demiurgent (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
demiurgent) wrote2007-12-03 12:06 pm
demiurgent) wrote2007-12-03 12:06 pm
Entry tags:
A brief conversation
A brief conversation with a coworker, fortunately where no students could hear:
Him: Well, agnostics are just atheists without the courage of their convictions.
Me: Wow. That was both a lie and offensive. That's a neat trick.
He looked confused. I went on to tell him what I'm going to tell you, right now.
Atheism is not the lack of religion, despite the roots of the word. Atheism is a religion. It is the specific belief, without evidence, that the universe lacked intelligent or motive force behind its creation.
Many atheists refute this, mind. They say that they stand for science, and skepticism, and that any divine presence would need to be proven, and without that proof one must assume there is no divine presence. That, they often say, is simple science and stark reason.
And that's utter bullshit.
Science is agnostic.
Science says "I do not know, until I see. When I see, I can gather evidence and hypothesize. After I hypothesize I gather more evidence. I experiment. I test my hypothesis. I revise my hypothesis. If I and many other scientists perform these experiments and verify and reproduce my results, we might -- might -- upgrade my hypothesis to a theory, but that takes a lot of doing."
Atheism doesn't do any of that. Atheism takes it on faith that there is no god in any form, comprehensible or not. And the evidence for that is just as prevalent as the evidence for Yaweh, Allah, Aphrodite or Manannán mac Lir: absolutely none.
Guys? We don't know. We don't know who or what if anything started the cosmic ball rolling. We don't know if there's something beyond the edge of human perception. We just don't fucking know, okay?
Now, you can be convinced the Christians have it wrong. Or that the Greeks were full of shit. Or that the Wiccans are fooling themselves. You can be personally convinced that the universe is a cold place where everything is essentially chaotic and all things happened because of chance. That's fine.
But don't pretend you have an inside understanding that the religious nuts don't. You have a belief. Nothing more, nothing less. And that's fine. If it makes you happy, power to you.
And if you believe in a god, gods, goddesses, or whatever? Fine by me. Whatever helps you get to sleep, man.
Me? I'm agnostic. I don't have the hubris to think I've got the final answer. I'm still watching and waiting, and I'm keeping an open mind -- to all sides of the question.
And for the record? Don't you fucking dare say I don't have the courage of my convictions. It takes a hell of a lot more courage to admit what you don't know than assert what you believe to be true.
Sadly, it means I don't get to be nearly as smug as certain theists or atheists. But don't worry about me. I usually find something else to be smug about.
Him: Well, agnostics are just atheists without the courage of their convictions.
Me: Wow. That was both a lie and offensive. That's a neat trick.
He looked confused. I went on to tell him what I'm going to tell you, right now.
Atheism is not the lack of religion, despite the roots of the word. Atheism is a religion. It is the specific belief, without evidence, that the universe lacked intelligent or motive force behind its creation.
Many atheists refute this, mind. They say that they stand for science, and skepticism, and that any divine presence would need to be proven, and without that proof one must assume there is no divine presence. That, they often say, is simple science and stark reason.
And that's utter bullshit.
Science is agnostic.
Science says "I do not know, until I see. When I see, I can gather evidence and hypothesize. After I hypothesize I gather more evidence. I experiment. I test my hypothesis. I revise my hypothesis. If I and many other scientists perform these experiments and verify and reproduce my results, we might -- might -- upgrade my hypothesis to a theory, but that takes a lot of doing."
Atheism doesn't do any of that. Atheism takes it on faith that there is no god in any form, comprehensible or not. And the evidence for that is just as prevalent as the evidence for Yaweh, Allah, Aphrodite or Manannán mac Lir: absolutely none.
Guys? We don't know. We don't know who or what if anything started the cosmic ball rolling. We don't know if there's something beyond the edge of human perception. We just don't fucking know, okay?
Now, you can be convinced the Christians have it wrong. Or that the Greeks were full of shit. Or that the Wiccans are fooling themselves. You can be personally convinced that the universe is a cold place where everything is essentially chaotic and all things happened because of chance. That's fine.
But don't pretend you have an inside understanding that the religious nuts don't. You have a belief. Nothing more, nothing less. And that's fine. If it makes you happy, power to you.
And if you believe in a god, gods, goddesses, or whatever? Fine by me. Whatever helps you get to sleep, man.
Me? I'm agnostic. I don't have the hubris to think I've got the final answer. I'm still watching and waiting, and I'm keeping an open mind -- to all sides of the question.
And for the record? Don't you fucking dare say I don't have the courage of my convictions. It takes a hell of a lot more courage to admit what you don't know than assert what you believe to be true.
Sadly, it means I don't get to be nearly as smug as certain theists or atheists. But don't worry about me. I usually find something else to be smug about.
no subject
I feel so bad! I didn't get you anything.
Now, here's where you're completely, incontrovertibly fuckin' wrong:
"Atheism is not the lack of religion, despite the roots of the word. Atheism is a religion. It is the specific belief, without evidence, that the universe lacked intelligent or motive force behind its creation."
This is completely incorrect.
Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.
Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of those deities.
Science is not agnostic on this subject. Science states that we search for things that are provable in order to better our understandings of the universe.
Any idea can be considered, but until we have proof positive, it's only an idea at best. If you decide to test your idea as a theory and cannot prove it positive, it's not accepted as true. That's it, that's the whole shebang, fini, the end.
Many people have had ideas about deities since we first lived in caves. None of these ideas have been proven positive, ever. At best, people fall back on a "theory" that requires Negative Proof ("Oh, yeah? Prove there ISN'T a god!") - this is not science any more than me demanding that you disprove that tiny invisible gnomes venture into my ear canals every night and shit earwax into them is science.
Atheism isn't as convoluted as so many people make it out to be. Until I see proof positive that a deity exists, I don't believe in a deity. That's not a religion. That's stating "I'll believe it when you can prove it." You can argue that Atheism is a Belief System, but it's no more a religion than celibacy is a kind of sex.
no subject
I just list myself as a heretic most of the time these days.
no subject
The only way this can be corrected is by being an annoying cock and correcting anyone you find misusing the term.
no subject
That is, in fact, how language works.
no subject
(sorry... had to say it)
no subject
no subject
Wait... I don't get pie for that?
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Atheism, on the other hand, is an active belief -- and yes, you can render 'a belief against' as 'a disbelief in' just as easily. Atheism is stating, clearly and unequivocally, that there is no God of any kind. That's what it is.
The cardinal difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic is the difference between "God doesn't exist" and "Hey, I never met him, and I'm not taking your word for it." One is a statement of belief, the other is a statement of lack of belief.
no subject
THEIST: One who actively believes in deities and sentient higher powers.
ATHEIST: The "A" at the beginning denotes that an Atheist does not believe the tenets of Theism.
AGNOSTIC: One who believes that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods.
You state: ...if your version of Atheism is "I don't believe in any of those deities -- if I see one I'll believe in it" doesn't include an active disbelief in any deity or intelligent and motive force behind the universe, you're not an atheist. You're an agnostic.
Again, this is incorrect.
I am an atheist. I do not believe in anything remotely theistic. If I see proof otherwise, yes, I will believe it. I do believe that the existence or non of a deity can be utterly proven - until it is, however, I do not believe in one at all.
The scientific method of stating an Atheist bent would be: There is no proof positive of a deity. This does not give so much as a nod to the possible existence of a deity, any more than lack of belief in ANY unproven concept does so. Examples:
- There is no proof positive that, underneath the antarctic ice, there lies a giant treasure trove of extraterrestrial jellybean farms.
- There is no proof that dreams are actually what happens when your consciousness takes a hike and wanders to an alternate dimension where giant overlord newts sit behind an enormous computer control center.
- There is no proof that the Dinosaurs were fond of a saurian form of gangsta rap, especially the phat rhymes busted by a lone Allosaur under the handle of Grandmasta Auuuuroooorrruuuuuugh.
Under your definition, I am on the fence in how I view these concepts. That's retarded. I do not "give a nod" to any of these ideas. I do not view them as "possible, just unproven." I don't view them at ALL. They have not been proven in any way, and are merely silly things my mind has come up with.
This is, incidentally, why several years ago I finally tipped from Agnostic to straight-up Atheist, mind you: Agnosticism is silly. The idea:
- There is an invisible, unproven and intangible deity that invented the universe.
...Is just as silly as these other ideas.
no subject
Then, and please understand this is acting as the... er... devil's advocate... are you saying that the universe simply always was? That it had no logical beginning?
Not the big bang, by the way. Something had to exist before the big bang.
Where did it come from?
Do you know? Does anyone?
Can anyone?
You don't believe there is an invisible, unproven and intangible deity that invented the universe. I accept that. But are you right? Then where the fuck did it come from? What's the start point, and how did it get to that start point in the first place?
Is it silly to say an intelligent force was involved? I don't know. It makes about as much sense (though not more sense) as saying it all happened purely spontaneously, from nothing, with no initial cause.
If your position is "there was no intelligent force involved," then you're an atheist, it seems to me. If your position is "I don't know what was involved," you're an agnostic.
no subject
no subject
I was going to quote your whole post, but this is enough to quote and my response is to the whole thing. Furthermore, this is not in defense of Atheism, per se, but my personal take on your question:
One thing that was liberating as hell was when I realized just how much energy all of humankind expends on these idiotic questions. Where did it all come from? Was it made, or did it just happen? Where do we go when we die? Is there an afterlife? Were we here for a purpose?
These questions take away time and energy that you could spend getting other shit done. Everyone has an idea of where it all began. Everyone has an idea of where it all ends. None of this shit has anything to do with what I'm doing right this minute. In fact, it doesn't have anything to do with anything I will do in my finite and precious life.
Many think that atheists are humorless, dry bastards with no magic, wonder or mystery in their lives. I am living proof that this is not the case. Many are the mysteries that I think we will never be able to answer. I don't give a damn if it all started with the motherfucker of all bangs, or if some weirdo invisible bathrobe god farted it all out. It happened so long ago that the point is completely moot. Sitting around with your thumb up your ass, staring at other people's ideas of where it all came from in the beginning isn't going to help you one iota in life.
no subject
Dude, it is all about spin-off applications. Even false trails can yield useful applications. Magnifying impractically tiny results until they yield every day applications is a major part of what engineering does for us.
Pure research has always asked questions that almost no one cared about, and it has always been the big source of new useful things. Now a lot of paths down to the big cosmology questions don't seem likely to yield applications, but that doesn't mean that no route of exploration in that direction will.
no subject
As stated: this is MY TAKE ON IT. I am not defending Atheism. As I am not an engineer, and have no use in my life for an explanation of the source of it all beyond "hey, nifty, that's where the universe came from," I DON'T CARE.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
As you may know, I'm a theist. I'm also a scientist.
Untrue.
"The time before the big bang" is as meaningless a concept as "The space into which the Universe is expanding." Time and space are part of the Universe, not externals against which the Universe is measured. I'm not a good enough physicist to do the math myself, but as I understand it, time curves asymptotically back towards the "moment" of the big bang.
If your position is "there was no intelligent force involved," then you're an atheist, it seems to me. If your position is "I don't know what was involved," you're an agnostic.
It's ironic, but you're making a classic philosophical mistake that creationists make when they posit creation and evolution as an either/or choice, and act as if disproving evolution[1] proves creationism: the two are orthogonal to one another, and can even coexist peacefully.
"There was no intelligent force involved" is nothing more than a perfectly reasonable inference from the utter and consistent failure to demonstrate theoretically or empirically that the hypothesis "There was an intelligent force involved." Believing in divinity therefore has no more scientific basis than believing in phlogiston, aether, or polka-dotted unicorns dancing the macarena in your bathroom only disappear any time you look."
Also, "I don't know what was involved" can exist perfectly well alongside "There was no intelligent force involved." There are tons of phenomena we do not fully understand that have had several explanations ruled out.
[1] Or casting it into doubt
no subject
This does not lend itself to nice simple analogies, but neither does any of physics in the last century and some change. Even beginning physics books these days are full of things to which there are no good analogies in the macro-scale world. (Definitely in the micro scale, and I am pretty sure on the mega scale, there are things that don't fit cleanly into planet orbit and bread box analogies.)
no subject
I think that's the PERFECT comparison. Those elements were thought up as WAYS to explain phenomena, as theories that made sense and in some cases were close enough to the 'real' thing (where the real things is the current theories, which are not so much 'truth' as 'much better models'). This is why theism isn't 'silly' as flemco is trying to state. It might be very very wrong, but it does attempt to explain something. It's not a spontaneous thought out of someone's head, it's a non-scientific theory that is easy to believe and that will remain strong until a scientific theory comes out that is stronger and understandable.
But this may never happen: We have a very VERY hard idea of grasping the relationship of time and space. The relationship only visibly appears in thought experiments and in scales much greater than our world. It is downright impossible (for now, I guess I should add) for us to get a third-person view of the Universe.
So all in all, it's nice to enlighten theists that the answer to "how did it all start" may be "perhaps it never did", but science is in no position to ridicule theist beliefs. It may be prudent for science to shut up and nod until science has a nice theory on the improbability of God existing.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I believe that the law of gravity applies universally. The fact that I would reverse that belief if presented with evidence to the contrary does not make me agnostic in my belief in gravity; it just makes me non-dogmatic in that I'll change my belief if the old one is provably wrong. After all, it would be unreasonable to continue believing something in the face of contradictory evidence.
But it's not unreasonable to believe something for which no evidence exists either way. And the fact that I would decide to start believing in a god should one be proven to me does not make my current beliefs in the lack of a god "agnostic"; it just means I'd act reasonably in modifying my opinions as needed.
"Atheism" does not require that I hold those beliefs forever and ever, no matter what evidence comes along later. It just means that, right now, I disbelieve in any god. And
no subject
...
I would argue in return that if your version of Atheism is "I don't believe in any of those deities -- if I see one I'll believe in it" doesn't include an active disbelief...
Your idea that "active" certainty is a fundamental component of atheism doesn't seem to be founded.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
atheism
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
The first definition requires only "disbelief":
disbelief:
Refusal or reluctance to believe.
All that's required to be called an "atheist" is a refusal to believe. I have that. So I can accurately call myself an atheist without saying "I know for certain that there's no god". An atheist can be a person who simply doesn't believe _or_ a person who's certain.
On the other hand:
agnostic
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
1a doesn't describe me; the belief that it's impossible to know something? The belief that, no matter what might happen in the future or what we learn to do, we can never under any circumstances find conclusive evidence one way or the other? _That's_ bullshit unfounded certainty.
I'll side with you in rejecting the "agnostics are cowards!" silliness, but your definitions of the two terms simply aren't accurate, nor are your conclusions about identifying as an atheist.
Now, if you wanna say "prescriptivism!" and argue that your definition trumps the AHD, then it's unlikely the conversation can go much further. ;)
no subject
Science is agnostic on all subjects. The existence of a motive or creative force is just one of them. There has been no evidence to support such a motive force behind creation or the intercession of a divine force in everyday life. All that means is what it says -- it has found no evidence to support that existence. That doesn't mean it therefore posits these things don't exist. Science posits nothing without evidence. It leaves such things to philosophy, which is their natural home.
This is what pisses me off about the folks who use science as the antonym to theology. They confuse the issue and drag the wrong toolset into the debate, and it does nothing but piss people off and make it hard for legitimate science teachers to find employment in Kansas.
no subject
WHAT? Science is FOUNDED on the search to PROVE OR DISPROVE CONCEPTS.
Penicillin, the electric circuit, skin care, the combustion engine, flight... you're saying that these concepts are "not provable?"
no subject
no subject
Engineering is the discipline of acquiring and applying scientific and technical knowledge to the design, analysis, and/or construction of works for practical purposes.
And it wouldn't be a proper
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
Penicillin, the electric circuit, skin care, the combustion engine and flight have all been developed based upon current scientific opinion on how things work. And indeed the fact that they all work is continued supporting evidence that the scientific hypotheses and theories they're based upon work the way that we expect.
There is nothing that says we will not find some underlying principle (in micro- or macrocosm) that will redefine our understanding of just what the hell electricity is. Our understanding of electromagnetism is simply our current best understanding, not proof positive of what it is or is not. That doesn't mean the electric circuit will stop working if we have a sudden significant shift in our understanding of electricity. It means that we'll be able to apply the new understanding to make the electric circuit or whatever replaces it better.
Nothing you've listed is proven. Science doesn't prove. It can disprove, but it can't prove, and it's not trying to.