I voice the opinion that the discussion needs a clarifying definition of the
nouns atheism and agnosticism.
Richard
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 28, 2019, at 6:45 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Frankly, I think Carl misuses the word agnostic. First, he seems to set it
apart from atheism as if agnosticism is not atheism. Like I said, atheism is
a very simple concept. It is simply a lack of a belief in a deity. That means
that there can even be atheistic religions. But agnosticism fits very nicely
within that simple concept of atheism and so it is atheism. Second,
agnosticism is the idea that if there is no evidence one way or another that
there either is or is not a god then there might as well be a god as not be
a god. This gives equal weight to either proposition. That is a logical
fallacy itself because one chance in infinity is not equal to absolute
certainty. Now, I have put this to Carl before and he said that he is an
agnostic because he just doesn't care one way or another. That is not
agnosticism. That is just an apathetic way of avoiding deep thinking. It is a
way of saying, I don't even want to think about it. Nevertheless, as you have
pointed out yourself, every time he says something about his position on
religion he expresses an atheistic viewpoint. It is not even an agnostic kind
of atheistic view of religion. I am not a mind reader and I am skeptical of
psychology, so I can't be sure of why he persists in calling himself an
agnostic, but there was a time when I persisted in calling myself an agnostic
when I was not and I suppose my motivation could be the same as Carl's. I
have told about this before, but let me allude to it again. At about the age
of twelve I declared myself an agnostic. Before that I had not even thought
about what I was in relation to religious thought. I was making that logical
fallacy of equating the positive and negative forms of a proposition to each
other. I did not know I was making a logical fallacy, but I was and so that
made me a real agnostic. Then about four years later at the age of sixteen I
came to understand the logical fallacy of agnosticism, but continued to call
myself an agnostic anyway for about two more years. So why did I falsely call
myself an agnostic for two more years? It was simply that from the time I
first heard the word atheist- and I don't remember when I first heard that
word - I had heard it with some very negative connotations attached to it and
I had absorbed those negative connotations. To call myself an atheist would
have been like calling myself evil. Also, at that age four years was a pretty
significant portion of my life, so I think part of it had to do with
momentum. That is, I had been calling myself an agnostic for so long it was a
bit difficult for me to just suddenly switch labels. I got over that, though,
and now the word atheist has mostly positive connotations to me. So I wonder.
Could Carl have been effected by the same connotations all of his life so
that it is hard for him to admit to the word atheist applied to himself?
---
Carl Sagan
“ The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be
counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be
consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do
not determine what's true. ”
― Carl Sagan
On 3/28/2019 5:48 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Carl,
I don't think I'm an Agnostic because I think that the definition of an
Agnostic is that he or she isn't sure whether or not there is a God and
therefore, is on the fence. I just think that there's no evidence of a God
in the sense that God has been described in anything I've ever read. All I
know is that right now I'm alive and from what I've learned there is a
history and a present and laws of nature or physics or whatever, and a
universe and no human being has or can have knowledge of the ultimate cause
of all of this, if there is an ultimate cause. I don't need to know what
caused the big bang. Whatever causes existence to exist, it isn't a spirit
who has a plan for me or from whom I can ask a personal favor when things
get tough. From my point of view, that makes me an Atheist.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 1:55 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Atheism, Labels, Faith
And all the Non Believers shouted, "Amen!"
And to those who believe thus, I would submit that they are really Agnostics.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/28/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There apparently are different kinds of Atheism. The kind that people
keep writing about on this list, seems to be a dominant thread in the
thoughts and speeches and writings of its proponents. And it seems to
be unrelated to any value system or philosophy of life. It is, in its
essence, a logical negation of a spiritual overlord. At least, that's
what I think it is.
But then there are the members of the Ethical Culture or Ethical
Humanist Movement, and the Secular Humanists. That's where I seem to
fit in. They don't spend time and concern on the existence of a God,
however that God might be defined. For them, what is important is how
people behave toward each other, toward other living things, and
toward the natural world in which they live. Why spend time and
energy arguing about the existence of God or which is the best way to
worship, when people are dying of famine and disease, when they are
fighting each other over resources that should be shared among us all,
when droughts and floods are threatening to put an end to life? Why
not focus on how to most efficiently and painlessly change our systems
of power and finance so that humankind will be better served, rather
than quibble about which one of us is more logical or more righteous?
Miriam
