Explanation of a binary concept. Could have been anything to get the point across. The only way you could see that as a false analogy is if you think there is something between believing and not believing, in which case you'd be wrong.
-
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
Explanation of a binary concept. Could have been anything to get the point across. The only way you could see that as a false analogy is if you think there is something between believing and not believing, in which case you'd be wrong.
Oppo
Member
technically black and white are both shades. a tint is different.
i'm sorry i couldn't help myself
Steve Youngblood
Member
That's fine. However, from where I'm sitting, all I'm stating is that I don't really understand the importance of this particular battleground. After watching the video, I don't see why it aids the discussion to disagree with Neil DeGrasse Tyson's self-ascribed label and definition of atheists and go "No! He's clearly an atheist since he doesn't believe!"
Again, my assertion is that I don't understand why it's useful to create these groupings when, apparently, the person who says "I believe there is no God, but I can't know for sure" and the person who says "There may be a God, but I neither know nor care" fall into the same Agnostic Atheist category. Clearly, they're not the same, yet we are arguing that these definitions are better.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here but you seem confused. A 4 is perfectly agnostic because a 4 neither believes nor disbelieves.
According to me, a 5 is an agnostic who holds slightly more atheistic values than theistic values. But the definition of atheist did not change. The term atheist is still someone who does not believe.
As for your dictionary definition, that's just a semantic argument. If you believe there is no god, then you lack a belief in a god. If you lack a belief in a god, you believe there is no god. I suppose you can make the argument that one of those definitions has a noncognitive slant but that's really irrelevant.
cutmeamango
Banned
I'd suggest you to read my posts again before spewing utter bullshits about my grasp and struggles!
If anything, I'm the only one who can accept multiple definitions here!
EDIT: I mean, I haven't even entered this discussion of which definition is THE correct and why and how! I'm dumbfounded here.
They aren't the same, and nobody is arguing that. Same as my last response to this. Person A states a position on belief and knowledge. Person B states a position on knowledge. The thing is, people like Person B don't know the difference between the two. They end up thinking that they're answering both. GrotesqueBeauty is a prime example of this. This is where Tyson messed up, he answered a question of belief with a position of knowledge in the hopes that he's satisfy a generally uninformed audience.
No argument from me. What relevance does that have to what you quoted?
Steve Youngblood
Member
But what I'm suggesting is that the insistence on theism and atheism being diametrically opposed (i.e. the "you're one or the other" binary debate) will lead to the conclusion that the I don't know and I don't have much of an opinion person to fall into the atheist camp once you press forward with the assertion that agnosticism isn't about belief. And I'm just arguing that I don't ultimately understand the benefit of this insistence, aside from leading to a largely inconsequential debate about the meaning of words.
Furthermore, I don't think it's ultimately that beneficial to try and separate out belief and knowledge, here. Knowledge and interest in the subject are what inform belief.
Dawkin's scale is a gnostic spectrum, not a theist spectrum. You CANNOT have a theist spectrum because there are only two choices: you either believe or you don't. Now depending on how much knowledge you claim is attainable towards believing, that puts your in either 1 to 7.
The key to this is to realize that there aren't more than two terms for believing. You are either a completely gnostic THEIST, or an agnostic THEIST, or apathetic, or an agnostic ATHEIST, or a gnostic ATHEIST.
The degree of gnosticism is what varies from full blown gnostic to apathetic to agnostic. There is no variation in theism by the rules of logic: you either believe or you don't.
The key to this is to realize that there aren't more than two terms for believing. You are either a completely gnostic THEIST, or an agnostic THEIST, or apathetic, or an agnostic ATHEIST, or a gnostic ATHEIST.
The degree of gnosticism is what varies from full blown gnostic to apathetic to agnostic. There is no variation in theism by the rules of logic: you either believe or you don't.
frankthurk
Member
1) I believe there is a god.
2) I believe there is no god.
3) I am open to either possibility and lacking proof choose not to decide/believe either case.
There are more than 2 states.
It's not an insistence, it's how our language works. Theism and atheism are indeed diametrically opposed. They measure only one thing: whether or not you believe in a god.
Once that's decided you can go ahead and use other words to describe the degree to which you believe, whether you feel it is possible to know that a god exists, etc., but those words are ultimately applied to either theist or atheist (though they are not required to be) because that's how we define them and use them to get a more complete picture of a person's position.
If it's a spectrum you want, then don't use theism or atheism, because they're nowhere near specific enough to provide what you're looking for. For some reason people tend to think they are, or put them on their own invented spectrum, but that's not how those words work and anyone who tells you otherwise is misinformed or lying.
They are separated because the position on them is defined by different words. I agree that they influence each other in some way, and that's why they're often presented together, such as "agnoistic atheist" or "gnostic theist." They work together to better describe a person, but they don't require each other to make sense.
Read the above.
No there isn't. Either you have a belief in god or you do not. Believing there is no god requires you lack a belief in god and therefore there is no conflict. Waiting for more information means you lack a belief which, again, does not conflict. 0 or 1. Nothing in between.
Something in between? No. Belief isn't binary. It's variable. It can oscillate.
Belief/lack of belief in a deity is incomparable to being pregnant/not being pregnant.
Belief/lack of belief is an abstraction. Pregnancy is a biological state.
If two fundamentally dissimilar concepts are analogized, it results in a false analogy.
Steve Youngblood
Member
But that's often not how people use the terms. That's what I'm getting at. Many people see the terms as theism = "I believe in God(s)" and atheism = "I believe there are no gods." These definitions do allow for a middle ground. Now, there is an assertion out there that this is not correct. That the correct definition is theism = "I believe in God(s)" and atheism = "everyone else."
And based on a love of strict definition of language, I guess I'm okay with it. However, I personally don't see it as a terribly important distinction. This is something that I've only really started noticing over the last couple of years, and as I said, it's a battle I don't find terribly important. That's all I'm getting at.
A person is pregnant or they are not(I'm talking in a discussion level of biology here, the exact topic is inconsequential) just as a person either believes in god or they do not. It is binary. I'm sorry, but it is. What you believe specifically about that god makes no difference in this context.
Do you believe in a god? Yes - theist, no - atheist. Easy, simple and straightforward.
Wat. Both can be either one or the other. Binary. Binary things can be variable too. Can you turn a light switch on and off? Is it still binary?
Those definitions are exactly the same. As soon as you're not saying "I believe in God(s)" you're not a theist. We agree on this, right? The definition of atheist is... not a theist. Simple as that. Any other definition of atheist is wrong, wrong, wrong. I can only assume that people didn't learn how prefixes work and need to go back to school.
I don't agree with that. I think that belief and disbelief exist on a continuum, and the point at which you can say that someone believes in a deity isn't concrete, nor is the point at which you say someone lacks that belief.
How do you measure belief? Is it something that remains consistent? What if someone believes strongly on a Monday but believes weakly by Wednesday, and by Friday they don't believe at all, but by Monday they're back to that baseline level. Do you say that person believes or not?
I don't think belief is binary in the same way that I don't believe there can only be one pronunciation of a word or one shade of blue. You don't say something is either blue or not blue. The concept of blue is an abstraction, much like belief. There are different shades, and nobody can fully decide at what point the color ceases to be blue and begins to be black.
I cannot apply concrete conclusions to abstract variables.
Don't you notice how you keep comparing something that is abstract to something that isn't to try and make a point? Don't you see why I would say that's a false analogy?
What you think defines what a belief is has nothing to do with what words mean. We're not even close to the level of arguing philosophy. I really don't care for that. All we're saying is that what you put the letter "a" at the beginning of "theist" it means you're not a theist. Everyone who doesn't get that is missing the point. Anything else is your opinion.
cutmeamango
Banned
Not enough MuseManMike explaining its (wrong) one liners!
The semantics of a word have everything to do with my meaning of a word, actually.
Who is the "we" in that sentence?
You're turning atheism into an umbrella for many other terms like apatheism, agnosticism, pantheism, deism, misotheism, and the like.
Is your opinion above mine?
tfur
Member
I agree. I also find the binary operator "truth test" to be a bit weak.
I tend to think these systems can exist in a fashion similar quantum superposition.
We'll use a traditional 0/1 binary system for a minute. Having no belief will be represented by 0, having any belief at all will be 1. A little belief is 1. A lot of belief is 1. The only thing that is 0 is a complete lack of belief.
"We" as in KHarvey16 and myself because we're the ones you're replying to and we're the ones making the binary argument.
Are you implying that adding the prefix "a" to the word "theist" means something other than "atheist"? Whether or not it's an umbrella for anything else is entirely irrelevant.
Well if that's how you want to do it, then fine. But you'd also be uncertain of where the gauge is at any moment in time (0 or 1), so you'd fall back on agnosticism. Unless you as the individual are always performing a metacognitive check on that variable on a regular basis. In which case, I would say there are much bigger problems.
If it was irrelevant, then Tyson would have no problem using the term to identify himself. Clearly, it is relevant. A de facto usage of the term "atheism" must have been so negative in its connotation that Tyson didn't want to associate with it.
Anyway, we're getting off track. I don't think belief is binary, you and KHarvey think it is, and there's probably someone who will skim by this who won't take either position, so it doesn't really matter. Good day to you.
The word isn't meant to inform you about those things. This gets back to what I was saying before - understanding requires an actual dialogue no matter what word we try to use. Attempts to fit a specific word to specific sets of complex beliefs and ideas is counter productive.
Isn't that what you were doing this whole time? Trying to fit the words theism and atheism on to beliefs so complex they couldn't be described in a single word?
Sigh... whatever. I'm done.
I'm referring to this post.
I read your posts slightly out of context, but we've had this discussion before. Agreeing upon what one deems as the normal or accepted definition isn't as easy as it used to be. Since the New Atheist movement there have been many vocal dissenters that argue the very existence of the word -- let alone what it "means." If one wishes to attribute the definition of atheist or agnostic to traditionally non-philosophical definitions -- so be it. I have no quarrels with such semantics. Arguments should be gauged by the definition provided. That being said, though I agree with your sentiment (that there is a more traditional philosophical definition; in fact it's necessary for philosophical texts), I just think that it is important to realize that incongruity existed between even classical scholars. Some of the discussion in this thread is fallacious in nature and agendas are being argued in bad faith, but I wouldn't label certain perspectives as etymologically wrong or right (some just function better in certain contexts). No one here is attempting to get published.
What the fuck? No, that's exactly the opposite. The argument was that people thought the words atheism, theism, agnosticism, and gnosticism meant more than they actually did, and as a result were using them incorrectly.
Did you read the thread at all? What's actually happening is it's proving that his point is barely valid and is based on generalizations, assumptions, and misinformation. It's borderline offensive.
No! The only thing I(and others!) want atheism to describe is a lack of belief, that's it. All this other baggage is being added by others. If someone says they are an atheist it means they currently have no active belief in a god. Do they believe god doesn't exist? Are they spiritual? Do they like long walks on the beach? I have no idea, and the word isn't supposed to tell you those things. It has a specific meaning.
cutmeamango
Banned
Well considering what etymology entails some definitions don't pertain to the construction, origins, and usage through time of the word. But I wasn't trying to cast them as wrong.
I was 'confronting' those that were saying the original/philosophical definitions were incorrect, pointing that these 'new definitions' aren't incorrect either.
Then it was presented the argument of morphology, which I addressed but still maintaining notion that even if these new definitions don't hold up morphologically they are still valid linguistically. After all the use of words change and interpretation of concepts change.
I just defended that these words were 'crafted' with a philosophical purpose, and they hold meaning as such for centuries, so it is expected that if someone is willing to discuss it, they are aware of it.
But then even agnosticism was said to be used wrong by Neil deGrasse so all this discussion lost purpose.
The Faceless Master
Member
do you believe that you're pregnant?
Can't tell if serious.
The choice of the analogy is irrelevant.
Belief is a more abstract concept that pregnancy, yes. But it is still a binary choice. You cannot "believe a little bit." The instant you believe, you believe. Just like you cannot be "a little bit pregnant." You can however have different strengths of belief, and this strength is modulated by how much knowledge you have. You can also not be sure what to believe. This doesn't mean that there is a third form of believing. It only means that YOU don't know what choice to make, perhaps because you see strong evidence to believe both ways. However, the choice is still binary.
If I tell you that your wife is cheating on you right now, you can't "believe a little bit." You either believe it, or you don't. Now say for example that your wife has been faithful for years and you have never seen her cheat. You will believe strongly that she is not cheating because of your knowledge. Your belief is not changing. However, the strength of your belief is. Now say your wife was a loose woman in college. You may still believe that she is not cheating, but you may not be as sure about your belief, or you might not be sure what to believe if you have enough knowledge to support both positions.
Colbert's definition is best definition.
crazy monkey
Banned
As a religious person fun thread to read.
The choice of the analogy is very relevant, sir. If one is trying to get a point across, the efficacy of his communication hinges on the strength/relevancy of that analogy.
I want to thank you for making it abundantly clear that engaging in debates about semantics on an internet forum was a completely stupid idea.
The only thing better than a thread of atheists shitting on religion is a thread of atheists shitting on agnostics. :lol
Kinda hard to shit on myself. Now you've made it clear that you didn't read the thread.
NullPointer
Member
Hey, thanks for that. Was feeling like I was just talking to myself in this thread.
The analogy was perfectly fine. It was meant to compare the binary nature of the two. If I say the water was as smooth as glass, you can't tell me it's a stupid analogy because water is hydrogen and oxygen and glass is made of silica. The comparison is specific and obvious, just as it was with pregnancy and belief in god. You have it or you don't, there is nothing in between.
Nice quick edit. Though I did.. but this thread is entirely too amusing than it should be. So much irony going on, but i'll just leave it at that.
cutmeamango
Banned
I'm going to guess that you think the irony comes from the same problem that I've been trying to address the whole time - that there's this group of people called agnostics that are neither theists nor atheists. No such thing.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
This entire thread is a sad testament to the great point Neil was making. Like moths to a lamp.
That people who don't have a great concept of what atheism means tend to assume that they're all dickheads? I'd much rather we show the general population that not all atheists suck than start calling myself something that doesn't accurately describe who I am to break the association. Isn't that what this entire thread is about anyway? Not really sure what you're getting at.
soul creator
Member
Personally, I try to avoid using the label "Theory of Evolution" to describe gradual biological change via natural selection and random mutation, because of all that controversy around the idea. As soon as you say "evolution", you get people assuming that you hate humanity, and want to kill off old people due to survival of the fittest. And that we're all nihilists who come from monkeys, and there's no reason to live. I obviously don't agree with that, so why would I ever use the phrase Theory of Evolution?
I use "Theory of Small Hereditary Tweaks and Fixes Over Like Millions Of Years And Shit" instead. Please don't lump me in with those evilutionists.
I use "Theory of Small Hereditary Tweaks and Fixes Over Like Millions Of Years And Shit" instead. Please don't lump me in with those evilutionists.
- Status