DarkSyde interviews Brent Rasmussen of UTI today. The interview is good, but skip the comments—they descend into the usual mush-mouthed yammering about dictionary definitions of “agnostic” and “atheist,” ignoring the fact that for all practical purposes they’re exactly the same, and they’re both going to get burned at the stake for apostasy and heresy when the theocracy comes.
I’ve decided that when I invent my time machine, my first stop is going to be 19th century England, where I shall slap Tom Huxley upside the head and tell him that he’s being a waffling coward by inventing a word that’s going to paralyze freethinkers for the next 150 years or more. Then I’m going to go on to the Cambrian.
Oh, and being a godless conservative isn’t that unusual—witness the Corsair and the Commissar.
Funny, I was raised Mormon too, and I grew up to be an atheist as well. I sometimes joke that reading the Book of Mormon cover to cover will turn any sane person into an atheist (I make the same joke about the Christian Bible).
When I first ran across UTI, I wondered if Brent Rasmussen was a Mormon, simply based on the fact that Rasmussen is fairly common as a Mormon surname. In fact, I have some relatives named Rasmussen; it’s possible he and I are (distantly) related…
(Well, okay, of course everyone’s distantly related if you go back far enough, but I mean single-digit-number-of-generations distantly.)
Yeah, I’m another ex-Mormon here, although in my case the “ex-” is of fairly recent vintage (and as yet hasn’t been made official)…
Just try and remember not to sneeze while you’re there. :-)
How’s that Time Machine coming along? When can we escape the madness?
My mother is an ex-Morman. By any chance is ex-Mormanism like Jewishness, that is passed down from mother to child? Because I’d really like to join this club!
Just try and remember not to sneeze while you’re there. :-)
Uh, why not? I know DarkSyde gave similar tips about taking short breaths, but that was for the Carboniferous and Permian, when oxygen levels were very high by Neogenic (or Cambrian) standards.
Before you head back to the really far back eras do me a favour. Stop off in 1959 and pick me up a Gibson Les Paul and a Fender Stratocaster. I should be able to sell those guitars here in the 21st Century for oh, someplace around 200 or 300 grand, if not more, and I’ll split the profits with you.
Well, if you do stop off in 1959, could you stash a couple bottles of high-grade German Riesling for me? They should be good and aged by 2006.
“they descend into the usual mush-mouthed yammering about dictionary definitions of “agnostic” and “atheist,” ignoring the fact that for all practical purposes they’re exactly the same, and they’re both going to get burned at the stake for apostasy and heresy when the theocracy comes.”
They are the same from the viewpoints of faith. But from a factbased view we can’t prove that we can’t ever prove supernatural phenomena to be nonexisting. Science can’t be predicted. Who originally thought that the concept of souls could be discredited?
Supernaturalism is another dualism that is constrained by science. Noethers theorem says that massenergy is preserved, so supernatural intervention means observable massenergy input. The constance of the finestructure constant means that there are very strict limits on such input.
This year a paper showed that noncausal actions on gauge theories in isotropic spaces such as our destabilises the theory in the causal lightcone. So a god trying to make up for massenergy input by yanking out corresponding amounts of massenergy elsewhere in the lightcone is still observable.
As these constraints exist and allow decision there should be an epistemological difference between agnostics and atheists. If so, it should be acknowledged. Grouping them together because religion insists there are no difference seems like the wrong idea.
But I agree that Huxley was a waffling coward.
P Z Myers wrote:
Torbjörn Larsson wrote:
Oh, sure. You’re all full of big talk now. It would be a different matter if you came up against a serious hardcore agnostic like…oh, like…ummm…John Wilkins …possibly…
Have I ever shied away from picking on Wilkins before?
Uh, actually…has anyone ever hesitated to take a swing at Wilkins? He’s so obligingly responsive.
If you’re going to 1959 anyway, could you just drop me off?
Sometime before February 3, preferably.
But, but…if you save Buddy Holly, you’ll change the future!!!
Could agnostic be the first documented example of politically correct terminology?
It is kinda mixed in comments over there. Dkos has a ton of progressive tolerant people. Just so you can understand how progressive and tolerant, Pastor Dan invited me to read a passage from an atheist diary at the Sunday Ykos service. But there are definitely a few who would just as soon we shut the fuck up and act like good invisible loyal voters. Someone emailed me a bit ago in support saying that they once felt the same kind of treatment from dems and progressive when they became more vocal. They were accused of being militant, embarrassing, inconvenient; they’re gay.
The time machine comment was funny. I laughed out loud anyway.
Forget it. Indian removal predates it by at least a few decades.
You’re obviously not a Simpson’s fan :-)
Why are there no agnostics about Zeus or orbiting teapots?
Huxley was worth three of any of us in terms of dealing with antiscience and ignorance. And his term, dear PZ, exactly explains and expresses my own considered views, whereas atheist does not, and indeed commits the listener to believing I have any kind of faith against any kind of religion. I’m almost sure that Scientology has no truth whatsoever and can be eliminated as a serious contender (insert irony tags here) but the general claims that there is a deity or a large number of deities is something I can neither confirm nor deny. Agnostic describes this view.
I’ve read Thomas Henry Huxley, and we, sir, are no Thomas Henry Huxleys.
Well, you see, that’s why when I visit him I’m going to first hit him with a taser, and while he’s stunned I’ll tie him up. He may be three of me, but I plan on using modern technology to balance the fight.
And yes, the term might reflect your views, but you’re one of those philosopher fellas who likes to split hairs and argue over nebulosities. When you want to motivate the troops to get out there and fight for reason, stuff like “agnostic” gets in the way. Then we have to sit down and explain to everyone that agnostics and atheists are all grouped together in the freethought clade, as opposed to the religious clade, and as you should well know all you’ve got to do is mention Willi Hennig and paraphyly and synapomorphies and all will to battle creationists and theocrats evaporates, because cladistic infighting is so much more fun.
“Why are there no agnostics about Zeus or orbiting teapots?”
I am an agnostic about Zeus and orbiting teapots!
Ian says:
“Oh, sure. You’re all full of big talk now. It would be a different matter if you came up against a serious hardcore agnostic like…oh, like…ummm…John Wilkins …possibly..”
Drat! You revealed my weak argument. (Hangs head in shame.)
The last ) was supposed to be a :-).
Yep, I had to go and check, and it wouldn’t be a wasted trip. Well, as long as you remember to take your submersible.
Bob
You’re obviously not a Simpson’s fan :-)
I think I’ve watched two episodes in my entire life, neither of which is the one with the dinosaurs.
When you want to motivate the troops to get out there and fight for reason, stuff like “agnostic” gets in the way.
When you want to motivate the troops to get out there and fight for reason, having a black-and-white mentality gets in the way. As, incidentally, does denying agnosticism (which many people who aren’t strong atheists find refuge in). I believe the best tactic to motivate the troops is Tacitus-style center-shifting, which relies among other things on showing that there’s a multitude of nontheistic views.
Oh, and being a godless conservative isn’t that unusual–witness the Corsair and the Commissar.
Not unusual at all. Quite a few of the big conservative bloggers are atheist or agnostic. Granted there’s probably some selection bias in my reading, given that I’m a filthy godless heathen myself.
The interview was too short, in my opinion. Could have gotten very interesting, but it stopped.
Wouldn’t work. It would be simple to prove they were recently made, and thus must be forgeries, no matter how much they look like the genuine article. Most people contemplating spending 200-300 grand should be capable of at least that much examination of the thing they are spending it on.
Now, if you pick them up from 1959, drop them in 1,000,000 BCE (in a suitable safe location), pick them up again in 999,950 BCE, then it might work. But you have to be careful to age your antiques before you try to sell them. (Fortunately, with a time machine, it doesn’t take long, measured in subjective time.)
Just hire some long-term storage, or, even better, pay some people to own them for a while. That way there’ll be a paper trail.
Here’s how I understand the significant differences of atheism and agnosticism to be. Note that Rasmussen’s views would be called ignostic by definition. Also note that agnosticism can be coupled with theism or atheism, and is thus distinct from atheism.
1. Atheism is a lack of a belief in a deity or deities (non-theism), qualified with one of either a) or b), and also with one of either c) or d), and optionally with e)
a. Implicit atheism is atheism without any conscious rejection of theism.
b. Explicit atheism is atheism with a conscious rejection of theism.
c. Weak atheism is nontheism without positive assertions that deities do not exist. Weak atheism can be implicit or explicit. Implicit atheism is always weak.
d. Strong atheism is nontheism with positive assertions that deities do not exist, or very likely do not exist. Strong atheism is always explicit.
e. Ignosticism is a form of explicit atheism (arguably considered weak or strong) that holds the view that the question of the existence of god is nonsensical or meaningless. (Rasmussen’s view.)
2. Agnosticism is an epistemological position regarding the existence or nonexistence of deities, but not necessarily the belief in deities
a. Weak agnosticism holds that the existence or non-existence of deities is unknown (but perhaps knowable)
b. Strong agnosticism holds that the existence or non- of said deities is unknowable.
3. Combinations
a. Agnostic atheism: no theistic beliefs, although existence or non- of deities is considered unknown or unknowable
b. Agnostic theism: theistic beliefs, although existence or non- of deities is considered unknown or unknowable
Alon,
That seems wise. Let us have nonreligious freedom! ;-)
Jesper,
You present a combination of 3 modern philosophical schematics (Implicit/Explicit, Strong/Weak, Agnostic). The problem I have, that atheism is also an epistemological position, isn’t acknowledged. The original groupings of “atheism” and “agnosticism” acknowledges that. One can also be sure that the subsets are nonempty. I’m not sure that is guaranteed in your plethora of subsets?!
Of course there are atheist conservatives! Ever hear of Objectivists? Those guys are so anti-religion they make Unitarians look like self-flagellating monks.
Am I reading this right? Unitarians are anti-religion? Reverend Liz is going to have a fit when I tell her.
As freethinking stunguns go, agnosticism can’t hold a candle to, oh, hundreds of other mindsets.