Recently, Political comedian and talk show host Bill Maher did the Daily Show to promote his new docu-comedy “Religulous.” A few days later, I read an interesting post on the difficulties of labeling someone an atheist. The basic difficulty is that some people use atheist to mean “does not believe in God” (sometimes called agnosticism) while others mean “believes there is no God.” Allow me to clear this up.
A Theist is a person who believes that one or more gods exist. Christians are theists with respect to the Christian God.
An Atheist is a person who believes that one or more gods does not exist. Richard Dawkins is an atheist with respect to the Christian God.
Now here’s where it gets whacky. Most people think that you’re either religious or you’re an atheist. Atheism is not a dogma the way religions are. Theism, atheism and agnosticism are god-specific positions. Since theists do not agree on the nature of the god they believe in, you can be atheist with respect to one god, a theist with respect to another god and agnostic with respect to third god. Christians are atheists with respect to the Muslim god and vice versa.
Personally, I am an empiricist, which means I form beliefs based on evidence. I do not believe in any particular god because there is no evidence that one exists. Many people say that there is no evidence against the existence of god either, but this is only half right. It depends what god we’re talking about.
Suppose someone believes in a god that interferes with our world based on prayers. If we study people praying for things, we find that there is little or no correlation between praying and getting. Lots of basically good people pray for things and don’t get them; lots of other people don’t pray for things and do get them instead. I am an atheist with respect to this God because we have evidence against this god.
Suppose someone believes in a god that simply created our universe and then sat back and watched. There is no evidence either way with respect to this god; in fact, this god is a purely metaphysical (not empirical) subject. Therefore, I am agnostic with respect to this god. That is, I have no idea whether this god exists – I hold no belief one way or another.
This way of thinking implies that virtually everyone is both an atheist and an agnostic, depending on what god we’re referring to at the time. If you are absolutely convinced that no god of any kind could possibly exist (including the kind that just sits and watches) you’re being just as silly as the people who are convinced that the god they pray too answers by changing their world. That’s not atheism, that’s just a kind of religion we don’t have a name for yet. But we do have a name for people who strongly believe in anything for which they have no evidence: Brainwashed.
I am well aware that most people don’t see it this way, but I find it useful.
| Comments | Published in | PREV | NEXT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 |
religion essay |
It had to happen sometime! The War of Bullshit becomes bullshit! Oh no! I must try and save it…
I think you need to drink a shot of “keep it simple stupid” (K.I.S.S.). Knock this back…
Theism is the belief in supernatural deities.
Atheism is the opposite – no belief in supernatural deities.
Belief in your “sit back and watch” type of supernatural deity is called Deism.
Saying “Christians are atheists with respect to the Muslim” is just bullshit. In fact I think I smell the odor of Politically Correct bullshit. If you’re dumb enough to believe in a supernatural deity then you’re a theist no matter what flavor of invisible friend gives you your kicks.
Based on your warped definition of an atheist saying “Richard Dawkins is an atheist with respect to the Christian God.” implies Richard Dawkins believes in _a_ God. Maybe he’s a closet Muslim!!! That’s almost funny. All you needed to say was Richard Dawkins is an atheist, the rest is just silly.
Also, the Rationalist in me finds the Empiricist in you quite funny. In one breath you say “I form beliefs based on evidence”. A few breaths later you say “I have no idea whether this god exists – I hold no belief one way or another. ” Did you spot the fence sitter? So you have no evidence to support the existence of your imaginary friend but you can’t make a call on it? What sort of Empiricist sits on the fence when there is NO EVIDENCE? Grow some balls! Take a stand!
The great advantage atheists have over theists is the ability to change their stance on the discovery of new evidence. The poor theist is stuck with their patchwork quilt of stories written by primitive goat herders.
regards
Your humble reader – looking forward to better posts.
I think Kavan is just afraid of being hated and flamed and threatened by religious idiots by taking a firm position.
I’d consider that a compliment myself. But to each his own….
@ Philip B, I concluded my post with “I am well aware that most people don’t see it this way, but I find it useful.” Thank you for explaining the way most people see it. I find this alternative position useful because “god” is not very well defined. Saying that someone doesn’t believe in one god does not imply that s/he does believe in another god. I don’t know where you’re getting that. Being an empiricist means accepting when you just don’t know something. Sure I could guess, but guessing is not necessary. It takes significantly more courage to admit that you just don’t know and like with the ambiguity.
@H, I just took the position that people who believe in divine intervention (e.g., miracles, angels, praying, etc.) are brainwashed lunatics. What, that’s not firm enough for you? Bill Maher said a few times that 60% of Americans believe the story of Noah’s arc, literally. I’m amazed the flame war hasn’t started already. But my point remains, taking a firm position without evidence is not something to admire.
Great post.
What’s evidence?
Yes, I read the disclaimer at the end. From my point of view you are subverting the meaning of the word “atheist”. These are the sort of weasel words I’d expect from a God botherer – not from the War on BS. If you disagree with my “firm position” I suggest a quick glance at any dictionary for some empirical evidence.
I cannot help but wonder if your fence sitting is just a matter of a name. If we take “God does exist” as a hypothesis, and there is no evidence to support that hypothesis then surely an Empiricist must conclude that, God does not exist (until some some evidence to the contrary presents itself).
Lets change the name to piss off the Scientologists. The hypothesis is now “Xenu does exist”. If there is no evidence that Xenu exists, are you still stuck on the fence or do you conclude its the unproven fiction of L. Ron Hubbard?
Its funny how by switching out the name “God” for something like Xenu, Superman or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it suddenly becomes a whole lot easier for some people to come to a conclusion. There’s the same amount of evidence for all but some how God puts people on the fence.
@ Phillip B: Hell yeah! That last paragraph nailed it!
We can disprove Superman, Spiderman, Batman, Humpty Dumpty, etc. on the basis that they are storybook characters and there is no evidence whatsoever to support their existence. So why is God treated any different? I’d love to hear this one.
Or are you not sure if the above characters actually exist, hmm?
@ Phillip and H,
If you start from the premise: I will only believe in the existence of objects for which I have evidence, then your argument makes sense. Your default position is ‘God does not exist’ and you’re willing to change that position given the right evidence. You take this position (I’m guessing here) because you feel intuitively that the idea of god is ridiculous. Many theists take the opposite default position, that ‘God Exists’ because to them, the possibility that the universe could simply exist without having been actively created is ridiculous. Some of them will consider evidence, some will not. So you can imagine these two groups arguing from their opposite default positions, one demanding evidence that god exists, the other demanding evidence to the contrary, and no one getting anywhere.
Based on my reading of today’s epistemology, especially the work of Quine and Elliott Sober, I’ve come to believe that the only reasonable default position is “I don’t know.”
You don’t believe that God exists because you have no evidence. But do you believe that you exist? You have no real evidence that you exist. It’s a metaphysical question. So do you reject that you exist? If not, then you switch your default position from X exists to X does not exist based on what X we’re talking about. I think that inconsistency is unreasonable. Hence, I always stick with “I don’t know” until I have evidence one way or the other.
oh my god this keeps getting dumber and dumber….
Yes I believe that I exist. I can look down and see my body, I can see myself in a mirror, I have a birth certificate, and other documents that show I was born, and in fact if you want to pay for my airfare I could prove to YOU that I exist.
That has to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read, and that is saying A LOT. If you need to prove to yourself, or have someone prove to you that you exist, well, I think you need some kind of phychological help. Unreasonable my ass.
I was born, I see myself in the mirror everyday, I can look down at my own body. I EXIST! I don’t need to re-evaluate that fact.
The default position of the skeptic is the safest place to be, until you have evidence to the contrary. Believe nothing until you see proof. Otherwise you’ll fool yourself and make it easy for others to manipulate you.
So does Superman exist, or aren’t you sure?
There’s just as much evidence either way. He only exists in books and other fictional works, just like God, and nobody has definitively disproven his existence.
If you say “yes” or “I don’t know” to the above question, I can refer you to the local kindergarten class. They’d get a real kick out of you!
Your default position of “I don’t know” in the face of overwhelming evidence on one side of the “debate” is either a copout, or a mark of insanity. I think you should seek some professional help.
Expecting people to disprove a fantasy is insanity. In a reality based existence the only thing you can do is prove the affirmative. So yes, I expect YOU to prove your God fantasy is real.
As for questions like “do you believe that you exist?” If that isn’t a bullshit question I don’t know what is. Quick – change the blog name to “Kavan’s Love of Bullshit”!!!
Alas the war is lost…
“So you can imagine these two groups arguing from their opposite default positions, one demanding evidence that god exists, the other demanding evidence to the contrary, and no one getting anywhere.”
Actually they are getting somewhere in a way. Two different places actually. The first group becomes more intelligent and enlightened and evolves past blind belief in superstitious nonsense with no basis in reality, and the second group keeps their heads up their asses and get laughed at by the better (first) group.
Now THAT’S evolution. Too bad it is happening so slowly.
@H and Philip, I’m not going to argue this anymore because the truth is that you guys are making good points and I’m really just being difficult. I do, however, recommend you look up the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-in-a-vat) to see what I was alluding to. Also be aware that the position of a skeptic (i.e., I don’t believe anything until it’s proven to me) gets otherwise intelligent people in trouble when that start applying it to man-made climate change. If someone argues that the evidence is insufficient, I argue back that the evidence for climate change exceeds the evidence against, and that should be sufficient to take action. I can’t make that argument as cleanly if your default position is skepticism.
@dumbass, how can increasing your belief in a hypothesis without a corresponding increase in evidence make you smarter? Even if the hypothesis is correct, you’re taking it on faith, just the way the theists do.
You’re not arguing this anymore because you can’t.
@H,
I Can’t?!?!?! I was going to let this go. So much for that.
Believing in things without evidence is the definition of faith. Suppose we are actually in the matrix. You would see yourself in the mirror, have a birth certificate, be recognized by other people and so on. Yet, you would not exist, at least not in the way you think. Here we have two competing theories: you exist or you are in the matrix. Both explain exactly the same phenomenon. You have absolutely no empirical evidence in favor of one or the other because these two theories are not testable against each other. Therefore, if you take a position on this issue, you must take it on faith, not evidence. I refuse to believe in things without evidence. Any argument on one side or the other comes down to an intuitive feeling about one being less plausible. Intuitive feelings are not evidence.
In exactly the same way, the two theories: there is no god, and there is a god who never interferes in the universe, are empirically indistinguishable. There is no evidence one way or another. If you chose to believe in one side, you do so on faith, not evidence. Your feeling that one or the other is implausible is just a feeling, and is no more or less valid than the opposite feelings of other people.
The only epistemologically defensible position is to be agnostic with respect to any two theories that either
1) are not testable against each other (metaphysical), or
2) have balanced evidence (i.e., there is no evidence at all, or there is the same amount of evidence for each).
So unless you have tangible, empirical evidence, piss off. And if you think not ‘taking a stand’ is somehow unmanly, you are suffering from the same ignorance as the religious people you so detest.
Getting a little hot under the collar huh? You’re really desperate to sound smart. Your “argument” is one of the most asinine things I’ve read.
I still ask you to take this to kindergarten class and tell them this same theory in relation to Superman. They’ll laugh at you.
You can’t argue because you’re full of shit. War on Bullshit. Wanna win? Shoot yourself.
I’m done.
Oh, and as for me “detesting” religious people, as usual, you’re wrong. I only detest those who try to pass off their bullshit as fact, those who want to brainwash kids either through school or other means, and those who make laws based on their beliefs.
Just like that guy whom you linked to a while back, Pat Condell. Same deal. It seems rather contradictory to call him “the latest hero in the war on bullshit” and then attack people like me who think just like him….
NOW I’m done.
@H, ‘your argument is asinine’ is not exactly a logical refutation.
But the last paragraph of his last response certainly is….
Thinking that something sounds ridiculous is not a sufficient basis for rejecting it. I’m sure that ‘The world is round’ sounded ridiculous to many people over the course of history.
Sounding ridiculous is certainly sufficient basis to laugh at people.
Nobody still believes the world is round because the world has been proven to be round, but these religious nutcases still cling to their beliefs that have been long since shown to be wrong, or at the very least, extremely implausible.
That is what I cannot understand about these people. They have no problem rejecting certain things like “the world is flat”, but still hold onto other beliefs that are just as wrong and/or nonsensical, and worst of all they try and pass it off as fact and to get it taught alongside fact in public schools.
Get off the fence and use your brain. These people are idiots who are simply desperate to continue the proliferation of their nonsensical beliefs in the face of more and more people realizing they are full of shit.
God usually denotes a metaphysical (supernatural), omnipotent entity. Because (or at least as far as I know) applying a metaphysical state to… well… anything, violates most laws of physics, I don’t believe in any Gods.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster can fly without any form of propulsion. The Christian God can supposedly do anything; even violate physical laws. Same with the Muslim God or the Jewish God. Lord Xenu uses metaphysical spirit force to seed the planet.
I recognize the logic you used to reach your “everyone is agnostic” result, but it’s flawed because it assumes that every God doesn’t share a common denominator; that every God is supernatural/metaphysical in nature.
@You’re still a dumbass,
You completely missed the key point: throughout history, lots a true statements were rejected because they sounded ridiculous in the context of that time. This suggests that many things we feel are ridiculous today may also turn out to be true. That doesn’t mean there is a supernatural entity observing humanity from on high, it just means we shouldn’t rule out the apparently ridiculous.
@Jason,
I think you’re talking about a theist god (one that interferes, performs miracles, answers prayers, etc.) while I am referring to a deist god (one who perhaps created the universe, but hasn’t done anything since). We certainly have evidence against the theist god (e.g., studies of the effects, or lack thereof, of praying). We do not have evidence against a deist god, as far as I know. In fairness, most people use “God” to denote a theist god, as you’ve said.