I Was All Like, Yeah, And He Was All Like, Nuh-uh, And I Was All Like, Dude, Yeah-huh

I was over at Cosmic Variance yesterday and got into a small discussion with the guy who wrote this post about Richard Dawkins, and after going back and forth a couple of times (comment #s 66-70 & 72-73), was rather solidly given the "talk to the hand, buddy". I'm not sure if it's because I was not being clear enough in my argument, or if it's just that I'm an embarassing moron to have show up on your science blog and blather on about a subject which I have no degree in...
The gist of it was that I initially posted a comment saying that I don't understand atheism any more than I understand religious certainty, and that I felt that the more reasonable philosophy for a rational person (which I assume scientists generally are) to assume is agnosticism. Atheism, to me, is every bit as much a belief based on no empirical evidence as [pick a religion] is. I've never understood how anyone, especially scientists who require proof of everything, can say that God does not exist, end of story. There is no proof that he does and there is no proof that he doesn't! How can you prove that God does not exist? You can't! And Mark (the writer over at CV) came back with a more delineated definition of what atheism meant to him: "Atheism means that you do not believe in god, not that you will say with absolute certainty that one does not exist."
I looked up atheism on wikipedia, and sure enough, most atheistic philosophers assume that definition. Which really kind of throws me for a loop... that statement makes no more scientific sense than the idea of religious faith, which atheists spend so much time bashing. What that's saying is that you believe that God does not exist, not that you know. So then atheists, by that statement, really are the exact opposite side of the coin from religious wack-os, with about the same amount of rationality! Both sides are stating a belief about God or the lack of one, with nothing empirical backing either up.
When I tried explaining that, and that agnosticism seemed a much more rational approach for a scientist, he didn't seem to get my point (which is likely my own fault; my reasoning seems clear to me but I'm sure it's muddier than I think it is, half the time) and didn't acknowledge that he, by using that definition of atheism, was stating a belief. Instead he said that he felt uncomfortable with "beliefs", and that on the subject of the currently unprovable, he'd rather state "I don't know" and then try to figure out the truth... Then I pointed out that that is exactly what agnosticism is! Agnosticism means simply, lack of knowledge. I said that we were actually in agreement, and that we were just approaching the same conclusion from different sides... then he never responded to me again. There are of course many possible reasons for this, the most likely that he was simply getting annoyed with me. I admit, were I in his shoes and some snot-nose was trying to out-comment me on my own blog, I'd snub him down right quick also.
But it's a discussion which has many facets and I'm really intrigued, which is why I'm having trouble shutting up about it.
The thing about agnosticism is, of course, that like atheism, it can also have a couple of different interpretations. I think that Mark and other sciencey smart-guy types tend to shy away from agnosticism because it does have certain religious overtones. Gnostics were an early sect of Christianity that purported to have an insider's spiritual knowledge; Agnostics chose the name for themselves precisely because they want to say that they do not have any such luck. However, some people that call themselves Agnostics believe very firmly in God, but that any knowledge of such a vastly superior being is currently unknowable to the likes of us hairless apes. That's probably why certain rationals prefer the moniker of atheism, because while they won't say with certainty that there is no God, they prefer to have the cloak of what seems more likely in this Universe to them as being the case, the disbelief in God, keeping all possible distance from any sort of religious flavoring whatsoever.
To me, Agnosticism means that maybe there is, maybe there ain't. If he wants me to know, he'll tell me. If I don't hear from him, well, we will just have to wait until all the facts are in. Meanwhile, I don't need religion to tell me to be nice to other people (well, at least not to kill or actively harm them... being nice is often a tall order in the face of the ignorant) regardless of what they choose to say they believe the truth to be, and Agnosticism won't stop me from knowing that evolution is a fact or from eagerly awaiting any news about more great scientific discoveries that open more doors to the Universe for our tiny, hungry little brains.
After reading about the many different types of agnostics on the wikipedia page, I'd have to say I'm a Weak Agnostic, but that I prefer the alt-term of Open Agnostic. As I said on CV, The Universe is God, science is his means of communication, and it is a scientist’s duty to follow wherever that may lead, whether it proves that God is intelligent or accidental. (Ok I just added a few bits there... I'm always editing myself. It's a problem.)
I am willing to be wrong about any of this... I don't in fact have a degree on this subject and it's not like I've read anybody's thesis on atheism vs. agnosticism... chances are, they're identical viewpoints with different tones. Atheism just sticks in my craw (what's a craw?) because it seems to me to be an irrational viewpoint shared by a large group of people who are in most other matters extremely rational.

Comments

[Miss Luongo]

Amen, brother. Atheists: The anti-god squad.

[messiestobjects]

It's ok to be anti-religion, but anti-god is like, retarded or something.

[Miss Luongo]

We know the harm religion does.

[Heather]

And we know the harm drunk driving does. Not to mention the harm that farm machinery can do. If you drive it while drunk. And we know the harm nature can do, especially if you live in New Orleans. Harm! The new cologne by Faberge!

[Miss Luongo]

I assiduously avoid drunk driving and farm machinery. I inconsistently avoid joining and committee work. And I will always take calculate risks with dangerous nature.

[Gary]

I think people's definition of "atheist" is what's the problem here.

btw - most atheists just include agnosticism in atheism.

Most people think atheist means a person who believes there's no GOD-THINGY

But most atheists that do some thinking about it will tell you that they just don't believe that there is one. Subtle but important difference. Theist says "God is great" and atheist says "I don't believe you. I don't believe that this God you're talking about exists." This is not the same as saying "You God doesn't exist."

Now some will go on to argue that the God of the OT and/or NT is just logically ridiculous and therefor not likely to be up there - but that's usually where most atheists will stop (including Richard Dawkins). They don't see the need to refute the host of Gods and Goddesses that man kind has worshiped in it's history. The big three religions of today are what matter now.

Very few atheists will actually say that they are certain no gods of any definition exist. They would say that they don't believe that any do and leave it at that. The reason for this is there's no reason to believe something exists unless you have good evidence that everyone can test. And we also realize that it's dumb to try and prove that something doesn't exist. If you did, then you'd have to go around trying to prove that anything a person can think of doesn't exist. For example you can't prove that an invisible pink unicorn isn't flying around my head. If you said "I don't believe you Gary, there's no evidence of what you're saying" - that's perfectly fine. You have no reason to believe me and if I was deadly serious you'd have every right to think me a tad whacked out of my skull. But you should stop short of saying "there is definitely no invisible pink unicorn flying around your head - I know this for certain" - because you don't know if there is or not. But to say it's highly unlikely isn't unreasonable - at least not to me.

I hope you're getting this down. ;)

[Gary]

btw - you can be an atheist and still say "maybe there is maybe their ain't." I do it all the time:

Maybe there's an after life, but I doubt it, don't see any reason to think so, but it's a nice thought - maybe - if you REALLY think about it eternal life sounds like a type of hell etc...

I don't know everything so maybe there is a God of some unknown definition. But until i have a reason to think so I don't have a belief on the matter. Why should I? Beliefs are stupid things. :P

[Gary]

ok - I skimmed a little of that thread and I think a lot of people there don't really get Dawkins. I don't think for a second that he wants some sort of atheistic utopia and he realizes that he's pretty much preaching to the choir (so to speak). His main hope is to perhaps influence those people for whom religion isn't big part of their life and they're leaning toward the side of reason. he knows he's never going to convince real believers. His main goal (in my opinion, after listening to him speak) is to advance reason, protect the separation of church and state and defending science (mainly evolution) from being losing it's meaning.

also you say "not believing in God is a belief" - - I would argue that's it's not a belief at all - as I tried to explain above.

first of all "believe IN God" used to mean that you believe in God's promise or something - but it's come to mean "believe God exists." You should say that instead so it's clearer. I sware I'm not trying to be condescending if I'm coming off this way.

I don't believe God(s) exist (there's always the problem of the definition or what a God(s) thing is - what are it's attributes. It's very hard to even discuss this without defining "IT" first).

I do not believe that God(s) exist(s). Now please tell me how that is a belief. It's not a belief as far as I understand it.

Here's a belief: I believe that no gods exist. Positive statement. In my mind it's a critical difference.

[Gary]

I wish I could edit my comments - but then if we could Heather would go on a deleting rampage here ;)

here's Dawkins in his own words - his part of it isn't really long so if you're intereted in what he's saying and not in what other people THINK he's saying...

http://libsyn.com/media/pointofinquiry/10-16-06.mp3

[Heather]

Now you see why Gary and I keep ourselves from commenting on each other's blogs. We be's long-winded! (My deletions are never rampage-induced, by the way. They are always and only induced by guilt. Dur.)

[Gary]

Well you're not allowed to post comments at my blog so... I guess that's "keeping ourselves."

I commented at your blog recently.

[Heather]

Do you see your comment on my blog?

[Heather]

Sorry, MO. I suppose I should have left it alone. Gary, you're right: by keeping ourselves, I meant that I don't at yours, and you don't at mine. I should have been more specific. Happy?

[Gary]

Awww... well there were comments by me on there a little while ago. Can I still e-mail you? No? Ok...

DELETE THE BLOG HEATHER!! DO IT!! DO IT!! (say it like Ben Stiller) DO IT!!

I wrote all that crap about atheism and I should have just said "atheism is a belief like not playing baseball is a sport."

D E L E T E T H E B L O G !

[Heather]

You can email me all you want to. Your email is usually nice. I'll delete my blog when you find God.

[Gary]

I'll hold you to that.

[messiestobjects]

Holy cow, I leave you people alone for half a day and it's armageddon!
Gary, actually, you make a really good point and I agree with you; it's definitely a weakness in my argument against atheism that a non-belief in God is the same as a belief. I think what I've poorly been trying to get at is that the statement that Mark made: "Atheism means that you do not believe in god, not that you will say with absolute certainty that one does not exist." is rather a weak statement. If you don't believe in God, how can you also say without certainty that he does not exist? That's where the belief comes into it, for me. If you're not certain, then it's equally foolish to believe that there is no God as to believe in one and you're more agnostic than atheist, in my mind, regardless of which God or Gods we're discussing here.
But ultimately I think we agree. I think the problem here is the different ideas of these terms that we have, the different connotations that each person takes from the words. So, defining atheism as you do and me defining agnosticism as I do, I think that we both mean pretty much the exact same thing. But defining atheism as I do, and you defining agnosticism as you do, we disagree... it's sort of like the difference between viewing the sunrise after you've just woken from a good night's sleep and viewing the sunrise after having been up all night doing things you probably shouldn't have been doing. It's a very different experience, even though it's really the same thing.
SO, for all future philosophical discussions, I suppose that I've learned my lesson and that I should clearly define all of the subjects before blathering on about them as though everybody should know exactly where I'm coming from. You know, the way a scientist does before beginning any of his theoretical papers and whatnot.
I think that this is why philosophy is such a murky area; you can have an argument about a subject, realize that certain words that you're using mean something very different to the other guy, and then wind up arguing forever about terminology, and then at some point realize that the original argument, if not completely forgotten by now, has become meaningless!
But seriously, if you told me there was an invisible pink unicorn flying around your head, I'd call the nuthouse.

[Miss Luongo]

You'll know condescension when God and the pink unicorn converge on you after you kick it. They'll quote you and mock you and show all of the evidence of your folly on a big screen. But it'll be good fun. (I believe.)

On the other matter, Crystalpunk says, and I tend to agree: "Meaning is to language what soup is to a fork."
(http://socialfiction.org/?tag=quotes)

[messiestobjects]

That's a good quote; I like it. But that crystalpunk page is a freakshow!

[Heather]

Gary, that's good. Because I was just going to add, "Or, the next time I have PMS. One of the two." Sucker!

[messiestobjects]

Gary, the other really good point you brought up is that of course you can't go around trying to disprove things that don't exist all the time, such as that I.nvisible P.ink U.nicorn. The only thing about that though is that when it comes to God, it's such a huge argument that non-believers tend to go around trying to refute his existence almost by default, so disproving God is a more serious matter than just washing your hands of it. Not that scientists are obligated to attempt to prove his existence one way or the other; I don't think anybody wants that, especially religious types. If you could prove once and for all that he doesn't exist, they wouldn't accept it anyway because God is a matter of faith, and they'll never give that up. See Evolution as an example. But the problem is, God has been around alot longer than science since it got all uppity; in other words, if science has to destroy/re-create old models of reality by proving itself, (the way Einstein affected Newton, or the way Columbus finally proved to the flatheads once and for all that the world was round) then God is the big one that it hasn't been able to really get near yet.
All I'm saying is that the God question is a bit more imperative than I.P.U. I'm not saying that that's fair, I'm just saying.
A question though. Your statement: "I do not believe that God(s) exist(s). Now please tell me how that is a belief. It's not a belief as far as I understand it.
By saying that you do not believe that God exists, why doesn't that make the opposite statement true? i.e. "I believe God does not exist." Which is a belief. Saying that I do not believe in your I.P.U. is also a belief, but put like that, a non-belief in the I.P.U. hardly carries the same weight as a non-belief in God... and that's because God is such a loaded issue that when you take a stance on it, it almost has to be a belief in the larger sense of the word. That's why I like my version of agnosticism; it's nice and milquetoasty middle of the road and I don't have to take a stance.

[Gary]

pms sure is corn-venient

[Gary]

Well Mike - I agree that no one gives a shit about the IPU or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just used it as an example of something the human mind can make up. There may be a person who believes it really exists. God just has numbers on its side. But numbers and time really aren't a good arguement even though people tend to think they are (50,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong!).

Anyway - what God are you talking about. I know some people that are interested in proving that the God of the Bible is an impossibility, using logic. It's fun but ultimately doesn't convince anyone that really believes in it.

I also agree that saying you don't believe (again - not a belief) a God exists is a bigger deal that not believing that the IPU exists. It can get you killed in some places (or banned from a blog ;) ). God is the only belief you're supposed to have respect for. I just don't respect it. No one respects the fact that I'm the Kwisatz Haderach, so I don't see why I should respect their sky daddy - even if EVERYBODY'S doing it! Though if someone is about to chop my head if I don't praise Allah, I'll be praising up a storm.

But I'm still not with you on the switching it around and making the opposite statement true. In my mind that becomes a positive statement of knowledge. I can't make a positive statement of knowledge about things I don't have evidence of. But I can reject things that I have no evidence of. We as humans, do it all the time. Atheists just do it for one (or many more) thing.

[messiestobjects]

Actually the God of the OT or Allah or Hindu Floaty Thing are definately not the issues on the table here... I will never try to say that there's an equal possibility of a schizophrenic God that sits on a throne and metes out questionable justice to a race of people that he holds to his own standards and that he's ok with people commiting insanely ignorant acts in his name, as the possibility of him not existing. By the way the OT God seems to be the God that fundies worship; the NT God, according to Jesus, was all about love and that's really all he had to say about him. All this hatred out there is definitely not NT God worship, regardless of how vociferously they use Jesus as sword and sheild.
Now, I like the NT God better, but when I say God, I mean something that could possibly be the Universe itself, or something even larger/different/parallel that I really could never hope to define. Really the point is moot; I'm only arguing over terminology here.
I was only using the I.P.U. as an example also, as the difference between a non-belief in it and a non-belief in God... to illustrate that a non-belief in God is such a big deal that it is actually viewed by the world as a BELIEF. I understand that you don't view non-belief in any case as a belief, but the issue is so extremely polarized that it sort of becomes a belief by default, whether you want to call it that or no. You don't always get to choose such things, the world makes it so. That's an opinion, by the way, and only how I see it; I appreciate that you and Dawkins don't see non-belief as a belief, and it even makes perfect sense. I just disagree in this particular case.
Honestly, when it comes to the argument of God or no God with the world at large's childish idea of him, I'm likely an atheist as you define it. But on the ultimate question of any sort of unknowable higher force out there, I'm agnostic as I define it. I think that this is a very hard thing to ever come to terms to with another human being on; we all have our notions and while they may not be the same, they might not be incompatable, either.

[Gary]

Yeah you are right. If enough people think something is a certain way, it effectively is that way. Not much you can do about it except think differently, talk about it etc...

I personally think that "atheist" and "atheism" especially (I don't see how it's an ISM like captialism or communisim - things that actually content or rules or whatever) are dumb words that should be thrown out at some point. There's wouldn't even be a need for them if there wasn't this US and THEM thing going on. I tend to wear atheist as a badge because I LOVE being part of the most distrusted minority in the USA (if not the world). Makes me feel like I must be on to something. ;) But seriously you don't see people calling people aleprechaunists and aunicornians (etc etc etc to infinity). To me it's such a non-postion it's not even like a real thing. But you are correct that it becomes a position because what a big deal it is to other people. When you reject something that people view as the most important thing in their lives it tends to freak them out a tad.

Well I think I beaten this horse to death here... post something else :)

[messiestobjects]

Whew! Thank God, because I had nuthin' left. I mean, Thank I.P.U.

[Miss Luongo]

But I'm not done cracking wise.

Here's one:

Me: What did Jesus say when he saw God?
You: What?
Me: Ok. I'm still confused. Am I you? Are you me? And who's the holy ghost?

You might have had to be raised Catholic to think that's hilarious.

Now I'm done.

[Heather]

Dudes, if everyone does not quit disparaging my unicorn, I'll blow up ALL yer blogs.

[Gary]

Does anyone know what Heather's talking about? Who's disparaging?

No if you'll excuse me I'm off to my asantaclauseist meeting.

[messiestobjects]

Asantaclauseist? Gary's the antichrist!

[messiestobjects]

Julie I don't get it... but I was raised Baptist and all that high fallootin' Catholic mumbo jumbo just passes right under our noses.
I wish I had a good joke that only Baptists could relate to, but I can't think of any. Oohh, I got a good philosophical one, though:
It's pouring rain outside, and Rene Descartes is getting soaked, so he steps into the first open doorway he comes to to get out of it for a bit. Turns out it's a bar, and the bartender asks Descartes if he wants a beer. Descartes replies, without consideration, "I think not!" immediately a look of horror shows upon Descartes face, but unfortunately he has no time to take the statement back, and he disappears.

[Miss Luongo]

Did you just make that joke up because of the belief / non-belief debate? Because sometime during this back and forth I was reminded of a story about a Western philosopher who was trying to turn an Buddhist monk to his Cartesian way of thinking. After much debate, the Buddhist asked, "I don't think therefore I am not?"

[messiestobjects]

Yeah, I totally just made that up, how cool is that?! ... Sigh, no. I'm actually really uncreative at making up jokes. That's an old one I heard somewhere, and it's been one of my favorite jokes for years. So much so that people I hang out with roll their eyes whenever someone mentions philosophy, Descartes, or bars, because they know I'm about to tell it. I did, however, embellish it slightly...

[Miss Luongo]

The look of horror on his face? You added that.

[Heather]

Tell the one about the skeleton in the bar.

[messiestobjects]

Dude, you're smart. Yes, the look of horror on one's face is a line not usually found in jokes.
Except for this one: A skeleton with a look of horror on his face walks into a bar and orders a beer and a mop...

[Heather]

I have nothing to say. I'm just trying to get the comments to go to 40. "This one goes to 11."

[messiestobjects]

What what? 11?

[Heather]

Surely you've seen "This is Spinal Tap"? Surely, Shirley.

[Gary]

"It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever."

[Heather]

40! Score!