Considering this blog post I realized that I have a lot of friends who are atheists. Some are agnostic. Many are "kind of spiritual, maybe a little religious, but not really..." A few are Christian, a few are Jewish, and I know only very casually some practicing Hindus and Muslims. I probably know a Buddhist or two, and I definitely know a few Pagans. Myself I consider myself christian (lowercase "c") but it's probably most accurate to say I'm a Panentheist.
Atheists say "there is no god." And I say I agree that most concepts of god I've heard of sound not only implausible, but sometimes completely ridiculous. Instead of getting into god-concept bashing, though, I'd challenge all my atheist friends to explain what it is they don't believe in.
I'm quite sure any atheist who explains what they reject will end up opening the door to what they accept. It's my firm belief that every single human being has a concept of god. They just don't call it that.
I've said this before and my atheist friends accuse me of not respecting their position. It's not that at all. I totally believe them that they don't believe in god. But, again, what is it they don't believe in? Some personified omnipotent being? Some Father in the sky? Some metaphysical force that runs through all humanity? What is it they reject?
As soon as my atheist friends detail what it is they reject, they will find those powers outside themselves (or inside themselves) that they can choose to call god. That's all it is. A word. A label. It doesn't matter where it's applied.
It's too big too small to expansive too microscopic too other worldly too of this world... it's too everything. It's inexplicable. Undefinable. No words will ever fit "god" because, and this is just one of the reasons why: it means something different to every single human on this earth.
Atheists don't believe in god. And I don't believe in atheists.
I'm an atheist, so you don't believe in me? :) Let's see, my basic belief system goes like this: the universe and all life is random and has no purpose. Nothing "out there" cares what we do or believe. When we die, that's it, there is no "soul" that goes on to exist on some other plane. Some of us get lucky and have an abundance of good things so we get all gooshy and talk of god and plans and balance, etc. (I can get carried away with the last one myself), while other people watch their babies starve to death.
ReplyDeleteRe-writing my reply.
ReplyDeleteUniverse and all life is random/no purpose: I agree.
Nothing "out there" cares, etc.: I agree.
When we die, that's it.: I agree.
Some have great luck in life: I agree.
Some have great misery in life: I agree.
Some people have a lot of faith in god, some people don't: I agree. (I think joy and misery are both inspirations for belief.)
So, I pretty much agree with everything you've said. I still think you believe in god, you just don't call it that. :-)
All you've really claimed is that a meaningful definition of the word "god" doesn't exist. Fine. It's an empty word. Means nothing. And that's atheism. Lacking belief in a meaningless word without any real concept behind it. I don't see what's so complicated.
ReplyDeleteYah, I agree with Anon there. Perhaps you (SB) are an atheist as well and have redefined "god" to mean "no-god" in your last sentence ... okies. Kinda $Zero-esque, but whatevs.
ReplyDeleteI sort of believe in god at a visceral level but get contrarian about it the instant any definitions start to appear. I also believe that belief is a human psychological trait that evolved as a useful survival mechanism, which allows me to dismiss my innate belief as biological in nature. Read Dennett's Breaking The Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon for a good exposition on it.
ReplyDeleteAs for my sort of belief, what that means is I never really feel alone and am fine with prayer (though don't do it myself) and respect other people's beliefs so long as they are respectful in turn, and appreciate faith as a useful but also dangerous tool, sort of like fire, that I choose not to use. I mean, now that we have central heating, why set your living room on fire to keep warm? For some people, religion is their fireplace, and that's fine. Safe and decorative.
i think you're just playing with words here, frankly. god refers to a supernatural deity. you can't just change the definition of god because you don't like the idea of not believing in god. i mean, you can, of course, but it's nonsense. and i honestly find it dismissive and insulting to suggest that what i believe in is god. your calling it that doesn't make it so.
ReplyDeleteso many people mistake atheism for belief in nothing and meaningless-- that's nihilism. a sense of awe and wonder and an acknowledgment of forces that, though perhaps elude current human understanding and explanation, are still natural and in no way divine or magical-- all of these things are perfectly consistent with atheism and require no god whatsoever.
i used to use the word "god" (small g) to refer to the same thing you do, and i told myself i was just using the word as shorthand because it was too complicated to go into all of that. but that was a lie. i used the word god to avoid offending religious people, and to avoid the derision and scorn my nonbelief evoked from them.
i no longer wish to dishonestly associate myself with a concept that is a lie and has been used to justify centuries of crimes against humanity.
call your higher power whatever you want, but please don't tell me mine is god. it's not. i've thought long and hard about what i believe in, and it isn't god.
and as far as it being just "a word" that "doesn't matter"-- are you kidding? a word that people use to justify murdering doctors who perform abortions? a word that people use to justify stoning women to death? a word that people use to justify beating gay men to death? sure, it's just a label, but why on earth would i want to demean and sully my own sense of purpose and meaning with a label connected to so much hatred and abuse? i certainly could "find powers" that i "can choose to call god", but why would i? i could choose to call it nigger, too. is that just a label that doesn't matter? i think both of those words have the same amount of hatred and intolerance behind them. words matter.
ReplyDeleteyou can say that good is done in the name of god, too, but i think whatever good that's done comes from a community of human effort. you can say it's god, but you're wrong.
Yay Stephanie. I couldn't have said it better myself.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think when I call myself an "a-theist" I'm making it pretty darn clear what I don't believe in.
Exactly.
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to be dismissive. Let me clarify a few things.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the word is meaningless any more than any other word is meaningless. That is, the meaning is put into it using our social/cultural/metaphorical personal understandings of it. And, Anonymous, I'm pretty sure I know who you are and I've seen you grant me an exception to the "god believers are idiots" rule over on archer's blog. So you understand my concept is expansive/inclusive/not typical (I guess? if there is a typical?).
I'm not expecting anyone to call anything anything. I don't care if you call the strength or power you notice or see or feel or witness that might be described as god as god. Doesn't bother me a bit what anyone calls it.
(Seems to me, as a sideline, that a nihilist could only exist in someone with significant brain abnormalities, don't you think? That is, we all believe in *something* outside ourselves. And, for *me* that *something* (whatever it is) I call god.)
I'm not playing with words, actually. What I'm doing is explaining that I use the word god (intentionally) to describe that which I find indescribable. It's the easiest shorthand, as you said. It's most likely to capture the closest essence of my personal meaning for it. If I chose something less mainstream (spirit, my heart, Universal Power, Higher Power, whatever) the essence would be fraught with a kind of dismissive judgment that "god" doesn't call onto it. Not just by other people, but by me. In other words, more people are likely to get closer to my meaning of it if I call it god than if I call it something that's easy to say is "alternative" and, therefore, just hippie-chick froo froo gaa gaa goo.
And, why do I bother saying I believe in god? Why am I not an atheist? Well, I have personal experience with prayer working for me (Don, I totally love that comparison of the fire in a heated home). Call prayer whatever you want, I don't care. Meditation, thoughtfulness, contemplation, being stoned, whatever. The fact that I've experienced prayer working for me (soothing me, giving me strength I didn't otherwise have) is the proof I need of the existence (bad word, no other options come to mind) of god.
Sorry you feel insulted, Steph. These other folks and I have talked about this before. The way I see it is this: atheists say there is no god. That's fine with me. It doesn't negate my knowledge and experience that there is god. So, my saying "there is no atheism" can and should be the same. I could modify that statement, if you like, to say "I don't believe in atheism."
And, finally, Steph (in particular) you've illustrated what I'm talking about. You say "god refers to a supernatural deity." And, as I've said to others before, "says you." There's no way I believe in a supernatural deity. Plus, Wikipedia has a lot of definitions of god so it MUST be in question. ;-)
right, but i didn't write a blog post that said we believe similar things, and i call it god but you don't, therefore if you acknowledge those beliefs in something beyond yourself, you believe in god, regardless of whether you identify as an atheist or not, because i don't believe in atheists. i sensed a sly smugness in your post that implies, "oh, you atheists, you do believe in god but you just don't know it yet." now, of course, knowing you, i am absolutely certain that there was no such smugness intended or present in your writing or even in the thoughts that generated the writing. but i also think that it's important, or maybe just interesting, to you to hear how others are perceiving you. (not because you'll immediately alter your behavior or accommodate others' biases, but just as something to consider and then act on or not as the case warrants.) so i was moved to respond in writing with all the intensity of my internal response. i used some pretty strong language that i considered toning down, but i felt confident in your ability to gather that my distaste was for the idea you presented rather than for you as a person. plus, you are eminently capable of handling anything with skill and grace, even incendiary commentary that is intended as a personal attack. so thank you for responding thoughtfully to my full-force approach that pulled no punches.
ReplyDeletethe thing that i think is so fascinating here is that i think you and i believe in very, very close to the same thing (no surprise there), and the place where we disagree is with language. it sounds like for you, using the word god is important because it's the only one that carries the sufficient breadth to encompass what you mean. i don't want my personal philosophy of meaning thought of as just some birkenstocks, tom's of maine natural deodorant, and dreamcatchers sort of frivolous belief either. for me, it's important not to use the word god because i think the concept is far too small and inseparably wedded to intolerance, persecution, superstition, and irrationality. it's so important that assenting to the term "god" for my beliefs feels like i am perpetrating a hideous lie. i guess it's easy to see how incredibly important distinguishing myself from god-followers is to me by the stridence of my response to this post. :) the personal significance of atheism for me borders on activism, though it would be the sort of activism that aims not to change other people's beliefs, but rather to insist that those beliefs not be foisted upon me, say, for example, in the arena of preserving the separation of church and state.
(cont'd below)
and it's of course just as fine with me for you not to believe in atheism as it with you for me not to believe in god. i'd bet we both think privately, "oh, she agrees with me, she's just using an inaccurate description," but have enough respect for one another (and humans in general) not to insist that we identify our beliefs with the same words. or, at least, i'll admit to having those secret thoughts that you're really an atheist as i define it, but i also know i'm wrong about that.
ReplyDeletesomething occurred to me when you wrote about the proof of god's existence for you as connected to prayer, and that existence was a bad word for it but all that came to mind. i'm guessing the word "existence" implies too much temporality/tangibility for a "thing" that for you transcends time, space, and any other concept produced by a human mind? what about proof of the effectiveness of god (or "the god idea" if you prefer). while we can quibble about language and concepts 'til the cows come home, there's no denying that you have found something that absolutely works for you as a source of strength, inspiration, and peace. the effectiveness of your use of prayer (or whatever) is a fact that can't be disputed, and there's really no arguing with what works. just a thought that popped up as i was considering words and meanings.
i think that what other people refer to as prayer is akin to something i do, but i think of it as making a statement of intention. it's sort of a mindful commitment to a course of action and willingness to accept help in my pursuit of the goal to which i have committed. it's a way of bringing into to my conscious mind what i value and and how i will demonstrate those values in my daily life. it's effective for me, too, i just don't have a god involved anywhere in the process.
the other thing that occurs to me is that maybe what you're not liking about atheism is that it's a sort of negative proposition. atheism describes what i don't believe in without giving any clue about what i do. that's just the nature of a word with the greek root for "without".
ReplyDeletei guess for me, they are sort of two separate questions. it's important to say i'm an atheist, that i don't believe in god. that is a fact about who i am. there are also facts about who i am that describe what i do believe in, but that's not simply the opposite of atheism. atheism is important, but it refers to one specific thing i oppose, and it's a narrow facet included in the broader conversation about who i am. it doesn't give a picture of what i do believe in because it's not intended to. it's the answer to the question, "do you believe in god?", which is a yes/no question. it's not the answer to the open-ended question, "what is your personal philosophy of meaning that informs your values and guides your actions?" and asking me what my thoughts are on religion or the existence of god does not give me the impression that the questioner is interested in my own ideology. (neither does asking me about my thoughts on the meaning of life or what happens after we die.) now that i think about it, the answer to the question about belief in god is probably the same as the answer to the question about one's personal philosophy of meaning for a lot of believers, so it makes sense that misunderstanding about the intent of the question might arise.
so maybe you're getting an answer that's not satisfying because you're asking the question in such a way that we don't get what it is you're interested in?
for me, the description of what i do believe in doesn't have a single word or phrase that explains it. it's something that's best gotten at by having an exchange so that the the dynamic nature of two minds interacting in conversation can get involved.
I'm not sure whether or not I believe in agnostics, but once I sort that out, I'll move on to the whole atheism/theism thing. Or not. Since some divine voice told me to do something inconvenient, which I did, to much personal inconvenience, I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter whether or how you define it, just that you get the results. And oh what a result she is.
ReplyDeleteYou've really got to be careful about definitions when you are making claims about belief systems that aren't yours. Even though I have a moderately good idea what panentheism is, I personally would be very hesitant to state the essence of panentheistic belief with the same air of authority with which you have stated the essence of atheistic belief.
ReplyDeleteTo illustrate such dangers, I'd like to try to clairify some of the misconceptions that you are exhibiting. First off, it is actually the rare atheist that will comfortably state, "God doesn't exist." That is a position that is known in these discussions as the "strong atheist" position. It exists, certainly... and gets the most press due to the vocal vehemence of it's proponants (e.g., Richard Dawkins), but it is a position that is about as representative of atheism as a whole as young-Earth-creationism is of Christianity as a whole.
Most atheists instead adopt a similar-sounding, but proundly distinct position, "I lack a belief in the existance of god(s)." This is known in such discussions as the "weak atheist" position (and to anticipate a common objection to this position, yes, this is distict from both of the major definitions of agnosticism as well. I can go into that in a future comment if you like). The key difference between the strong and weak forms of atheism is that strong atheism makes a positive claim: god(s) don't exist. With such a claim, the burden of proof falls to the strong atheist, and a difficult proof it is; I would even argue that it is impossible to prove the unversal nonexistance of so poorly-defined a concept as god(s). Weak atheists, on the other hand, argue instead that the "nonexistance of god(s)" is the appropriate provisional stance to take in the absence of satisfactory evidence in favor of their existance.
Let me expand on that. There is insufficient evidence for me to believe the claim that Zeus exists, therefor until I see such evidence, I am jusified in adopting the position that he probably doesn't, and further I am justified in living my life according to that provisional belief. Replace "Zeus" with "Ra," "the Invisible Pink Unicorn," or "the One True Zebra," and the same argument can be made.
Many weak atheists even, myself included, even replace "Zeus" with "the concept of the supernatural." We live in a world where naturalistic, scientific explanations for observable phenomena have incredible predictive power, and in which no credible examples of supernatural explanations provide more predictive power (claims a typical atheist). In such a world, reasons the atheist, the nonexistance of any particular claim of the supernatural is the appropriate default stance to take until sufficient evidence comes to light in favor of its existance. This position is revisable in light of new evidence, but long experience with such claims that have historically been proven false leads many such atheists to feel rather confident in these provisional beliefs.
So I would claim that your lack of belief in atheists is probably primarily a misunderstanding of what atheists actually are.
a-h-scientist.livejournal.com (I couldn't figure out how to post with my logged-in from my iPhone)
Thanks for the thoughtful responses!
ReplyDeleteTo Stephanie: Tomater.
To a-h-scientist :-) I say:
At first I just found your reply condescending in that pat-pat-pat "what nice uninformed thoughts you have" kind of way. After thinking about it and re-reading it, here's what I think. Certainly I don't know the full range of meanings of "atheist." No doubt about it. I think "an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god(s)." Is that inaccurate?
You've demonstrated what I'm talking about. Who says the word "god" means something "supernatural?" I never did.
If I'm reading you correctly you are saying "god" can't be proved scientifically so it doesn't exist? Maybe that's not what you're saying. If it is, I'll respond to that thought.
As for how I mention panentheism, it's funny you should say I mention it with an "air of authority." I find my tone very casual and non-committal. For what it's worth, I came to that label through C.S. Lewis' description of pantheism. I investigated that further and decided panentheism sounds more like me.
That said, I'm fascinated by everyone's definitions of everything. Learning about your beliefs (the wider "your") is one of my favorite things, ever.
Thanks, again, for the reply -- and for reading!
You are exactly correct that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god(s). However, what you said at first was, "Atheists say 'there is no God'." The difference between those two statements is exactly the point of my posted comment. I am an atheist, and yet I find the statement, "there is no God," not only an incorrect statement of my position, but patently unsupportable and therefore offensive from a scientific standpoint. Do you understand the distinction that I am drawing between those two positions?
ReplyDeleteOn your second point, concerning the supernatural aspects of the term "God," while I will certainly agree that there are multitudinous definitions of the term out there, in order for a term to be linguistically useful there has to be at least some degree of characteristics that are commonly understood to determine what the term applies to and what it doesn't. Without such an agreed-upon set, we could look at a dog and call it "democracy." So given this, what are the characteristics of that are common among different definitions of "God?" I can think of two such qualities: supernatural character and sentience. If a thing is completely described by natural law, then I cannot see how someone can call it "God." Further if a thing can't THINK, then it seems to fall outside the reasonable definitions. It is not that something important can't be both natural an nonsentient... It's that calling such a thing "God" is inhibiting communication rather than furthering it.
On your third point, no, I am not saying that because God cannot be proven scientifically he therefor doesn't exist. On the contrary, I am saying that there are in fact an infinite number of propositions that can be stated that cannot be proven scientifically (e.g., there is an invisible, intangible dragon that lives in my garage). The question is, given any example of such an unprovable assumption, what should be our default position? I contend that the default position should be disbelief. Not in the sense of, "it doesn't exist," but in the sense of "until you can present me with adequate support for the proposition, I'm going to have to assume that there is no dragon in my garage." Or god.
Finally, if you'll reread what I wrote you will see that I didn't say you spoke of panentheism with an air of authority. Honestly, you didn't so much speak of it at all as you did just mention the term. What I said was that you spoke of atheism with an air of authority. And, as I pointed out above, you misstated the typical central belief of atheists.
Cheers,
a-h-scientist
a-h-scientist wrote:
ReplyDeleteYou are exactly correct that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god(s). However, what you said at first was, "Atheists say 'there is no God'." The difference between those two statements is exactly the point of my posted comment. I am an atheist, and yet I find the statement, "there is no God," not only an incorrect statement of my position, but patently unsupportable and therefore offensive from a scientific standpoint. Do you understand the distinction that I am drawing between those two positions?
My response:
I do. Thanks for explaining the distinction you are making. It's funny, though, because I've known atheists who object to the "doesn't believe in" phrase specifically because it allows for the possibility that god exists.
You wrote:
On your second point, concerning the supernatural aspects of the term "God," while I will certainly agree that there are multitudinous definitions of the term out there, in order for a term to be linguistically useful there has to be at least some degree of characteristics that are commonly understood to determine what the term applies to and what it doesn't. Without such an agreed-upon set, we could look at a dog and call it "democracy." So given this,
My response:
Have to stop you right there. Words don't have an agreed upon set of characteristics. That's the largest part of my point. We try, we want to find common characteristics, and in many cases we succeed. A chair, for example. Most of us agree on what a chair is. However, it is only through metaphor that we understand it. There are no absolute meanings for any words. And, of course, there are generally agreed upon qualities (see: chair) but for concepts as large and confusing as "god" I doubt we'll ever agree on "commonly understood" characteristics.
part 1
a-h-scientist wrote:
ReplyDeletewhat are the characteristics of that are common among different definitions of "God?" I can think of two such qualities: supernatural character and sentience. If a thing is completely described by natural law, then I cannot see how someone can call it "God." Further if a thing can't THINK, then it seems to fall outside the reasonable definitions. It is not that something important can't be both natural an nonsentient... It's that calling such a thing "God" is inhibiting communication rather than furthering it.
My response:
My concept of god is not supernatural in character and it is certainly not anything close to sentient.
You wrote:
On your third point, no, I am not saying that because God cannot be proven scientifically he therefor doesn't exist. On the contrary, I am saying that there are in fact an infinite number of propositions that can be stated that cannot be proven scientifically (e.g., there is an invisible, intangible dragon that lives in my garage). The question is, given any example of such an unprovable assumption, what should be our default position? I contend that the default position should be disbelief. Not in the sense of, "it doesn't exist," but in the sense of "until you can present me with adequate support for the proposition, I'm going to have to assume that there is no dragon in my garage." Or god.
My response:
Ah, I see. So you are an atheist who... wants someone to prove the existence of god? Doesn't that make you agnostic? Or... explain what you mean.
You wrote:
Finally, if you'll reread what I wrote you will see that I didn't say you spoke of panentheism with an air of authority. Honestly, you didn't so much speak of it at all as you did just mention the term. What I said was that you spoke of atheism with an air of authority. And, as I pointed out above, you misstated the typical central belief of atheists.
My response:
Misread you there. I thought you were talking about panentheism which just happens to be one of the areas I've actually spent some time with, so I found that critique particularly puzzling. If you're referring to the general tone as I speak about atheism, I suppose it could be read that way. When I speak of my opinions (which is about 90% of the time that I speak or write) I speak with an air of authority because... I am the authority on my opinions. :-)
(part 2)
Your response:
ReplyDeleteI do. Thanks for explaining the distinction you are making. It's funny, though, because I've known atheists who object to the "doesn't believe in" phrase specifically because it allows for the possibility that god exists.
My response:
There certainly are such atheists. They are the "strong atheists" from my first post. And incidentally you will find that I argue more strongly against them than I do against theists.
You wrote:
Have to stop you right there. Words don't have an agreed upon set of characteristics.
I reply:
Without such an agreed-upon set if characteristics, then we have no communication. Your example of the chair is an excellent example of this. Yes, the boundary between things that are understood to be meant by the term chair and things that are not can be fuzzy, but if I asked you to bring me a chair and you brought me a glass of water, that would be an indication that the word "chair" had not served its linguistic purpose.
(continued in next post)
You wrote:
ReplyDeleteThat's the largest part of my point. We try, we want to find common characteristics, and in many cases we succeed. A chair, for example. Most of us agree on what a chair is. However, it is only through metaphor that we understand it. There are no absolute meanings for any words. And, of course, there are generally agreed upon qualities (see: chair) but for concepts as large and confusing as "god" I doubt we'll ever agree on "commonly understood" characteristics.
I reply:
Any word that does not, at least between the speaker and the audience, have an agreed-upon set of characteristics fails to be useful in communication. Yes, a term like "god" can be very broadly defined, but if we let it mean a glass of water, then it is useless. My argument is that by allowing the term to represent something that is (a) purely natural and (b) nonsentient, you have moved so far away from the commonly-understood meaning of the term that you are failing to effecively communicate when you insist upon broadening the definitions to that point.
You wrote:
Ah, I see. So you are an atheist who... wants someone to prove the existence of god? Doesn't that make you agnostic? Or... explain what you mean.
I answer:
No and no. But let me start by explaining the term "agnostic." When Huxley first introduced the term, he used it to describe a very demanding philosophical position: that the existance of god(s) is an inherantly untestable proposition, and thus is a moot question. Since that original introduction of the word, it has come to mean in common discourse a more general uncertainty about the existance of god(s). To distinguish these different definitions, the original is usually called "strict agnosticism," and the more colloqueal form is called "empirical agnosticism." These are both distinguishable from weak atheism because the weak atheist has in fact taken a provisional stance on the question. The agnostic has not.
So now to the no and no parts. I am not saying that I want someone to prove the existance of God. I am saying that I have I find it most reasonable to provisionally disbelieve the existance of anything for which insuffiient evidence has been presented. And I am happy with that as is. If someone wants me to take the proposition that God exists seriously, then they have the burden of proof. And I will consider their evidence/arguments. But do I WANT them to do so? Not particularly. It's fun to discuss it, of course. And it's a good way for me to put my ideas to the test.
a-h-scientist
I wrote:
ReplyDeleteHave to stop you right there. Words don't have an agreed upon set of characteristics.
You wrote:
Without such an agreed-upon set if characteristics, then we have no communication. Your example of the chair is an excellent example of this. Yes, the boundary between things that are understood to be meant by the term chair and things that are not can be fuzzy, but if I asked you to bring me a chair and you brought me a glass of water, that would be an indication that the word "chair" had not served its linguistic purpose.
My response:
It is a very serious problem in communication. It is evidence that humans are a cooperative bunch, the fact that we get so close to shared meanings of things. However, there is no understanding of words without using metaphors.
For examples of where we think we know the meaning but others have totally different meanings consider freedom, liberty, patriotism, god, justice.
As for "chair," at what point does a stool or bench become a chair? Do we all agree on that? I doubt it.
Okay. I consider you a friend so I've given you latitude on tone here, but I simply can't read your post when you say "let me start by explaining the term." Do you not realize what a condescending asshole you sound like?
ReplyDeleteMy mind just slammed shut. I'll come back to your comment because you've had some interesting points and because I've considered you a friend. But, seriously, do you not realize you sound like you think I'm an idiot?
You said:
ReplyDeleteAs for "chair," at what point does a stool or bench become a chair? Do we all agree on that? I doubt it.
I say:
Of course not. But the fact that the bondaries of the definition are fuzzy emphatically does not mean that we can't identify things that are clearly not chairs. Same thing with gods.
You said:
Okay. I consider you a friend so I've given you latitude on tone here, but I simply can't read your post when you say "let me start by explaining the term." Do you not realize what a condescending asshole you sound like?
My mind just slammed shut. I'll come back to your comment because you've had some interesting points and because I've considered you a friend. But, seriously, do you not realize you sound like you think I'm an idiot?
I say:
Perhaps the biggest problem in online communication is that tone is so difficult to read. I sincerely apologise for any offense; it was not intended, as I hope you will see from my attempted clarification below.
The definitions of atheism and agnosticism are horribly misunderstood. I cannot count the number of times that I have run into exactly the misconceptions that you have voiced. This is a common problem... To the point that there are numerous FAQs on the subject (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html is an excellen example). So in this context, starting by explaining the term is definitely not calling you an idiot... It is acknowledging that these philosophical positions are commonly misunderstood, extremely nuanced, and, since they are central to answering the questions you asked of me, necessary to clarify. Yes, I almost certainly rushed the intro to the definitions, and also came across as much more abrupt than I should have. My main excuse is that I am discovering that I hate typing on this iPhone, and was feeling pressure to finish up the post so that I could turn my attentions back to the family. Nonetheless I'm extremely sorry about the tone. But I hope you will agree that the clarifications that I made were in fact necessary for the discussion.
Further (and this is NOT intended as a justification of my tone), do you realize how offensive your original post is, in tone, to an atheist? Your post basically boiled down to, "You're wrong. You just don't know it yet, because you haven't thought it through enough." I ignored that tone, because I too consider you to be a friend, and instead focussed on working to clear up some directly-stated misconceptions.
a-h-scientist
I have stayed out of this conversation for a variety of reasons. First, because I feel pretty strongly about it, and I have found over the past few months that when I feel something strongly, I actually don't want to discuss it online... I'd rather discuss it with a person in person and feel like I'm learning something about that person in turn. Online conversation ultimately frustrates me, perhaps, in part, because of the potential for a "mind slamming shut" moment like just happened above. I've seen it happen too often, and it frankly has started to pain me so much that I find it easier to just avoid it, as much as a subject might interest me.
ReplyDeleteObviously, we know who everyone is here. My husband likes to "explain terms" for the very reasons he has stated above. Without common definitions, conversation is impossible. In this case, for instance, many people define agnostic as "not caring." I think it was you, actually, who sent around a quiz just a few months ago that did this exact thing. It was a quiz at belief.net or somewhere like that that lumped everything not a part of the big major religions as "don't know/don't care." Dang, that quiz pissed me off. Anyway, the "don't care" definition of agnostic is an extremely common definition. By starting by explaining the term, my husband was attempting to make sure you understood where he was coming from. If you disagreed, you were invited to say so. But had he not explained the term, you each might have continued to throw sentences back and forth and not understood exactly where the other was coming from.
Anyway, that's all I'll say on the subject. Like I said, it's not worth it to say more online.