OK – I am a little late posting this, but it is still the Coptic Christmas day today, so perhaps I can be excused…
Recent Comments
RSS feed
Pat Condell: ‘God or Nothing’
October 26, 2010 — xanthippaIt keeps baffling me just how many people are either unable or unwilling to grasp the difference between ‘not believing something’ and ‘believing in something else’.
A non-deity centered example of this would be, say, the question: do you believe that my mother has ‘naturally blond hair’?
Never having met my mother – and therefore not holding an opinion on the topic of her hair colour – seems the most obvious and logical position.
Yet, to have some people explain it, not having any opinion on the topic either way somehow implies a belief that her hair is NOT naturally blond – or even that it is ‘naturally red’!
Like Pat Condell, I find the suggestion that a ‘belief’ should be treated with respect similar to or greater than ‘fact-based reality’ actively offensive! Whether that belief is religious or secular, it is a belief – a notion (perhaps deeply held, but a notion none-the-less). It must never be afforded the level of respect that the anti-blasphemy movements demand.
No, I will not deny them the right to believe whatever they want to. It is their right to believe whatever they wish.
But it is NOT their right to demand that I, you, or anyone else respects their beliefs and goes around pretending that just because they believe something, we must all behave as it it were true!
Yet that is exactly what the UN’s new anti-blasphemy laws demand…
Now, couple the religious beliefs with political ambitions and you have a recipe for oppression – of the worst kind.
Pat Condell: ‘Drunk on Religion’
October 25, 2010 — xanthippaNot that long ago, I wrote a post because I was frustrated about the inaccurate use of the terms ‘agnostic’ and ‘atheist’.
In the comments following the post, JR and I got into a bit of a discussion on this topic: JR insisted (at least, that is my understanding) that even though he considers himself an agnostic, he’d rather toss his lot in with theists than atheists.
In my never-humble-opinion, Pat Condell’s video (though it stands perfectly well on its own) makes an excellent addition to this discussion.
‘Agnostic’ – what the term actually means
October 5, 2010 — xanthippaToday, I got an interesting and thought-provoking comment from JR (as a response to my reaction to a comment where I declined to participate in celebrating ‘Agnostic Month’ on the grounds that I found ‘agnosticism’ illogical and arrogant).
JR managed to ‘hit’ one of my really, really ‘big buttons’. So, I thought I’d best answer him in a full-fledged post of its own…..because I suspect that philosophically, we are close. It’s those danged ‘labels’ that are all over the place.
Which, of course, is the above-mentioned ‘button’ of mine….
JR’s comment was:
Have to disagree, Xanthippa. Of all the philosophical positions one can hold on religion agnosticism is the most rational. Based on what an agnostic rationally ‘knows’ about the world s/he forms an opinion that the objective evidence available to date does not conclusively prove the existence of a supreme being who consciously and deliberately created the universe as we know it and now, in some fashion or other, watches over and/or guides its existence. That last part would be my definition of “God” which I think covers most others’ definition also (if you can propose a more satisfactory one, please do).
Those who worship God, or just “believe” in God’s existence, do so based on their own objective knowledge of the world plus subjective internal “feelings” which are not directly accessible to anyone else. Their subjectively formed convictions are, by definition, unconvincing to non-“believers” who, clearly, have no similar “feelings”. A weak agnostic is one who is not convinced yet, but who thinks it possible that some time in the future, through new knowledge or, who knows?, even a religious experience or revelation, God’s existence will be satisfactorily proven (to him/her). A strong agnostic, on the other hand, believes that knowledge of the existence of God is forever beyond the human mind to grasp – it can never be objectively “proven”. Neither form of agnosticism constitutes atheism which I understand to require an absolute conviction or “belief “ in the non-existence of God – no “maybe” about it. The atheist requires an extremely strong faith – because there can never be any objective proof of a negative.
Your notion of a “militant agnostic” is interesting. I’ve never encountered one of those. It sounds oxymoronic. Is there an on-line example?
The problem, of course, is the disconnect between the popular use of these terms and their actual meaning.
THAT is my ‘big button’ that JR managed to really ‘push’!
Luckily, most of the terms to describe forms of belief or non-belief in all kinds of ‘thingies’ regarding God(s) have been artificially created, so we have their actual (i.e. correct) definitions and need not rely on the inaccuracies of their vulgar use…
Aside: ‘vulgar’, of course, means ‘common’ or ‘as popularly used by ‘common’ people’.
Another aside: Wikipedia used to actually have the correct definitions of these terms. However, a few years ago, they changed them to reflect the vulgar usage of them rather than their accurate meanings. Disappointing!
Refocusing:
The terms ‘agnostic’ and ‘atheist’ do not refer to the same aspect of belief: one addresses ‘BELIEF’ while the other addresses ‘KNOWLEDGE’. Perhaps I should go back to the beginning….
First, there was the term ‘ATHEIST’. It was specifically designed to express NON-BELIEF or NEGATIVE BELIEF regarding the existence of God(s). Literally, ‘ATHEIST’ = ‘apart from the belief in the existence of God(s).
By definition, an ‘atheist’ does not hold the positive belief that God(s) exist.
The term was ‘coined’ with specifically THAT meaning: it expressly did not address the PRESENCE of ANY specific belief – only the absence of belief in the existence of God. Of course, the term became misused almost as soon as it was engineered…
The second term to have been ‘coined’ was the term ‘THEIST’ = someone who holds the POSITIVE BELIEF that God(s) DO exist. It was designed specifically to be the opposite of the term ‘ATHEIST’.
‘Theist’ describes someone with the presence of belief in the existence of God(s), ‘atheist’ describes someone with the absence of belief in the existence of God(s).
The term which properly describes a person who holds the positive belief in the non-existence of God(s) is ‘ANTITHEIST’: though, naturally, this term, too, became misused shortly after it was invented. Currently, the most popular usage of the term ‘antitheist’ is to describe a person who is opposed to all forms of organized religion.
It appears to me that JR has mistakenly used the term ‘atheist’ to label the positive belief system of the ‘antitheist’. Common, if frustrating, mistake.
To recap: we have visited the core definitions of three terms, two of which describe holding ‘positive beliefs’ and one which describes the absence of a particular positive belief:
- ‘theist’ holds the positive belief that God(s) exist
- ‘anti-theist’ holds the positive belief that God(s) do not exist
Thus, the ‘theist’ and ‘antitheist’ both hold positive beliefs as to the existence of God(s) – just opposite positive beliefs.
- ‘atheist’ does not hold the positive belief that God(s) exist
In this way, ‘theist‘ and ‘atheist’ are opposite: one is the presence of a positive belief in the existence of God(s), the other is the absence of such a belief. However, the term ‘atheist’ does not address the presence or absence of any other belief regarding the existence of God(s). Thus, antitheists are one of the many sub-groups of atheists.
All these terms are focused on the belief in the EXISTENCE of deities – exclusively.
It would be ‘an error of omission’ it it were not mentioned at this point that ‘monotheism’ is actually a special case of ‘antitheism/theism’, as it is a positive belief that ALL BUT ONE Gods and Goddesses do NOT exist. As such, it is a positive belief in the non-existence of so many deities, the belief in the existence of one last remaining one of them is so illogical as to defy comprehension. That is why so many professionals in the field think that ‘monotheism’ can only be achieved through serious brainwashing during early childhood or through mental illness. I am not a professional in the field, so I merely report this, without commenting on the validity of such an opinion. (Note: Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all forms of monolatry, not monotheism, and thus do not fall into this category if practiced according to their scriptures.)
In contrast, the term ‘agnostic’ addresses something quite different.
‘A‘ means ‘apart from’.
‘Gnosis’ means ‘knowledge’.
Aside: It is important to stress that the Greek term ‘gnosis’ means ‘personal knowledge’ and has, throughout the millenia, been used to also denote ‘mystical knowledge’ when it has been used in the context of religion or religious experiences. ‘Gnostic Christians’, for example, were a sect of Christianity which rejected imposition of the structure of The Church in favour of ‘personal knowledge’ or ‘gnosis’ of the divine. Until the ‘Conversion of Constantine’, ‘Gnostic Christianity’ was the ‘norm’. Several Crusades were authorized by various Catholic Popes to suppress Gnostic Christianity: ‘the Albigensian Heresy’ (Cathars), ‘Bogomils’ and Hussites, to name just a few. (Reformations introduced by Martin Luther were a watered-down bastardization of the teachings of the Hussites, a century or so after the Hussite teachings went ‘underground’. But, that is a different ‘button’…)
The term ‘AGNOSTIC’ refers to a person who holds the positive belief that it is impossible for us, puny humans, to ever achieve KNOWLEDGE whether or not God(s) exist. It thus corresponds to what JR identified as ‘strong agnosticism’: there is, by definition, no such thing as ‘weak agnosticism’ (according to JR’s description thereof).
In other words, an ‘agnostic’ believes it is UNKNOWABLE whether God(s) exist.
This positive belief does not address the actual existence of deities: just our ability to ever KNOW – for sure, one way or the other.
As such, a person who believes s/he can never know if God(s) exist can still hold positive beliefs as to their existence itself! After all, these are beliefs regarding completely different aspects: one is ‘belief’, the other is ‘knowledge’.
Thus, an agnostic can be a theist or an atheist (of the antitheist type or otherwise)!
As for the ‘militant agnostics’ I have encountered – I am sorry, but it was in ‘real life’, not online. However, the vast majority (though not all) of them fit into the logical fallacy of ‘Pascal’s Wager’: “we cannot KNOW if GOD exists, but I am safer/can’t loose if I believe in God, so I do!”
When I would point out to these people that this does not constitute actual ‘belief’ and is both a moral and logical hypocrisy (if I chose to use kind terms), these militant agnostics got downright crotchety!
.
…
Pat Condell: “The faith of idiots”
August 12, 2010 — xanthippaOn a related note…
I admit freely, I simply do not understand it: with so much opportunity for factual learning, why do so many people insist on submitting their minds to dogma – whether secular or religious?
Spirituality is one thing. But imprisoning one’s spirituality (and/or intelligence) within the cage of any dogma – that is not just shameful, it is immoral.
Agnostic: what it does – and does not – mean
February 19, 2010 — xanthippaOne term misused in debates about ‘religion’ almost as often as the term ‘atheist’ is the term ‘agnostic’.
Perhaps it’s the Aspie in me, but I think that if people are going to make passionate arguments, often using some terms in an authoritarian or patronizing manner, they ought to have taken the time to learn what those terms actually mean. (Of course, not everyone does that – but, many do…)
The term ‘agnostic’ does not describe a person’s ‘belief in’ or ‘non-belief in’ or ‘belief-in-the-non’ existence of god(s).
Not even a little bit.
An ‘agnostic’ can believe in the existence of god(s).
An ‘agnostic’ can believe in the non-existence of god(s).
An ‘agnostic’ can hold no belief in either the existence, or the non-existence, of god(s).
Still, many people use the term to mean ‘someone who does not believe one way or the other if god(s) exist’…..
Sorry – that is NOT what the word ‘agnostic’ describes!!!
Certainly, some agnostics fall into the category of ‘not holding a belief in either the existence, or the non-existence, of god(s). But, that is only because there is an overlap in ‘groups’ or ‘states of belief’ that various definitions describe.
…kind of like there is an overlap between ‘long arms’ and ‘long hair’. Both revolve about something being ‘long’. And, some people with ‘long arms’ also have ‘long hair’. But the terms each describe a different ‘long’ – so they cannot be used as if they meant the same thing!
Yes – I am getting bogged down in words. To re-phrase: the term ‘agnostic’ may include theists, non-theists, atheists or any other -theist group because it does not describe the state of one’s belief in the divine.
Rather, it describes one’s belief about the ‘ability to have knowledge’ of the existence of the divine.
Let’s look at the root of the word:
‘Gnosis’ means ‘knowledge’ in Greek.
The term, when used in English, refers to ‘spiritual enlightenment’ – as in, the type of ‘mystical enlightenment’ a person receives during a ‘spiritual rapture’ or ‘spirit quest’ or another altered-state type meditation or similar experience.
For example, Gnostic Christians do not recognize the authority of any church or clergyman, because they strive for direct spiritual knowledge – gnosis. This they regard as much more important than any dogma…
The prefix ‘a-‘ simply means ‘apart from’.
Thus, ‘a-gnostic’ – taken bit by bit – literally means ‘apart from (spiritual) knowledge’.
Once ‘put together’, the term ‘agnostic’ means ‘belief that it is un-knowable ‘ if god(s) do or do not exist.
Thus, this is a statement of belief. Yes, to be an agnostic, one must hold this belief!
But this belief is not about the existence of the divine: it is a belief about existence of knowledge of the divine!
Specifically, an agnostic actively believes that we cannot know whether god(s) exist.
This does not preclude choosing to believe, anyway. Many people have concluded that they cannot know for sure if god(s) exist, so, to be on the safe side, they decide to believe! This is the very point of Pascal’s Wager.
Blaise Pascal argued that we cannot know – through reason, so really, really know – if God exists. Therefore, we ought to consider the 2 possible scenarios (God exists and God does not exist) and our 2 choices of action (believe in God or not believe in God) and do a risk-assessment:
Scenario 1: God does not exist
Choice 1: behave as if God does exist
Result – more effort during life, but, nothing gained.
Choice 2: behave as if God does not exist
Result – nothing lost and nothing gained.
Scenario 2: God exists:
Choice 1: behave as if God does exist
Result – more effort during life, but huge gain at ‘the end’! Eternal Salvation!
Choice 2: behave as if God does not exist
Result – less effort during life, but then… everything lost! Eternal damnation!
Therefore, Pascal’s reasoning goes, the cost to one’s soul of ‘not believing’ in God is much greater (eternal damnation) than the cost of believing in God while alive (obeying the church). Therefore, the only reasonable choice is to believe!
(OK – there could be an argument made whether Pascal actually said ‘choose to believe’ or ‘live as if you believe’: the first one would be an agnostic who chooses to be a theist, the second one would be an agnostic who is an atheist, but chooses to behave as a theist. But, that – as well as just how ‘voluntary’ it is ‘to believe’ – is a whole different discussion!)
Aside: this same argument has been used by some people to justify spending tons of money on ‘preventing the disaster of global warming/anthropogenic climate change’. That ought to suffice in helping us recognize that the whole ‘ACC’ movement is a religion, not science, and that ‘carbon credits’ are its ‘indulgences’.
But – back to the main point…
Summary: The term ‘agnostic’ does not refer to one’s ‘beliefs’ about the existence of God. Rather, it is the positive (‘actively present’) belief that it is impossible to know if god(s) exist.
Thus, it is a belief about the nature (presence) of knowledge. Specific knowledge, in this case, but knowledge none the less.
It is not a statement about one’s state of belief in the subject of that knowledge – the existence of god(s).
Agnostics can either believe that god(s) exist – or not. They just believe they cannot ever actually know…
‘Atheist’: a definition
February 9, 2010 — xanthippaBefore I get started on defining ‘atheism’ or ‘what makes someone an atheist’, it is important to say some things about what ‘atheism’ is not.
‘Atheism’ is not a formal or codified doctrine, like, say, Christianity, or even Humanism, is.
There is no set of ‘beliefs’ or ‘values’ which ‘atheists’ share or subscribe to.
That is because in order to have a shared ‘doctrine’ or ‘dogma’, a label must describe some types of ‘held’ beliefs or convictions of the people being thus labeled. ‘Atheism’ does not describe a set of ‘held’ beliefs – or even just one belief.
Instead, it describes ‘absence of belief’: a very specific absence of one specific belief – the belief in the existence of deities.
Atheist:
An atheist is a person who does not ‘hold the belief’ that God(s) and/or Goddess(es) exist.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Some people refer to monotheism (not believing in the existence Gods or Goddesses – except one) as ‘selective atheism’: people who believe in just one deity necessarily disbelieve in the existence of all deities but one.
Atheists may still belong to a religion: not every religion has deities in it! From ‘the big 5’, Buddhism is a religion which does not address the question of deities. And, no, Buddha is not a God – not in any way, shape or form – and never was. And – Buddhism is not the only atheistic religion.
Communism, for example, is another example of a religion which does not have any deities: it requires the ‘belief in’/’submission to’/’acceptance of’ certain principles (of collectivism, in this case) instead. And, there are countless more!
Describing something as ‘atheistic’ means that it does not address the question of the existence of God or Gods or Goddesses. Therefore, any and every thing, conversation, organization and so on, which does not specifically proclaim the ‘belief in the existence of deities’ is, by definition, atheistic.
To lump all ‘atheists’ together as if they all subscribed to a common doctrine or school of thought would be even less accurate than lumping all ‘theists’ together: while all ‘theists’ actually have a positive belief in the existence of one or more deities, defining someone as an ‘atheist’ does not define any actual belief. It just says what these people do not believe. It’s like identifying a group of people by saying ‘people who do not die their hair’…this can include anyone from people that have no hair to die, to people who like their ‘natural’ haircolour…all the way to people who would change their hair colour, if only they could (or, if it were easier).
OK – this is getting muddled. Let me try another approach.
Though there are ‘shades in-between’, these are several distinct ‘types’ or ‘major classes’ of atheists. In order to describe them, please, indulge me and play a little thought experiment with me:
Let’s say that I tell you I have a neighbour. Let’s say that I now show you a picture of a woman with blond hair and say this is my neighbour.. Do you believe my neighbour is a natural blond?
***
Having never thought about my neighbour – much less a blond one – before now, it it not likely that you
- believe my neighbour is a natural blond
- believe my neighbour is not a natural blond
Therefore, you are ‘apart from belief’ whether my neighbour is a ‘natural blonde’.
This roughly approximates what I think of as the ‘what are gods and why should I believe in them’ atheists. Not only do they not hold a belief either way, they don’t see the point of even thinking about it. They simply do not care – and most of them don’t want to care.
***
Having looked at the picture, you may find there simply isn’t enough information there to make you
- believe my neighbour is a natural blond
- believe my neighbour is not a natural blond
Therefore, even though you have taken the time to investigate (you looked at the picture) and to think about it, yet, you don’t ‘believe’ one way or the other. You may think it is likely – say, 80% likely – that she might be a natural blonde. Or not. Who could tell?
This roughly approximates what I think of as ‘considered atheists’. They have considered the question of the existence of deities, looked at the religions ‘out there’, thought about it, and did not become convinced enough to hold a belief one way or the other. They may still be searching for ‘belief’, hoping to find it. Or, they may not be.
***
Or, having looked at the picture, you may have noticed that the woman in the picture has blond hair with black roots… Therefore, you
- believe my neighbour is not a natural blond
This is actually REALLY substantially different from the above two types of ‘apart from belief’ groups: you actually believe in the truthfulness of one of the choices! You just happen to believe in the ‘not’ option…
While you still ‘do not believe’ that my neighbour is a natural blond, but, in addition to ‘disbelieving’ that her blond-ness is natural, you actively believe that it is not. Therefore, you have ‘an absence of belief’ in the first proposition, and active/positive ‘belief’ in the second one.
Many people today refer to this group as ‘strong atheists’. Frankly, that is not just wrong, it is silly.
The ‘atheist’ label refers to ‘absence of belief’ – and associating it with a belief (the belief in the ‘non-existence’) is inaccurate and misleading. Unfortunately, the term ‘atheist’ became used in this very sense from very shortly after it was created, because many people find it difficult to understand that ‘absence of belief in Gods’ does not imply ‘belief of absence of Gods’…
…which does not mean that continuing to misuse the term is a good idea.
Plus, it seems to me that holding ANY ‘belief’ is a weakness – NOT a strength.
Therefore, referring to a ‘purist’ non-beliver as a ‘weak atheist’ and to a person who actually holds ANY form of a belief as a ‘strong atheist’ seems, to me, stupid at best. (OK – I’m not being particularly eloquent: but I am being honest!)
***
Of course, there are many people whose reactions – given this thought experiment – would be quite different. Like…
- I believe the woman in this picture is a ‘natural blonde’ – but I don’t believe she is your neighbour!
- What woman? You are showing me a picture of a car!
- Whatever her hair colour is, how natural it is – that is irrelevant. She should cover her hair!
- Hey! This is a crayon drawing! You drew this yourself! You are trying to trick me!
….plus about a hundred other possible responses. But, this post is NOT about THEM. It is about showing that ‘disbelief’ is different that ‘belief’ – even different from ‘belief in not’….
Of course, there are people – even self-identified as ‘atheists’ – who just don’t get this.
They did not do their homework.
They are confusing any and all discussions on this issue.
And, that is too bad…
Musings on the existence of God – and of Richard Dawkins
January 11, 2010 — xanthippaA few days ago, Walker Morrow had a fun, humorous bit : Is there evidence for the existence of Richard Dawkins?
In it is embeded this link to a video (scroll down a little) which, in what I am told is a humorous manner, mocks Dawkins’s way of questioning the existence of God to question the existence of Richard Dawkins himself!
The flippant answer would be, of course, that I’ve seen a YouTube video where Thunderf00t interviews Richard Dawkins, and, when I see a video of Thunderf00t interviewing ‘God’, I’ll believe in ‘God’, too!
But, of course, my real answer is a little wordier….and weirder!
I do not know that Richard Dawkins exists!
And, making that realization is essential!
OK – perhaps this is the Aspie in me, or perhaps it is the scientist in me – or, some combination thereof. But, by the time I was 13 (I grew up behind the Iron Curtain, so I had no access to philosophical or theological writing of any kind – this was just my simple, peasant-brain reasoning), I realized that I could not objectively prove that I myself exist!
My original formulation was very clumsy and I have not really refined the wording much, just shortened it a bit (OK – a lot) :
- The only way we learn about/observe/get data from our surroundings is via our senses.
- Our senses are demonstrably subjective (I could demonstrate this to myself, as my right eye perceives colours quite differently than my left eye does…but only just before the onset of a migraine headache. So, I concluded that our senses necessarily colour (pun intended) our perceptions, making them definitely ‘not objective’.)
- Since the only information reaching ‘us’ about our surroundings is subjective (through the senses), it can be manipulated and we cannot make any objective conclusions based on it…like, say, to assert that any self-awareness we think we perceive is ‘our own’.
OK – so the argument is a bit ‘rough-around-the-edges’, but, you get the gist of it.
Some people think this is pointless prattle – nothing but what Scott Adams would have called ‘mental masturbation’…
I beg to disagree!
Before a scientists makes any observation, she/he calibrates the instruments to be used. This is important, because it sets the ‘baseline’ against which any results can be evaluated: how good were the instruments, the accuracy of any measurements, the error margins, and all that. If, for example, a thermometer measures temperature to the nearest degree, it will not reliably show variations of one-thousandth of a degree, and so on.
Similarly, if we are aware that all our perceptions are subjective and that we cannot even prove that ‘we’ are the bit we think of as our ‘self’, that we cannot objectively prove anything ‘absolutely’, not even our own existence as we perceive ourselves to be, it ‘calibrates’ our credulousness of what we perceive – so to speak!
Thus, if we are ‘objective’ in our reasoning, we are forced to admit that we lack the capacity to ‘accept anything as absolute truth’ – or, if you will, as a tenet of faith. To do so regardless would be irresponsible, to say the least.
Therefore, I ‘do not believe that Richard Dawkins exists’, any more than I ‘believe that I exist’!
It is essential that we understand that this ‘calibration’ does not mean that I can assume any such foolish thing as ‘I do not exist’ or ‘I do not need to behave as if I exist’ – not in the least. The absence of belief in something does not imply the belief in the non-existence of it! That is an important distinction – one too often lost on people not trained in logic.
It simply alerts me that everything has an ‘error margin’ and that nothing ought to be accepted ‘absolutely’, without reservations, without an implied error-margin.
Perhaps this is the manifesto of the ever-questioning skeptic…. Still, it prevents me (and many others like me) from being able to just ‘believe’ things, to have ‘religious faith’ – of any kind.
Pat Condell: ‘Children of a Stupid God’
May 31, 2009 — xanthippaHere is Pat Condell’s latest video, ‘Children of a Stupid God’. Whatever your belief-system (or lack thereof), he does bring up an intersting perspective…and a few good points for thought:
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 