Agnostics and Atheists

[kbfc]

Isaac Asimov:
[ QUOTE ]
I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

[/ QUOTE ]

[RJT]

So there are some atheists with brains. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif Joking guys, relax. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I am saying that I like how he stated himself.

[kbfc]

I came across this quote sometime around my senior year of high school, I believe. Before that, I was a somewhat militant agnostic. That quote was a slap in the face to me, and I've been a proud atheist ever since.

I put it up there, because there's a lot of misrepresentation on the boards of what it means to be an atheist, especially in the recent atheists-believers-math thread.

An atheist is simply without theism. Similarly, I'm an a-invisible-undetectable-unicorn-orbiting-the-moon-ist. Atheism is, in a way, a refinement of Deism (which, contrary to everything the christian right would have you believe, was the prevailing position of almost all the founding fathers). Deism dismisses all the personal god stuff, and basically posits some sort of "God of the Gaps" to explain how everything got started. Once you realize the incredible uselessness of such a distinction, you arrive at atheism.

Anyway, I was sad to see that apparently my little forum-formatting joke went over like a lead balloon....

[Jordan Olsommer]

You may find this to be of interest:

"Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?" by Bertrand Russell (http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html)

[kbfc]

Thanks for the link. I have in fact read that before, but it didn't stand out as clearly in my mind as the Asimov quote. I don't remember when that Asimov interview was recorded, but I think it wasn't too long after the Russel article. That would make sense, given that the Asimov quote seems like a response to the slight wishy-washiness in the Russel.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I was sad to see that apparently my little forum-formatting joke went over like a lead balloon....

[/ QUOTE ]

Reference to...?

[Piers]

I always enjoyed Asimov's work.

[David Sklansky]

It is important to understand the following about Bertrand Russell, and to a lesser extent about Isaac Asimov.

When a moderately intelligent person disagrees with him about a subject for which there is a definite answer and for which Russell is convinced he is right, the probability that the other person is actually right is LESS than the probability that a moderately RETARDED person would be right if he disagreed with the moderately intelligent person. This would be only slightly less true if the moderately intelligent person studied the subject as hard as Russell did.

In other words as politically incorrect a statement as it might be, the fact is that when it comes to difficult subjects that have a precise right answer, the world class minds have a greater distance between them and moderately intelligent minds then the distance between moderately intelligent minds and moderately retarded people.

If you doubt this ask yourself how many 600 GRE scorers would need to consult to beat a 790 scorer. And how many 400 scorers would it take to beat a 600 scorer. Or how many good chess players would have to consult to beat Kasparav compared to how many average players consulting are needed to beat the good player. Or if the top two engineers from MIT said with certainty to build a levee one way and all 100 Georgia Tech engineers recommended another way.

Given the above answers favor the genuises, how is it reasonable that this MONUMENTAL intellectual advantage in questions where there is only one right answer, does not translate into an admittedly lesser, but still SIGNIFICANT advantage in questions that are not yet settled. Especially if there is a scientific or statistical or logical component to them. And especially if the superior minds have devoted a lot of thought to the subject.

That stance of mine applies to many things. When to go for a first down. Whether to raise taxes. Can vitamine E cure heart disease. And yes, is there likely to be a God along the lines of what the pope believes? Its all the same thing.

[RJT]

Yes, but you are willing to talk about it. (Asimove isn't. And that is his decision.) That is one of the things I find so interesting here - your and others ideas and thoughts.

Not because I want to be atheist or that I think I can convince anyone here to believe. But to have dialogue. To see how others think and what they think. And if they are thinking about things that I am. And what new ways of thinking similar (or exactly opposite) thoughts are out there.

It is the journey. Hopefully somewhere along the way new ideas, new understandings develope that weren't there before.

[David Sklansky]

I count myself out because I haven't studied the subject.

[bocablkr]

Open question for David sklansky,

I am a little confused on you views on God. After reading most of you posts I thought you were an Atheist (including this one). However, in another post it appears that you believe that a God created the Universe and then basically left it alone to evolve as it may. Do you believe that the Universe was created by some supernatural being or power?

"I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist."

That's fine that he feels that way, but you can't have reasoned debate on a subject if your source is just your emotions. So, in Asimov's case, it sounds as if he's choosing to just not engage in the debate. That's fine. Also, some confusion comes with the term "atheist". "Atheism" doesn't have to mean "there is no god", it can be interpreted as just an opposition to theists who proclaim "there is a god". I consider myself atheist in my opposition to theism, but not in my belief that there must be nothing beyond the universe. But I see no need to speculate on what is or isn't beyond the universe because I feel there is no possible way of finding anything out about it in my lifetime and there is no way it affects my life. However, theories about how the universe may exist (superstring, higher dimensional spaces, etc.) do interest me on just an intellectual level.

[kbfc]

"That's fine that he feels that way, but you can't have reasoned debate on a subject if your source is just your emotions."

That's not what he said. He said, "as well as." At a root level, you're being dishonest if you claim to use only reason. You have to choose some axioms as a foundation for rationality, otherwise you don't get very far. Asimov's 'emotional' choices are basically just a fulfillment of Hume's 'habit and custom.' He's honest enough to admit it, at least.

[ QUOTE ]
"That's fine that he feels that way, but you can't have reasoned debate on a subject if your source is just your emotions."

That's not what he said. He said, "as well as." At a root level, you're being dishonest if you claim to use only reason. You have to choose some axioms as a foundation for rationality, otherwise you don't get very far. Asimov's 'emotional' choices are basically just a fulfillment of Hume's 'habit and custom.' He's honest enough to admit it, at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't criticizing Asimov. I appreciate his honesty, and am confident that he is honest enough not to preach that there is no possible higher being because he himself admits there is no way to know this. Reading my post, you can infer that I feel similarly to him, although am not as emotionally attached to atheism as I am emotionally attached to avoiding statements that close doors where evidence does not necessitate the door being shut.