brian_dare: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Brian Dare (

brian_dare) wrote,
@ 2007-12-10 16:58:00

Current mood:

confused

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
This has come up in conversation several times recently, and the below quote was a perfect example of how I feel about the topic -

Philip Pullman, author of The Golden Compass (technically, the book was originally called Northern Lights), was quoted in the article Life and Letters: Far From Narnia: The New Yorker as saying, I don’t think it’s possible that there is a God.

I've never had a problem with the word agnostic, but Pullman refers to himself as an atheist. However, the implication in his choice of words is that the existence or absence of God is unknown, i.e., agnostic(Origin: < Gk agnost(os), var. of agnotos not known, incapable of being known).

To me, the use of the word atheist is, and has always been, propaganda, no better than the cramming of religious ideology down my throat: I believe in God, I don't believe in God. I'm not sure if the self-proclaimed atheists realize they're guilty of the same thing the staunch supports of religion are.

Belief, by its very nature, implies theories conformed to with limited knowledge (and even knowledge is overrated - how many times have widely-held facts been later refuted). What we can know and not know is, at best, limited to the data currently available to us.

I don't believe in flying saucers, because I've never seen one. I've seen some convincing footage, but it doesn't have the same impact as personally collected input. But I don't disbelieve either. Until I have sufficient, personal data to draw a conclusion, I "don't know."

(Post a new comment)

farkinidjot
2007-12-10 10:40 pm UTC (link)

Yep. People hate it when I point out that their "science" is just as much a religion as any other more generally recognized religion. Most athiests will vehemently deny that they're guilty of the same proselytizing. I finally realized why. It's because, just like the xtian fundies and everyone else out to "save souls", they believe they're spreading the gospel, the good news. They believe that they're doing their part to enlighten and bring people to salvation.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

brian_dare
2007-12-11 12:20 am UTC (link)

Yes, precisely.

I have to laugh when would-be scientists want to "tell me how it is," because I'm busy thinking about Newton's laws being "how it is" until Einstein came along, and now some of his theories are being questions by the String Theorists...

What's funniest of all is how science is coming around to what had been dismissed as "superstition": that perception effects reality, that energy and matter are two states of the same thing, etc...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

datan0de
2007-12-12 11:32 pm UTC (link)

That's actually a great example of the difference between science and religion! Newton's theories worked fine (and in most applications still do). Einstein peeled back another layer and came up with a theory which explains the same data, and also works at relativistic velocities and masses.

I'd be curious to know what religion, pre-Einstein, explicitly stated that matter and energy are equivalent. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just curious. It's worth noting however that for any example where superstition predated science there are at least a dozen counterexamples. The raw number of superstitious beliefs all but guarantees that a handful will eventually turn out to have some validity.

However, I will state flat out that your statement "perception effects reality" does not accurately reflect modern science. It's a common misinterpretation that stems from the fact that the definitions that scientists typically use sometimes differ from the colloquial definitions. (Google "evolution is just a theory" for an overly worn out example.) Assuming you're referring to quantum theory, the idea is that observation affects reality, and in a quantum physics context "observation" effectively means "interaction on a gravitational level, or within the past light cone". It most definitely does *not* mean "look at" or "perception by an intelligent agent or its instrumentation".

Okay, I'll get off the soap box now and leave you in peace.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

brian_dare
2007-12-13 10:12 pm UTC (link)

"Newton, forgive me," - Einstein, Autobiographical Notes

Actually, your comparison between science and religion serves to show them more alike than different. It's demonstratably untrue that Einstein "peeled back another layer," he proved categorically that while the observations of phenomenon could be explained using Newton's theories, the underlying explanation for the behavior was utterly and totally wrong, thus preventing those same theories from describing microscopic events as accurately as macroscopic or, for that matter, at all.

NOVA | Einstein's Big Idea | Genius Among Geniuses | PBS

In 1905, Einstein is 26, a patent examiner, working on physics on his own. After hours, he creates the special theory of relativity, in which he demonstrates that measurements of time and distance vary systematically as anything moves relative to anything else. Which means that Newton was wrong. Space and time are not absolute, and the relativistic universe we inhabit is not the one Newton "discovered."

This is absolutely no different than saying, "Ancient Egyptian theories worked fine (and in most applications still do), in their explanation that Ra carries the Sun across the sky in his barque. In both cases, the observed phenomenon is still the same, even though we now know categorically that the notion as to why is absurd. The only advantage in Newton's case is that his theories accurately predicted more than the previously-held beliefs.

As to the ancient understanding of the relationship between matter and energy, firstly, I did not say that "religion" stated it, and secondly, I didn't not say "explicitly." And further, I'd like to point out that you may have dismissed any evidence prior to me even giving it, by your idea that superstitious beliefs are so prolific and and varied.

The limitation of their writings is that it was written during periods that predate both our modern understanding and our vocabulary to explain it, resulting in the use of poetic language to point at their meaning when no extant term existed. Due to the diversity of superstitions, as you so astutely already pointed out, the only way to understand the implications of these poetic utterances is to find trends among them. The serious study of these topics has only begun in earnest in the last quarter century.

That being said, as this topic represents an entire chapter in the book I'm currently working on, you'll have to wait until I'm finished. I'll be happy to provide you with a copy at that time. ;)

Lastly, on the topic of perception effecting reality, I believe you read way more into that statement than the simple words portray. I at no point stated nor referred to the concept that observation changes the outcome of events, though I am not convinced the idea is impossible, either. And I am familiar with the common misunderstanding of the usage of the word "observation" in the Copenhagen interpretation, a la Schrödinger's cat.

What I was referring to was the process of invention, itself. This pertains more to the science of the mind than the science of matter. New discoveries in science only come about when a person or group challenges the accepted theories and then can demonstrate new and real technology as a result. Clearly, man has pressed his indelible stamp on the world in which we live, fueled only by technology that springs initially from nothing more than the intuition and minds of men.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	fionathecelt 2007-12-11 12:58 am UTC (link)
	OK OK I'll firmly say that I don't really know much of anything about how the world actually works (Reply to this)(Thread)

	farkinidjot 2007-12-11 01:31 am UTC (link)
	That's the beginning of wisdom. Or, so I've heard. ;) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	brian_dare 2007-12-11 05:31 pm UTC (link)
	Wasn't necessarily directed at you, more inspiried by the article. But it's useful to think on such things. Scio me nihil scire. I only know that I know nothing. - atributed to Socrates. Ho de anexetastos bios ou biôtos anthrôpôi. The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being. - Socrates, quoted by Plato. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	soundwave106 2007-12-11 03:48 am UTC (link)
	Some atheists are pretty bad about shoving their opinion down their throat. Some aren't. It's pretty much the same as Christians. Do they realize it? Not often, but then again neither do the Christians or any other staunch believers of an idea, philosophy, concept, etc. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	brian_dare 2007-12-11 05:33 pm UTC (link)
	This is exactly true. The problem is not what one believes, it is the constant attempt by such believers to share their "truth." But we should all be aware by now how tenuous truth can be. (Reply to this)(Parent)

usha93
2007-12-11 03:13 pm UTC (link)

But the a- suffix is just a negator. It could also mean "without god." Seems like "non-theist" is the current PC term, and yeah, that's pretty much what I am -- non-theistic.

But see, I don't consider myself a-gnostic, because I have had direct experience with gnosis.

What I really, truly am is a Bhakta Atheist, but it sounds like a joke when I say it, so I don't use the term regularly. ;->

(Reply to this)(Thread)

brian_dare
2007-12-11 06:24 pm UTC (link)

Well, now we're on semantical ground. I could accept atheist as "without god," which neither confirms or denies God's existence, only one's acknowledgment that he or she lives apart from such considerations. But that is not the generally accepted meaning or implication of the word.

I would also question atheist as an appropriate label for one who had experienced gnosis, as someone who has myself, because I have long felt that the reality one taps into in those states of consciousness could easily be interpreted as "God," especially by those living in a time and place dominated by religio-philosophical thinking.

I, for a long time, labeled myself a gnostic, as my quest was, and still is, to know. I've just come to terms with the fact that knowledge can be faulty, and at best I can get a sense, or intuition, for what I believe to be true. I've been leaning toward theosophos, using the Greek spelling so as not to be confused with the Theosophical Society. The usage goes back way before the founding of that organization - Different Theosophies.

I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant. - Rufus, in Dogma

Don't think. FEEL. It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory. - Bruce Lee

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	dragonflii_echo 2007-12-12 07:03 pm UTC (link)
	i love that dogma quote. i thought it was one of the best parts of the movie. (Reply to this)(Parent)

datan0de
2007-12-12 11:18 pm UTC (link)

I must respectfully disagree with you, or at least suggest that the difference is more in the operational definition of the terms "Atheist" and "Agnostic" than in the underlying perspective.

Most atheists, even those that are generally considered "hard atheists" (such as Richard Dawkins), do not claim absolute certainty regarding the non-existence of God. I call myself an atheist, and I think that the term fits me perfectly not because I'm privy to any special knowledge but rather because, in the absence of sufficient evidence, it is the default state. I have precisely the same quantity of persuasive evidence in favor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Odin, and the hypothesis that Jell-O is actually a form of metal. All are extraordinary claims, and in the absence of extraordinary supporting evidence the default position is one of disbelief.

The term "atheist" does not include as part of its definition an unwillingness to accept new information and reassess accordingly. I spend a lot of time interacting with other atheists, both in person and online, and I have yet to meet an atheist who wouldn't change their stance in the face of incontrovertible evidence. I can't say the same for the theists I've met.

My understanding of the term "Agnostic" is that it is the stance that the veracity of God isn't just unknown, but cannot be known. However, I've heard competing specific definitions so (irony intended) I don't put that definition forth with absolute certainty.

I also take issue with the oft-repeated but blatantly false claim that science is "just another religion". Science is a systematized empirical methodology for learning about the universe and phenomena within it, using the scientific method and peer reviewed, repeatable observation, study, and experimentation to develop and improve testable, evidence-based theories. Nothing more. Its adherents are often passionate, because science has a proven track record of being the most reliable method we have of knowing the universe, and (unlike religion) it includes self-correction mechanisms. It would be a mistake, however, to confuse passion with fundamentalism.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

brian_dare
2007-12-13 10:07 pm UTC (link)

And we are, as is often the case, descending into a semantical argument. Whenever I find myself doing so, I always return to the origin of the word or words, in this case Greek -

privative a - negation or absence,
theos - deity, god
gnostos - known

atheist - absence of god
agnostic - absence of knowledge, unknown

Clearly, the one has implications of the belief in the absence of something, while the other implies simply not knowing. I'm far more inclined to admit I don't know than I am to be certain of anything.

From a scientific standpoint, I take some offense at the comment that you "have precisely the same quantity of persuasive evidence in favor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Odin, and the hypothesis that Jell-O is actually a form of metal." in that, I feel, this is an unsupportable statement.

From a socio-cultural standpoint, belief in the FSM, Odin, or Jell-O as metal are nowhere near as prevalent as the belief in some form of deity. In light of this, the sciences of Sociology and psychology would be far more interested in a study of belief in deity than a study of any of the examples you cite. I believe what you meant is that you have the same quantity of empirical evidence.

I also take offense to the comment regarding theists, not on the grounds that I entirely disagree with it, but on the grounds that it is little more than an ad hominem attack. That particular paragraph would have been far better served had it stopped just short of that statement.

As for your last issue, I don't think the labeling of science as religion comes from confusing "passion with fundamentalism." I think, instead, it stems from the similarity by which both are accepted by their respective adherents. In both cases, there is canonical literature which present "truths" and these works are accepted on belief, or faith, by the followers of their tenets, often without any direct knowledge of the truth or falsity therein. Just as people believe in gods and saviors because they read or were taught it, whether or not they had ever seen or communed personally with such entities, so, too, do those of scientific bent accept the theories and laws of science despite any personal experience with experimentation and testing. They take for granted the findings of others actively pursuing such goals, until some individual or group comes along to successfully challenge contemporarily-held beliefs.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Mini Sitemap:

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…