The New Atheists; The Cult of Science?

[Southtown]

His reputation is expanding ... faster than the universe.

[Boerseun]

His reputation is expanding ... faster than the universe.

What, exactly, do you mean by this? And how, exactly, is this relevant to the matter under discussion? Please elaborate. Hit-and-run posts are certain infractions. But this is completely and utterly non-sensical, not to mention physically impossible. So I assume you posted this in jest. But I missed the joke. I don't "get" it. And always one for a good joke, I would love you to explain this post.

[Southtown]

His/her avatar is a screenshot from a popular line of advertisements involving a certain brand of alcoholic beverage. Plus, I thought it particularly relevant seeings as how I simultaneously repped him/her. Sorry you/others didn't get the joke.

 

YouTube - Dos Equis: The Most Interesting Man in the World (2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2SSZA0CjdQ

[Qfwfq]

You do tend to be hit-and-run, South, and very often people don't get the joke. Then again how can they, if they would need to know about the rep you gave on that post?

 

For the rest, I think the semantic disagreements are due to the fact that most folks don't distinguish between "not believing" and "believing not" or, iow, between not believing and disbelieving.

 

For the correct use of the term agnostic, one should ask Thomas Henry Huxley who is also discussed directly after the wiki section Freeztar quoted. Whoever wrote those definitions of agnostic atheism and agnostic theism seems not to have read that following section. He also makes the distinction between being atheist and being atheist according to a specific doctrine. The definition of ignostic appears to overlook this distinction.

 

From Huxley, Thomas. Collected Essays. pp. 237–239. ISBN 1-85506-922-9.

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

 

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.

At the same time, he was aware that Christians could consider him atheistic because he disbelieves the doctrine of God as "a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts".

 

I, for one, utterly disbelive the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am however agnostic, I am not "weakly atheistic" or anything of the sort.

[modest]

I am a strong atheist concerning theistic (personal) gods (e.g. Roman, Greek, Christian). Like Russell I think they are each disprovable in their own way. I am a weak atheist concerning deistic (impersonal) gods. I have no personal belief or disbelief.

 

I'm agnostic in the sense that Huxley used it in Q's quote. I do not believe in any kind of gnostic ability—no supernatural powers, spiritual gifts, or metaphysical insights... as cool as that would be :)

 

~modest ;)

[Galapagos]

I think Bertrand Russell covered this topic quite well over half a century ago:

Bertrand Russell: Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?

Proof of God

 

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

 

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

 

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

 

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

 

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

Skepticism

 

There is exactly the same degree of possibility and likelihood of the existence of the Christian God as there is of the existence of the Homeric God. I cannot prove that either the Christian God or the Homeric gods do not exist, but I do not think that their existence is an alternative that is sufficiently probable to be worth serious consideration. Therefore, I suppose that that on these documents that they submit to me on these occasions I ought to say "Atheist", although it has been a very difficult problem, and sometimes I have said one and sometimes the other without any clear principle by which to go.

 

When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. It is much more nearly certain that we are assembled here tonight than it is that this or that political party is in the right. Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless.

As far as any casual reader on this site, or probably any random person I encounter on the street is concerned, I am an atheist. I would hate to give the impression that I believe invisible, body-less spirits are an acceptable explanation for any natural phenomenon. In as strong a sense that any true skeptic has ever used the words, "not real" or "impossible", I believe the Abrahamic and Homeric gods to be not real and impossibly stupid.

In a world where most of us casually overlook the fact that we can't beat solipsism, I think nitpicking definitions of atheism and agnosticism is retarded.

[Southtown]

In a world where most of us casually overlook the fact that we can't beat solipsism, I think nitpicking definitions of atheism and agnostic is retarded.

Well, that is true. But since I believe that solipsism is the path to insanity, I disagree. I mean, such an argument supersedes every discussion. But, if anyone cares to test the boundaries of what they perceive as reality, feel free. In the mean time, agnostic (literally to not know) is the preferable path toward peace for everyone to some degree, because c'mon, who knows everything? Assuming nobody, how can anyone ever get along with someone who thinks they know everything?

[InfiniteNow]

Well, that is true. But since I believe that solipsism is the path to insanity, I disagree.

 

Do you realize that you just asserted openly that you disagree with truth? I think that this is, perhaps, one of the biggest problems with religious belief. It contorts the mind such that contradictions like that not only go unnoticed, but are reinforced.

 

Southie... you know I love you, man... but I can't help but to laugh at this one. :confused:

[Southtown]

Fine. lol :confused: You gotta point. I was trying to concede that solipsism supersedes all things subjective. I meant that with respect to that viewpoint, atheist vs. agnostic being nitpicking was true. But since solipsism is a mindset that throws all sense of equality out of the window, it is irrelevant with respect to opposing viewpoints among different people.

[Qfwfq]

In a world where most of us casually overlook the fact that we can't beat solipsism, I think nitpicking definitions of atheism and agnosticism is retarded.

No, puh-leeze, it is a necessary distinction. Russell commits fallacy because being agnostic is not contradicted by judging specific doctrines as absurd; this is why I disagree with the orbiting teapot and purple unicorn arguments. The world was not made in six days, six thousand-odd days ago.

 

Know what? To the best of humanly possible understanding of theoretical physics, I would not and could not refute that invisible, body-less "spirits" are an acceptable explanation for all natural phenomenon. Could you claim to know exactly what a "particle" is? Even when it's a virtual particle? The current meaning of the word particle is not that of "corpuscle" nor that of "wave" or "field" in the classical sense. Even Bohm's interpretation doesn't do without some invisible, body-less entity.

 

I don't see the relevance of your mentioning solipsism. Note however that it doesn't mean actually believing our perceptions to be an illusion, it means understanding that there is no logical proof that what we perceive is an actual reality (nor that it isn't); this is inescapable but doesn't imply we should disbelieve our sensory perception. It doesn't mean that we overlook solipsism, we can even say that it doesn't really matter. We could even assume it's all fictuous and yet struggle for those fictuous necessities, avoid those fictuous pains, because it's our perception that counts anyway. The relevance of solipsim that I see here is, we can be agnostic about the matter and perhaps we even should.

[Galapagos]

No, puh-leeze, it is a necessary distinction. Russell commits fallacy because being agnostic is not contradicted by judging specific doctrines as absurd; this is why I disagree with the orbiting teapot and purple unicorn arguments. The world was not made in six days, six thousand-odd days ago.

I don't understand this part of your comments. What is Russell's particular fallacy here? Did Russell state that being agnostic contradicts judging particular doctrines to be absurd?

 

Know what? To the best of humanly possible understanding of theoretical physics, I would not and could not refute that invisible, body-less "spirits" are an acceptable explanation for all natural phenomenon. Could you claim to know exactly what a "particle" is? Even when it's a virtual particle? The current meaning of the word particle is not that of "corpuscle" nor that of "wave" or "field" in the classical sense. Even Bohm's interpretation doesn't do without some invisible, body-less entity.

Okay, but last I checked everyone in science but you has abandoned using spirits as explanations for natural phenomenon for a long, long time. As Russell states

"None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof. ".

 

Of course you "would not and could not refute that invisible, body-less "spirits" are an acceptable explanation for all natural phenomenon". Nobody said you would.

 

I don't see the relevance of your mentioning solipsism. Note however that it doesn't mean actually believing our perceptions to be an illusion, it means understanding that there is no logical proof that what we perceive is an actual reality (nor that it isn't); this is inescapable but doesn't imply we should disbelieve our sensory perception. It doesn't mean that we overlook solipsism, we can even say that it doesn't really matter. We could even assume it's all fictuous and yet struggle for those fictuous necessities, avoid those fictuous pains, because it's our perception that counts anyway. The relevance of solipsim that I see here is, we can be agnostic about the matter and perhaps we even should.

My point was that solipsism is just another stupid unfalsifiable story, much like the existence of Abrahamic or Homeric gods. I am an atheist, and the world exists outside of me. I also believe cows can't jump over the moon. My point is I am not amending my entire colloquial lexicon to reflect the fact that 'well hey, anything is possible' because no matter how much that might please some pedantic agnostic-atheists, it is both a waste of time and potentially misleading to the majority of believers who take agnosticism as meaning "maybe that is true, I dunno; undecided" about some very provincial deities.

[Thunderbird]

I found this rather interesting, enjoy.

YouTube - Myth of Religion; The Solar Messiahs God's Sun Christ Horus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQLD59fK_Iw

[Qfwfq]

Galapagos, you don't appear to have made a serious effort to understand my points. Your replies only display misunderstanding of them.

 

Unless you improve your effort, the only one I will make is to point out that in repeating your word spirits I put it in quotes. Can you clarify and more exactly define the meaning of words such as "invisible and bodiless spirits being an explanation of natural phenomena" before interpreting what I said? Are you aware that your last quote of Russell shows that you should include at least him along with me? Actually, your use of the word abandoned is a strawman; it's not the same as claiming that something can be refuted.

[InfiniteNow]

What Questions Can Science Answer? | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

And, without fail, the scientific judgment comes down in favor of a strictly non-miraculous, non-supernatural view of the universe.

 

That's what's really meant by my claim that science and religion are incompatible. I was referring to the Congregation-for-the-Causes-of-the-Saints interpretation of religion, which entails a variety of claims about things that actually happen in the world; not the it's-all-in-our-hearts interpretation, where religion makes no such claims. (I have no interest in arguing at this point in time over which interpretation is "right.") When religion, or anything else, makes claims about things that happen in the world, those claims can in principle be judged by the methods of science. That's all.

 

Well, of course, there is one more thing: the judgment has been made, and views that step outside the boundaries of strictly natural explanation come up short. By "natural" I simply mean the view in which everything that happens can be explained in terms of a physical world obeying unambiguous rules, never disturbed by whimsical supernatural interventions from outside nature itself. The preference for a natural explanation is not an a priori assumption made by science; it's a conclusion of the scientific method. We know enough about the workings of the world to compare two competing big-picture theoretical frameworks: a purely naturalistic one, versus one that incorporates some sort of supernatural component. To explain what we actually see, there's no question that the naturalistic approach is simply a more compelling fit to the observations.

 

 

 

Via

[Galapagos]

Galapagos, you don't appear to ... understand my points. Your replies only display misunderstanding of them.

Yes. Hence me directly stating when I did not understand part of your post. I also notice you failed to clarify that part again in this follow up post. No worries.

Unless you improve your effort,

 

No thanks, I already stated that I think this nitpicking discussion is a waste of my time. I have science books/papers to go read this summer. Anyone who is yet to satisfy themselves on this semantic issue might find some more answers on these pages:

 

Richard Carrier Blogs: Atheist or Agnostic?

Definitions of atheism « Evolving Thoughts

Sandwalk: John Wilkins Is an Asportist

'Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.' by RichardDawkins.net - RichardDawkins.net

[InfiniteNow]

The folly of pretence | Daniel Dennett | Comment is free | The Guardian

Today one of the most insistent forces arrayed in opposition to us vocal atheists is the "I'm an atheist but" crowd, who publicly deplore our "hostility", our "rudeness" (which is actually just candour), while privately admitting that we're right. They don't themselves believe in God, but they certainly do believe in belief in God. It's not always easy to tell who just believes in belief, since the actions motivated by believing in belief (while not actually believing in God) are – with the exception of those rare sotto voce confessions – well-nigh indistinguishable from the actions of genuine believers: say the prayers, sing the hymns, tithe, proclaim one's allegiance, volunteer for church projects, and so on. Sometimes I wonder if even 10% of the people who proclaim their belief in God actually do believe in God. I am particularly unimpressed by those who proclaim the loudest; they demonstrate by their very activism that they fear the effect of any erosion of religion, and they must think that erosion is likely if they don't put their shoulders to the wheel. If they were more confident and secure in their religious convictions, they probably wouldn't waste their time trying to discredit a few atheists. For instance, since they are confident that the moon landings really happened, they don't bother working to discredit the moon-landing sceptics who lurk on the internet, even though those people do pose something of a threat to public confidence in the veracity of the media and the government.

 

I am confident that those who believe in belief are wrong. That is, we no more need to preserve the myth of God in order to preserve a just and stable society than we needed to cling to the Gold Standard to keep our currency sound. It was a useful crutch, but we've outgrown it. Denmark, according to a recent study, is the sanest, healthiest, happiest, most crime-free nation in the world, and by and large the Danes simply ignore the God issue. We should certainly hope that those who believe in belief are wrong, because belief is waning fast, and the props are beginning to buckle.

[enorbet2]

Hey Infinite I think you may have possibly overlooked a third category of atheist - those who neither believe in a Supreme Being (whatever that is) nor beliefs (we either know, don't know or can't know) and are frankly bored with the question. Additionally, if the concept that one's value can be measured by the stature of one's enemies has any validity, we only give believers increased status by engaging them especially in a heated way as if something important were truly at stake. It seems a slow process climbing down from the trees, let alone crawling from the muck, but I think it is best to just let capital "F" Faith die on the vine in it's own natural course. There will possibly always be a few hangers-on and throwbacks but it should be obvious that given Humanity survives long enough essentially on the course seen through History, it is inevitable that Reason rules.

 

OTOH real dialogue is still possible. I recently watched a 2 hour internet video of a panel debate in Australia regarding the existence of Creator and the value of religion and found both sides remarkably interesting even if my own convictions were essentially unchanged. However I was a bit surprised that here was a good case made for the continued existence of religion for a balanced world. I googled it just now and apparently debate is alive and well in Australia as there are too many results. If you, or anyone else is interested, I will search my browser history and post the link here.

 

Words do convey emotion and can hurt people. People hurt in an argument, tend not to take the "hurters" point of view. I am reminded of an old cliche regarding honey and vinegar. I salute your convictions and the strength of reason you display, but I question the efficacy of methodology and it's likely results, which may more often than not, be counter-productive. One must, IMHO, not only check one's premises, but also the conclusions and their effects as the premise of the following syllogism.