About Five Public Opinions
I jumped aboard the blogging bandwagon–via Blogger–in March 2005. It was a sad time for Australia, chiefly because the Howard Government had only a few months earlier been elected for a fourth term, and in those early days the content of Five Public Opinions was far more heavily weighted in the direction of politics than either philosophy or slave morality. Back then that was exactly the direction in which I anticipated my blogging would take, and I hoped that my writing–though it would admittedly be coming from a “left perspective”–would be “tempered with a good deal of critical thinking and self-reflexiveness.” Hmm. But in the light of recent events, I also find what I wrote here interesting.
Suffice it to say: while I have always been an atheist, Five Public Opinions has not always been an atheist blog, if you take my meaning. It evolved in this direction out of a growing interest in the hybridisation of religion and politics both in Australia and in the US, and the ramifications of this hybridisation for science and education (e.g. the ID debate) as well as liberal democracy (e.g. discrimination against non-heterosexuals and same-sex couples). In the course of many fruitful (and even some fruitless) online exchanges I have come to identify myself as an agnostic atheist–the kind of atheist that Richard Dawkins would term a “Level 6.” I am yet to be convinced that a move further along the scale towards “Level 7″ is warranted.
My StumbleUpon Page
Level 7 has some cool benefits like a gold plated name badge and entrance into participating clubs and hotels ; )
I could not understand the picture on the title of your blog.Can you explain me the same?
It’s the Last Supper meets Dawn of the Dead (or whatever zombie movie you wish to substitute). No need to read too much into it.
Actually my favourite is the Last Supper meets Star Wars. You should be able to find it somewhere in the archives on My Confined Space.
Sorry- my “rant” wasn’t about your comment policy- it was in response to the
story about the American 22 yr old raped & kept in the container- I went to
ck your comment policy and mistakenly commented right after I read it without
going back to the ARTICLE I’d read- I apologize!!
First: Greetings from TTF, AV! There are still people over there who are wondering where and how you are.
Next, just a short comment about Ben Stein, who evidently believes that his being Jewish makes it easier on him when he’s attacked: “Jews are used to it.” Whatever the case, he’s a silly man, who, if he worked in a grocery store surviving on a bagger’s pay, would not be paid attention to. But his money makes him dangerous, as witness his movie “Expelled,” with all the neocon/religious fanaticism that’s woven into it.
Barley
AV says: “…I have come to identify myself as an agnostic atheist–the kind of atheist …”
Dawkins aside AV, how can one be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time? I see them as two different birds: an atheist is convinced that there’s no God (that word needs clear definition), period, and an agnostic is convinced there’s no way to prove either existence or non-existence of “God.” (You’ve hear this rant before on TTF, I know, I know…!)
I personally am convinced that the God described in the world’s holy books is no different from any other myth, including Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy: simply one of man’s anthropomorphic projections on the world. But to say that there is no sort of Sentience or Sentiences operating with Purpose behind (or within) Reality…well, I believe that can’t be proven one way or another. I believe that man’s current state of brain/mind and sensory development are insufficient to the task, for the same reason that a cat’s makeup makes it impossible for him ever to read Playboy…
So AV — how do you differentiate between “atheist” and “agnostic”?
Barley
Dawkins aside AV, how can one be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time? I see them as two different birds: an atheist is convinced that there’s no God (that word needs clear definition), period, and an agnostic is convinced there’s no way to prove either existence or non-existence of “God.”
It’s quite simple: agnosticism is a matter of epistemology (what you know; what can be known); atheism a matter of what you believe (or rather, don’t believe). I’m agnostic on the question of whether or not a god/many gods/a Sentient Being/many Sentient Beings exist, because I don’t know whether or not they exist. And I’m an a-theist (as opposed to a theist) because, given the lack of evidence for the existence of a deity, I see no reason to believe in such a being–I lack belief in such a being.
To recap: agnosticism is a statement about what one knows (or doesn’t know); atheism is a statement about what one believes (or doesn’t believe); and the two are therefore quite compatible.
an atheist is convinced that there’s no God (that word needs clear definition)
As a global definition of atheism, that is simply incorrect–and a strawman if you apply it to all who describe themselves as atheists. What you are describing here is strong or gnostic atheism (as contrasted with weak or agnostic atheism), but strong atheists comprise only a subset of all atheists, just as Republicans comprise only a subset of all Americans. Hence, just as it would be wrong to claim “All Americans are Republicans,” it would be equally wrong to claim “All atheists are strong atheists.”
Good to hear from you!
AV: “To recap: agnosticism is a statement about what one knows (or doesn’t know); atheism is a statement about what one believes (or doesn’t believe); and the two are therefore quite compatible.”
Umm… I believe that the “God” of holy books doesn’t exist. In fact I am convinced of it. I further believe that due to our biological limitations, we cannot know if there is some or any sort of Sentient Force acting with Purpose relative to Reality one way or other.
Further, I define myself as an agnostic not by your definition, but by the Oxford Dictionary’s: “A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God … a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.” I take it a step further by my personal ruling-out of the holybook concept.
Barley
Pointing to a dictionary definition of “agnostic” is no rebuttal, any more than pointing to a dictionary definition of the word “marriage” is a rebuttal of the arguments in favour of same sex marriage (a tactic Joxy tried to use back in those interminable Forsaken Inn debates, until I showed him a Webster’s dictionary that included same-sex marriage in its definition of the word “marriage”). Dictionaries merely record the most common or popular usages of words at a given point in time in a given culture or linguistic community: if you try to use the dictionary as way of winning a debate over what a word “truly” means (as if words have timeless essences, as if the usage of words doesn’t change over time or between different communities), you’re simply committing the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Having said that, how I have defined “agnosticism” does not significantly differ from the definition you prefer. I agree that “a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God” can be described as agnostic–though I would object to the “can be known” part since this presumes too much about what might be known or knowable at some point in the future. The notion that one can claim “neither faith nor disbelief in God” is ambiguous, and a lot depends upon how “disbelief” is defined. On the one hand, either you believe the claim “God exists,” or you don’t: I don’t see how a “middle ground” is possible here. On the other hand, there is a difference between lacking belief in the claim “God exists,” on the grounds of there being insufficient evidence in support of that claim, and mounting a counter-claim “God does not exist.” Perhaps by “disbelief” the lexicographers mean “belief in the claim that God does not exist;” if so, that is a poor and confusing choice of words on their part, in my view. Moreover, the argument that if you don’t believe the claim “God exists,” you must believe the claim “God does not exist” is a false dichotomy. (Whereas belief/lack of belief in the claim “God exists,” and belief/lack of belief in the claim “God does not exist” are not false dichotomies.)
Suggested reading: “Weak and strong atheism” (Wikipedia)
I am trying to avoid unnecessary complexities here, AV; I am not attacking nor attempting to rebut. I am trying to be clear about explaining my own belief so that it’s clear to others. I am saying this: as far as I am concerned, (1) The god concept advanced in religion — any religion — is a figment of the imagination, an anthropomorphic projection, the sincere (and unwarranted) conclusion of having experienced a vision/hallucination at best, or — at worst — the usual attempt at trying to find a pattern, and ending up connecting dots that have nothing to do with each other. (2) Our bodymind sensorium simply is not capable of probing reality anywhere near well enough to come up with an answer. Indeed, the question itself may be a total non sequitur (like asking questions that infer the reality of Martian canals, or the moon’s being made of green cheese) for all we know — which I believe is the case.
Just spotted something in your statement I hadn’t noticed about language. Granted: a dictionary definition is a snapshot of how a word was used in a certain time. Granted that definitions can change, or even that words which were at one time “wrong” become “right” over time because of their general acceptance by the Great Unwashed. For instance it has evidently become correct to say “snuck” as past tense of “sneak.” However when I still had hair on my head which wasn’t grey, we said “sneaked,” which still sounds correct to me. But I now find “snuck” listed (in that pesky Oxford dictionary) as (1) the past and past participle of “sneak,” and also termed an “informal” version of “sneaked,” which is still listed as the “legitimate” form, “snuck” being the pretender to the throne that actually usurped it. And while the dictionary admits the presence of the word “snuck” in its pages, it still finds it loathe to use it in an example; “sneaked” being the preferred word.
And so I cling to my Oxford/Random House dictionary def of “agnostic” because it describes more closely than anything else what I happen to believe, at least about myself: I can’t say that there is a Prime Force acting with Purpose regarding Reality, because I can neither prove nor disprove it, because of biological limitations.
Barley
I am trying to avoid unnecessary complexities here, AV; I am not attacking nor attempting to rebut. I am trying to be clear about explaining my own belief so that it’s clear to others.
That’s fine, but asked me to clarify my usage of the terms “atheist” and “agnostic.” Hopefully I have done so.
Indeed, the question itself may be a total non sequitur (like asking questions that infer the reality of Martian canals, or the moon’s being made of green cheese) for all we know — which I believe is the case.
I’m sympathetic to this hypothesis, though not to your examples. Claims regarding Martian canals (I’m assuming you mean their being the product of some intelligent agency rather than natural forces) or whether the Moon is made of green cheese are testable–at least in principle.
But I now find “snuck” listed (in that pesky Oxford dictionary) as (1) the past and past participle of “sneak,” and also termed an “informal” version of “sneaked,” which is still listed as the “legitimate” form, “snuck” being the pretender to the throne that actually usurped it. And while the dictionary admits the presence of the word “snuck” in its pages, it still finds it loathe to use it in an example; “sneaked” being the preferred word.
All that suggests to me is that perhaps “snuck” is in a transitional phase on the way to canonicity. Or maybe it isn’t: who knows? The lexicographers don’t know, nor is it up to them to decide (though they would have some degree of influence, given the popularity of the notion that dictionaries are repositories of the “proper” meaning of words).
And so I cling to my Oxford/Random House dictionary def of “agnostic” because it describes more closely than anything else what I happen to believe, at least about myself
And there’s nothing wrong with that, as long as you acknowledge that you still have to argue for your usage of the term (if you wish me to adopt it, that is).
AV: “…there’s nothing wrong with that, as long as you acknowledge that you still have to argue for your usage of the term (if you wish me to adopt it, that is). ”
I have no need for you to adopt anything, m’friend. I just want to know that I’m heard and understood, I don’t even need to be agreed with…
Barley
[...] stumbled across this image on the header of Five Public Opinions, it’s part of a series of Last Suppers from My Confined [...]