Dangerous? Moi?

[elfs]

A hearty "fuck you" to Ron Sims, our Democratic gubernatorial candidate, who last night during a debate, in answer to the question "Would you appoint an atheist to office?" said, "Anyone who does not hold a belief in a higher authority is a very dangerous person."

Sad. Politically expedient, but sad.

Comments

[sarekofvulcan.livejournal.com]

I've argued with people before about the distinction between "atheist" and "agnostic". When you say atheist, you mean that you believe there is no god, right?

[rapier.livejournal.com]

Heh, as always, it depends.

Some atheists actively disbelieve in deities and say, "There are no gods."

Some atheists are more passive in their disbelief. They might say, "I don't believe in any gods."

And, in the interest of being thorough, agnostics claim no knowledge about deities. "I can't say for sure about the presence or absence of gods."

And then, finally, are the militant agnostics: "I don't know about gods, and neither do you."

...

Okay, I made that last one up.

[lucky-otter.livejournal.com]

Actually, I've heard that last one before: "It is impossible to know about any gods."

What's the difference between "There are no gods" and "I don't believe in any gods"? I don't see it. Perhaps the distinction you are intending to make is between "I am certain that there are no gods" and "I think there are no gods, but I am not sure". In that case, though, it's not really a difference in quality, just in degree.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Huxley's formulation of agnosticism is exactly "It is impossible to know about any gods."

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Since it's much less contentious, let's talk about aliens. There are four basic positions one can take regarding aliens: (1) aliens have visited Earth, (2) I believe aliens have visited Earth, (3) I don't believe aliens have visited Earth, and (4) aliens have not visited Earth.

(1) can be proven true by criteria, such as a crashed spaceship. (2) is a property of human beings who lack the evidence necessary for (1), that of having a belief. (3) is similar to (2), a belief held in the absence of evidence, and (4) is an existential negative that cannot be proven true, it can only be proven false by providing the evidence necessary for (1).

Theism is a property of some human beings: it is human beings who believe the statement "God exists." Atheists are simply those people who lack this property. While the atheist may be strong enough in his or her opinion to state the analogous position (4) above, that is not the defining characteristic of atheism; (3) is. As far as atheists are concerned, the conditions for the theist equivalent of (1) have not been met.

While "atheist" is an ancient word, "agnosticism" is only 140 years old. Invented by Thomas Huxley in 1859, the central tenant of agnosticism is that it is impossible for human beings to know anything about ultimate questions such as god. (Huxley also maintained that it was immoral to believe in things without knowledge of them, and, presuming that he thought of himself as a moral person, we can assume that Huxley was therefore a garden-variety atheist.) Huxley hoped to elevate the conversation to that of intelligensia, and for the most part he managed to avoid being labeled an infidel, which was his objective. A lot of churches nonethless saw through this "attempt to show my fellows that this fox had a tail much like theirs," and railed against Huxley as an infidel.

One has to wonder if agnostics existed before Huxley.

I've often felt that agnosticism was a dodge; by the very definition an agnostic is either some flavor of deist or pantheist, but certainly theist (someone believing without evidence) or an atheist (someone lacking that belief). Agnosticism itself is somewhat philosophically suspect; it maintains that one cannot know the qualities of the unknowable, but by definition "unknowability" is a quality. Such paradoxes make agnosticism, and agnostics, suspect.

[rapier.livejournal.com]

Damn, that is probably the best quick-and-dirty breakdown of that subject I've seen in awhile!

I readily admit that my agnosticism is dodging the question, but I've espoused that ... er ... I can't really call it a belief, can I. I've espoused that view of the world for so long that I'm really starting to buy into my own bullshit. There are times I wonder if I'm as deluded as the most fundamentalist of fanatics.

I tell people I'm agnostic because it seems the best way to offend the fewest number of people. How can you get mad at someone claiming ignorance? Though really, my own flavor of agnosticism probably isn't like Huxley's. For me, it's like, "I haven't seen any credible evidence arguing in favor of the existence of gods; on the other hand, I haven't seen any credible evidence arguing against. What can I say? The world's a mystery. Someone come up with some credible evidence one way or another and I'll consider it further." See the beauty of that evasion? I can avoid the burden of actually defending a position.

I freely admit my laziness in the matter. Empirical agnostics unite!

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Well, see, try this thought experiment: Let's propose a universe where, mirabile dictu, there is a supernatural agency that communicates with every human being. All human beings agree that it's there, that experience of it is as consistent as our sense of touch. Now, this agency has one of three possible inclinations: either it actively wants us to discover how it operates, it couldn't care less, or it actively discourages us and wants us to stay less than it. The first two are kinda cool-- they imply that we could discover a greater reality. The last is kinda diabolical; yet it's also the image most people seem to carry around of "god."

I'm mostly "an atheist" by consequence of something more significant: a commitment to the notion that the universe does not lie to us. Physics may be difficult and confusing, but it is not deliberately deceptive. This position is known as metaphysical naturalism, the notion that the fundamental building blocks of nature are regular (conform to a standard or pattern) and reliable, and not subject to "external influence."

[sarekofvulcan.livejournal.com]

Would you break down item three into:

I don't believe aliens have visited Earth

and

I believe that aliens have not visited Earth

, or do you see those statements as equivalent? (I'm not trying to argue theism versus atheism, just trying to clarify terminology)

[elfs.livejournal.com]

They're not equivalent, as one a lack of belief due to a lack of evidence, and the other takes that lack of evidence as reason to believe in something. The latter might be satisfying, but it's not philosophically valid. I might even challenge it.

On the other hand, I'm a metaphysical naturalist-- all of the regular properties of the universe have underlying, simple properties, until we get to some sort of foundation; I have no reason to believe that there exists an ultimacomplex superbeing with interest in and influence over the universe. Saying, "there is no god" is automatically conclusive from that premise.

[sarekofvulcan.livejournal.com]

Ok, I can generate a match with that terminology. :-)
Thanks for bearing with me.

[solarbird]

Wait, are you serious?

Also, I'm confused. He lost in the primary. What was he doing in a debate last night?

[elfs.livejournal.com]

It seems I am misinformed. This was from a debate hosted on the 7th. I just now saw the report; you can watch it if you want on King5's website. Sign. Anyway, religious bigotry is still not the sort of thing I want to hear coming from a candidate.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Fortunately, the voters around here recognize sanity when they see it...

But, yeah, Straczinsky (Mr. Babylon 5) is athiest, and therefore he holds life - all life - as infinitely precious.... and if he weren't such a good writer I might try and run him for President.... certainly B5 should be mandatory for any would-be leader... among other things....

[gloriajn.livejournal.com]

I'm really sorry to hear that. I voted for him. Of course, I wouldn't have if I knew he felt that way.

[slutdiary.livejournal.com]

Perhaps he can contemplate the error of his ways in usta-been obscurity now.

[memegarden.livejournal.com]

I no longer know how to characterize myself, since sincere prayer would seem to disqualify a person as an atheist. I also do not consider myself agnostic, as I have definite positions on whether God exists, which vary according to the definition of "God" and "exist" provided. My current position on the subject is that, for me, thinking in terms of God is an often-helpful stance rather than a factual claim.