism-science connection...i'm an atheist (1) because i'm old enough to know better, (2) because i can take responsibility for my life, and (3) because i'm happy enough with the obvious complexity of the world and interpersonal relationships as explanation for life's ups and downs...it doesn't really have to be any more complicated than that...
posted by troybob at 4:31 PM on January 24, 2006

>>That is, if you think agnosticism is defined as one who sits on the fence, religiously speaking - one has no beliefs either for or against god.

Lets not speak religiously then. An agnostic is someone who assumes the supernatural (which you call God) is unknowable by man either forever or at least now, thus taking on a religious belief based on faith (the lack of evidence) would be foolish.

Let me introduce you to my friend the wikipedia.
posted by skallas at 4:33 PM on January 24, 2006

>>a choice of to sin or not to sin, how can they reach a logical conclusion given that they refuse to make any assumptions about god or not-god?

You can have a bazillion moral systems without religion (which you call god here). Sin is a loaded religious term. Thanks for the schooling, but it looks like you have a lot of reading to do and a lot of bias to shed.
posted by skallas at 4:34 PM on January 24, 2006

God's not a cartoon show? What about God, Bob and the Devil?.

But anyhow - this article is as useful as bulls on a tit. Atheist arguments are circular and tenuous? Such as...? Or possibly opposed to "the bible is true because the bible says so"? (I know, it's a straw man, but at least it's a man of some description).
posted by Sparx at 4:37 PM on January 24, 2006

Aw, did I teach you guys a new word today? Cute.

Sure thing guy. Remember to be an ass and fling shit if you can't make a logical argument.
posted by dgaicun at 4:39 PM on January 24, 2006

i never was big on the atheism-science connection

I have to agree with that. But for different reasons. Science on the whole looks for answers.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:39 PM on January 24, 2006

It's tough to take someone seriously who thinks pedantic is a word you teach anyone over 8. If I use the word 'cute' next, are you gonna say you taught me that one too? Cute.
posted by boaz at 4:40 PM on January 24, 2006

I wholly and completely reject the works and ways of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If only because that shit was funny for about, oh, 2 minutes.

What's worse than humorless fundamentalists (of any variety)? People who beat a moderately amusing joke into the ground.
posted by erskelyne at 4:54 PM on January 24, 2006

I hate to moderate my own thread, but outside of McGrath's more trite assertions regarding atheism as a form of belief (a silly argument all too often rehashed), what do you make of his stand that it is "not the only conceivable worldview for a thinking person?"
posted by brownpau at 4:59 PM on January 24, 2006

As a scientist myself, I can understand his point of view. As I've said in previous threads - if "god" is truly omnipotent (and one has to be to be a "god", I feel) then this god can do whatever she wants with the universe, and yet remain beyond our detection. This might be the god of chaos, the god of quantum mechanics, the god who decides where the electrons really are, the god of Brownian motion, the god of entropy, the god of the vacuum, the god of the missing dimensions. I feel confident in science's ability to disprove the existance of a 6,000-year old, flat-earth, creationist, heaven-and-hell Biblical god. I'm not so sure science has disproved the nature of a god in the deeper fabric of the universe. Lately, I've been tending towards agnostic.
posted by Jimbob at 5:01 PM on January 24, 2006

Likewise, I reject a non-deterministic un-provable god as meaningless and I reject an non-interventialist god as a waste of time.

This is true, and I agree - why would you bother to please an omnipotent god who can change the rules at any time? Why would you care about a non-interventionalist god? A god might still be there though, even if she has nothing to do with us. I guess it doesn't really matter. I don't spend that much time worrying about it, except as a philosophical argument.
posted by Jimbob at 5:05 PM on January 24, 2006

Stolen from slashdot, but I like it:

If atheism is a belief, then that means not-collecting-stamps is a hobby.
posted by beth at 5:08 PM on January 24, 2006

True beth. One would consider the basic nature of a human to be unbelieving, unless told about religions and gods - atheism should be the natural state. Unfortunately, for reasons I'm sure anthropologists are still trying to figure out, religion is a very common and almost universal occurrence around the world. You can find remote, untouched tribes in the jungle who have systematic belief systems. This doesn't mean god exists, but it makes it makes it clear that humans seem to want to believe in gods.
posted by Jimbob at 5:13 PM on January 24, 2006

It doesn't mean "I have no idea if God exists or not" -- it's a much stronger statement that the truth value of claims about Gods, etc, is inherently unknowable.

That's a valid point. I tend to disagree that it's as strict as you make it out - a common dictionary definition says stuff about "One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism." But I tend to like your view, where atheism is a positive statement, a belief.

The thing is, though, that's a very large statement, about much more than belief in God. It was coined by Huxley, and in essence is a statement that we can ONLY know things about the physical world, period. That's a much larger statement than "we can't know whether God exists". For example, I might think I couldn't be sure about God, but was damn sure fairies don't exist. Under the strict definition, that's not Agnosticiscm, but is a pretty common position.

So it seems to me there's room for the position that God may or may Not exist, without the full materialist view of technical Agnosticism. What would you call that? I tend to lump both positions under agnosticism, but am aware that's perhaps over-simplifying.

JekPorkins, you've said several times that atheism and agnosticism are differnt, but not given any details. The dictionary makes the distinction pretty clear. So I'm left thinking you mean "not being sure about God" is just as EVIL as "believing God doesn't exist". Please clarify so I don't classify you with the Mixed Nuts.
posted by freebird at 5:13 PM on January 24, 2006

As a scientist myself, I can understand his point of view. As I've said in previous threads - if "god" is truly omnipotent (and one has to be to be a "god", I feel) then this god can do whatever she wants with the universe, and yet remain beyond our detection.

But as a scientist why even spend a second of serious thought on such a meaningless self-fashioned nonfalsifiable belief, when literally an infinite amount of such beliefs could be imagined up? 'God' (whatever that means) may well be "hiding" in the cracks, but so may be the invisible pony that lifts up Michael Jordan to make those slam dunks.
posted by dgaicun at 5:14 PM on January 24, 2006

Durnit: where atheism is a positive statement -> where agnosticism is a positive statement
posted by freebird at 5:14 PM on January 24, 2006

But as a scientist why even spend a second of serious thought on such a meaningless self-fashioned nonfalsifiable belief.

Because it's entertaining? I'm only a scientist between 9 and 5. In the evenings, I can sit back with a beer and ponder the nature of the cosmos.
posted by Jimbob at 5:16 PM on January 24, 2006

freebird: I question the validity of whatever dictionary you're using that makes the distinction between agnosticism and atheism so well-delineated. The terms are not interchangeable, but they are also not terribly well defined, when so many people can describe themselves using them and mean different things.

So I'm left thinking you mean "not being sure about God" is just as EVIL as "believing God doesn't exist".

Wow. I don't recall ever saying (or even thinking) that either one is "evil." I think that affirmatively believing that God doesn't exist is stupid, but not evil. I think that "not being sure about God" is an unavoidable part of the human condition, and that absent direct divine intervention, everyone is "not sure about God" whether they like it or not.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:20 PM on January 24, 2006

None of us has, I imagine, gone into outer space, and yet we all "know" it is there, and that it is real, and we accept current scientific descriptions of it (like that it's a vacuum) without checking it ourselves, to the point that the battle noises in Star Wars movies sstrike us as "unrealistic" even though, odds are, few of us are capable of testing to see if space is really the sort of place we've been told it is.
In short, we have a cultural system set in place that gives authority to certain parties to disseminate "facts" about the natural world, and we believe them based solely on the fact that we grant the insititutions of science authority.
So, atheists (and everyone else) believe stuff all the time, and they (and everyone else) do so because of cultural practices, not because of any innate superior ability to reason.
This doesn't mean all explanations are equal, of course -- some will be more useful than others, but the long and short of it is that atheists don't find explanations involving God useful, while believers do.
In any case, there is no such animal as "lack-of-belief" except for apathy. And I think that being in this thread disqualifies anyone from claiming apathy, so the one thing that can be determined is that the only people who can truly be said to have a lack of belief in God don't care enough to discuss the matter and so, the atheists who protest loudly about their beliefs in no god being characterized as such do protest too much.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:20 PM on January 24, 2006

If atheism is a belief, then that means not-collecting-stamps is a hobby.

If only if belief and collecting are the same sort of thing.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:22 PM on January 24, 2006

Actually, my atheism is not a belief. I know there is no god. Prove me wrong.

I'd certainly be willing to revise that position in the light of new evidence, but it would have to be a real 'Truman Show' moment in which the entire curtain of reality was parted and the gears behind it revealed. The same as my knowledge of electricity being a natural force would need a really huge amount of evidence to change it. I'd need to see the pixie-smurfs moving light from one place to another. Often. After being checked by several doctors. And be around others who saw them too. And have it be in all the papers. And even then I'd be really, really suspicious.

Look, this world is no different than the world would be if there was no god. I've met plenty of people who spoke to god, but most of them lived on the street. And furthermore, if god exists, made the world, made us to live on it, then perhaps the phrase 'little help' has missed her/him/it/them.

Agh, I promised myself I wasn't going to waste anymore time arguing about invisible superheros in the sky. Sorry for the tone.
posted by lumpenprole at 5:23 PM on January 24, 2006

I'm not so sure science has disproved the nature of a god in the deeper fabric of the universe.

as science can't disprove the pastafarism deity either - your proposed 'unknowable' god is therefore entirely equivalent then to the now universally accepted all-seeing flying plate of bolonaise and meatballs.

i certainly don't agree with the implication that lack of dangly appendages necesarily makes any one diety any more plausible that any other. which appears to be what you're basically saying.
posted by rodney stewart at 5:23 PM on January 24, 2006

And I think that being in this thread disqualifies anyone from claiming apathy...

Ha, got you there!
Is there a word for one who doesn't know if there is a God and is relatively unconcerned?
posted by 235w103 at 5:24 PM on January 24, 2006

what do you make of his stand that it is "not the only conceivable worldview for a thinking person?"

It's pretty damn near an empirical fact that there are many non-atheistic worldviews held by thinking people. Shall we ask Terry Schiavo and Jesus' decomposed corpse what non-thinking people believe?

Oh I'm sorry, trite you say. Why yes, this FPP is.

On preview: Oh snap, eustacescrubb just cornered the market on trite. France will, no doubt, surrender shortly.
posted by boaz at 5:28 PM on January 24, 2006

your proposed 'unknowable' god is therefore entirely equivalent then to the now universally accepted all-seeing flying plate of bolonaise and meatballs.

Aah, but this difference is, I don't care about this god. I offer make no offerings of Parmesan cheese to please his devine spaghettified nature. Whether this god exists or not is of no concern to me. I couldn't care less either way. Just:

(a) It's interesting to ponder, in an off-handed sort of way.
(b) To me it makes more sense not to care, than to get all worked up and argumentative whenever anyone so-much as mentions the "G" word. Does it affect you if this god does or doesn't exist? Does it hurt you in any way that I like to think about the existence (or not) of this god? This god is, as you say, unknowable - why should you care either way?
posted by Jimbob at 5:29 PM on January 24, 2006

I know there is no god. Prove me wrong.

I know that the earth is surrounded by rings of invisible, sentient Lucky Charms. Prove me wrong.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:30 PM on January 24, 2006

(People who have complained that I waste my scientific mind pondering the existance of an unknowable god - aren't you also wasting your scientific minds arguing against the existance of an unknowable god, when it couldn't have the slightest effect on us?)
posted by Jimbob at 5:31 PM on January 24, 2006

I actually waste my mind on sex, drugs, and loud music. This is where I waste my keyboard muscles.
posted by freebird at 5:38 PM on January 24, 2006

Because it's entertaining? I'm only a scientist between 9 and 5.

C'mon this doesn't make any sense. Do historians come home after a hard days work and "unwind" by believing Lincoln died when Einstein bit off his penis?

I seriously cannot understand how Intelligent Design Creationism (which is what you are describing with 'god' hiding in the cracks "explaining" all our as yet unknowns) is not ok as science but is fine as recreation? Why would anyone find it pleasurable to be a crank, and out of an infinite series of absurd, unfalsifiable ways for Lincoln to die, why would this particular theory stand out as one to mysteriously waste time on ' for pleasure' if it weren't out of cultural conformity to some moralized superstition? What you are describing sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to entrenched myths, that you know are ridiculous but they have dug their roots so deeply into your psyche, you feel the need to pay fealty to them anyway.
posted by dgaicun at 5:39 PM on January 24, 2006

brownpau describes himself as a Bible-thumping fundamentalist in his MeFi bio. He seems to feel the need to regurgitate old (when was this published originally) poorly written material in hopes of saving our souls (in this and other posts). If he is incapable of stopping his proselytizing, can he at least link less mind-numbing material?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:40 PM on January 24, 2006

but they are also not terribly well defined, when so many people can describe themselves using them and mean different things.

Nope. That indicates people misunderstand the terms. The terms themselves are clearly defined, and you've repeatedly dodged the issue of actually saying why you think they're not.
Here, I'll make it easy - tell me why these aren't clear:
a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst) n.: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
ag·nos·tic (ăg-nŏs'tĭk) n.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. 2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
posted by freebird at 5:45 PM on January 24, 2006

C'mon this doesn't make any sense.

You are right - the view I expressed does come across as "intelligent design" the way I expressed it, and I didn't intend it to come across that way. I didn't intend to evoke a god that "explains" what we don't know, but rather to demonstrate that if any entity exists that was truly omnipotent, these are the places it would hide, and these are the mechanisms by which it would remain unknowable.

Nowhere in my comment have I suggested that such an entity actually exists, that such an entity is interventionist, and I didn't intend to suggest that such an entity should be used to explain gaps in our knowledge. That's what creationists do - "We don't understand it - so it must be god, let's give up" - my attitude is more like "We don't understand it - (heh, what if it's "god"!) - let's keep working on it".

And, as for your analogy with historians, well, I'm sure some historians do spend some time wondering what it would be like if history turned out differently, as a mental excercise.
posted by Jimbob at 5:49 PM on January 24, 2006

Scientists are used to dealing with abstractions - do you take issue with the thought excercise of Maxwell's little "entroy demons" sorting molecules?
posted by Jimbob at 5:55 PM on January 24, 2006

The terms are not interchangeable, but they are also not terribly well defined, when so many people can describe themselves using them and mean different things.

Well, you may think they're not well defined, but some of us have dictionaries.

I know that the earth is surrounded by rings of invisible, sentient Lucky Charms. Prove me wrong.

Look, you're the one saying we should be all hesitant and careful when we dismiss the idea of an invisible superhero that lives in the sky and hears our prayers. If you'd like to provide some sort of evidence of that we'd be glad to talk about it.
posted by bshort at 5:56 PM on January 24, 2006

freebird: The definitions you have provided are quite clear. You haven't given the source of those definitions and, as I said before, I suspect that your source is less than reputable. Dictionary.com? Merriam-Webster? Just because an internet dictionary defines the terms clearly doesn't mean that they're well-defined in the real world.

Again, I was taken to task not long ago for using the same oversimplified definitions, and I used to agree with you.

On preview: Look, you're the one saying we should be all hesitant and careful when we dismiss the idea of an invisible superhero that lives in the sky and hears our prayers.

I have said nothing about an invisible superhero that lives in the sky and hears our prayers. That's the straw man you've invented to make my belief in God seem stupid. Whatever. There is no evidence of the imaginary superhero you've invented, AFAIK.

If you're going to pretend to give deference to the scientific method (and maybe you don't), then yes, you should be meticulous in evaluating the nature of the universe.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:05 PM on January 24, 2006

The definitions you have provided are quite clear. You haven't given the source of those definitions and, as I said before, I suspect that your source is less than reputable. Dictionary.com? Merriam-Webster? Just because an internet dictionary defines the terms clearly doesn't mean that they're well-defined in the real world.

That's just stupid. Is M-W not as reputable as the OED? What about the SOED, is it ok if he uses that? Which dictionary would meet your stringent requirements?

I have said nothing about an invisible superhero that lives in the sky and hears our prayers. That's the straw man you've invented to make my belief in God seem stupid. Whatever. There is no evidence of the imaginary superhero you've invented, AFAIK.

But, lots of people do believe in an invisible superhero. Who are you to say they're wrong? Don't you need to apply your scientific method to each and every claim?
posted by bshort at 6:09 PM on January 24, 2006

I think a lot of the sworn-athiests around here are trying to push the idea that "real" scientists have to follow some atheistic creed in order to do good science. I simply don't believe this to be true.

Look at the greatest scientists of the past - how many of them believed in a god? Einstein certainly liked to comment on god.

My supervisor, a well respected ecologist, is catholic. But his beliefs don't interfere with his scientific research. He doesn't evoke god in any of his papers. Science is a job, not a belief system. As long as your perception and understanding of god doesn't interfere with the conclusions of your research, what's the big deal? I don't believe in any gods, but besides pseudo-scientific Intelligent Design advocates, I don't see where belief in god has interfered with science.
posted by Jimbob at 6:15 PM on January 24, 2006

"I know there is no god. Prove me wrong"

Thinking is occuring. Something exists rather than nothing. God is everything (the process of thinking as well as the thought). That thinking exists - that anything exists - by my definition means God exists.

"I'm not so sure science has disproved the nature of a god in the deeper fabric of the universe."

Depends on the definition. Omnipotence equates to omnipresence equates to omniscience. Why is God's 'will' utterly separate from human will? I see no reason why there cannot be components that are lesser parts of the whole, but still actors. You can force your left hand to fight your right hand if you want. Taken from the perspective of the hand, it seems like a real struggle.

"not the only conceivable worldview for a thinking person"

I think atheism is an anathema (in several senses of the word) to any thinking person. The crux of that world view is that there is no God. This means that the matter is settled. There can be no possible ontological state of being that can equate to "God." So there is no inquiry into that ground of being.
We can certainly remove the term "God" from the equation.
Wittgenstein talked about the hazards of linguistic confusion.

But I know of no atheist who has done any work, philosophically or otherwise into the ground of being. But that gets back into - can one call an athiest "spiritual" etc.

I suppose I'd be a nontheist, but again, not really an accurate term.

And that gets back to the "deeper fabric of the universe" thing. We can argue about the features God has - but by it's nature it's tautology (predicated on the inital fact - if God exists then he has "x" features or doesn't have "x" features - same).
So it gets to the definition there.

Which for me is a matter of inquiry. Atheism - as I see it, is a lack of inquiry.

There are indeed factors in other - let's call 'em sections of thought (to avoid confusion with words seen from different perspectives) - such as Christianity that resist inquiry. And many permutations of those focus on the same tautological details mentioned above (Pat Robertson f'rinstance: God hates gays or the Quakers: God loves everybody). Dogma - is endless speculation, athiesm is devoid of speculation.

Certainly this does not mean speculation into questions that religeon and spiritualism often goes into such as questions of morality. I would certainly concede not having the supernatural spectre of God sitting above you frees up a lot of otherwise unexplored moral and ethical turf. I'm not at all deriding atheism as a useless perspective.

But at some point any thinking person will discover that inquiry into ontological questions are not invalid as athiesm seems to assert.

This doesn't require a specific definition of deity, a specific ethos, or specific section of thought, it really probably does better without them.
But it certainly requires metaphysics.

"Is there a word for one who doesn't know if there is a God and is relatively unconcerned?"

There is: Ignosticism. I'm not asserting ignosticism. I think the question - and the very process of inquiry - has very real and profoundly personal importance.
The difference is that many people hold empricism as the only valid set of deriving ... oh, let's be Epistemological assholes and say - knowlege from the universe. However Taoism f'rinstance recognizes that there is a priori knowlege, it just can't be expressed.

This is reiterated in the "Mu" answer given by Buddha as to whether there is a God and whether a dog has (rough western equivalent) a soul.

In western thought Spinoza and Leibniz held that knowlege could be derived a priori through reason alone, but in practice it wasn't possible except in certain areas where deductive reasoning was most powerful like in math.

Currently the empiricists seem to dominate - because science is so nifty (and so obviously valid) and because it's easy to teach.

And that's where we get hung up. 'Cause folks keep wanting to look at the moon or the finger that points to it instead of absorbing the teaching.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:15 PM on January 24, 2006

bshort: But, lots of people do believe in an invisible superhero. Who are you to say they're wrong?

I'm me, that's who. I'm the last word on what I believe.

Don't you need to apply your scientific method to each and every claim?

Only if I care enough about their claim to bother. And it's not "my" scientific method.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:26 PM on January 24, 2006

Thinking is occuring. Something exists rather than nothing. God is everything (the process of thinking as well as the thought). That thinking exists - that anything exists - by my definition means God exists.

Why is God everything? You make this strange leap that doesn't follow.

Depends on the definition. Omnipotence equates to omnipresence equates to omniscience. Why is God's 'will' utterly separate from human will? I see no reason why there cannot be components that are lesser parts of the whole, but still actors. You can force your left hand to fight your right hand if you want. Taken from the perspective of the hand, it seems like a real struggle.

So... we're all part of god's will? Yeah, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

I think atheism is an anathema (in several senses of the word) to any thinking person. The crux of that world view is that there is no God. This means that the matter is settled.

Straw-man it however you want, but you're privileging an omnipresent god over leprechauns, which, should be given just consideration in the world view that you're espousing.
posted by bshort at 6:26 PM on January 24, 2006

Why is God everything? You make this strange leap that doesn't follow.


Why do you get to define "God"? You make this strange leap that doesn't follow.

So... we're all part of god's will? Yeah, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

What a reasoned cogent philosophical argument. Wow. Right up there with "Oh yeah?"

"Straw-man it however you want, but you're privileging an omnipresent god over leprechauns, which, should be given just consideration in the world view that you're espousing."

I don't get it. Considering omnipresent physical laws as my definition of God is the equvalent of asserting the existance of leprechauns?



I will say - it is noticable that some empiricists tend to go right for the skepticism as opposed to recognizing the possibility of any a priori thought. If sense experiance can't show it, it doesn't exist.

Irritating habit really. And it seems to get picked up a lot. The whole "man in the clouds" criticism.

Causation f'rinstance. God caused 'X' to happen or God didn't cause 'X' to happen.

But as I said - it's about the system, the inquiry, not the content or the description which always seems to fall back into tautology. And Hyakujo's Fox keeps getting reincarnated.

Of course, bshort does have a point. Reason with a pig and he's still a pig. And you waste your time using logic.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:37 PM on January 24, 2006

(To bludgeon the point - God is causality) But again. Moon. Finger. All that.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:38 PM on January 24, 2006

The definitions you have provided are quite clear. You haven't given the source of those definitions and, as I said before, I suspect that your source is less than reputable.

Snicker. The definitions I provided are from the American Heritage dictionary, that well known bastion of liberal satan-worship and fuzzy-headed postmodernism. Any other dictionary will give a very similar definition, and as you've again avoided actually stating why you think the two concepts are not distinct, I think we're done here.
posted by freebird at 6:39 PM on January 24, 2006

I've said it again and again, freebird. I think they're not well-defined and wholly distinct because their usage in the real world is not well defined. If you'd like to see examples of usage of the terms by people who describe themselves with the same, please see above in this very thread.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:43 PM on January 24, 2006

Why do you get to define "God"? You make this strange leap that doesn't follow.

Look, feel free to define god however you want, but I was quoting what you wrote. You said "God is everything." I was responding to that. Some people call that a discussion.

I'm me, that's who. I'm the last word on what I believe.

Ok, then enlighten us. What do you believe?
posted by bshort at 6:50 PM on January 24, 2006

Jek - I also hear people confuse "Emigrate" and "Immigrate" with some regularity. Does this mean the concepts are not "not well-defined and wholly distinct"? Or does it just mean people often don't understand the concepts?
posted by freebird at 6:52 PM on January 24, 2006

Ok, then enlighten us. What do you believe?

Been there, done that. If you're really interested, then look at my previous comments in other threads. Email me if you have further questions. I'm happy to discuss.

I also hear people confuse "Emigrate" and "Immigrate" with some regularity. Does this mean the concepts are not "not well-defined and wholly distinct"? Or does it just mean people often don't understand the concepts?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being intentionally obtuse. But on the topic of "emigrate" versus "immigrate," you must live in Salt Lake City.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:57 PM on January 24, 2006

I think a lot of the sworn-athiests around here are trying to push the idea that "real" scientists have to follow some atheistic creed in order to do good science . . . My supervisor, a well respected ecologist, is catholic.

Actually I believe nothing of the sort. Isaac Newton was a lunatic who believed in all manners of junk science along with his real, unsurpassed, scientific accomplishments. Fine, people work quite well within their contradictions - its hard to deny this.

What I do say is that 'god' is a crank anti-scientific belief, just as surely as a belief in Smurfs is idiotic and contemptible. If scientists are theists, or especially Christians who believe all the lifeafter death and walk on water malarcky, then they are being unscientific for believing in those things, regardless of their achievements in the lab.

"I know there is no god. Prove me wrong"

Thinking is occurring. Something exists rather than nothing. God is everything (the process of thinking as well as the thought). That thinking exists - that anything exists - by my definition means God exists.

Wee. I define "god" as a broom - "god" exists. I define "god" as cold fusion - "god" doesn't exist. This "god" thing is just like an all-purpose concept for sophistry isn't it? I seriously hope you aren't making some crank creationist argument that "god" must have designed the human brain because it's too complex to have evolved, with that "I think therefore 'god' exists" crap.

I think atheism is an anathema (in several senses of the word) to any thinking person. The crux of that world view is that there is no God. This means that the matter is settled.

No, it means cranks like you aren't allowed to play conceptual parlor games with a metaphysically-loaded three letter symbol. Your comment is pure bullshit - materialism certainly has more of an established, or at least working definition, than "supernatural" nonconcepts like "god", so let's please stop with this Cosmological Creationism. Once "god" becomes a working hypothesis within any scientific discipline, or any forensic study of reality, then it will stop being pseudoscience. Until then (and that will never happen) this is just pure snake-oil.

Which for me is a matter of inquiry. Atheism - as I see it, is a lack of inquiry.

What about Asmurfism? Oh, that's different because you say so. I guess it has something to do with 'matter", eh?

But at some point any thinking person will discover that inquiry into ontological questions are not invalid as atheism seems to assert.

If "ontology" requires taking the ill-defined, arbitrary and ridiculous pseudo-concepts of tradition and your choosing seriously for explaining reality, then I guess I'm not a "thinking" person.

Of course the real "unthinking" people are the ones who tell us we should reserve some sort of special belief space in our minds, not for fairies or trolls, but for a concept they've never bothered to provide one iota of evidence for, or even adequately define.
posted by dgaicun at 6:58 PM on January 24, 2006

I've said it again and again, freebird. I think they're not well-defined and wholly distinct because their usage in the real world is not well defined.

This statement applies to every word. Does this mean we can stop attempting to communicate with you now?
posted by mek at 6:59 PM on January 24, 2006

Does this mean we can stop attempting to communicate with you now?

To the extent that you've genuinely been attempting to communicate with me, I wish you would stop altogether, yes.
posted by JekPorkins at 7:02 PM on January 24, 2006

Wow. He really converted me out of my modern ways of thinking. Not.

Let's stop calling it religion. Let's start calling it "personal mythology".

Let's stop pretending that believing in fairy stories helps at all. People wrote those books. Those that talk to god are either insane or salesmen, lying to sell you product. I suspect that many of them are and were a bit of both. The books are full of people talking to god. These people, whether based on fact or fabricated, are not to be trusted.

Let's stop pretending that believers of all religions are not practicing cultists, mired in communal self-delusion.
posted by sydnius at 7:02 PM on January 24, 2006

"...but I was quoting what you wrote. You said "God is everything." I was responding to that. Some people call that a discussion."

And I wrote a long post explicating that point. Some people call it reading.

But feel free to ignore or distort any abstract reasoning I engage in, just don't call it a discussion.

God is by many definitions omnipresent.
Omnipresent - om·ni·pres·ent, adjective, meaning present in all places at all times.

If God is omnipresent he is by definition in all things. He's also by many definitions omniscient and omnipotent.
(unfortunately I'm running into some of Wittgen...fuck that, why bother referencing anything).

If he's everywhere, knows everything, can do everything - why can 'he' not be everything. Furthermore why not define God as one with all things - that is - exactly as all things - as opposed to some kind of add-on to the universe?

But as I pointed out there are problems with using the term "God" because idiots tend to fixate on pre-concieved notions of what 'God' is and gainsay the argument into tautology rather than get into an ontological discussion or indeed have any sort of productive converstation.

To my mind a discussion is when you read and absorb someone elses' comments and respond on some equal basis. But whatever. No one says I have to respond.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:08 PM on January 24, 2006

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being intentionally obtuse.

Eh?

Look, you said concepts A and B aren't as distinct as I thought. I supplied (very standard) definitions which were quite distinct. Then you said they weren't distinct because people confused them often when they used them. I pointed out that people confuse all manner of words, and that this (generally) means the people are confused - not the definitions. If anyone *breathes* the words "prescriptive" or "descriptive" linguistics I will cry.

I was hoping you actually had something interesting to say about the actual concepts of agnosticism and atheism, like lupus_yonderboy did. Apparently you just want to muddy the waters. Which doesn't help get you off my Religious Nut list. No big deal for either one of us, I'm certain.
posted by freebird at 7:11 PM on January 24, 2006

Scientists should admit the possibility of a Deist god, since there is no good evidence for or against it. Active belief in any god is not scientifically justified.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 7:13 PM on January 24, 2006

Yeah, dgaicun really nailed your little pseudo-scientific bullshit far better than I ever could. Feel free to continue using tortured little semantic games to try and prove your "point." You'd probably be much better off just talking to yourself. That way no one could misunderstand you or distort your words.
posted by bshort at 7:13 PM on January 24, 2006

Oh, and I was talking to Smedleyman, there.
posted by bshort at 7:14 PM on January 24, 2006

Fuck you back bshort.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:17 PM on January 24, 2006

Freebird: I still fail to see how my recognition of differing usages of the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" puts me on the Religious Nut list. What the hell does one have to do with the other?

Like I've said umpteen times: I made exactly the same definitional statement that you did recently, and was taken to task for those definitions being oversimplified. If you don't think they're oversimplified, that's fine. You and I would have agreed before a boatload of self-proclaimed atheists jumped down my throat to tell me how I was wrong and those definitions are incomplete.

Ultimately, I'm sure I'll stay on your religious nut list, since I am, in fact, religious. But what do the definitions of atheist and agnostic have to do with whether I'm a religious nut or not?
posted by JekPorkins at 7:19 PM on January 24, 2006

I made exactly the same definitional statement that you did recently, and was taken to task for those definitions being oversimplified.

Right! I want to know what the reasons given were! Why did you change your mind?!! What convinced you that the definitions were oversimplified?!?! That's all I'm asking. It sounds like someone presented you with actual arguments for the conflation of the two, and I'm curious what those were. Unless you're going to say "because people confuse them." Then I un-ask the question. :)

But what do the definitions of atheist and agnostic have to do with whether I'm a religious nut or not?

Because I started out saying that religious nuts considered them the same concept, because not being certain if God exists is as wrong to them as believing It doesn't. You immediately jumped in with your still un-explained claim that they are in fact not distinct. It's mostly guilt-by-association, I admit. I find it pretty accurate, but apologize if I'm painting with an overly broad brush.
posted by freebird at 7:27 PM on January 24, 2006

Smedlyman, replace god in that statement with X (some deity or whatever you please), again replace god with Y. Create X such that it is mutually exclusive with Y. How can the original statement then be correct for any X or Y? You have proven that both X and Y are true but that only X OR Y can be true.....

I think you are begging the question here.
posted by dibblda at 7:28 PM on January 24, 2006

"This "god" thing is just like an all-purpose concept for sophistry isn't it?"

Hmmm... doesn't look like I said that. In fact, seems like I said the opposite.


I seriously hope you aren't making some crank creationist argument that "god" must have designed the human brain because it's too complex to have evolved, with that "I think therefore 'god' exists" crap.

I didn't say that either. Intriguing how you seem to fall back onto skepticism and criticism instead of rational argument.

"Once "god" becomes a working hypothesis within any scientific discipline, or any forensic study of reality, then it will stop being pseudoscience."

I did assert philosophical inquiry. And I was using "God" as a convenient term. But if you want to switch to using ground of being I'd be happier with that.

"What about Asmurfism? Oh, that's different because you say so. I guess it has something to do with 'matter", eh?"

Ah yes, and it's me who is being irrational.

If "ontology" requires taking the ill-defined, arbitrary and ridiculous pseudo-concepts of tradition


Well let's start there. Since you put it in quotes I'm thinking you don't know what it is. I'm not trying to denegrate your knowlege, but I'm thinking we're not communicating. I'm using it as rational cosmology. Not so much in the Kantian sense or the discredited Ontologism sense. More in the Aristotalian First Philosophy, the science of the essence of things. The Sartre inqury into the explicit assertions and implicit presuppositions about the existence of entities, substances, beings, etc. - in this case the ground of being.

"...but for a concept they've never bothered to provide one iota of evidence for, or even adequately define


Well, I don't think it's me you're arguing with but them then. Cause I've defined it. I've also addressed "providing evidence" as part of the problem - as outlined above - there are inherent presuppositions about "God" that many people have and are reenforced by their world view or belief systems or paradigms of philosophies or what have you.

I believe it is these presuppositions that are getting in the way of the philosophical discussion of the nature of existance, the foundation of being, etc.

This thread - QED.

I will add as a rhetorical point that I don't believe I can prove something like beauty and indeed it is not fully defined.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:32 PM on January 24, 2006

Smedlyman, replace god in that statement...

Which statement?
posted by Smedleyman at 7:35 PM on January 24, 2006

Beauty is an adjective, not a noun. The existence of Adjectives is a very different type of existence than that of Nouns, since they are "properties" not "things".
posted by freebird at 7:36 PM on January 24, 2006

Scientists should admit the possibility of a Deist god, since there is no good evidence for or against it. Active belief in any god is not scientifically justified.

Yes, it is. There is no there there. First of all scientists have no obligation to "admit the possibility" of a 6000 year old earth in the sense that we are using "admission". This is "possible" by the stupid Matrix definition of possibility, but by the scientists defintion, it is not possible the earth is 6000 years old and Fred Flintstone rode a dinosaur to work. Period.

Meanwhile, scientists have no obligation to "admit the possibility" of Smurfs. What the fuck is a Smurf? Anything small and blue and human like? Smurfs do not exist. Period.

Finally, scientists have no obligation to "admit the possibility" of a nkdbnt5^^Y^HRF because it isn't even a concept, I just banged on my keyboard. Nkdbnt5^^Y^HRFs do not exist. Period.

Once God is something other than a reactionary pseudoconcept with little more substance than a series of random keystrokes in its nontestable formalutaions, and with no evidence for it, and all evidence against it by its most testable definitions, then thinking people have an obligation to give it any special theoretical consideration. Right now a thinking person has no obligation to give this "idea" one iota of credence, and every reason to be offended that it even has to be debated like we aren't actually debating the existence of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Christ.
posted by dgaicun at 7:37 PM on January 24, 2006

Beauty is an adjective, not a noun.

ack I can't believe I wrote that. This is why I've avoided arguments like this since college. It goes nowhere and from far away, all of us in this thread look like stupid onanistic tail-chasers.
posted by freebird at 7:38 PM on January 24, 2006

jekporkins: With God, on the other hand, you probably should go through a bit more analysis before reaching the "it's fiction" conclusion

Please provide any support you can think of that shows your god-concept to be anything but fictional.

If you cannot do so, then why should anyone treat your god-concept differently than other unsupported fictional beings?
posted by jsonic at 7:40 PM on January 24, 2006

Beauty is an adjective, not a noun. The existence of Adjectives is a very different type of existence than that of Nouns, since they are "properties" not "things". - posted by freebird

Is that for clarification or are you attempting to equate proving the existance of "God" to proving the edistence of a property. I'm not trying to parrot the ontological argument here. I've already said - a bunch of times - "God" is a convenient term.

But you know, I'm a major league asshole and fuck me for attempting to engage in a productive dialogue.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:46 PM on January 24, 2006

This is why I've avoided arguments like this since college. It goes nowhere and from far away
- posted by freebird

Thanks for asserting my point freebird. Welcome aboard.

But that is not by far the dumbest thing said in the thread...this is:

Right now a thinking person has no obligation to give this "idea" one iota of credence, and every reason to be offended that it even has to be debated like we aren't actually debating the existence of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Christ.
posted by dgaicun



The degree of fanatacism a person holds is directly proportional to their inability to detect irony.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:50 PM on January 24, 2006

Freebird: Here's a link to the previous discussion. I'm sure you'll enjoy reading others criticize me for using those definitions ;-)

And jsonic, there are numerous firsthand acccounts of divine intervention and communication with God. Some can be dismissed easily. Others perhaps not so easily. Most are weak evidence, if that. The support for my own belief in God is my own personal experience -- not face-to-face or voice from the heavens type stuff, but enough for my own belief. You'd be an idiot to believe based on my experience. Nobody should believe in God unless they have experiences of their own that act as support their own belief.

Why should anyone treat my god-concept differently than other unsupported fictional beings? They shouldn't unless they want to. I usually hope that people will be intellectually honest about it, rather than being jerks who pretend that a rational person's honest beliefs based on real experiences are the same as believing in a cartoon character. I don't ask you to believe as I do, nor do I offer my experiences as proof to you. You want proof? Have your own experiences. But you should treat a person's honest beliefs with more respect than another person's intentional fictional joke. If you can't figure out why, I don't care to explain it.
posted by JekPorkins at 7:53 PM on January 24, 2006

MU
posted by freebird at 7:54 PM on January 24, 2006

"Materialism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account of himself" - Schopenhauer
posted by Smedleyman at 7:54 PM on January 24, 2006

Is there a word for one who doesn't know if there is a God and is relatively unconcerned?

Yup. There's a whole church for it, in fact. Not to be confused with this group.
posted by Zinger at 7:56 PM on January 24, 2006

jekporkins: Why should anyone treat my god-concept differently than other unsupported fictional beings? They shouldn't unless they want to.

Ok, but that doesn't jive with your statement I quoted previously that people should treat your god-concept differently.

I usually hope that people will be intellectually honest about it, rather than being jerks who pretend that a rational person's honest beliefs based on real experiences are the same as believing in a cartoon character.

Some people may be jerks about it, but they aren't incorrect in comparing the unfounded nature of god-concepts with other unevidenced characters.
posted by jsonic at 8:04 PM on January 24, 2006

Sorry,

Smedleyman this statement is the one I was referring to:

"Thinking is occuring. Something exists rather than nothing. God is everything (the process of thinking as well as the thought). That thinking exists - that anything exists - by my definition means God exists."

Cheers....
posted by dibblda at 8:08 PM on January 24, 2006

dgaicun, bshort, a gift for you: Eliminative materialism.

W.V.O Quine argues in Epistemology Naturalized that because there could be no such thing as a first philosophy which provided a foundation for all other inquiry, epistemology and the natural sciences could not be separated from each other.

Huh? Huh? *pokes playfully*
posted by Smedleyman at 8:19 PM on January 24, 2006

"This "god" thing is just like an all-purpose concept for sophistry isn't it?"

Hmmm... doesn't look like I said that. In fact, seems like I said the opposite.

Hard to tell, just some gobbedly gook about "'god' existing" because you have a brain. If your intention was to says that "'god'=everything therefore 'god' exists by definition", then this is indeed crass sophistry, not "the opposite".

I seriously hope you aren't making some crank creationist argument that "god" must have designed the human brain because it's too complex to have evolved, with that "I think therefore 'god' exists" crap.

I didn't say that either. Intriguing how you seem to fall back onto skepticism and criticism instead of rational argument.

I said "I hope you aren't arguing", not "you are arguing". When your proof that "god exists" is "Thinking is occurring. Something exists rather than nothing.", forgive me if that can be interpreted as only "god" can create the evolved human mind and the universe, when this is a common argument for the existence of god. I fail to see a lack of "rational argument" on my part, and unfortunately for you, the alternative interpretation of your statement is that you were simply defining 'god' as everything so he would exist by definition, which is textbook sophistry, so don't lecture me on lack of "rational argument".


"What about Asmurfism? Oh, that's different because you say so. I guess it has something to do with 'matter", eh?"

Ah yes, and it's me who is being irrational.

Yes, in fact - by this very statement it seems you take it for granted that Asmurfism and Atheism are somehow fundamentally different. They are not.

"...but for a concept they've never bothered to provide one iota of evidence for, or even adequately define


Well, I don't think it's me you're arguing with but them then. Cause I've defined it.

Right, like a weasel, you defined it as "everything". Fine. "God" is simply a broom. Brooms exist. Therefore 'God' exists. QED.

Seriously, though, if 'god' is a "magical" human with nonsensical super adjectives attached, like Omni-sexy, then 'god' is a bunch of nonsense. If 'god' is some unknown variable x, that we put into every bit of knowledge we don't know yet, then 'god' is nothing more than Intelligent Design Creationism, farting into evolution, cosmology or whatever scientific arena religious cranks everywhere are trying to stake a claim to, before science moves them even further into their ever tinier reservation of make-believe.

I believe it is these presuppositions that are getting in the way of the philosophical discussion of the nature of existence, the foundation of being, etc.

What's truly getting in the way of figuring out (as opposed to "discussing") anything about the nature of existence is bargain basement unfalsifiable philosophical wanking that never bothers to posit a testable hypothesis or generate evidence- and thus advance knowledge even one tiny bit.

But that is not by far the dumbest thing said in the thread...this is:

Well, fuck you too. Rather than harping about what a "fanatic" I am, maybe you'd like to dissect for me why 'god' is a more respectable belief than any other cartoon superhero instead of guffawing at the statements like they are self-evidently wrong. I suppose ninja turtles do exist because I'm defining them as the number 2.
posted by dgaicun at 9:06 PM on January 24, 2006

Thanks, dibblda. It was a bit tongue in cheek to begin with but I'll take a swing at it.

"Thinking is occuring. Something exists rather than nothing. God is everything (the process of thinking as well as the thought). That thinking exists - that anything exists - by my definition means God exists."

replace god in that statement with X (some deity or whatever you please), again replace god with Y. Create X such that it is mutually exclusive with Y. How can the original statement then be correct for any X or Y? You have proven that both X and Y are true but that only X OR Y can be true.....

Thinking is occuring. Something exists rather than nothing. X is everything. Y is everything. X is mutually exclusive with Y.
.... ok, I'm broke down here - are you asking how can the original statement be correct for any "everything"?

Or are you asking whether thinking and "God" are mutually exclusive?

To clarify - I'm not trying to reason from the content of the concept of god to prove the existence of god. I like Spinoza, but I disagree with him and Decartes on the ontological argument. I somewhat agree with Kant on his refutation, with the exception that while metaphysical speculation about the ultimate nature of reality invariably fails, the inquiry is relevant because it is not an equation to be solved or expressed. A great deal of eastern thought is devoted to this point.

To put it in western terms - the debate about ontological commitment - how to approach answering questions about what the stuff is reality is made out off and what the most general features and relations of these things are and the debate in meta-ontology - what the hell those questions really are, are valuable processes in and of themselves.

So we look first at if what we believe already rationally settles this question.

Given certain beliefs (yeah, yeah, lots of epistomological issues in this thread with that word) do these beliefs we hold already rationally commit us to an answer?

The inquiry in ontology is to figure out what it is you are committed to with a certain set of beliefs of theory - etc.

Kant dismisses inquiry into the ultimate nature of reality as meaningless - but makes the mistake Schopenhauer characterizes for the materialists - he disregards the subject. (I'd trot Godel into the argument, but I'm too tired to make it cogent or even clear - and he's too close to the ontological argument anyway (he made a modal logic version of it)).

At the very least the inquiry tells us about ourselves. In Zen terms you must empty your cup before you can fill it with tea.

In "God" terms - when someone says "God" I think of the ultimate nature of reality. It is equivalent really. God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent - basically the universe or reality, etc.

I'm asserting that "God" is inherent in being without using a predefined concept of God. So we only have the ultimate nature of reality ("God") as something undefined, unknowable. I disagree with Anselm that there exists something than which a greater cannot be imagined because that defines a category, an attribute. In eastern thought the Tao that can be expressed is not the Tao. In any degree.

Certainly it is a first order logical truth that something exists. Beyond that lies inquiry, whether the internal framework correctly corresponds to reality. Obviously science does this. But meditation (f'rinstance) inquires into the thinking process - into the observer - in a way that science avoided until Heisenberg. I'm enthusiastic about scientific inquiry into the universe, nature, etc.

The more we know the greater degree of complexity, more questions, greater scope of thought and knowlege, the augmentation of the complexity and intensity of intelligent life, extending the evolutionary tendency inherent in being.

It is useless to ask - from an empirical basis - for proof of "God" (again, convenient term) because it is useless to know the answer to the wrong question.
(Mu).
To put it in western thought - because experimentation in this direction alters the experimenter. Because you already have preconceptions and an internal framework to contextualize the question and the answer - therefore it is meaningless rhetoric rather than earnest inquiry into the nature of reality.

...probably seems like I'm dodging the skullwork to put it into symbolic logic dibblda, but it is getting late here. Honest question tho, so I thought I'd give you an honest answer. Try anyway.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:27 PM on January 24, 2006