Interview with DNA

Oiwoy

An interview with a favourite author of mine, caught my eye for his interesting paragraph on the issue of 'belief-that-there-is-no-god'.


AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a "radical Atheist.?Is this accurate?

DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as "Atheist,?some people will say, "Don't you mean 'Agnostic??I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It's easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it's an opinion I hold seriously. It's funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

People will then often say "But surely it's better to remain an Agnostic just in case??This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)

Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know? Isn't belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don't see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don't believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn't make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don't know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it's the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.


I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me "Well, you haven't been there, have you? You haven't seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid?- then I can't even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we'd got, and we've now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don't think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don't think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: How long have you been a nonbeliever, and what brought you to that realization?

DNA: Well, it's a rather corny story. As a teenager I was a committed Christian. It was in my background. I used to work for the school chapel in fact. Then one day when I was about eighteen I was walking down the street when I heard a street evangelist and, dutifully, stopped to listen. As I listened it began to be borne in on me that he was talking complete nonsense, and that I had better have a bit of a think about it.

I've put that a bit glibly. When I say I realized he was talking nonsense, what I mean is this. In the years I'd spent learning History, Physics, Latin, Math, I'd learnt (the hard way) something about standards of argument, standards of proof, standards of logic, etc. In fact we had just been learning how to spot the different types of logical fallacy, and it suddenly became apparent to me that these standards simply didn't seem to apply in religious matters. In religious education we were asked to listen respectfully to arguments which, if they had been put forward in support of a view of, say, why the Corn Laws came to be abolished when they were, would have been laughed at as silly and childish and - in terms of logic and proof -just plain wrong. Why was this?

Well, in history, even though the understanding of events, of cause and effect, is a matter of interpretation, and even though interpretation is in many ways a matter of opinion, nevertheless those opinions and interpretations are honed to within an inch of their lives in the withering crossfire of argument and counterargument, and those that are still standing are then subjected to a whole new round of challenges of fact and logic from the next generation of historians - and so on. All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.

So, I was already familiar with and (I'm afraid) accepting of, the view that you couldn't apply the logic of physics to religion, that they were dealing with different types of 'truth? (I now think this is baloney, but to continue...) What astonished me, however, was the realization that the arguments in favor of religious ideas were so feeble and silly next to the robust arguments of something as interpretative and opinionated as history. In fact they were embarrassingly childish. They were never subject to the kind of outright challenge which was the normal stock in trade of any other area of intellectual endeavor whatsoever. Why not? Because they wouldn't stand up to it. So I became an Agnostic. And I thought and thought and thought. But I just did not have enough to go on, so I didn't really come to any resolution. I was extremely doubtful about the idea of god, but I just didn't know enough about anything to have a good working model of any other explanation for, well, life, the universe and everything to put in its place. But I kept at it, and I kept reading and I kept thinking. Sometime around my early thirties I stumbled upon evolutionary biology, particularly in the form of Richard Dawkins's books The Selfish Gene and then The Blind Watchmaker and suddenly (on, I think the second reading of The Selfish Gene) it all fell into place. It was a concept of such stunning simplicity, but it gave rise, naturally, to all of the infinite and baffling complexity of life. The awe it inspired in me made the awe that people talk about in respect of religious experience seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: You allude to your Atheism in your speech to your fans (?..that was one of the few times I actually believed in god?. Is your Atheism common knowledge among your fans, friends, and coworkers? Are many people in your circle of friends and coworkers Atheists as well?

DNA: This is a slightly puzzling question to me, and I think there is a cultural difference involved. In England there is no big deal about being an Atheist. There's just a slight twinge of discomfort about people strongly expressing a particular point of view when maybe a detached wishy-washiness might be felt to be more appropriate - hence a preference for Agnosticism over Atheism. And making the move from Agnosticism to Atheism takes, I think, much more commitment to intellectual effort than most people are ready to put in. But there's no big deal about it. A number of the people I know and meet are scientists and in those circles Atheism is the norm. I would guess that most people I know otherwise are Agnostics, and quite a few Atheists. If I was to try and look amongst my friends, family, and colleagues for people who believed there was a god I'd probably be looking amongst the older, and (to be perfectly frank) less well educated ones. There are one or two exceptions. (I nearly put, by habit "honorable exceptions,?but I don't really think that.)

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: How often have fans, friends, or coworkers tried to "save?you from Atheism?

DNA: Absolutely never. We just don't have that kind of fundamentalism in England. Well, maybe that's not absolutely true. But (and I'm going to be horribly arrogant here) I guess I just tend not to come across such people, just as I tend not to come across people who watch daytime soaps or read the National Enquirer. And how do you usually respond? I wouldn't bother.

Zombrex

Nice article

I like the bit about why he doesn't consider himself an agnostic, and his response to the idea that you can't "know" that God doesn't exist so surely logically he must be agnostic. He says that is silly and I totally agree with him.

If you agnostic about God because you cannot know for certain their isn't a God, you must be agnostic about everything that can possibly be imagined in the him brain, from the composition of the Moon being cheese to the nature of reality itself. Which is just plan silly.

Oiwoy

Also, I am new to this board, but I have a contention as to some peoples(the standard, maybe on here) definition of agnosticism and atheism.

People seem to think that the two are mutually exclusive things.

Agnosticism is defined as the belief that the existance of god can never be proved or disproved, and atheism as a lack of a belief in a deity(see above interview for the differene between not believing in god and belief their is no god).

By thse definitions I am an agnostic athiest.....

Scofflaw

Also, I am new to this board, but I have a contention as to some peoples(the standard, maybe on here) definition of agnosticism and atheism.

People seem to think that the two are mutually exclusive things.

Agnosticism is defined as the belief that the existance of god can never be proved or disproved, and atheism as a lack of a belief in a deity(see above interview for the differene between not believing in god and belief their is no god).

By thse definitions I am an agnostic athiest.....

Some people are....extremely definite on the subject - that atheism is an entirely defensible position (that one can make the case from first principles, with no tautological assumptions, or prove it scientifically). Some (myself included) would say that it is only a very defensible position (it's impossible to prove God, so the existence of God(s) becomes a widely held belief of no greater validity than UFO's or the like).

I would generally hold that you can be classified as an atheist for all intents and purposes if you can happily state any of the following (or more than one, if you're like me):

1. There is, logically, no God - and anyone who claims there is, let the burden of extraordinary proof be upon them!
2. I believe that there is no God - there may not be a rigorous proof that there is no God, but I don't consider that necessary.
3. I do not believe that there is a God - for whatever reason, I'm simply not convinced.
4. I do not care whether there is a God - whether or not there is a God, or any Gods, they are not worth worshipping.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Oiwoy wrote:

Agnosticism is defined as the belief that the existance of god can never be proved or disproved, and atheism as a lack of a belief in a deity(see above interview for the differene between not believing in god and belief their is no god).

That doesn't make sense. You are saying you accept the possibility of a God with the first bit, and then saying you don't have any belief in said God.

Its like saying "I am an atheist (I have no belief in a God) but sure its quite possible I'm wrong"

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Some (myself included) would say that it is only a very defensible position (it's impossible to prove God, so the existence of God(s) becomes a widely held belief of no greater validity than UFO's or the like).

You don't have to defend it. The position is not valid to start with.

It is only because someone came up with the idea of God in the first place and that a lot of people believe in that it gives it some false validity. If no one had thought of "God" no one would be expected to defend not believing in it, any more than I would expect you to defend your position that you don't think there is a green fairy that lives in the peanut jar that I have kept in my fridge since 2001 just because I say there is (of course u don't even know if I have a peanut jar from 2001, or even if I have a fridge).

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

You don't have to defend it. The position is not valid to start with.

It is only because someone came up with the idea of God in the first place and that a lot of people believe in that it gives it some false validity. If no one had thought of "God" no one would be expected to defend not believing in it, any more than I would expect you to defend your position that you don't think there is a green fairy that lives in the peanut jar that I have kept in my fridge since 2001 just because I say there is (of course u don't even know if I have a peanut jar from 2001, or even if I have a fridge).

One defends things that are attacked. The atheist position certainly comes under attack, and it's nice to have something to say other than "you can't prove your god(s), now go away, you silly person" - the more so because people use a lot of different standards of proof.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the atheist contention that there is no God(s) is the extraordinary one, not the reverse. We may be right, but we're in a minority.

regards,
Scofflaw

Oiwoy

Wicknight wrote:

That doesn't make sense. You are saying you accept the possibility of a God with the first bit, and then saying you don't have any belief in said God.

Its like saying "I am an atheist (I have no belief in a God) but sure its quite possible I'm wrong"

Ugh, that line of thought, that doesn't 'make sense' is the foundation behind the community of science. Aka, don't deny the possibility of anything, but make your assunptions based on sound reasoning deduced from empirical observations.........

Zombrex

Oiwoy wrote:

Ugh, that line of thought, that doesn't 'make sense' is the foundation behind the community of science. Aka, don't deny the possibility of anything, but make your assunptions based on sound reasoning deduced from empirical observations.........

If that is your position then you are an agnostic. An atheist is a definiate belief or logical reasoning that their is no such thing as a God, in the same way one can say there is no such thing as Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.

If you accept that a God might exist, but think it unlikely or doubtful, you are an agnostic, by definition. An "agnostic atheist" is an oxymoron

Dont be at yourself

That article had a profound affect on my beliefs when I first read it. I can't agree enough about what he says.

Oiwoy

Wicknight wrote:

If that is your position then you are an agnostic. An atheist is a definiate belief or logical reasoning that their is no such thing as a God, in the same way one can say there is no such thing as Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.

If you accept that a God might exist, but think it unlikely or doubtful, you are an agnostic, by definition. An "agnostic atheist" is an oxymoron

Nope, as I said earlier, agnosticism is to do with whether you believe that it will ever be 'proven' one way or another, and atheism is to do with a lack of a belief. There are two variants of the atheism viewpoint, and affirmative 'belief-that-there-is-no-god' and a general lack of a theistic belief, be you ignostic,or agnostic. As DNA stated, though, I don't think that athiesm should be a matter of 'belief' along theistic lines.

As far as my agnosticism goes, I am 'convinced', based on what information and reasoning I have encountered and used, that there is no god, however I do 'believe' that, because of the ubiquitous, omnipotent nature of the monotheistic god, it's existance or lach thereof will never be scientifically proven.

To summarise, I am an athiest, in that I lack a theistic belief, in fact am 'convinced', based on current evidence that there is no god, and I am an agnostic as far as my will-or-wont be proven viewpiont is concerned. I don't think that is oxymoronic(sp?)

Dont be at yourself

As I see it, agnosticism is more to do with unable to make a decision regarding the existence of God without full evidence, whereas athiem is being able to look at the available evidence and deciding that you don't believe. The two are, in my mind, mutually exclusive. You cannot be 'convinced' that there is no God, but still await definitive proof so as to not class yourself as agnostic. You're either convinced, or not convinced.

Zombrex

Oiwoy wrote:

To summarise, I am an athiest, in that I lack a theistic belief, in fact am 'convinced', based on current evidence that there is no god, and I am an agnostic as far as my will-or-wont be proven viewpiont is concerned. I don't think that is oxymoronic(sp?)

Look, I'm not concerned with your beliefs. Your beliefs are fine.

But NekkidBibleMan points out, if you have decided there is no God, you are an atheist. If you don't know, even if you are siding one way or the other, you are agnostic.

Being an agnostic doesn't simply mean you can't prove, or know for certain, there is no God. No one can know that. It might be a reason for being agnostic, but it is not the definition. It means you are open to the possibility, that you have not decided either way. It is possible to be agnostic about lots of things. I have not decided if I'm going to have kids. I have not decided at what stage abortion is totally wrong. I have not decided what I'm wearing tomorrow.

No one can prove there is no God, certainly not an atheist. But people decide to believe or not to believe. Agnostic means you have not decided yourself. An atheist has decided, based on his reasoning, that there is no God. A religious person has decided that yes their is a God, and he deserves to be worshiped.

An atheist doesn't know, he can't prove, any more than the agnostic but he has made a decision. That is the key point.

Saying you are an "agnostic atheist" is like saying that you have not decided yet what you believe but you believe there is no God. That is why it is an oxymoron.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Look, I'm not concerned with your beliefs. Your beliefs are fine.

But NekkidBibleMan points out, if you have decided there is no God, you are an atheist. If you don't know, even if you are siding one way or the other, you are agnostic.

Being an agnostic doesn't simply mean you can't prove, or know for certain, there is no God. No one can know that. It might be a reason for being agnostic, but it is not the definition. It means you are open to the possibility, that you have not decided either way. It is possible to be agnostic about lots of things. I have not decided if I'm going to have kids. I have not decided at what stage abortion is totally wrong. I have not decided what I'm wearing tomorrow.

No one can prove there is no God, certainly not an atheist. But people decide to believe or not to believe. Agnostic means you have not decided yourself. An atheist has decided, based on his reasoning, that there is no God. A religious person has decided that yes their is a God, and he deserves to be worshiped.

An atheist doesn't know, he can't prove, any more than the agnostic but he has made a decision. That is the key point.

Saying you are an "agnostic atheist" is like saying that you have not decided yet what you believe but you believe there is no God. That is why it is an oxymoron.

I would fully agree with this. On the other hand, you certainly managed to convince me in earlier posts that you believed it was possible to be certain of the non-existence of God, and that therefore, someone who considers that God cannot be disproved is an agnostic, not an atheist.

You've also left out people who think there might be a God, but not one worth worshipping.

puzzled,
Scofflaw

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

Saying you are an "agnostic atheist" is like saying that you have not decided yet what you believe but you believe there is no God. That is why it is an oxymoron.

Hmmm.

I know they are different things, but I can see what Oiwoy's saying. If one accepts that nobody knows, then I think the two can live together to a degree.

I don't believe in the existence of gods, and feel strongly about it, but I acknowledge the agnostic notion that nobody has proof either way and probably never will. I see this as open minded atheism.

Agnostic views are so open, if you have an open-mind at all there has to be an overlap. And I don't believe this takes anything away from a 'belief-that-there-is-no-god', that is atheism.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

On the other hand, you certainly managed to convince me in earlier posts that you believed it was possible to be certain of the non-existence of God

I still believe it is. But that isn't the same as being able to prove that there is no God.

The example I used a couple of times is that I am certain that a dragon is not going to fall on my head. But I could not begin to prove it wasn't going to happen. People seem to underestimate how difficult it actually it is to prove something is not going to happen, or does not exist, or how unnecessary it actually is to do that to be certain of something. You always get back to the philosophical idea that you cannot really prove or know anything. Based on that idea it is near impossible to prove something and impossible to fully disprove something. But that is philosophy, not reality. In reality am still certain a dragon isn't about to fall on my head.

Sam Vimes

Scofflaw wrote:

One defends things that are attacked. The atheist position certainly comes under attack, and it's nice to have something to say other than "you can't prove your god(s), now go away, you silly person" - the more so because people use a lot of different standards of proof.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the atheist contention that there is no God(s) is the extraordinary one, not the reverse. We may be right, but we're in a minority.

regards,
Scofflaw

if someone comes into my house and says that i have to do whatever it says in a 2000 year old book then the burden of proof is on them



atheism is not extraordinary. theism is by its very definition extraordinary, i.e. more than the ordinary


atheism is not the opposite of theism, its the lack of it. i have a lack of belief in god. its not the same as "believing there is no god". the theists are saying "god exists". i'm saying "i don't believe you". they are making the claim therefore the burden of prrof is on them. the number of people who believe on one side or the other are irrelevant

Zombrex

Commander Vimes wrote:

the theists are saying "god exists". i'm saying "i don't believe you".

That is a very good way of putting it. I do not believe there isn't a God. I don't believe there is a God. There is a big difference.

If someone turned up at my house saying "I'm Jesus" it wouldn't be necessary for me to prove he isn't before I accept he isn't. It would be necessary for him to prove he is before I accept he is. I also wouldn't be thinking, "Well I can't really prove he isn't, so he might be". I would simply say "I don't believe you, go away, you smell". Same with God/religion in general. I simply don't believe what is taught by any religion. It is not true. I don't need scientific proof to know this, any more than I need scientific proof to know the old homeless man down the road isn't actually the second coming of Jesus.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

I still believe it is. But that isn't the same as being able to prove that there is no God.

The example I used a couple of times is that I am certain that a dragon is not going to fall on my head. But I could not begin to prove it wasn't going to happen. People seem to underestimate how difficult it actually it is to prove something is not going to happen, or does not exist, or how unnecessary it actually is to do that to be certain of something. You always get back to the philosophical idea that you cannot really prove or know anything. Based on that idea it is near impossible to prove something and impossible to fully disprove something. But that is philosophy, not reality. In reality am still certain a dragon isn't about to fall on my head.

I hate when people use this Dawkins type argument for atheism. Dragons, Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are all fairy tales that we know to be fairy tales and everybody accepts that. The issue of God is a completely different matter. First of all for most Christians faith does not equal blind trust. People do not wake up one morning and suddenly decide to believe in God. Unfortunately there are people who are brought up in a christian enviroment and never decide to question their beliefs or to research the history and theology of their beliefs. If you look at christian theology you will soon see that faith does involve a 'leap of faith' but it should always be grounded in historical and theological evidence and a persons own feelings. See here for a rebuttal of Dawkins by someone who Dawkins claimed espoused his position accurately (See here for the rest of the debate). Afaik Dawkins reply is that he thinks Theology is a non subject so he isnt going to engage with somone on the topic. Imo that is a copout .. if you are going to attack an institution like Religion in the manner that he does then at least know what the hell you are talking about out of respect for people with a differerent worldview than you. I'm not even slightly religious but I think if we are ever going to make any progress in the Atheist/Agnostic vs Religion debate then everybody has to acquaint themselves with all the information and show a basic respect for other peoples beliefs.

On a side note I think people have to remember that 'God' is not always a religious God for people. Philosophically God can be defined as the origin/cause of existence. I don't believe in any religious God's but I will never be so sure of myself that I would state that there is no higher power at work in this universe. We know a fraction of what there is to know about our existence and for me the only logical position is agnostic. If you look here you will see that I am in good company with people such as Hume and Kant. Also a good point to note is that agnostic does not mean that you have just not made up your mind about the religious Gods but takes into account the philosopical postion of "someone who believes you can never know the source of, nor reason for existence".

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

The issue of God is a completely different matter.

Not its not. In fact it is exactly the same. 500 years ago they did believe in dragons, fairies, witches etc. There was no more "proof" for them back then than there is for "God" now.

Playboy wrote:

People do not wake up one morning and suddenly decide to believe in God.

You are right, most are raised to accept the idea of valid.

Playboy wrote:

show a basic respect for other peoples beliefs.

Who isn't respecting other beliefs. You say comparing God to a dragon isn't respecting beliefs? Why? Because you dismiss the idea of a dragon off hand, but you don't dismiss the idea of a supernatural being that made and controls everything? Whats the difference? Do you worry about offending people who do believe in dragons, or does that fact that not many people do make it more ok to dismiss that supernatural idea than it is to dismiss a supernatural idea of a large population?

Playboy wrote:

Philosophically God can be defined as the origin/cause of existence.

God, I wish people would stop doing this. "God" is a defined concept. It is a definition. If you want to believe in something else thats fine, but don't call it "God" because you are abusing the English language and no one has a clue what you are actually talking about.

When did the word "God" come to describe any concept anyone can up with to describe anything they like. Its like if someone asked me to describe a "horse" and I said a small flying rabit with a horn in its head. They say "thats not a horse, thats a flying rabbit", and I say "well thats what I think a horse is, stop oppressing my beliefs!".

Playboy wrote:

I don't believe in any religious God's but I will never be so sure of myself that I would state that there is no higher power at work in this universe.

Well I have no idea what you actually mean by "higher power" (higher in relation to what? whom?) so arguing over or discussing what you are imagining is rather pointless.

Playboy wrote:

We know a fraction of what there is to know about our existence and for me the only logical position is agnostic.

Why? What is the logical reason to believe in any God or even higher power as opposed to anything else that the human imagination can make up (tooth fairy, dragons, santa clause etc). Again, you seem to think the concept of God is given more validity because lots of people still believe in it. But the concept of a dragon isn't given any more validity today because lots of people believed it years ago is it?

Playboy wrote:

Also a good point to note is that agnostic does not mean that you have just not made up your mind about the religious Gods but takes into account the philosopical postion of "someone who believes you can never know the source of, nor reason for existence".

Yes but that argument falls down when you follow it to its logical conclusion and you realise you have to be agnostic about everything since we can never, philiospohically, know anything. So as I said before, you cannot know for absolute certain that a dragon isn't about to fall on your head. But are you constantly looking up just because I came up with the idea that a dragon is could fall on your head? I doubt it. You know a dragon isn't going to fall on your head tomorrow, even though you have no proof of this, or even proof that dragons don't exist in the first place. Yet you can continue on your life happy and confident that you know a dragon isn't going ot fall on your head tomorrow. You are an atheist when it comes to dragons falling from the sky and crushing innocent by people, not an agnostic.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Not its not. In fact it is exactly the same. 500 years ago they did believe in dragons, fairies, witches etc. There was no more "proof" for them back then than there is for "God" now.

It is completely different. There might not be scientific proof for God but religious people you will find have good reason to belive what they believe. Go to the christianity forum and ask Excelsior. Im sure he will be more than happy to explain the unusual historical origins of Christianity and why intelligent people who have scientific backgrounds and careers belive in God. It is disrespectful to people who believe in God to dismiss their beliefs and compare their beliefs to dragons. There are people who are Christian and a lot more intelligent than you and I are Wicknight. The question is, if there are sane intelligent people out there who believe in God then why do they believe if the whole concept seems ridiculous to regular joes like you and I.

Wicknight wrote:

God, I wish people would stop doing this. "God" is a defined concept. It is a definition. If you want to believe in something else thats fine, but don't call it "God" because you are abusing the English language and no one has a clue what you are actually talking about.

When did the word "God" come to describe any concept anyone can up with to describe anything they like. Its like if someone asked me to describe a "horse" and I said a small flying rabit with a horn in its head. They say "thats not a horse, thats a flying rabbit", and I say "well thats what I think a horse is, stop oppressing my beliefs!".

God in philosophy can be defined differently to the religious understanding of the word. I explained my definition so I don't see what the problem is.

Wicknight wrote:

Well I have no idea what you actually mean by "higher power" (higher in relation to what? whom?) so arguing over or discussing what you are imagining is rather pointless.

Sigh .. I say higher power because I don't believe we know everything or can know everything. I don't believe that our existence and existence of the universe has the individual human consciousness as its most enthralling mystery. I'm open to the idea that there is a reason behind all this. Maybe the universe and our existence is just some amazing accident and then again maybe its not. What Im saying is that I'm open to a range of possibilities and I'm not going to take a position that rules out any whether we have 'proof' or not.

Wicknight wrote:

Why? What is the logical reason to believe in any God or even higher power as opposed to anything else that the human imagination can make up (tooth fairy, dragons, santa clause etc). Again, you seem to think the concept of God is given more validity because lots of people still believe in it. But the concept of a dragon isn't given any more validity today because lots of people believed it years ago is it?

Again with this ridiculous argument. I don't belive in tooth fairies becuase I know they are a figment of our imagination. No one is disputing that. What being an agnostic is, is saying that you believe that we can never know the source of, nor reason for existence. I do not believe in anything but I am open to the possibility that a God or a million other things could be the cause or the reason. If you want to be silly then you talk about flying spaghetti monsters and all the other ridiculous arguments that are rehashed in these types of discussion over and over again.

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but that argument falls down when you follow it to its logical conclusion and you realise you have to be agnostic about everything since we can never, philiospohically, know anything. So as I said before, you cannot know for absolute certain that a dragon isn't about to fall on your head. But are you constantly looking up just because I came up with the idea that a dragon is could fall on your head? I doubt it.

No I don't have to be agnostic about everything. Its more than acceptable to put your hands up and say that you cant make up your mind on the question of God and the reason for our existence. It has nothing to do with living a normal life and believing in dragons and tooth fairies. The reason for our existence and the question of God is an extremely important one that most people spend their whole lives contemplating in some form or another. It has nothing to do with dragons so try and move on from that silly analogy.

Scofflaw

Without wishing to reprise an earlier thread, I still think wicknight is over-categorical in stating the case, and makes it sound much more definite that it is, by choosing comparisons that most people find ridiculous, and the religious probably find insulting.

Can I restate know in "you can continue on your life happy and confident that you know a dragon isn't going to fall on your head tomorrow" as "are certain beyond reasonable doubt". There's a reason the phrase gets used in court-rooms, and it avoids the tedious arguments about the nature of knowledge.

Plus, of course, you still get to have unreasonable doubts if you like.


cordially,
Scofflaw

samb

But Playboy;
People did believe in dragons, fairies and witches, you are disrepecting thier beliefs.
People still believe in fairies, santa, 72 virgins waiting in heaven, guardian angels, ghosts, and many many more rarer beliefs.

Do you respect all these beliefs? or
How many people must hold a belief before you will respect it?

What we must repect is their right to hold any belief, but we don't need to repect the belief itself.

Dades

Forceful as Wicknight's views are, I don't see them as insulting (which would be against the charter BTW). For one I don't believe there is an intent there to ridicule, only to support an idea.

The dragon analogy has (AFAIK) it's origins in Carl Sagan's Demon "Haunted World" - with the Dragon in my Garage chapter. But it is just that - an analogy. And it's one that does the rounds, an appears in any debate regarding the burden of proving something exists. It doesn't always have to refer to a god.

Playboy wrote:

I think if we are ever going to make any progress in the Atheist/Agnostic vs Religion debate then everybody has to acquaint themselves with all the information and show a basic respect for other peoples beliefs.

On a side note I think people have to remember that 'God' is not always a religious God for people. Philosophically God can be defined as the origin/cause of existence.

These two sentences for me don't sit. We can never make any progress in the atheist/agnostoc/theist debate unless we put a limit on what a god is.

Playboy the reason why agnosticism is the only valid choice for you is because of your open-ended defintion of god. Similarly, the reason I am an atheist is because I draw the line at what I define to be a god, for the purposes of definition. Hence, since we each have our own notion of what is is we are not believing in we are on a different plain.

If we are going to define god as "nature", or a "higher power", or simply anything that we do not understand well then I feel we're wasting our time.

Oiwoy

The agnosticism more logical than atheism argument is bogus, and something DNA briefly skips on.

As he has said, athiesm is not a matter for the world 'believe', so there is no unreasonable jump of faith akin to thiests, as some agnostic viewpoints contend. It's making a rational deduction based on empirical observations.

Scofflaw

Oiwoy wrote:

The agnosticism more logical than atheism argument is bogus, and something DNA briefly skips on.

As he has said, athiesm is not a matter for the world 'believe', so there is no unreasonable jump of faith akin to thiests, as some agnostic viewpoints contend. It's making a rational deduction based on empirical observations.

Hmm. A theist will nevertheless tell you that it's a leap of faith to apply "a rational deduction based on empirical observations" to God. Also, you presumably mean "a rational deduction based on a lack of empirical observations". I'm not sure what observations there are that show there is no God.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm not sure what observations there are that show there is no God.

Have you watched the news recently?

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Have you watched the news recently?

Sure, but that's just lack of evidence for a benign god. If you wanted to look at it the other way round, we'd have a lot of evidence for a malicious Creator/God. No reason why it shouldn't be that way...


cordially,
Scofflaw

Playboy

samb wrote:

But Playboy;
People did believe in dragons, fairies and witches, you are disrepecting thier beliefs.
People still believe in fairies, santa, 72 virgins waiting in heaven, guardian angels, ghosts, and many many more rarer beliefs.

Do you respect all these beliefs? or
How many people must hold a belief before you will respect it?

What we must repect is their right to hold any belief, but we don't need to repect the belief itself.

Comparing the cultural phenomenon of Religion with folk superstitions is not fair. Religion has shaped the world we live in, has affected all our values, morals and ethics in the most significant way. Religious people are obviously trying to connect or communicate something that they feel is extremely important to their existence. To simply dismiss what they belief becuase it doesnt fit into your worldview or becuase it cant be verified scientifically imo is disrespectful.

Playboy

The Atheist wrote:

Playboy the reason why agnosticism is the only valid choice for you is because of your open-ended defintion of god. Similarly, the reason I am an atheist is because I draw the line at what I define to be a god, for the purposes of definition. Hence, since we each have our own notion of what is is we are not believing in we are on a different plain.

If we are going to define god as "nature", or a "higher power", or simply anything that we do not understand well then I feel we're wasting our time.

You are probably right .. there are so many defintions of agnostic and atheist that the discussion will end up going in circles.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm not sure what observations there are that show there is no God.

You have, indirectly, most coming from psychology, history and biology. Basically we have a pretty good understanding of why and how humans would invent the concept of a "god". Tie that in with the fact that we have no observations that "god" exists at all.

If you have too explinations for something, and one is backed by science logic and understanding and the other is backed by nothing except human imagination, then I tend to side with the one backed by science.

Its the reason why I accept evolution over the competting idea of 6,000 year old Earth created by God in the Bible. We have no direct observable proof that God didn't change everything around to make it look like the world is billions of years old (as some cretionists claim he would), but then again why would we accept that as a possibility in the first place?

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Comparing the cultural phenomenon of Religion with folk superstitions is not fair.

Says who?

Can you not see the hypocracy of complaining about dismissing one form of supernatural belief while at the same time you are dismissing another.

At least I'm dismissing all equally, you are saying some supernatural beliefs are valid and important and some are not. I fail to see the logic behind that? As Samb asked, how many people have to believe in something before you consider it a valid concept? 1000 years ago everyone believed in dragons

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

You have, indirectly, most coming from psychology, history and biology. Basically we have a pretty good understanding of why and how humans would invent the concept of a "god". Tie that in with the fact that we have no observations that "god" exists at all.

If you have too explinations for something, and one is backed by science logic and understanding and the other is backed by nothing except human imagination, then I tend to side with the one backed by science.

Its the reason why I accept evolution over the competting idea of 6,000 year old Earth created by God in the Bible. We have no direct observable proof that God didn't change everything around to make it look like the world is billions of years old (as some cretionists claim he would), but then again why would we accept that as a possibility in the first place?

In other words, we don't actually have any observations that there is no God. What we do have is a competing naturalistic 'theory' that fits the 'psychological profile' of the victim. However, this is not based on evidence, either, but is in turn based on other theories - it represents a synthesis of various psychological theories, none of which are proven.

I don't see that we have any evidence from history or biology....although I would certainly consider that the evidence from those fields would go against the specifically Judeo-Christian (really, fundamentalist Protestant) God. Do you think there's enough evidence in there to dismiss all possible gods, or are you specifically a Christian atheist?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Says who?

Can you not see the hypocracy of complaining about dismissing one form of supernatural belief while at the same time you are dismissing another.

At least I'm dismissing all equally, you are saying some supernatural beliefs are valid and important and some are not. I fail to see the logic behind that? As Samb asked, how many people have to believe in something before you consider it a valid concept? 1000 years ago everyone believed in dragons

There is no hypocrisy on my part. Unfounded folk superstition such as dragons and fairies cannot be compared to a documented and world changing set of events as laid out in the bible. Whatever way you want to look at it the bible is a historical document, probably one of the best we have. Something happened in the middle east about 2000 years ago that changed the world they lived in and the world we live in. Something people willingly laid down their lives for over and over again because they believed in it so much. How can you compare that to stories about dragons and fairies ... can you not see how silly that is?

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Do you think there's enough evidence in there to dismiss all possible gods, or are you specifically a Christian atheist?

That just reminded me of a good comment I've heard - atheists just believe in one less god than Christians (or any monotheist for that matter).

robindch

> atheists just believe in one less god than Christians

That's something that Dawkins has produced from time to time. The full quote's something like:

With the exception of their own deity or deities, religious people deny the existence of all the gods that have ever been said to exist in human culture. All I do is to go one step further and suggest that their specific one or ones may not exist either

CodeMonkey

Playboy wrote:

There is no hypocrisy on my part. Unfounded folk superstition such as dragons and fairies cannot be compared to a documented and world changing set of events as laid out in the bible. Whatever way you want to look at it the bible is a historical document, probably one of the best we have. Something happened in the middle east about 2000 years ago that changed the world they lived in and the world we live in. Something people willingly laid down their lives for over and over again because they believed in it so much. How can you compare that to stories about dragons and fairies ... can you not see how silly that is?

I'd argue that as a historical document, the bible is probably the worst you can have. It's self contradictory, full of stories and not facts, it's vague and open to intepretations and it's been translated and mistranslated hundreds of times. The bible at best contains references to something that happened 2000 years ago with a lot of insight into ancient cultures.

Playboy

CodeMonkey wrote:

I'd argue that as a historical document, the bible is probably the worst you can have. It's self contradictory, full of stories and not facts, it's vague and open to intepretations and it's been translated and mistranslated hundreds of times. The bible at best contains references to something that happened 2000 years ago with a lot of insight into ancient cultures.

According to Christians the bible is not self contradictory at all if you have the proper understanding of Christian theology. As for it being full of stories and not facts well I would presume that it would be hard to verify the authenticity of any 'facts' in ancient documents.

Yossie

robindch wrote:

> atheists just believe in one less god than Christians

That's something that Dawkins has produced from time to time. The full quote's something like:

This guy claims he's the originator of ...

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
...Stephen F Roberts

He gives a history of the qoute here.
http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.htm

Either way it's a nice little quote.:D

The bible does mention unicorns, satyrs, cockatrices, and giants...

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Whatever way you want to look at it the bible is a historical document, probably one of the best we have.

Actually the Bible is one of the worst documents we have, from a historical point of view.

The New Testemant was a propaganda piece for a small religion (which at the time was a small cult) which was written decades (if not a hundred years) after the events it attempts to describe, and also from at least 4 different view points.

We can see from the problems of the spread of mis-information (asylum seekers with BMWs, aliens landing in Texas, etc) in this technologically advanced age that 2000 years ago the effects would have been much greater.

It would be very foolish to take anything in the Bible alone as historically accurate in any form.

Playboy wrote:

Something happened in the middle east about 2000 years ago that changed the world they lived in and the world we live in.

Something "happens" that changes the world every day. The reasons for the spread and eventual world wide popularity of Christianity are long and complicated, but also very much grounded in real world events, such as the conversion of the Roman empire, the spread of Europe etc. It is not a sign of any significance. Before Chritianity the Roman and Greek religions had spread through out the world. Not to mention the Asian ones.

Playboy wrote:

Something people willingly laid down their lives for over and over again because they believed in it so much.

Thats great Playboy but it has no bearing on the validity of the belief. People were/are willing to execute children because they believed they were possessed by the devil or have turned into witches. Does that mean they probably were?

Playboy wrote:

How can you compare that to stories about dragons and fairies ... can you not see how silly that is?

As i said, there was a time when people took the concept of witches, dragons, fairies etc very very seriously. We don't now, put in parts of the world they still do. Hell Christian fundamentalists in the USA want Harry Potter banned because it promotes the black arts.

You would probably say that is nonsense. But what is the difference? I think what is in the Bible is nonsense, despite the fact millions believe it is true. But then there was a time when millions believed in witch craft, and dragons.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

That just reminded me of a good comment I've heard - atheists just believe in one less god than Christians (or any monotheist for that matter).

Its a good point, and something I wonder do agnostics seriously consider.

If someone is not prepared to say they are atheist with relation to the Judo/Christian concept of a single divine entity, are they also not prepared to say they are atheist in relation to the idea of Zeus living at the top of mount olympus with his extended family of gods demi-gods and giants who constantly meddle in the affairs of mortals?

I think people should ask themselves why they even consider some human ideas of the concept of God as valid, but not others.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

That just reminded me of a good comment I've heard - atheists just believe in one less god than Christians (or any monotheist for that matter).

On the other hand, we believe in a whole load less gods than Hindus! Except of course at the more esoteric levels of Hinduism, where it becomes monotheism again.

The only Creator I have any difficulty in dismissing as either ridiculous or at least unworshippable is the Sun.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Actually the Bible is one of the worst documents we have, from a historical point of view.

The New Testemant was a propaganda piece for a small religion (which at the time was a small cult) which was written decades (if not a hundred years) after the events it attempts to describe, and also from at least 4 different view points.

We can see from the problems of the spread of mis-information (asylum seekers with BMWs, aliens landing in Texas, etc) in this technologically advanced age that 2000 years ago the effects would have been much greater.

It would be very foolish to take anything in the Bible alone as historically accurate in any form.

In your opinion Wicknight. The historical accuracy of the bible is huge and widely debated issue and afaik most historians do consider the bible to be a very important historical document whether they are Biblical maximalists or Biblical minimalists.

Wicknight wrote:

Something "happens" that changes the world every day. The reasons for the spread and eventual world wide popularity of Christianity are long and complicated, but also very much grounded in real world events, such as the conversion of the Roman empire, the spread of Europe etc. It is not a sign of any significance. Before Chritianity the Roman and Greek religions had spread through out the world. Not to mention the Asian ones.

If you take a closer look at the spread of christianity in the middle east and into the roman empire you will see that it is a very unusual event. From the conviction of peoples beliefs and their willingless to die for their beliefs to eventual adoption of it as a state religion in the roman empire, christianity was an extremely significant event in comparison to other religions. Other religions co-existed side by side in the roman empire for hundreds of years and none of them had the influence Christianity had.

Wicknight wrote:

Thats great Playboy but it has no bearing on the validity of the belief. People were/are willing to execute children because they believed they were possessed by the devil or have turned into witches. Does that mean they probably were?

Wicknight how many christians willingly died for the beliefs in the roman empire? Ask yourself why? People can very easily kill other people when they believe they are possessed by devils or withces but it is quite unusual for people to sacrifice themselves on such a scale.

Wicknight wrote:

You would probably say that is nonsense. But what is the difference? I think what is in the Bible is nonsense, despite the fact millions believe it is true. But then there was a time when millions believed in witch craft, and dragons.

A belief system is not the same as a superstition. People are superstitous and can be frightened into believing in fairies etc. Religions are large, organised, and meaningful systems which people devote their entire lives to. There is a huge gulf between those 2 concepts. Whether they are both figments of peoples imagination is irrelevant .. you cannot treat them the same if you want to interact with religious people and get them to see a different point of view. My whole point is that if you are a serious atheist or agnostic and you want to really change peoples minds about what you consider the falsity of their beliefs then you have to engage with them on their level and show a certain amount of respect for the beliefs or else you will get no where. Richard Dawkins is a prime example of what I am talking about. He is much too aggressive and is too dismissive of peoples beliefs. If he understood theology and tried to engage with people respectfully in order to change their minds then maybe he might achieve something. Instead all he does is drive a wedge between 2 camps with people slinging mud at each other. There is never any progress made. The last thing we should want in the western secular world is for someone puting out the message that science and religion are mutually exclusive, nevermind that person being the professor for the public understanding of science at one of the best universities in the world. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive and we should be trying to bring people together instead of driving them apart

Anyway thats just my 2c .. I have study to do.

Scofflaw

Whether they are both figments of peoples imagination is irrelevant .. you cannot treat them the same if you want to interact with religious people and get them to see a different point of view. My whole point is that if you are a serious atheist or agnostic and you want to really change peoples minds about what you consider the falsity of their beliefs then you have to engage with them on their level and show a certain amount of respect for the beliefs or else you will get no where. Richard Dawkins is a prime example of what I am talking about. He is much too aggressive and is too dismissive of peoples beliefs. If he understood theology and tried to engage with people respectfully in order to change their minds then maybe he might achieve something. Instead all he does is drive a wedge between 2 camps with people slinging mud at each other. There is never any progress made. The last thing we should want in the western secular world is for someone puting out the message that science and religion are mutually exclusive, nevermind that person being the professor for the public understanding of science at one of the best universities in the world. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive and we should be trying to bring people together instead of driving them apart

Good point. On the other hand, I've never yet come across a situation in which I would feel like changing a theist's mind. Why on earth would one?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

afaik most historians do consider the bible to be a very important historical document whether they are Biblical maximalists or Biblical minimalists

It is a very important document, but that doesn't mean it is in any way accurate, and there are far more accurate documents from that time. AFAIK there are offical Roman records describing the execution of Christ, which would be far more trust worthy (not 100% about this, it was just something we were told in school).

Playboy wrote:

From the conviction of peoples beliefs and their willingless to die for their beliefs to eventual adoption of it as a state religion in the roman empire, christianity was an extremely significant event in comparison to other religions.

Not really sure where you are getting this from Playboy. Buddiest monks were prepared to set themselves on fire during the Vietnam war in protest. Modern day Islamic martyrs are prepared to kill themselves a long with a lot of others, for there religion, seemingly at a whim. I see very little in the history of Christianity that makes it stand out with regard the willingness of the followers to die or kill for their beliefs.

Every religion, from the small cults to the large modern religions have people prepared to die from it.

Playboy wrote:

A belief system is not the same as a superstition.

True, but Christianity is a belief system based on superstition. Read any passage of the Old Testement to see an example. It may give moral codes but these moral codes are based on rather accient superstitions and myths that were used to control and justify the moral code.

Playboy wrote:

My whole point is that if you are a serious atheist or agnostic and you want to really change peoples minds about what you consider the falsity of their beliefs then you have to engage with them on their level and show a certain amount of respect for the beliefs or else you will get no where.

A - I don't have any desire to change anyones minds with regard to theism

B - It is a bit of a contraction to say that to change a theist mind about something I have to take their supernatural beliefs seriously. If I did that i would probably be a theist myself.

pH

Playboy wrote:

A belief system is not the same as a superstition. People are superstitous and can be frightened into believing in fairies etc. Religions are large, organised, and meaningful systems which people devote their entire lives to. There is a huge gulf between those 2 concepts. Whether they are both figments of peoples imagination is irrelevant ..

Large and organised maybe, but you can't just chuck 'meaningful' in there. On the whole people are frightened and bullied into conforming and 'believing' just like a superstition.

Wicknight how many christians willingly died for the beliefs in the roman empire? Ask yourself why? People can very easily kill other people when they believe they are possessed by devils or withces but it is quite unusual for people to sacrifice themselves on such a scale.

By that reckoning (in % terms) Jim Jones must have been the true messiah, he managed to get almost 100% of his followers to sacrifice themselves. Heavens Gate was probably the 3rd coming?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/18/newsid_2540000/2540209.stm

Dades

Playboy, I agree with the responsibility to respect beliefs in a debate And I also agree that Dawkins has a somewhat in your face style of getting his message across.

But there is only one place a debate between atheists and theists will end up. You can toss softballs back and forth but ultimately the debate will turn to belief in an invisible being, at which point analogys and comparisons will be made. The possibility that comparisons with unicorns etc. may be perceived as insulting isn't a reason to mute them. They fact that they sound ridiculous doesn't mean believe in religion is ridiculous - its the history or fact behind the belief that's relevant to the comparison.

Scofflaw

Belief in ghosts would be a better analogy. Many theists will say "I have experienced God", and what does the atheist say then? "Sorry, mate, you're deluded" is about our best riposte, but it's not one that's going to win any friends, is it?

Comparisons with dragons and unicorns are absurd, because you are not going to meet someone on the street who says they've personally experienced them (and if you did, you'd probably be backing away slowly, so as not to alarm them). On the other hand, chuck a brick in any major shopping street and there's a decent chance you'll hit a theist who has "personally experienced God", or someone who's "seen a ghost", or knows someone who has.

The whole dragons/unicorns thing is too obviously ridiculous (more's the pity) to be useful. I for one find it really tedious, and the same goes for the ruddy teapot. All it shows is that you can regurgitate someone else's thought.

regards,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

The possibility that comparisons with unicorns etc. may be perceived as insulting isn't a reason to mute them.

Agreed

And ironically it is only insulting because the thesist believes one is worthy of serious respect and consideration and the other is ridiculous. Which, as I pointed out before, is hypocritical.

At least the naturalist/Atheist is being consistent. From the point of view of an atheist both ideas are ridiculous. That doesn't change just because a million people belive in one and not the other.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

The whole dragons/unicorns thing is too obviously ridiculous (more's the pity) to be useful. I for one find it really tedious, and the same goes for the ruddy teapot. All it shows is that you can regurgitate someone else's thought.

But these trotted out analogys are the very essence of when atheist do not believe. Be it unicorns or ghosts, or the orbiting teapot. There is no rule that says new reasons to disbelieve must be produced every time. If the comparisions were addressed as opposed to beng called ridiculous then they could be put to bed.

People don't believe now dragons exist for the exact same reason atheists don't believe in gods.