Of course we can use additional words to describe the complexities of his position. He is an atheist, but he doesn't place any importance in this. What comes after the word atheist does not somehow change its meaning. I don't understand the point of this.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson: "Agnostic"
- Thread starter Desperado
- Start date
- Status
Of course we can use additional words to describe the complexities of his position. He is an atheist, but he doesn't place any importance in this. What comes after the word atheist does not somehow change its meaning. I don't understand the point of this.
ihearthawthats
Banned
i think the point is that "theists" and "atheists" are generally interpreted as "gnostic theists" and "gnostic atheists". i'm not really sure the disctintion between "agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist" is all that important. it is most certainly not as important as the disctinction between a "gnostic theist" and "gnostic atheist". thus, i think it being shortened to theist/atheist/agnostic is acceptable.Putting this on the new page seeing people don't actually read the thread before posting:
some days there are things that make me go "maybe god does exist" and some days there are things that make me go "maybe he doesn't"... so if there's someone who wants to classify me, am i really expected to update between "agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist" constantly? i'd rather just say i'm "agnostic" and be done with it, or even perhaps as tyson puts it, not be classified as either one.
No? If agnostics lived their life as if they knew a god didn't' exist they'd be atheists.
Like I said, atheist by proper etymological definition are opposed to the existence of a theist.
Like scientists, and believers of evidence, agnostics aren't arrogant enough to presume they have a yes/no answer.
I think you are the one who has the terms inverted.
I didn't disagree with that.
You're mixing up gnosticism with Gnosticism. Gnosis means knowledge.
Because it's relevant to the discussion and you chose to participate?
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but that's basically my point. People attribute things to atheism like hating god or believing there is no god, which do not apply to me. So calling myself an atheist simply causes confusion and I have to then correct those misconceptions when I could have simply described myself in a way more easily understood (not religious works well).
onadesertedisland
Member
I hate leprechauns.
The point is your original statement is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with how he used the word Agnosticism; it's merely a catch-all way of saying "it's not important and doesn't matter". You just for some odd reason, can't see it.
I didn't ask "Why are you replying to me?" - I asked "Why are you interested in my stance?" (paraphrased)
HurricaneJesus
Member
Probably said before, but Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of one.
I think I can answer that for you. You're an agnostic atheist. As soon as you say maybe, you're no longer actively believing that a god exists. That makes you an atheist. Being that most religions are faith-based, agnostic theism is more of a tricky one, since you're generally required to be a gnostic theist to be a member of that religion. It would probably sound something like, "God exists, but I can't prove it. I just accept it as such and hope evidence eventually shows up." You don't meet those kinds of people very often.
It isn't merely a catch all. That's an improper use of the term. I understand his desire; that doesn't make his misuse proper.
So much anger in this thread that Neil wont just claim himself an athiest.
I think any person who is honest with themselves will admit there is no way to 100% say God Doesn't exist. That does not mean you have to go to Church or worship a God etc. You just go about your life and if God someday shows up hey thats great and if he doesnt hey thats great.
That said if a being exists theres a good chance he doesnt fit the mold that mankind has tried to assigned it. It could be advanced Alien thats using the Earth as a Science experiment for all we know. The Alien seeding the world and spawning all life would certainly give it a God Status in humanities basic definition
I think any person who is honest with themselves will admit there is no way to 100% say God Doesn't exist. That does not mean you have to go to Church or worship a God etc. You just go about your life and if God someday shows up hey thats great and if he doesnt hey thats great.
That said if a being exists theres a good chance he doesnt fit the mold that mankind has tried to assigned it. It could be advanced Alien thats using the Earth as a Science experiment for all we know. The Alien seeding the world and spawning all life would certainly give it a God Status in humanities basic definition
staticneuron
Member
... ok
Gnosis
Gnoisiology
What is going on here is the terms Gnosis and all of the variants took on their own meaning through out history, while the term agnostic is a relatively new term despite the actual philosophical concept being very old. Either way, the opposite of agnostic is not gnostic and you are stretching it if you try to use the literal meaning of gnosis to describe a competing philosophical stance.
onadesertedisland
Member
A correct use of the term agnostic in reference to religion is to say you are agnostic towards god and thus an atheist. An incorrect use is to say you are an agnostic atheist which says you are unsure if you do not believe in god.
Let us study the statement:
I don't know(agnostic) if I don't believe in god(atheist).
This statement is almost meaningless. How can someone not know what they either do or do not believe in?
Let us study the statement:
I don't know(agnostic) if I don't believe in god(atheist).
This statement is almost meaningless. How can someone not know what they either do or do not believe in?
Rich Uncle Skeleton
Member
The fuck? Embarrassing for a scientist to be an atheist? What century are you from?
You still insist on confusing gnosticism and Gnosticism. The term was co-opted to mean something specific as opposed to its roots which just mean knowledge or knowledgeable. Why don't you understand? The wiki articles you provided earlier make this very clear.
One could say one of the most important aspects of being a scientist is an open mind.
I'm interested in your stance because... I want to know where you stand? I'm pretty sure you would call yourself an atheist were you so inclined, but it's clear that you would rather not. Just trying to confirm that.
You're missing the point entirely. The anger is because he is an atheist by definition but won't admit it to protect his image. By doing so, he perpetuates the concept that atheism is something that's embarrassing to be associated with and means something that it doesn't.
So you think atheism means that you outright deny the possibility that a god could exist, even presented with irrefutable evidence?
This is the argument that atheists have made to me in the past. That you can replace 'God' with any other fantastical creature, rendering the agnostic argument meaningless.
I think there's something fundamentally different about the concept of 'God' (ie, creator of everything). It's a concept without duplicate. You can call it something else, but it remains the same concept.
soundscream
Member
I agree with what he said.
About 2 years ago I made a thread about a soldier who wrote a letter to his daughter to be given to her upon his death. It was a sweet letter but atheist GAF came in full force and started attacking the letter because he wrote that daddy was in heaven.
As an agnostic I respect the atheist point of view but they can be just as closed minded as those on the opposite side of the spectrum.
About 2 years ago I made a thread about a soldier who wrote a letter to his daughter to be given to her upon his death. It was a sweet letter but atheist GAF came in full force and started attacking the letter because he wrote that daddy was in heaven.
As an agnostic I respect the atheist point of view but they can be just as closed minded as those on the opposite side of the spectrum.
onadesertedisland
Member
An atheist has an open mind. A theist has a closed, certain one.
An atheist simply does not believe in a god or gods. That's it. End of meaning. If a god shows up and is proven to exist, an atheist would become a theist.
Rich Uncle Skeleton
Member
Sure, but then are scientists required to be "agnostic" on the issue of faith healing? Ghosts? Seances? Just because your mind is open doesn't mean it has to be a revolving door. And, as has been stated countless times in this thread, the vast majority of atheists do not believe they know with absolute certainty whether or not god exists.
Femmeworth
Banned
Heh, I think I remember that thread.
Ash Sparrow
Banned
An ant is small, an ant can never grasp the wonders that humans work. An ant can't appreciate the magnitude of a building like a skyscraper, but it must view such a thing from its own perspective. Compared to God we aren't even ants. As a Christian I think God gave us a glimpse, just merely a glimpse.
As for Neil Tyson. I think you'd have to be militant to get mad at him for this.
As for Neil Tyson. I think you'd have to be militant to get mad at him for this.
onadesertedisland
Member
I would wager that the vast majority of atheists do not concern themselves with the debate of gods or god existing any more than any other mythological beings. When observable science can reveal so much more, why waste time exploring campfire tales of desert people?
As interesting as a game of chess with two kings and two knights.
I'm an agnostic atheist. I refer to myself as an "agnostic", not because I'm afraid of the label, but because I am averse to confusion. Regardless of the semantics that we can discuss on a forum like this, people use more convenient terms. An "agnostic" is 99% of the time taken as someone who does not believe in a God or Gods, but also does not say that God absolutely does not exist. An atheist is 99% of the time taken as someone who outright denies the existence of God (in any sense). Is this not true?
This is what Tyson is saying as well. He doesn't consider himself an atheist. He does, however, acknowledge the possible conflation of terms and how someone can say "Wait! But you ARE an atheist! An agnostic atheist!" He's just being practical by calling himself an agnostic since it's the most commonplace term used and also conveniently distances himself from those other atheists that both: (a) outright deny the existence of a God, and (b) are passionate about it.
I think the above also addresses this part of your post (which I think misunderstands the entire situation with Tyson):
GrizzNKev said:
Potentially inconclusive for you, yet it determines a person's actions throughout their life.
Of course it isn't improper. If you ask someone if he/she likes a food they've tasted, they're entirely within reason to say I don't care, without answering in the affirmative or negative even though by definition not having an opinion on a matter of taste means not liking something explicitly. Here we have the same situation when it comes to atheism vs theism; the only difference is that now the person has a catch-all term to describe said ambivalence, that being agnosticism.
You're making up some stringent linguistic rule in order to enforce a label when someone else is merely trying to tell you they don't give a shit and you don't seem to understand it.
You're right, maybe embarrassment's a strong word. Except he literally says that he uses the term agnosticism to "separate him from the conduct of atheists", so maybe he's not embarrassed, he just wants to stay away from their thought system as much as possible. Don't complain to me, complain to him.
Oh, and you should really check the full context behind other people's writings next time.
onadesertedisland
Member
I think Tyson does a disservice to both the religious and non-religious by hiding behind the agnostic shield.
I can understand that he does so for political reasons. Atheists are the most hated minority in the country. I think that we need more high-profile, brave atheists to stand up and embrace the label.
I can understand that he does so for political reasons. Atheists are the most hated minority in the country. I think that we need more high-profile, brave atheists to stand up and embrace the label.
ihearthawthats
Banned
well even in this case i still think its acceptable to shorten "gnostic athiest" to "athiest" and "agnostic athiest" to "agnostic", and that there is a big enough difference between "athiest" and "agnostic" for it to be considered seperate.
i don't think you quite understand agnosticism.onadesertedisland said:
Thats not actually true. Jesus said nothing about gays, abortion, or birth control. The first person in the New Testmanet actually converted to Christianity by Jesus was a gay eunuch. Jesus was anti-public prayer, anti-capitalism, and believed in the welfare state.
Any Christian that tells you otherwise does not know their religion.
SentientStone
Member
Wow, this thread is going strong. I guess people do take religion-talk seriously still. ;p
My major complaint on a lot of atheists (gnostic atheists is how I define atheists, judging by that chart) is that the ones I see on television or know in real life tend to see their atheistic ideology as something that gives their lives significant meaning or makes them somehow superior to theists. This is the beef I have with atheists (again, gnostic atheists), and is the same that Neil has. It is like a religion to them, taking pride in calling themselves 'atheists' just to be part of what media portrays as the 'hip thing' to be (thank you Daily Show, etc.).
My major complaint on a lot of atheists (gnostic atheists is how I define atheists, judging by that chart) is that the ones I see on television or know in real life tend to see their atheistic ideology as something that gives their lives significant meaning or makes them somehow superior to theists. This is the beef I have with atheists (again, gnostic atheists), and is the same that Neil has. It is like a religion to them, taking pride in calling themselves 'atheists' just to be part of what media portrays as the 'hip thing' to be (thank you Daily Show, etc.).
Agnostic doesn't mean "I don't care". If all he wanted to say is he doesn't care, he should say he doesn't care. That isn't all he wants to say though. Did you actually watch the video? I am not the one who lacks understanding here.
onadesertedisland
Member
Can anyone point to a "gnostic" atheist? This shit is starting to get stupid like the whole macro/micro evolution shit creationists vomit out.
Rich Uncle Skeleton
Member
I did read the full context. I agree that he's avoiding the term to distance himself from the most vocal/obnoxious members of the group. That's why soul creator's sarcastic remark was so spot on.
I commented because you said it was an embarrassment for a scientist of his stature to be an atheist, which seems to me a value judgment on your part, not just a description of his position. Was I wrong? Also, I thought it was strange to imply that being a scientist would somehow make it more embarrassing to be atheist, when the proportion of scientists who are atheists dwarfs that of the general population.
Who said anything about Jesus? Leviticus is the word of God, not Jesus, unless you're Catholic in which case they're one and the same.
how about actively disbelieve in the existence of unicrons then?
Yet his goal is to protect his image. I'm sure he knows very well that he's an agnostic atheist, as are the majority of atheists that aren't assholes. Yet instead, he chooses to claim that he has no affiliation with atheism in any sense, which implies to the uninformed viewer that he is entirely unsure on the situation. His misrepresenting himself is the issue.
Here is where you're wrong, at least from my experience:
For people who know little to none about how these terms work, the assumption is that it's possible for there to be a middle ground between believing and not believing like GrotesqueBeauty thinks there is. A magical nonexistent safe zone in which nobody is offended or takes sides. This is where Tyson is trying to place himself, because it satisfies everyone and says nothing.
onadesertedisland
Member
He will eat your moonbase.
soul creator
Member
While I can understand the exasperation that can come along with having to correct/fight against misconceptions, it's been shown time and time again that being "out" and yes, even "angry" is a huge part of what actually pushes things forward, and makes society more accepting, as opposed to trying to hide from it. Pretty much any other "minority" movement throughout history has had a strong "angry" side. Of course, that doesn't mean every single person has to be as "angry" as others, but there's a way to express that in a way that doesn't involve completely avoiding the issue, especially since the "angry" ones and the "apathetic" ones ultimately share similar goals.
I suppose you can see it as sort of the good cop/bad cop metaphor, except the "good cop" is pretending like the "bad cop" is no longer a worthy part of the team, which is part of why some are bothered by NDT's comments. If he said something like "atheism is the correct term for my specific stance on god, but I identify myself as a scientist first and foremost" that would be accurate and straightforward, and would avoid coming off as being "ashamed" of those who actually support the same goals he has.
Feeding into the misconception that atheism requires you to be a angry raging political activist who hates religious people doesn't help, just like feeding into the misconception that being gay requires you to be an effeminate hairdresser who just didn't meet the right woman didn't help the world become more accepting of gays.
edit: this discussion is very reminiscent of discussions about Obama and the "Left". It's pretty much the same exact concept. It's like how Obama doesn't need to be a raging leftist himself, but he also shouldn't pretend like having leftist political beliefs always means you're some sort of dirty hippie who should never be taken seriously.
Socreges said:
what's "fundamentally" different about God is the social pressure surrounding it (and the current stigma in some societies against those who don't believe in it, hence the whole point of this thread), as opposed to anything unique in the concept itself. Never mind the fact that most proposed gods throughout history are in fact closer to flying spaghetti monsters, than they are to vague, unexplainable forces.
speculawyer
Member
You have link to that thread? I doubt more than few people did such a thing.
And once again, 'atheist' is being defined by the behavior of one or two people. If a black/jew/mexican/gay guy commits a crime does that mean all black/jew/mexican/gay people are bad?
I got a couple things to say:
First, Leviticus is part of the Hebrew Bible establishing some of the Jewish Laws which were abolished by Christ. If you are a Christian you do not believe the Hebrew Bible as scripture.
Second, Leviticus does not discuss homosexuality. It is talking about the Tabernacle in Leviticus where male prostitutes acted as sex slaves and was telling the Jews to not participate in their cultist rituals.
Many Christians will take verses from Leviticus that are mis-translated or taken out of context to try to say God believes homosexuality is not okay, but they are just ignorant, bigoted, and/or trying to serve their own agenda.
That's why in my original post I said the US would be much better off if Christians actually understood their religion. If they actually followed what their almighty Jesus said and did this country would be a progressive, socially just nation.
onadesertedisland
Member
Or if religion stayed out of government. Maybe that.
staticneuron
Member
I understand but when a word has been used in a specific manner for hundreds of years and every definition you can look up tells you what the word currently means then there should be no confusion about it.
Take for instance the word nice. Originally it came from the latin word nescire (not to know) so back then calling people nice was a way of calling them ignorant. Of course the meaning has changed totally since then, thanks to what ever perversions we put the term through, but the issue is, that if I starting using the term nice nowadays to describe ignorant people, I am going to find myself at odds with others and lambasted by English scholars. Language evolves over time and we always talk about the current context. Trust me, our conversations as a whole would take on a different slant if one of us decided to use words by their original meaning as defined hundreds of years ago.
Fact remains is that the current meaning of gnosticism and basically the only on that has been recognized by the past few hundred years is the one that describes a set of ancient religious beliefs.
What if he doesn't like the label? Does he owe society anything in regards to what he calls his religious belief?
There'd be a lot of people who call themselves atheists who would be shoved into your definition of "agnostic" then.
Where's that Judith Butler article about identity someone posted a while back? People need to check their urge to put individuals into groups.
That's what I want... I'm not advocating for religion in gov't.. just trying to show that religion itself isn't inherently bad.
The way people interpret and twist religion to suit their needs is bad.
Ideally, we could act free of our personal beliefs, but I'll believe that when I see it.
SentientStone
Member
Also, I think those who openly calls themselves "atheists" is what causes a lot of negatively for me in regards to the term. Most people who do not believe in the existence of God or gods, do not openly state and claim they are "atheists" like it's something special. Neil is just pointing out the negativity of those who do openly and proudly wear the "atheist" label because most of the times they are closed-minded and annoying with the way they preach their beliefs like a religion.
But that isn't the meaning of the base term the man added an a prefix to when he coined the term agnostic. He wasn't referring to a lack of ancient religious beliefs, but a lack of knowledge.
- Status