I heard his essay on NPR one morning on the way to drop the kids off at their (Hebrew) private school, and I was absolutely and completely stunned that someone had summed up exactly what I had in my head so well.
My younger brother and I got into an argument or 3 about the semantics of classifying my beliefs in gods - and it boiled down to this:
Him: Atheism is defined as saying that you know, for sure, that there is no God.
Me: True, and it's damned near impossible to prove that something DOESN'T exist.
Him: Right, so you're more of an agnostic.
Me: Well, I suppose... but I believe that there's a better chance that we'll one day find a purple pegasus having sex with a unicorn. The idea that there is a god out there strikes me as just slightly more laughable than things like transmutation of matter and resurrection... but I suppose that I do not think there's a way we can prove there's no god, so... yeah, agnostic. sure.
I wish that at that point I had been able to sum my beliefs (or, rather, lack of) up nearly as well as Penn did in the above-linked article.
It's not that I actively don't believe in god or gods - it's that I find the entire idea to be ridiculous and dated beyond belief. There's no purpose to the belief - why even worry one way or the other? I live my life with the knowlege that god just has no impact on it. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. The entire discussion is moot - you want to believe in god and jesus and mohammed and whatever other fairy tales you want to believe in, feel free!
I'm confident I'm right... but, just in case, here are the kickers:
1: I live a pretty nice life. I treat my kids right, people around me seem to think I'm not a bad person, and in general I think I'm a positive influence in this world (except for behind the bar, but that's irrelevant here, right?). Almost any religion that believes in a paradise-thing after death is going to put me there.
2: The religions that believe that you MUST be one of them to get to heaven are about as ridiculous as... man, I just can't come up with an analogy for this one. Suffice to say, I don't WANT to believe in their god. He's a ridiculous creation of one-upsmanship and petty jealousy that I would think we, as a culture, are decades past needing.
3: I'm not wrong. Ever.
To sum up, it isn't that I don't believe in god(s) - it's that I believe there is no god. That little difference makes all the rest of the difference in the world.
Posts
You and your brother are mistaken about the definition of atheism. Atheism is no more defined as knowing for sure that no gods exist than theism is defined as knowing that a god exists. Theism is simply the belief in at least one sort of god; atheism is the absence of any such belief. Agnosticism is about knowledge - a separate issue entirely.
ReplyDeletethis is from dictionary.com:
ReplyDeletea·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
---
ag·nos·ti·cism (āg-nŏs'tĭ-sĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
"Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods."
ReplyDeleteI don't think you followed the link I gave; if you had, you'd have realized the errors you are making.
First, notice that this definition of atheism doesn’t include "knowing for sure." Honesty should dictate that you acknowledge that the dictionary gives a different definition from what you originally asserted. Second, notice that the first word is "disbelief." Did you look that up, ignore it, or what? Most comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries (try the OED, for example) define that first as "not believe" and second as "reject belief in." Both are obviously not the same as denial and none of those imply "know for sure."
Thus the definition of atheism is "not believing in, rejecting belief in, or denying the existence of gods." Nothing about knowing for sure that no gods exist. If you had followed the link I gave, you'd have found not just an explanation of this, but citations from dozens of dictionaries going back more than a century, not to mention numerous other specialized references and books about atheism by atheists.
"The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist."
You do realize, I assume, that this isn't incompatible with believing or not believing in any gods? Knowledge and belief are separate issues. For all of the claims we encounter, we either believe or not believe most of them without absolute proof or knowledge.
Agnosticism is not a "third option" between theism and atheism; it's a different topic entirely. Agnostic theists don't know for sure, but believe anyway (faith, for example). Gnostic theists believe and claim they know for sure. Agnostic atheists don't claim to know for sure and don't bother believing. Gnostic atheists claim to know for sure and don't believe.
If you believe that some sort of god exists, you're a theist of some sort. If you lack any belief in the existence of any gods, you're not a theist - you're an a-theist (compare: a-political, a-tonal, a-synchronous, a-moral). Maybe you also claim to know for sure, maybe you don't - that's a separate question.
tomato, tomato, potato, potato.
ReplyDeletehere's the point:
semantics make for arguments. penn got it right, nailed it pretty dead-on. one of my whole points of that thing up there is that the semantic argument of classifications of the slight differences between different *.isms is kind of... pointless,
you know?
thank you for taking the time to read, think, and reply. :) made me think, which I appreciate (even if we don't come to the same conclusions).
Wow, To be able to talk about a word so much...To me it looks so trivial.. I am working in a dutch hospice, where terminally ill people come to die. We don't talk about whether you believe in a god or not. We listen to our residents and respect whatever they belief. I do not have a very specific religion. I have my own belief and when my time comes, I hope it will give me the strenght to die in a peaceful way. And even if there is nothing at the other end...Well, at least it gave me courage and hope when I needed it the most.
ReplyDeleteI wish you all the best,
Kind regards, Margreet
"penn got it right"
ReplyDeleteYes, he did, but he didn't define atheism in the manner you did. Nor do unabridged dictionaries, specialized reference works, or atheists themselves. I was simply correcting your mistaken definition, not disagreeing with Penn. You created an artificial, nonexistent distinction between atheism and agnosticism. If you don't care about being accurate in what you say, I apologize for interrupting you.
Dear Anonymous:
ReplyDeletewow.
Apology accepted, but uh... relax. seriously. You have a big axe to grind, and I'm not completely sure why or what it's doing here.
My post is not intended to be a declaration of what atheism or agnosticism is. The post was also not intended to come across as "I'm right and you're wrong." My post's entire reason for being was as a reaction to just how great it was to hear Penn's essay on NPR - how great it was to hear a voice on a widespread radio station that, in a rational manner, explained much of how I've felt and never quite been able to say (because my grasp of our language isn't quite as immediately powerful as his, I would say).
Perhaps I should rephrase a tiny bit here... I doubt I can do this right, but let me try anyway:
it's not that I don't believe in gods or that I actively believe there is no god- it's that I believe that the entire argument holds about the same weight of importance to me as the argument of whether dragons eat fish on thursdays or if they prefer pork.
no... still doesn't make sense, fully.
Thanks for your comments, regardless. I'm going to go think myself into oblivion now.
Sincerely,
me
PS: dude, relax.
"My post is not intended to be a declaration of what atheism or agnosticism is."
ReplyDeleteI never said or assumed it was. The fact is, though, you did make a declaration about those definitions and that your declarations were wrong.
"dude, relax."
It's rather arrogant for you to assume that I am somehow "hyper" for correcting you. It does, however, effectively distract from your error to my temerity to correct you.
Dude, why don't you just relax, admit your error, and move on. Seriously.
Okay, you're absolutely right then, in regards to your definition of atheism.
ReplyDeleteBetter?
Moving along then -
For my next post, I'm thinking maybe something about people who need to let the world know they're completely right no matter what about everything they talk about... but then post anonymously.
Good stuff, that.