That is almost exactly what I meant. Thanks for teaching me a new word.
-VM
This question makes my head hurt, so it must be a good one. As someone who generally professes to be agnostic, I feel like I should be able to answer it, and when I reach for the answer…well, somewhere in there, the headache starts to kick in. But for the purposes of forwarding the discussion, I’m going to give it a try.
The part of this that my eye keeps being drawn to is “the definition of the entity in question.” I feel like there’s an insistence here that we define “God”, and then, based on that definition, we can establish that there is plenty of lack of evidence for Its existence and, therefore, plenty of reason to conclude that It doesn’t exist.
For me, though, the only thing that I think I can say about this theoretical God is that It has intention. As I’ve mentioned, for me, it boils down to whether the universe exists “on purpose” (whatever that purpose might be), or whether it is nothing more than a, um, random uncaused, er, thing. Crap, I’ve gotta be careful here before I get pulled into a discussion of radioactive decay that I can only peripherally understand…
This “having intent” is about as far as my definition of God can go. Any Being that in any sense can make our universe happen “on purpose” is beyond my ability to conceptualize or define.
In the case of a leprechaun, we have deliberately imagined a thing and created a definition for it. And we can actively look for it on that basis. Not finding it, we can say, with reasonable confidence, “I’m pretty sure there are no actual leprechauns.” If you ask me, “Are there any actual leprechauns in existence?” I will have no qualms with saying, “Nope. I firmly believe that there are no leprechauns.”
When you ask me if there’s a God, my first answer is that I am confident that there is no God as conceived by any of the world’s major religions. Because if there were, their stories would be more believable. Or at least make some kind of sense.
But my second, more personal, answer would be to a slightly rephrased question that–for me–is synonymous: Does the existence of the universe serve a purpose? That is, is there a God Being whose purposes are served by the existence of the universe? And my answer is (I think) agnostic: I have no fucking idea, and nothing that I have learned or observed leads me to “believe” one way or another. If I had to place a bet, most days I’d bet that there is no God. But I would definitely feel like I was gambling.
Put another way, I have some pretty solid ideas about how to look for evidence of leprechauns. I can’t define God in a way that suggests how to look for It.
In my opinion, it seems like atheists are continually coming up with various definitions of God, and then concluding that it’s ridiculous to believe that It exists. Or they create analogies based on the ways that God is like a leprechaun. For me, there’s a kind of intellectual arrogance in the definition phase that doesn’t suit the way I think about such things. So, not to say that I disagree with the arguments…I disagree with the apparent confidence that they’ve figured out the answer. I’ve settled the question of what God is and established that there’s every reason to believe It doesn’t exist.
All that being said, if I had not been browsing the forum and come across this debate, I would not have been sitting around pondering the existence of God, because I think it’s a waste of time. What actually got my attention was the tension between atheism and agnosticism, which triggered the voice in my head, asking, “What is it about atheists that annoys me?” I fear this may be as close as I can get to a meaningful answer to the quoted question. Not promising that anyone will find it to be a satisfying answer…
I don’t know. I’ve thought about the subject all I really care to, and I don’t believe that I CAN know. And I’m annoyed by the never-ending arguments of both sides who believe they can and do know (whether pro or con).
-VM
In the interest of full disclosure, sometimes when I’m feeling cranky, I get a perverse pleasure from picking on religious people.
Not to say that I’m proud of it. I usually wind up upsetting them so badly that I feel guilty afterwards. And some of them aren’t really bad people.
-VM
My grad student proposal was only partially a joke. If universe get created in black holes, a civilization with a far greater understanding of gravity than ours might be able to create one. Most might not prosper, but some might. These universe would get created by intention, but are not affected by their creator. Is that creator a god in your definition?
The only reason we come up with definitions of gods is that theists refuse to. If you search through these discussions you will find that a very early question from atheist to theists is “define god please.” It seldom happens. The dominance of
Christianity in Western Civilization has meant that that god (with minor variations) is understood as the definition as default. That’s precisely one weakness of Pascal’s Wager - he just assumes that the only choice is the God of his particular culture.
The reason the definition of atheism as the claim to knowledge that there are no gods is that we understand quite well the near infinity of possible gods. To paraphrase the Marlon Brando quote (or was it James Dean?) what God do we deny? Tell us what you got.
I can’t possibly know if the grad student exists or not. But I have no reason to believe in him.
You can go a bit more advanced too!
For example: Agnostic theism
or Agnostic Atheist.
Or Ignosticism.
I’m probably your run off the mill Agnostic, slightly tilting to Agnostic Theism since I want to think that there is some purpose to all this crap.
I can’t really say that these variations are the only real possibilities since I can’t really make the claim that someone hasn’t experienced something that to them proves the existence of god.
You can also simply believe in Atheism, perhaps through a philosophical recourse in which you claim that God doesn’t make sense to you. Atheism is quite fundamentalist just as Theism. But we are quite fundamentalist about needing to eat food, so fundamentalism isn’t all bad.
I’m going to do another drive-by post here.
The above argument represents sloppy thinking to me.
First: Gods are definitely a “thing.” They are YHWH, Shiva, Zeus, Thor, angels, demons, prophets, holy books, afterlife, ghosties, sacraments, rituals, etc. They are an historical phenomenon, conceived and studied endlessly. They’re supposed to be all around you, influencing your actions. You pray to them. You eat their body and drink their blood, etc.
Well, agnostics know damn well that this is crap. And they admit it. So they redefine God and say, “I don’t know what the hell He is, but he could exist.” Or they say, “Well, something created the universe and orders it–that must be God.”
Sure something orders the universe. But why call that God? That’s like the ancients saying, “I don’t know what lightning is, so it must be a God.” Or “I don’t know why it gets cold in winter and hot in summer–it must be in the hands of gods.”
No one knows what the hell orders the universe; so why call it God? All we know for the present is that the universe is ordered by increasingly complex laws of physics. So for all anyone knows, it might be “Physics all the way down.” (Reference to “Turtles all the way down.”)
But the point is–until you know more about it, why call it a God? To reiterate: Historically, gods are a “thing”: they are fairy tales about demons and sacrifices and gods sleeping with humans to give birth to prophets. Why transport that load of steaming bullshit into the realm of modern science and physics? Why are you so desperate to hang onto fairy tales? If you don’t know what something is yet, then just admit that you don’t know what it is. Don’t call it “God.” That’s just crazy.
It’s like I said in my earlier post:
Most likely, yes. But the fact that you can make ridiculous examples does not mean that non-ridiculous examples can’t exist.
And I’m not saying that they do. As far as I can tell, the difference between us is how ready you are to dismiss the possibility. It seems to be that these efforts to define God are adding little clarity to the conversation. Rather, the participants are just defining the boundaries of their imaginations. [Please see my next post for another shot at what I’m trying to say.]
I understand how this interaction happens with theists. It’s a different argument. Since I am NOT arguing from a theistic viewpoint, I don’t see how this is relevant to me. My understanding of (and interest in) this topic is the tension between atheists and agnostics. The various ways that atheists make theists look stupid hold no fascination. You’re fighting the good fight, but from the standpoint of rational debate, it’s a pitifully easy one. You’re not losing the debate, but you’re also not winning the game because the other side doesn’t care much about rational debate.
You can treat me like a theist if you like, but it won’t make me one.
We agree that Christianity is a load of hooey. I’d like for us to agree to agree and move along.
I’m not asking you to confirm or deny anything. In fact, I don’t think you’re in any better position to evaluate the question than I am. What I AM doing is marveling at your arrogance and declining to join your team.
-VM
Yeah, well, I’m not all that impressed with your mental prowess, either.
The fact that you’re comfortable “defining” God this way and I am not does not establish that I’m a sloppy thinker. It does suggest, however, that you might be as dogmatic as the theists you’re making fun of.
I’ve provided the (admittedly small) best go I can at defining God, as I see the question. Rather than addressing that, you’re insisting that existing theistic definitions of God are the correct ones, and that I must answer for their deficiencies.
Not sure that sloppy is the right word, but it sure seems to me like you’re aiming at the wrong target. That poor straw man has so many arrows in him, he looks like a porcupine.
Just to be clear, these arguments are not new to me. I’ve seen a great many of them, and (in my opinion) MOST of them could be used to attack the idea of a Unified Field Theory. We have no more reason to believe that a unified mathematical model of the universe exists–admittedly, we probably have a better chance of discovering the answer. However, so far, our efforts to find it haven’t been particularly more successful than our efforts to find evidence of God.
But you’re not launching these kinds of attacks at string theorists. And it doesn’t bother you so much when they suggest that, hey, maybe there’s a thing there. The existence of string theorists does not stick in your craw the way the existence of agnostics does.
What it looks like to me is that atheists are revealing their biases, while agnostics are trying to look past theirs.
What difference does it make what I call it? God is the closest word I can think of to what I am trying to talk about. Plus, it has the advantage of annoying the hell out of atheists, which is fair play as far as I’m concerned, since so many atheists strive so hard to be as annoying as Christians.
I understand that you believe that “Why does this happen?” can be addressed as equivalent to “Why do things happen at all?” Not only do I not agree, but I note that you can’t seem to pursue the notion without ascribing to definitions of God that I haven’t proposed.
I think I’ve said this several times–or at least once: I would only call it God if “It” had intention, if there was a willful purpose driving it. If the correct answer is simply physics or turtles, then I wouldn’t call it God.
And I’m not asking you to agree with me. I’m telling you why you, as an atheist, are failing to convince me that I, as an agonstic, have missed the boat. And I’m scratching my head over why this is so upsetting for you.
The conversation is necessarily lop-sided because you’ve reached a conclusion and are trying to convince me of it, while I haven’t reached a conclusion and am not convinced that you’re right. I think it’s very likely that you’re right, but you’re confidence in your conclusions is far in excess of my certainty of your reasoning.
I’m beginning to think that the difference between atheists and agnostics is that agnostics don’t preach. And the reason that atheists annoy me is that they do.
Well, because I find it impossible to talk about without calling it something. Why call the imaginary mathematical model of the universe Unified Field Theory? Because it describes what we think we’re looking for. Once we figure out exactly what it is, we may come up with a better name for it.
You’re, um, preaching to the choir.
It’s only crazy if I insist on it having the qualities that you keep trying to ascribe to it. For me it’s just a word that approximates an idea, in order to try to have a rational conversation with other people. The fact that you get so wound up about it reveals your biases, not mine.
And for the record, human failures to think logically are not evidence of insanity. So, even if you’re right, that doesn’t make me crazy. It just makes me wrong. Unless you’re suggesting that we’re all crazy…you’ve got a decent chance of convincing me on that one.
-VM
To me, our universe being created by someone with access to far more science and energy than we have is a lot more plausible than it being created by a vastly complex supernatural entity which sprung from nothing. I’m not denying this possibility - we hardly have or could have evidence to let me do so. I just don’t believe in it.
You accused atheists of defining gods, as if this were somehow wrong. I was just explaining why atheists sometimes do this. I was certainly not accusing you of being a theist.
I don’t particularly care what people believe. I do care when they try to make their idea of what their unevidenced gods want the law of the land, or even the law of the culture.
We’re doing better, but I don’t think we’ll ever “win” (whatever that means) because many or most people seem to have a spiritual need, a need for a cause or a reason. There was an interview with some deist in a Skeptic a while back. His reason for believing in a Causer was that it seemed right to him. And this was a smart guy. Martin Gardner felt the same, and he was a very smart guy. But neither of them would ever think that their causer had something against SSM. So while I might tsk-tsk about these beliefs, it would be no more than I would for a Cubs fan.
Well, you totally missed the point, or don’t understand Pascal’s Wager. The problem I mentioned is not that Christianity is provably wrong (and any deity who wants worship would work just as well) but that the Wager only admits to one possibility of a deity. There is the Christian god or no god. The possibility that you may be correct in your belief is not factored in at all. That came from, to use a modern concept, a lack of diversity.
To repeat the definition of atheism again, it is the simple lack of god belief. Please let me know how lacking belief in any variety of deistic god is arrogant. Being scientifically trained, all my beliefs and lack of beliefs are provisional. The reason I’m not an agnostic is that any god worthy of the name could do things that would let us know of his existence. The God in the Bible did this all the time. When that happens I’ll reevaluate my position, but I’m not holding my breath.
Your god seems not to be able to show himself, but I see no more reason to believe in him than a batch of Maxwell’s Demons constrained to fling molecules around to replicate their motions if they movement was purely statistical.
In terms of what I’ve said I would call ‘God’, this would actually qualify. And create a bewildering array of questions that I would (metaphorically) kill for the answers to.
Not to say that you’re lying, but I don’t believe this statement is entirely correct. In fact, I would say that this is a good statement of MY position. However, all the evidence I have seen suggests that the atheist position is much stronger than “I just don’t believe in it.” There are continuous aggressive denials of the possibility, and much heckling of those of us who use “I’m not denying the possibility” as their lede.
Well, I can’t comment on you personally, but the behavior of prominent atheists seems to be in opposition of this statement. If atheists didn’t care what other people believe, they would be doing less preaching.
No disagreement here, of any kind.
Well, I certainly don’t think there’s a win in the future using current atheist approaches to the conversation. I have personally ruined religious beliefs for a number of people, but not through debates based on pure logic. Rather, I try to work more within the framework of the way they think. Scientific arguments go nowhere–and encourages them to come up with pseudo-science answers like “Intelligent Design”. For examples of approaches that I’ve seen actually work, see my posts in the “tough questions” thread.
Having said all that, I do a lot less baiting of believers than I used to. On the one hand, there’s way too much magical thinking in this country, and it’s in all of our best interests to reduce it. On the other hand, causing this kind of emotional upset in individual people feels really mean.
Maybe I’ve gotten my terminology mixed up, but my understanding has been that “believing in a Causer” was way different than “being agnostic”. Again, my interest in this topic is the tension between atheists and agnostics. Believers have decided that the actual world matches what they’ve imagined to be reasonable, and seem to believe that the power of their belief will make it so. Magical thinking.
I understand Pascal’s Wager. Sadly, my wife is actually an adherent of the idea (although she doesn’t know that’s what it’s called). What I’m not following is the apparent suggestion that agnostics are adherents, because that is definitely not the impression that I have. For myself, I think Pascal’s Wager is absurd, for the reasons you cite plus numerous others. The biggest problem that I have with it is that, ultimately, it’s an appeal to superstitious fear.
Sorry, I would say that was much closer to a description of agnosticism. My understanding is that atheism is not just “absence of” but “rejection of”. And I must be right, because it says so on Wikipedia (that is, the first part; it doesn’t actually SAY I’m right, just implies it).
Plus, in my experience, the difference in everyday behavior is the difference between “I don’t know if there is a thing” and “I am certain there is not.”
I don’t believe that it is. It is rejecting the possibility of the deistic god’s existence that is arrogant, in my opinion.
Which represents a much stronger position than just “lacking a belief”.
Neither do I. And I’m a little stunned to learn that I’ve made the leap from suggesting such a God might be possible to having my very own God.
“I think it’s possible that I might die tomorrow.”
“How can you believe that you’re going to die tomorrow?”
“Well, to start, I’d have to change my position on the subject.”
-VM
I don’t mind some being preachy, if that is what you want to call it, not sure it’s any different than what you’re doing. Personally, I have thoroughly enjoyed your posts, especially on the other thread you recommended, haven’t read much of this one.
I’m glad we have some prominent scientists and other public figures that are being more open about certain matters particularly when they are opposing some ideas that are so absurd which often are religious in nature. There was a time in much of history, and still in quite a few parts of the world today, one doesn’t dare speak out against any clergyman. I can’t help but feel like many of these prominent scientists have had a positive impact on our young people, and now more than ever more people are identifying as non-religious with many young people now in that category. There are others that also think the internet has played a huge role.
When theists vote, and their opinion makes a difference in our school systems, what is put in our school texts and taught to our kids, Creationism or ID being taught as a science, putting disclaimers on evolution in our textbooks, prayer, other separation of church and state issues, about what we do with our genitals, suicidal bombers, for this and many other reasons, I think this is a good time to start caring what others think.
Fortunately, I think quite a few religious folk are harmless. Whatever placebo, or other feeling they think they are getting out of it that they think has made them a better person–and many of them really are good and decent people–along if it causes them to treat others better too, and doesn’t affect me directly or others in a negative way, then I do think it’s true that the vast majority of atheists don’t care what they think.
Well, as I mentioned, I’m more interested in the rancor between atheists and agnostics. Far as I’m concerned, they can preach at the theists all they want, for all the good it will do them. It does SEEM like all this interaction with “extremists” encourages them to take extremely opposing stances.
I just don’t get why there is so much apparent derision of agnostics.
And yet, sadly, one scientist believer can serve as a rallying point for a decent-sized crusade.
Don’t often see these two topics so close together. Now that you mention it, are you saying we shouldn’t do the same thing with both?
They’re generally harmless to ME…but what about the children?
-VM
Because agnosticism is theological special pleading.
We can’t be 100% certain of ANY knowledge of the world. I *think *I’m sitting a desk in Los Angeles as I type these words, but maybe I’m really in a hospital bed in New York having a hallucination, or maybe I’m really a brain in a jar hooked up to a computer. I can’t be absolutely sure about anything.
This includes, of course, the existence of God. As far as I can tell there is absolutely no God, but maybe if I wasn’t a brain in a jar I would think otherwise. All I can do make the best assumptions I can right now about the nature of reality from the evidence at hand, and revise those assumptions if better evidence comes along.
So it doesn’t make sense to single out “the existence of God” as some sort of special case of epistemological uncertainty. It’s not more honest or more thoughtful. Rather, it’s a way to avoid having to ask yourself a question you don’t want to answer.
The more honest position is “There is no God. However, I’ll revise my opinion if evidence to the contrary comes along.” Just like most of us would say “I’m not a brain in a jar. However, I’ll revise my opinion of if evidence to the contrary comes along.”
I think it’s been a collective effort, and their efforts have done quite a bit of good. At no time in history are there more identifying with the non-religious label. Something must be working for Christian apologists to be complaining about how the internet is killing religion, and of course they blame atheists for this, bitterly complaining how the internet has leveled the playing field. There has never been another time in history where so many, especially our youth are identifying with the non-religious label.
Can’t say I have much beef with agnostics, but will concentrate on one aspect that annoys me about some. Perhaps you’ve heard the slur, that an agnostic is really just an atheist without guts. With atheist still having such a negative connotation with many of the religious, I think many prefer to avoid that label at all costs. Many have this awe and wonder factor, and finding a special amount of bliss in not knowing, and probably preferring not to know. I went through some agnostic years in my teens and early twenties, some for those very reasons, and what I called my wonder years, but as I got older, if I was being true to myself, I feel like atheist best described me.
Just giving various examples of when it is a good time to start caring what others think.
Considering the vast majority of people that are religious, I don’t see any epidemic of bad kids coming from religious homes. Of course, we know what happens to the ones that get radicalized early on or even later in life, and have great potential to pose harm to themselves and others, and again, that’s a time to start caring what others think. Otherwise, it’s not too terribly important enough to me to care what they believe except for maybe the entertainment value that they may provide.
I see what you’re saying. However, “special pleading” is a way of criticizing an argument, and I’m not convinced that agnostics can be said to be trying to make one. I’m not drawing a conclusion and I’m not trying to convince you of one. I’m declining to draw a conclusion and it, apparently, pisses you off.
Notice how cockeyed all these conversations turn:
“I don’t really have a firm belief or disbelief in God. I just don’t know.”
“How can you possibly believe that there is a God? Can I have a little of whatever it is that you’re smoking?”
“I didn’t say that I believe anything. I said I don’t know, and I’m doubtful that I can know. And a little surprised that you think you DO know.”
“Oh, stop you’re special pleading. You have no more reason to believe in God than you do in leprechauns.”
“Agreed. However, I think I have more reason to believe that leprechauns don’t exist than I do that God doesn’t. I’m confident of one and less confident of the other. I have some ideas of how to test for leprechauns. I don’t know how to test for God.”
“Hey, everybody, look at this idiot that believes in God and leprechauns.”
“Yeah, he’s the one standing next to the genius who doesn’t fucking listen.”
If you had stopped typing right here, there would be nothing for me to disagree with…
then here you start easing up the volume. Although you don’t turn it quite up to the 11 that I associate with the atheist position: A rejection of the possibility that some God being exists, usually NOT qualified by the whole “I’ll revise my opinion if…” If you don’t reject the possibility that God might exist, then you’re not really meeting the definition of an atheist. If you do, then you’re misrepresenting your position.
If we’re going to talk about whose position is more honest, it’ll get a lot easier if you’ll stand stand in one place long enough for me to finish a sentence.
-VM
Basically, your entire argument boils down to “there’s magic behind radioactive decay” because there is no cause for it whatsoever! Maybe it’s caused by pink leprechauns! And different elements have very well-defined half-lives because… well, maybe they’re inhabited by different species of leprechauns.
There is, of course, a serious argument to be had about the causally deterministic nature of quantum mechanics and indeed of the universe, but neither you nor I know the answer, and neither does anyone else. Yet your glib statement at the beginning of all this implied that you did, and that “universal causality was a fiction”.
This argument is pretty much over since we’re now going around in circles, but I will sum it up one more time.
I’m arguing here for the well-accepted idea of the determinism of quantum evolution. I’m not specifically arguing for its superset of superdeterminism which it arguably may (or may not) imply, as I said earlier. But it’s notable that no fewer than three major quantum theories explicitly or by implication posit a deterministic wave function for the entire universe: Everett’s many-worlds, De Broglie Bohm, and the Hartle-Hawling model of the Big Bang, all of which can be interpreted as support for superdeterminism. [And yes, they are all radically different and the first two are to a large extent mutually exclusive – be sure to accuse me of “inconsistency” for having the audacity to mention all three of them in the same sentence! ;)] Whether this is an accurate view of physical reality no one knows. Apparently you alone know that both the deterministic quantum evolution described by the Schrodinger equation and those of the universal wave function are both false. No one else seems willing to allege this claim as fact. Though whenever confronted with it you claim to have been misunderstood, despite eagerly quoting Bell supposedly arguing against superdeterminism (which you did in #181), much as you claim to have been misunderstood when caught in other contradictions, such as when I pointed out in #197 that you seem to believe statistical decay rate and any single instance of decay are caused by the same thing and are also not caused by the same thing.
The reality is, for about the fifth and final time, that the observed randomness of radioactive decay (a) falls within well-defined statistical bounds showing that it’s an intrinsic property of the element, and (b) does not in any way disprove an underlying causality. Radioactive decay is a terrific source of random numbers, I agree. So are the numbered balls that pop out of the spinning thing run by lottery corporations. To confuse this with a proven absence of underlying physical causality is muddled thinking and has nothing to do with whether we can, now or ever, predict the occurrence of a specific instance. David Deutsch nicely ridiculed this kind of muddled thinking with regard to scientific prediction as the measure of knowledge or the purpose of science: he said it was “like saying that the purpose of a space ship is to burn fuel”. The unresolved question of quantum determinism – and the specific and very relevant fact that it IS unresolved – has been beaten to death by now. I gave a short summary in #213 and in many earlier posts.
No, it depends on developing a hypothetical abstraction that is meaningful, such that it forms part of our quest for a philosophical understanding of the nature of the universe and our role in it by expanding our thinking beyond the limits of science. The most intriguing kind of God-abstraction is arguably at the intersection of cosmology and spirituality. It seems to be both purposeful and important as long as the universe is a source of wonder and filled with the intrinsically unknowable – and it seems to become more so with every major discovery that raises more questions than it answers.
I know little about the mythology of leprechauns (pink or otherwise) but I doubt that they serve much purpose in advancing the above.
That’s an invalid comparison based on a faulty assumption. Some might attribute the order of the universe to God, others might attribute to God only its creation, and not its unfolding under the laws of nature. The creation question is the metaphysical one. Physical phenomena clearly have physical explanations. The origin of the universe wasn’t, and doesn’t. It transcends science. Science operates, by definition, within the realm of physical reality, requiring the existence of space and time as a prerequisite to bringing the laws of nature into being. The Big Bang either “occurred” outside spacetime and created it, or else is a manifestation of theoretical hypotheses that preclude it entirely, relegating it to being a fiction of our limited perception. Either way, anything that “explains” it doesn’t fall within the realm of science, and any claim that that which science can’t explain “doesn’t need explaining” is a meaningless tautology that avoids the question without illuminating anything.
As Schrodinger himself once wrote, “I do not meet God in time and space”. Also attributed to the creator of the Schrodinger equation: “…there is more to science than physics, and there is more to life than science.” I couldn’t agree more.
What sort of evidence do you want to see? AFAICT, the demanded “evidence” is always some mundane nonsense from mythology, like a talking snake or a voice coming out of a burning bush or magically multiplying loaves and fishes. Or are you basing your expectations on the truly remarkable assumption that you are innately equipped to instantly recognize the signs of an omnipotent creator of universes just by looking around?
I’m far from being any sort of theist myself, but all these confident atheists around have me, pardon the expression, playing devil’s advocate. 
I agree that things have improved significantly. However, I’m not sure that atheist “preaching” can take most of the credit. I don’t have any data to back this up, just my experience that for most believers, it seems like the atheists’ arguments just piss them off. My personal opinion is that the lionshare of the improvement has been the Churches’ stubborn insistence on standing behind old dogma that looks more ridiculous to everyone every day. Again, though, the atheist’s attacks on theists aren’t what annoys me.
I’m sure that’s true of some portion of agnostics, but it isn’t true of me. The fact that I’ve been willing to declare myself a libertarian on these forums (at least, when I’m around them) for more than 15 years should count as evidence that I don’t mind taking contrarian positions. You might even say that I enjoy it a little too much.
However, I see the shots that atheists take at agnostics–like the suggestion that a real man would take a strong position–and my reaction is, “What the fuck? We’re not bothering you. Why does the fact that I’m Undecided piss you off so much?” I suspect it’s the same reason Republicans and Democrats are so resentful of Independents. Would you stop goofing around and help us win?
FWIW, I’ve seen a lot of weak-minded believers cling to ridiculous ideas long past any possible ability to defend them. It suggests to me that it takes a stronger person to maintain an open mind than to plant a flag and start defending the hill. Once you’ve planted the flag, you don’t have to go through the arduous effort of thinking about the subject any more. If you don’t plant a flag, then you have to deal with all the flag-wavers who simply can’t bear to leave you the fuck alone.
Just pointing out that it was funny that those two came to mind for you, one right after the other. Freud might have drawn some interesting conclusions. Of course, Freud was full of shit, anyway.
Well, I was more joking than serious. However, I do think that indoctrinating young children into a religion is harmful. It teaches a kind of magical thinking that is clearly very hard to break.
Before we had children, in an amazing display of negotiating skill on my part, my wife and I agreed that our kids would not be given any religious instruction. One might suppose that such a lack would create some kind of existential void in their lives, but they’re old enough now that I can happily report that they have not spent any time fretting over the “meaninglessness of it all.” And when they hear about other people’s religious beliefs, they get a great deal of amusement from it.
I’m jealous of them. I was brought up to be a good Catholic, and I really resent it. I feel like throwing that crap on me at that age was picking on me before I could defend myself. Eventually, I did start defending myself, but a certain number of kids never do…
-VM
To be fair, this approach does seem to work with leprechauns, and I’ve seen a lot support in this thread for the idea that they are, essentially, the same thing.
And everyone knows that leprechauns are not made of straw.
-VM
ANY statement about the nature of reality is open to amendment.
If you ask me “Do you live in Los Angeles?” My answer will be “Why yes, I do.” I don’t feel the need to tack on the qualification “… providing I’m not actually a brain in a jar!”
Similarly, if you ask me “Is there a God?” My answer will be “No, there’s not.” I don’t feel the need to tack on the qualification “… although the lack of evidence for his existence is not absolute proof!”
I’m a resident of Los Angeles. God does not exist. I feel comfortable stating both of these facts directly and without qualification, even though I might change my beliefs in the future if I become convinced I am in error.
The problem with agnostics is that they carve out a special epistemological category for God. God is simply one of an infinite number of hypothetical entities. There is no reason to treat the question of the existence of God any differently than any question about the nature of reality.
I’m finding it very difficult to distinguish between your version of atheism and my version agnosticism. Maybe in the next paragraph…
Well, there’s definitely a tendency for you to dramatize what I’ve done in ways that are unrecognizable to me. In your telling, I’ve set a place at the table and said, “When God arrives, tell Him to sit here.”
In my telling, I’ve said something like, “If such a thing as God exists, It probably isn’t particularly like any other things in our experience. More specifically, there’s probably no way for us to tell, in our current frame of reference, whether It exists or not. Therefore, I neither believe that It exists not believe that It doesn’t exist. However, it doesn’t seem all that likely.”
There may be an infinite number of equally unknowable beings “out there”. However, none of the ones that I’ve thought of are interesting enough to wonder about. However, if God exists, I really wonder what Its motives were for creating a universe that seems to serve no other purpose than to plague me with assholes.
The first statement is too reductive for it to have any relevance to me. As for the second, based on how YOU keep defining what I think God is, I agree. Based on how I actually think about the question, it’s just a non sequitur.
Theist: God loves you.
Atheist: There is no God. There’s no way there COULD be a God.
Agnostic Me: Well, the Theist is nuts. But the atheist hasn’t wholly convinced me. Since, I don’t feel that there’s any good way to settle this, MY JUDGMENT is: Cut God in half and give It to the Theists.
-VM