July 30, 2007
Posted at 2:41 pm by Richard and tagged atheism, belief, certainty, dilbert, god, pascal, scott-adams. Popularity: 23% [?]
I think Scott Adams (Creator of Dilbert) needs a bit of an atheist education. In his post “The Atheist Who Thought He Was God“, he makes two common misunderstandings/fallacies relating to Atheism. Can you spot them?
Perhaps there are more, but I think they boil down to the following:
- Few, if any, atheists claim to be 100% sure that God does not exist. (99.99999% IS good enough)
- Pascal’s Wager (which Adams’ post is based on - although perhaps not knowingly) doesn’t account for the multitude of beings which claim punishment for non-belief. Of course the other fallacies of Pascal’s wager are equally present in Adams’ post.
Permalink
Share This
Posted at 11:15 am by Richard and tagged atheism, belief, deaf, god, labels, negative. Popularity: 22% [?]
I started thinking after reading this comment - why do atheists feel the need to call themselves atheists at all? Certainly a hard/strong atheist would be justified in doing so since they have a specific belief to describe, but since most of us do not explicitly deny the possibility of God’s existence (and rather, claim that we simply “have no belief in God”), why should we have a label like this at all?
I don’t go around calling myself an “a-redhead” or an “a-woman”, or saying that I have “a-green” eyes, I’m not “a-artistic” or “a-Swahili-speaking” (feel free to translate these words into Greek for the proper effect). Similarly, a Deaf person wouldn’t go around calling themselves “a-hearing”. Why, then, do atheists insist on using a commonly misunderstood negative label to describe their lack of belief in God? Aren’t we just “not theistic”?
What other positive words or terms could we use to describe ourselves?
Permalink
Share This
July 15, 2007
Posted at 5:03 pm by Richard and tagged agnosticism, atheism, belief, definitions, god, philosophy. Popularity: 82% [?]
Welcome Stumblers! This post seems to keep getting “stumbled” upon, so I just thought I’d leave this note to say, “Hi”, and please feel free to check out some of my other posts - the most popular ones are listed down the side of this page. Also feel free to if you like what you read. Also, I welcome , so don’t be shy!
While I was watching a documentary on the history of religion recently, my sister said to me “but aren’t you an Atheist?” At the time I replied, “no, I’m Agnostic”. It has made me think, however, about the nature of Atheism and Agnosticism.
While I generally describe myself as “agnostic”, and avoid describing myself as “atheist”, I could be viewed as both, depending on your definitions. As there seem to be many different views on what Atheism and Agnosticism entails, let me be very clear about what I take the meaning of these words to be.
Belief
Definitions for both Atheism and Agnosticism rely on the notion of “belief”, which itself can be contentious at times. For my purposes, when I say “belief”, I refer “to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true” Belief, here, does not imply any lack of certainty - even though it might sometimes in common usage.
Atheism
Atheism, it seems, can mean many things - but broadly it seems to fit one of two definitions:
- the doctrine or belief that there is no God, or
- a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
The first definition is the one which I had always taken (I’ll call this “hard” Atheism), and it is why I have never described myself as an “Atheist”. To me, to hold a belief that these is no god is just as illogical as a belief that there is a God - possibly even more so. While it may (hypothetically) be possible one day to prove that there is a God (perhaps he shows himself in some incontestable way, or we find a scientific method for exploring “heaven”) proving the universal non-existence of something is impossible (we can prove something doesn’t exist in one place - say, a box that’s empty - but proving universal non-existence is very different).
The second (”soft”) definition of Atheism, however, is one I’d not been aware of until the last year or so. It seems this definition is common among Atheists, but in my experience it is certainly not the generally understood definition of Atheism. In this definition, Atheism is not the opposite to theism or religion, but an absence of it. It is in this sense that I am an Atheist, although without qualification, I still feel the word “atheist” misrepresents my views.
Agnosticism
This is where we get to Agnosticism. Agnostic means, literally, “without knowledge” and as such an Agnostic holds they they have no knowledge about the existence of God. This is not necessarily a “fence sitting” position, however, as Agnosticism (like Atheism) can be viewed in two subtly different ways:
- a religious orientation of doubt, or
- a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God
Certainly using this first definition (”soft” agnosticism), one could argue that the holder of this world-view is “fence sitting” - possibly still exploring or reasoning to discover the truth, or perhaps unable or unwilling to. But again, the second definition offers an entirely different position. A “hard” agnostic does not simply doubt the existence of God (and may, in fact, have faith that there is a God) but makes the claim that it is impossible to ever know if God does or does not exist.
When I describe myself as “Agnostic”, I make the claim that it is impossible to know if any of the Gods described by traditional religions exist. I am also, however, open to the idea that perhaps “God” (if he exists) is nothing like that described by traditional religion, and therefore may one day be provable. For me, the problem with the traditional notions of God are that proponents of these Gods leave no way to ever truly prove his existence - as the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy joke goes:
“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says Man, “The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
The Christian God, therefore, will always be out of the reach of science because as soon as it becomes answerable by science (no matter what the outcome), God will be relegated (by some, at least) to an even further “far away place ” so as to ensure the existence of God can never be proven.
So in this sense, I am a “hard” agnostic when it comes to Gods like that of Christianity (only because no one is willing to say exactly where this God might exist) but a “soft” agnostic when it comes to other possible higher powers. Either way, the existence of any such higher power seems unlikely (but certainly not impossible).
Permalink
Share This
July 14, 2007
Posted at 10:35 am by del.icio.us and tagged atheism, biology, creationism, design, evolution, feuerback, god, hegal, history, humour, islam, kant, koran, Links, marx, osama, pascal, philosophy, proof, religion, science, sex, stupidity, terrorism, usa, violence, virgins, women. Popularity: 36% [?]
Here are some of the sites I’ve been looking at recently, that I wanted to share:
Permalink
Share This
June 27, 2007
Posted at 3:53 pm by Richard and tagged creation, god, humour, life, science. Popularity: 13% [?]
God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, “Lord, we don’t need you any more. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning.”"Oh, is that so? Tell me…” replies God.
“Well,” says the scientist, “we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man.”
“Well, that’s interesting. Show Me.”
So, the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mould the soil.
“Oh no, no, no…” interrupts God,
“Get your own dirt.”
(via Vanessa Byers)
Permalink
Share This
Posted at 10:48 am by del.icio.us and tagged bible, charity, creationism, feminism, fsm, god, history, humour, intelligentdesign, jail, Links, map, moses, paranoia, parishilton, religion, science, uk. Popularity: 32% [?]
Here are some of the sites I’ve been looking at recently, that I wanted to share:
Permalink
Share This
Posts
