So, This God, It Vibrates?
September 28, 2009 11:41 AM Subscribe
What kind of God do you not believe in?
In this thread a quotation from a noted American theologian has become of interest:
When I meet somebody who says, “I don’t believe in God,” I say, “Describe the God you don’t believe in. I probably don’t believe in that God either.”
For the benefit of those people who do believe in a God of some kind and often wax eloquent about that God's characteristics, I would like to know precisely what form the God you don't believe in takes.
The old bearded man in the sky? A divine child-abuser? Anything anthropomorphic at all?
At the risk of chatfilter, if you don't believe in a god, please describe the God you don't believe in and explain why.
In this thread a quotation from a noted American theologian has become of interest:
When I meet somebody who says, “I don’t believe in God,” I say, “Describe the God you don’t believe in. I probably don’t believe in that God either.”
For the benefit of those people who do believe in a God of some kind and often wax eloquent about that God's characteristics, I would like to know precisely what form the God you don't believe in takes.
The old bearded man in the sky? A divine child-abuser? Anything anthropomorphic at all?
At the risk of chatfilter, if you don't believe in a god, please describe the God you don't believe in and explain why.
This post was deleted for the following reason: chatfilter. -- jessamyn
I don't even know how to begin to answer this question. There is no specific god that i reject. I reject the very concept of a god -- anything omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient -- or purporting to be. Anything immortal. Anything with Zeus-like super-powers. Any suggestion that there is a super-race of people-like things. I don't know how to be more specific than that.
posted by brainmouse at 11:46 AM on September 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by brainmouse at 11:46 AM on September 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'm a strong atheist. You name a God, and I don't believe in him.
posted by box at 11:46 AM on September 28, 2009 [13 favorites]
posted by box at 11:46 AM on September 28, 2009 [13 favorites]
Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
And yeah, as an atheist, I don't believe in anything. Whatever else is "out there" is waiting to be explained by science (recognizing that we'll never get all of it because we don't have an infinite amount of time).
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 11:47 AM on September 28, 2009 [16 favorites]
And yeah, as an atheist, I don't believe in anything. Whatever else is "out there" is waiting to be explained by science (recognizing that we'll never get all of it because we don't have an infinite amount of time).
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 11:47 AM on September 28, 2009 [16 favorites]
This question seems like unanswerable chatfilter, but the following quote seems to apply... so, what the heck...
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Sir Stephen Henry Roberts
posted by 2oh1 at 11:48 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Sir Stephen Henry Roberts
posted by 2oh1 at 11:48 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Oooh, I like Inspector.Gadget's answer better than mine. Can I change?
posted by brainmouse at 11:48 AM on September 28, 2009
posted by brainmouse at 11:48 AM on September 28, 2009
I don't believe that there is any supernatural force actively or passively controlling any aspect of what happens on Earth or in the rest of the universe.
posted by cider at 11:48 AM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by cider at 11:48 AM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm pretty sure this is still chatfilter. From the FAQs: "...if your motivation for asking the question is 'I would like to participate in a discussion about X,' then you shouldn't be doing it in AskMe. If your motivation is 'I would like others to explain X to me,' then you're probably OK."
posted by runningwithscissors at 11:48 AM on September 28, 2009
posted by runningwithscissors at 11:48 AM on September 28, 2009
I don't believe in any God that has any control over, interest in, or effect upon, anything.
posted by dirtdirt at 11:49 AM on September 28, 2009
posted by dirtdirt at 11:49 AM on September 28, 2009
D'oh! Inspector.Gadget beat me to it.
I don't believe in any form of deity. I don't even believe in atheism.
I believe in me. And I will believe in you (until I'm given a reason not to, of course).
posted by 2oh1 at 11:50 AM on September 28, 2009
I don't believe in any form of deity. I don't even believe in atheism.
I believe in me. And I will believe in you (until I'm given a reason not to, of course).
posted by 2oh1 at 11:50 AM on September 28, 2009
"Describe the God you don’t believe in."
Please list for me all of the numbers that do not satisfy this equation: x + 1 = 2
But seriously, this is the kind of idiotic question that Christian evangelists ask when they're trying to drag somebody into a theological debate. Flagged as chatfilter.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 11:50 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Please list for me all of the numbers that do not satisfy this equation: x + 1 = 2
But seriously, this is the kind of idiotic question that Christian evangelists ask when they're trying to drag somebody into a theological debate. Flagged as chatfilter.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 11:50 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't believe in any god that will stop this question from being deleted.
posted by sanko at 11:51 AM on September 28, 2009
posted by sanko at 11:51 AM on September 28, 2009
Yeah, I'm with brainmouse. Let me rephrase this question.
I say, "I don't believe in Santa Claus". How is, "Tell me what kind of Santa Claus you don't believe in" a rational and respectful response? I don't believe in any kind of Santa Claus, or St. Nick, or Pere Noel, etc. etc. etc.
Here's a catch-22 for you. The only kind of god-like being I could believe in is one that can have no tangible effect on the physical world. No miracles. No answers to prayers. No great watchmaker who sets the universe in motion. No gods that will Durga into being. But since such a God could never make themselves known to us, there's no way for us to learn of its existence.
posted by muddgirl at 11:51 AM on September 28, 2009
I say, "I don't believe in Santa Claus". How is, "Tell me what kind of Santa Claus you don't believe in" a rational and respectful response? I don't believe in any kind of Santa Claus, or St. Nick, or Pere Noel, etc. etc. etc.
Here's a catch-22 for you. The only kind of god-like being I could believe in is one that can have no tangible effect on the physical world. No miracles. No answers to prayers. No great watchmaker who sets the universe in motion. No gods that will Durga into being. But since such a God could never make themselves known to us, there's no way for us to learn of its existence.
posted by muddgirl at 11:51 AM on September 28, 2009
Response by poster: I'm pretty sure this is still chatfilter. From the FAQs: "...if your motivation for asking the question is 'I would like to participate in a discussion about X,' then you shouldn't be doing it in AskMe. If your motivation is 'I would like others to explain X to me,' then you're probably OK."
I'm sure chatfilter is best left for the moderators to decide, but my motivation is genuinely B. I am assuming I know what people mean when they say they don't believe in God. I'm interested in rethinking that. Is "God" an old man in the sky? Or is "God" any metaphysical entity of any kind?
When an "atheist" is literally "without God"--what God are they without?
posted by jefficator at 11:51 AM on September 28, 2009
I'm sure chatfilter is best left for the moderators to decide, but my motivation is genuinely B. I am assuming I know what people mean when they say they don't believe in God. I'm interested in rethinking that. Is "God" an old man in the sky? Or is "God" any metaphysical entity of any kind?
When an "atheist" is literally "without God"--what God are they without?
posted by jefficator at 11:51 AM on September 28, 2009
This is such a presumptious, arrogant, and narcissistic way to frame a conversation about atheism. It places Christianity, as ever, at the center of the discussion, which is not the way most atheists conceive of their worldview. For me, the word God has been ejected from my philisophical schema. It has no bearing on how I think about the universe.
posted by martens at 11:53 AM on September 28, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by martens at 11:53 AM on September 28, 2009 [6 favorites]
Well, you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist who doesn't believe in only one type of god.
For me, the reason I walked away from Christianity was Occam's Razor. Either every tiny thing and action on and off the earth, ever, was either (depending on whether you believe in free will) planned in advance and/or noticed and recorded by some being, or things just happen and some matter, some don't. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't convince myself of something so outlandish.
Also, the idea that a god made all of existence because he was lonely. What?
posted by oinopaponton at 11:54 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
For me, the reason I walked away from Christianity was Occam's Razor. Either every tiny thing and action on and off the earth, ever, was either (depending on whether you believe in free will) planned in advance and/or noticed and recorded by some being, or things just happen and some matter, some don't. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't convince myself of something so outlandish.
Also, the idea that a god made all of existence because he was lonely. What?
posted by oinopaponton at 11:54 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
There's no such thing as an atheist. Science is as much a God as the Christian one.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:55 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:55 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: I once heard Steven Pinker say that God can't be used to explain the origin of the Big Bang because that simply replaces one inscrutable, seemingly irreducible idea with another inscrutable, irreducible idea. That was very interesting to me.
posted by jefficator at 11:56 AM on September 28, 2009
posted by jefficator at 11:56 AM on September 28, 2009
I do not believe in a compassionate god.
posted by milarepa at 11:56 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by milarepa at 11:56 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't believe that anything exists or occurs that cannot be entirely explained by physics, chemistry or other scientific theories and laws.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 11:56 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 11:56 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't believe in any god which responds to worship.
posted by Rash at 11:57 AM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Rash at 11:57 AM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
I don't think this is going to wendell.
I don't believe in mythical bearded guys wearing Birkenstocks and sitting on clouds, looking down at us and glaring everytime someone texts "OMG."
posted by jerseygirl at 11:59 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't believe in mythical bearded guys wearing Birkenstocks and sitting on clouds, looking down at us and glaring everytime someone texts "OMG."
posted by jerseygirl at 11:59 AM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Me: "I don’t believe in God."
You: "Describe the God you don’t believe in. I probably don’t believe in that God either."
Me: "Bless your little heart. Now, have you seen this thread?"
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:59 AM on September 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
You: "Describe the God you don’t believe in. I probably don’t believe in that God either."
Me: "Bless your little heart. Now, have you seen this thread?"
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:59 AM on September 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
As an orthodox Catholic, I'm not exactly sure how to answer this without sounding something like a Taoist.
Writers in the contemplative tradition (such as St. John of the Cross and Thomas Merton, who I've quoted here before) have done a better job than I ever could.
posted by jquinby at 12:01 PM on September 28, 2009
Writers in the contemplative tradition (such as St. John of the Cross and Thomas Merton, who I've quoted here before) have done a better job than I ever could.
posted by jquinby at 12:01 PM on September 28, 2009
My disbelief in many of the things called "god" stems from my view of humanity as being unremarkable in the grand scheme of things. So any sort of "personal" deity - a being that has human characteristics or devotes any sort of attention (which, while we're at it, is a very human sort of thing to do) to human affairs is prima facie absurd.
This knocks out a fair number of the things labeled God - what remains (Spinoza, for instance) I generally take a dim view of due to the general association with metaphysics, which I see as extending language past it's breaking points.
posted by phrontist at 12:01 PM on September 28, 2009
This knocks out a fair number of the things labeled God - what remains (Spinoza, for instance) I generally take a dim view of due to the general association with metaphysics, which I see as extending language past it's breaking points.
posted by phrontist at 12:01 PM on September 28, 2009
"When an "atheist" is literally "without God"--what God are they without?"
All of them. Any sort of metaphysical entity.
posted by CrystalDave at 12:02 PM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
All of them. Any sort of metaphysical entity.
posted by CrystalDave at 12:02 PM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
When an "atheist" is literally "without God"--what God are they without?
E. All of the above.
Is "God" an old man in the sky? Or is "God" any metaphysical entity of any kind?
Could be. I personally doubt the existence of any metaphysical entities at all, so that has me covered. This includes buddah, krishna, native american spirits, jesus, ghosts, karma, past lives, etc.
posted by anti social order at 12:03 PM on September 28, 2009
E. All of the above.
Is "God" an old man in the sky? Or is "God" any metaphysical entity of any kind?
Could be. I personally doubt the existence of any metaphysical entities at all, so that has me covered. This includes buddah, krishna, native american spirits, jesus, ghosts, karma, past lives, etc.
posted by anti social order at 12:03 PM on September 28, 2009
Describe the God you don’t believe in.
That's like saying "Describe the monster that isn't under the bed." If there's no God, then there's no way to describe him/her/it. He/she/it simply doesn't exist.
posted by amyms at 12:03 PM on September 28, 2009 [5 favorites]
That's like saying "Describe the monster that isn't under the bed." If there's no God, then there's no way to describe him/her/it. He/she/it simply doesn't exist.
posted by amyms at 12:03 PM on September 28, 2009 [5 favorites]
I don't believe that anything exists or occurs that cannot be entirely explained by physics, chemistry or other scientific theories and laws.
While I appreciate what you're trying to get at here, it comes across as naive scientism.
posted by phrontist at 12:03 PM on September 28, 2009
While I appreciate what you're trying to get at here, it comes across as naive scientism.
posted by phrontist at 12:03 PM on September 28, 2009
I don't believe in any supernatural entity. That includes Zeus, and Mithras, and Ashur, and Quetzalcoatl, and Jehova, and Zoroaster, and, sadly, also Santa. Basically, everyone on this list. Humans have come up with a lot of gods.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:06 PM on September 28, 2009
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:06 PM on September 28, 2009
I think most conventional definitions would suggest that any metaphysical entity is probably too broad for God. With all due respect to the Biggest Spook, you could believe in, say, a ghost without having a God present.
The Big G denotes not just a specific entity, but one near the top of the food chain of metaphysical entities. Even if you're a Manichean or Gnostic who believes that the material world created by the blind demiurge Samael (himself created by Sophia), the Big G is, well, big.
As to the specific form, it is a multitude of potentialities from silly to grim — at the same time I do not believe in a God who has in his armies the Angel Poindexter (Unto him is given majesty over electric light switches and all things puce. The first few thousand years were pretty dull, and a little gross, but just as soon as things picked up, the Clapper, disturbing in his sight, came along). At the same time, I am also not believing in Mister Smitey, Who Loves Us Pretty Harshly, I am not a sinner held up by an angry God. A little bit less do I not believe in a God who, in an attempt to really think things through about what a perfect world might be like, is thinking us; all our suffering is the hypothesis of someone trying to consider the implications of a Universe just like this one. Another God is either impotent or apathetic; disbelieving in Him is not so much an effort as a recognition that this God is indistinguishable from no God at all.
The list, I assure you, is very long. Perhaps nine billion names' worth.
posted by adipocere at 12:06 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
The Big G denotes not just a specific entity, but one near the top of the food chain of metaphysical entities. Even if you're a Manichean or Gnostic who believes that the material world created by the blind demiurge Samael (himself created by Sophia), the Big G is, well, big.
As to the specific form, it is a multitude of potentialities from silly to grim — at the same time I do not believe in a God who has in his armies the Angel Poindexter (Unto him is given majesty over electric light switches and all things puce. The first few thousand years were pretty dull, and a little gross, but just as soon as things picked up, the Clapper, disturbing in his sight, came along). At the same time, I am also not believing in Mister Smitey, Who Loves Us Pretty Harshly, I am not a sinner held up by an angry God. A little bit less do I not believe in a God who, in an attempt to really think things through about what a perfect world might be like, is thinking us; all our suffering is the hypothesis of someone trying to consider the implications of a Universe just like this one. Another God is either impotent or apathetic; disbelieving in Him is not so much an effort as a recognition that this God is indistinguishable from no God at all.
The list, I assure you, is very long. Perhaps nine billion names' worth.
posted by adipocere at 12:06 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
There's no such thing as an atheist. Science is as much a God as the Christian one.
There is no such thing as a non-sports-fan. Stamp collecting is as much a sport as football.
posted by phrontist at 12:07 PM on September 28, 2009 [6 favorites]
There is no such thing as a non-sports-fan. Stamp collecting is as much a sport as football.
posted by phrontist at 12:07 PM on September 28, 2009 [6 favorites]
Response by poster: The Big G denotes not just a specific entity, but one near the top of the food chain of metaphysical entities. Even if you're a Manichean or Gnostic who believes that the material world created by the blind demiurge Samael (himself created by Sophia), the Big G is, well, big.
So in another post over there about Evolution and God, the argument was made that Dawkins opposes God. Armstrong made a feeble argument that God is really just a sort of positive force. Does that "count"--a nameless, faceless entity effecting positivity in the universe?
Can you be an atheist and believe in something metaphysical? Or is it the same?
posted by jefficator at 12:10 PM on September 28, 2009
So in another post over there about Evolution and God, the argument was made that Dawkins opposes God. Armstrong made a feeble argument that God is really just a sort of positive force. Does that "count"--a nameless, faceless entity effecting positivity in the universe?
Can you be an atheist and believe in something metaphysical? Or is it the same?
posted by jefficator at 12:10 PM on September 28, 2009
This is prima facie ridiculous. There are an infinite, innumerable number of things that don't exist. It's like asking how many of the negative numbers greater than zero are prime.
I say, “Describe the God you don’t believe in. I probably don’t believe in that God either.”
This is such a ridiculous logical fallacy it's hard to know where to begin. For example, I claim that there do not exist any pots of gold guarded by leprechauns at the end of any rainbow. "Describe this pot of gold you don't believe in. I probably don't believe it in either" isn't a constructive argument because the amount of specificity here is arbitrarily large to the point of absurdity. Does the pot of gold contain an even or odd number of coins? Does its weight, measured in kilograms, end in a 3? Does the pot of gold exist at a latitude shared by a state capital? At any point where you describe a pot of gold which the claimant believes exists, they can ask for another measure which will eventually describe some other pot of gold which they don't believe in.
posted by 0xFCAF at 12:10 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
I say, “Describe the God you don’t believe in. I probably don’t believe in that God either.”
This is such a ridiculous logical fallacy it's hard to know where to begin. For example, I claim that there do not exist any pots of gold guarded by leprechauns at the end of any rainbow. "Describe this pot of gold you don't believe in. I probably don't believe it in either" isn't a constructive argument because the amount of specificity here is arbitrarily large to the point of absurdity. Does the pot of gold contain an even or odd number of coins? Does its weight, measured in kilograms, end in a 3? Does the pot of gold exist at a latitude shared by a state capital? At any point where you describe a pot of gold which the claimant believes exists, they can ask for another measure which will eventually describe some other pot of gold which they don't believe in.
posted by 0xFCAF at 12:10 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Can you be an atheist and believe in something metaphysical?
This is a much better question. I do not believe in anything metaphysical, but I don't discount the possibility, and would love to know if anyone here considers him/herself an atheist while maintaing a belief in the supernatural.
posted by martens at 12:15 PM on September 28, 2009
This is a much better question. I do not believe in anything metaphysical, but I don't discount the possibility, and would love to know if anyone here considers him/herself an atheist while maintaing a belief in the supernatural.
posted by martens at 12:15 PM on September 28, 2009
This is such a ridiculous logical fallacy it's hard to know where to begin.
The original quote, mentioned in the question, is clearly not meant to be any kind of logical claim. It simply makes the point — with which I agree — that a very large number of self-described atheists, including Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and many on Metafilter, make absolutely watertight arguments against certain definitions of the word "God", without apparently realizing that the definition they're attacking is, except perhaps in certain parts of the US in 2009, a rather idiosyncratic, uncommon, minority one.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 12:15 PM on September 28, 2009
The original quote, mentioned in the question, is clearly not meant to be any kind of logical claim. It simply makes the point — with which I agree — that a very large number of self-described atheists, including Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and many on Metafilter, make absolutely watertight arguments against certain definitions of the word "God", without apparently realizing that the definition they're attacking is, except perhaps in certain parts of the US in 2009, a rather idiosyncratic, uncommon, minority one.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 12:15 PM on September 28, 2009
Response by poster: Would that I could revise the question. I agree this is a better formulation.
posted by jefficator at 12:15 PM on September 28, 2009
posted by jefficator at 12:15 PM on September 28, 2009
I don't understand how you're still having issues grasping this. When I say I don't believe in god, I mean ANY god. Except science, as roomthreeseventeen helpfully pointed out.
Only science.
posted by InsanePenguin at 12:17 PM on September 28, 2009
Only science.
posted by InsanePenguin at 12:17 PM on September 28, 2009
I believe everyone has the right to their own definition of the word "god". There are many.
Gods I actively believe in:
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:18 PM on September 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
Gods I actively believe in:
- The Universe
- The Earth
- Existence, i.e. Nature
- Some kind of non-interacting creative force
- An infinite series of non-interacting creative forces some of which may bear some similarity to humans (i.e., simulation in a simulation, turtles all the way down)
- The god of the Bible
- The god of the Qu'ran
- The gods of the Vedas
- Bast
- Hades
- Frigga
- A single or finite group of gods which behave somewhat like humans and which enjoy being worshipped and hand out rewards and punishments accordingly
- The ever-living thetan of L Ron Hubbard
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:18 PM on September 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
I do not believe in anything metaphysical, but I don't discount the possibility
Personally I'd call that "agnostic," but hey...no skin off my nose what anyone wants to call themselves.
posted by JoanArkham at 12:18 PM on September 28, 2009
Personally I'd call that "agnostic," but hey...no skin off my nose what anyone wants to call themselves.
posted by JoanArkham at 12:18 PM on September 28, 2009
I don't believe in any god whatsoever. "God" is not a sufficient answer to anything. God can be a lot of things to a lot of people, but foremost he is put forth as the answer to why anything exists -- that is, for a believer, he's believed to be necessary because there must be a creator. I think that's an absurd idea because then the new question becomes where god came from, and the idea of sentience existing when nothing else yet exists doesn't explain anything whatsoever. Whatever scientific or mathematical answer there is to the question of existence will at least make some sense.
The concept of a god who is not a creator is extraneous and even more absurd than one that is a creator, so I trust I don't even need to get into that. Since there is no need for a creator, and furthermore because the very concept of a sentient creator is absurd, there's no point for an atheist to even worry about the rest of the characteristics people apply to god once they assume he exists. If you don't believe in a sentient creator, that's it. The speaker of the quote, when talking to a true atheist, would end up calling himself an atheist which clearly isn't his intent. The quote you provided doesn't have any insight into the atheist mindset whatsoever.
To throw you a bone here, agnostics often believe in or toy with the idea of a deist god. That is, a god who created everything and has no involvement in human affairs whatsoever. As such, there's no need to prescribe human characteristics to him, or morality. The quote you provided seems to speak more to deist agnostics than anything -- it seems to have in it an agreement that none of the gods described by religion make sense, but surely there must have been a creator -- or else people who just have vague distaste for the gods organized religions believe in and get on living their life without wasting time thinking about the details (a reasonable reaction, imo).
posted by Nattie at 12:20 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
The concept of a god who is not a creator is extraneous and even more absurd than one that is a creator, so I trust I don't even need to get into that. Since there is no need for a creator, and furthermore because the very concept of a sentient creator is absurd, there's no point for an atheist to even worry about the rest of the characteristics people apply to god once they assume he exists. If you don't believe in a sentient creator, that's it. The speaker of the quote, when talking to a true atheist, would end up calling himself an atheist which clearly isn't his intent. The quote you provided doesn't have any insight into the atheist mindset whatsoever.
To throw you a bone here, agnostics often believe in or toy with the idea of a deist god. That is, a god who created everything and has no involvement in human affairs whatsoever. As such, there's no need to prescribe human characteristics to him, or morality. The quote you provided seems to speak more to deist agnostics than anything -- it seems to have in it an agreement that none of the gods described by religion make sense, but surely there must have been a creator -- or else people who just have vague distaste for the gods organized religions believe in and get on living their life without wasting time thinking about the details (a reasonable reaction, imo).
posted by Nattie at 12:20 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: East Manitoba, that was very helpful to me. Thank you.
posted by jefficator at 12:20 PM on September 28, 2009
posted by jefficator at 12:20 PM on September 28, 2009
I don't believe in Beatles. I just believe in me.
posted by scody at 12:22 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by scody at 12:22 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
"Describe this pot of gold you don't believe in. I probably don't believe it in either" isn't a constructive argument because the amount of specificity here is arbitrarily large to the point of absurdity.
Seems to me that the point of the comment was to illustrate the absurdity, or possibly to say in another way, "There are an infinite number of gods that I don't believe in, because i believe in zero gods." It's not a constructive argument because it's not an argument; it's a statement.
Or as they say on slashdot: "Whoosh..."
posted by coolguymichael at 12:22 PM on September 28, 2009
Seems to me that the point of the comment was to illustrate the absurdity, or possibly to say in another way, "There are an infinite number of gods that I don't believe in, because i believe in zero gods." It's not a constructive argument because it's not an argument; it's a statement.
Or as they say on slashdot: "Whoosh..."
posted by coolguymichael at 12:22 PM on September 28, 2009
I don't believe in the sadistic fuck who lets babies get cancer while helping my mom win $10.00 on a scratch ticket.
Oh, and all the other ones too.
If you tell me you have an invisible pet dog, please do not ask me to tell you what color of dog you have that I don't believe you have.
posted by bondcliff at 12:24 PM on September 28, 2009 [5 favorites]
Oh, and all the other ones too.
If you tell me you have an invisible pet dog, please do not ask me to tell you what color of dog you have that I don't believe you have.
posted by bondcliff at 12:24 PM on September 28, 2009 [5 favorites]
I do not believe in anything metaphysical, but I don't discount the possibility
Personally I'd call that "agnostic," but hey...no skin off my nose what anyone wants to call themselves.
Yeah, I realized how that sounded only after I posted it (if only we could have magic, time-limited edits!). What I meant to say was that I don't believe in anything metaphysical, and I personally discount that such things are possible, but I don't discount that someone could believe in metaphysical things while still consdering him/herself an atheist.
posted by martens at 12:24 PM on September 28, 2009
Personally I'd call that "agnostic," but hey...no skin off my nose what anyone wants to call themselves.
Yeah, I realized how that sounded only after I posted it (if only we could have magic, time-limited edits!). What I meant to say was that I don't believe in anything metaphysical, and I personally discount that such things are possible, but I don't discount that someone could believe in metaphysical things while still consdering him/herself an atheist.
posted by martens at 12:24 PM on September 28, 2009
So either it's not supposed to be an argument because it's so obviously absurd, or it is supposed to be an argument because it shows why Dawkins et al are arguing against strawmen. Gotcha.
posted by 0xFCAF at 12:24 PM on September 28, 2009
posted by 0xFCAF at 12:24 PM on September 28, 2009
Serious overthinking going on here. The point of the original quote is that most of the atheists the theologian meets are arguing against a version of God that he doesn't believe in. Or more generally: most atheists don't understand what most theists mean by "God". That's all.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 12:26 PM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 12:26 PM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
I know of atheists who can postulate the supernatural. I know some who can believe in the Devil, but find God a stretch. And it is on the stretch that you might want to focus.
Again, the formation of God, which is pretty troubling, has a sense of great magnitude, even absolutism. God gets ascribed a lot of pinnacles of whatever quality folks like that day or century. The absolute formulation gives rise to some apparent contradictions that certainly are a starting point for many atheists and agnostics. Consider the old chestnut:
God is all powerful.
God is all good.
Terrible things happen
It's the "all" that is the source of much trouble. A deity who was mostly good, but maybe had some compliance issues with his meds is easier to sell than one who really loves us, honest, and, oh, cancer in two year olds. A loving, helpless Creator, who spun off the cosmos, now beyond even his reaching; we are so very far away that only his cries reach us as those moments when despair rises up like a horror movie ghoul: implacable, shocking, and defying explanation — I could maybe get behind that.
So much perfection and power glorified, though, is not easily reconciled against a world terribly different from these ideas, knowingly created with that Fate in mind ... that has never held together for me.
posted by adipocere at 12:27 PM on September 28, 2009
Again, the formation of God, which is pretty troubling, has a sense of great magnitude, even absolutism. God gets ascribed a lot of pinnacles of whatever quality folks like that day or century. The absolute formulation gives rise to some apparent contradictions that certainly are a starting point for many atheists and agnostics. Consider the old chestnut:
God is all powerful.
God is all good.
Terrible things happen
It's the "all" that is the source of much trouble. A deity who was mostly good, but maybe had some compliance issues with his meds is easier to sell than one who really loves us, honest, and, oh, cancer in two year olds. A loving, helpless Creator, who spun off the cosmos, now beyond even his reaching; we are so very far away that only his cries reach us as those moments when despair rises up like a horror movie ghoul: implacable, shocking, and defying explanation — I could maybe get behind that.
So much perfection and power glorified, though, is not easily reconciled against a world terribly different from these ideas, knowingly created with that Fate in mind ... that has never held together for me.
posted by adipocere at 12:27 PM on September 28, 2009
Missed this on preview:
To throw you a bone here, agnostics often believe in or toy with the idea of a deist god.
As a strong agnostic, I would dispute this. Some agnostics may be open to the possibility that some supernatural or metaphysical force may exist (even if such existence is unknowable or unprovable), but I don't think that's quite the same thing as often toying with deism.
posted by scody at 12:28 PM on September 28, 2009
To throw you a bone here, agnostics often believe in or toy with the idea of a deist god.
As a strong agnostic, I would dispute this. Some agnostics may be open to the possibility that some supernatural or metaphysical force may exist (even if such existence is unknowable or unprovable), but I don't think that's quite the same thing as often toying with deism.
posted by scody at 12:28 PM on September 28, 2009
game warden, I agree. Both with the quote itself and with your understanding of the question. But I'm not sure what good can come of this as an Ask Mefi question.
posted by roll truck roll at 12:29 PM on September 28, 2009
posted by roll truck roll at 12:29 PM on September 28, 2009
Response by poster: Scody, why would someone be a strong agnostic, but not an atheist?
posted by jefficator at 12:30 PM on September 28, 2009
posted by jefficator at 12:30 PM on September 28, 2009
but I don't think that's quite the same thing as often toying with deism.
Interesting question: what's toying? Is going to church toying? Is praying toying? I've seen agnostics do those things all by themselves.
posted by roll truck roll at 12:30 PM on September 28, 2009
Interesting question: what's toying? Is going to church toying? Is praying toying? I've seen agnostics do those things all by themselves.
posted by roll truck roll at 12:30 PM on September 28, 2009
I don't believe in a God who helps professional athletes win games. No, wait--I believe in him, but I don't like him.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 12:32 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 12:32 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't believe in any god in whose name a war has been waged, or people have been killed. Especially one who looks like a bearded white man who lives up in the sky.
posted by chez shoes at 12:34 PM on September 28, 2009
posted by chez shoes at 12:34 PM on September 28, 2009
In order to best answer the question, I would need to know the type of description sought. So I would ask Mr. Cox to describe the god(s) he doesn't believe in. Then I would say, "Yes, me too, all those. Plus the one you believe in."
After all, Mr. Cox -- and monotheists generally -- are atheistic with respect to N-1 deities posited by the historical record. I am simply atheistic with respect to N deities.
posted by milquetoast at 12:34 PM on September 28, 2009
After all, Mr. Cox -- and monotheists generally -- are atheistic with respect to N-1 deities posited by the historical record. I am simply atheistic with respect to N deities.
posted by milquetoast at 12:34 PM on September 28, 2009
As a strong agnostic, I would dispute this. Some agnostics may be open to the possibility that some supernatural or metaphysical force may exist (even if such existence is unknowable or unprovable), but I don't think that's quite the same thing as often toying with deism.
Er, that's why I worded it the way I did. Dunno what else I could have said to please you.
posted by Nattie at 12:36 PM on September 28, 2009
Er, that's why I worded it the way I did. Dunno what else I could have said to please you.
posted by Nattie at 12:36 PM on September 28, 2009
"There's no such thing as an atheist. Science is as much a God as the Christian one."
No. You do not understand the scientific method.
Science doesn't ask you to accept anything on faith, and scientific theories make no claims of being absolute truth. Science offer models that are consistent with observed phenomena. These models are regularly updated or discarded when new information proves them wrong, and this continual revision is why science works so well. You could almost say it evolves.
So here's the big difference: Science makes falsifiable claims, whereas the existence of god is by definition not falsifiable.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 12:38 PM on September 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
No. You do not understand the scientific method.
Science doesn't ask you to accept anything on faith, and scientific theories make no claims of being absolute truth. Science offer models that are consistent with observed phenomena. These models are regularly updated or discarded when new information proves them wrong, and this continual revision is why science works so well. You could almost say it evolves.
So here's the big difference: Science makes falsifiable claims, whereas the existence of god is by definition not falsifiable.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 12:38 PM on September 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
Scody, why would someone be a strong agnostic, but not an atheist?
Because atheism states positively (i.e., knowingly) that There Are No Gods. Strong agnosticism states that it is impossible for humans to knowingly make such a claim. (The analogy, for me, is that making an argument for either the existence or non-existence of god(s) is like trying to divide a number by zero: it literally Does Not Compute. The terms of the question are nonsense.)
In practice, of course, strong agnosticism functions largely the same as atheism: I don't pray; I don't believe in or expect supernatural intercession; I only believe in the physical universe; I believe in reason and science as the measures of that universe, etc.
posted by scody at 12:39 PM on September 28, 2009
Because atheism states positively (i.e., knowingly) that There Are No Gods. Strong agnosticism states that it is impossible for humans to knowingly make such a claim. (The analogy, for me, is that making an argument for either the existence or non-existence of god(s) is like trying to divide a number by zero: it literally Does Not Compute. The terms of the question are nonsense.)
In practice, of course, strong agnosticism functions largely the same as atheism: I don't pray; I don't believe in or expect supernatural intercession; I only believe in the physical universe; I believe in reason and science as the measures of that universe, etc.
posted by scody at 12:39 PM on September 28, 2009
Serious overthinking going on here. The point of the original quote is that most of the atheists the theologian meets are arguing against a version of God that he doesn't believe in. Or more generally: most atheists don't understand what most theists mean by "God". That's all.
I don't think this is true, either. It is not Dawkin's job or my job or any atheist's job to argue against every version of God. Dawkin's is specifically responding to mainstream evangelical conceptions of God because mainstream evangelical conceptions of God currently dominate media attention, and furthermore it is a conception that can be disproven. If you've formulated some version of God that has no physical effects on the world and thus cannot be disproven, there's no point starting a debate over it, is there? You'll say, "it exists because I believe in It", and we'll say, "But you can't prove it," and then we're done.
Also, most atheists I know are former believers of one deity or another. So yes, I DO understand what you mean by "God".
posted by muddgirl at 12:40 PM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
I don't think this is true, either. It is not Dawkin's job or my job or any atheist's job to argue against every version of God. Dawkin's is specifically responding to mainstream evangelical conceptions of God because mainstream evangelical conceptions of God currently dominate media attention, and furthermore it is a conception that can be disproven. If you've formulated some version of God that has no physical effects on the world and thus cannot be disproven, there's no point starting a debate over it, is there? You'll say, "it exists because I believe in It", and we'll say, "But you can't prove it," and then we're done.
Also, most atheists I know are former believers of one deity or another. So yes, I DO understand what you mean by "God".
posted by muddgirl at 12:40 PM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
Er, that's why I worded it the way I did. Dunno what else I could have said to please you.
Dunno why you think I'm demanding to be pleased here; I was just pointing out that your conception of what "agnostics" "often" do was overly broad, and therefore inaccurate.
posted by scody at 12:40 PM on September 28, 2009
Dunno why you think I'm demanding to be pleased here; I was just pointing out that your conception of what "agnostics" "often" do was overly broad, and therefore inaccurate.
posted by scody at 12:40 PM on September 28, 2009
I don't believe in any God whom I could envisage me arguing with on point of ethics as to why I should be allowed into Paradise.
e.g.
"What? I'm being turned away from Paradise for working on the Sabbath by a man who condoned slavery, was happy to kill the firstborn of the Egyptian nation, flooded the entire earth and despite claiming to have the most important message for all of humanity, only saw fit to preach it in a small corner of Middle East? Give me a break!"
I don't believe in that God.
posted by Biru at 12:42 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
e.g.
"What? I'm being turned away from Paradise for working on the Sabbath by a man who condoned slavery, was happy to kill the firstborn of the Egyptian nation, flooded the entire earth and despite claiming to have the most important message for all of humanity, only saw fit to preach it in a small corner of Middle East? Give me a break!"
I don't believe in that God.
posted by Biru at 12:42 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't believe in a super-intelligent gorilla that fights The Flash.
Oh, wait, what kind of God? I'll start over.
The God I believe in is mostly a conglomeration of existence, inherent laws, plus some wild subjectivity that I can't really explain. I've been influenced a lot by Paul Tillich, but I'm not a Christian. I don't believe in pretty much all other gods, except Mammon and Thor, just to be safe.
Seriously, though, this is a terrible question. You're going to get a relatively huge number of atheists, which doesn't really tell you anything about people who do believe in God. And you're going to get one or two folks with traditional or unreflected theology, then a handful of people like myself who have idiosyncratic beliefs that are more concerned with ontology and epistemology than actual hellfire or scripture. I mean, frankly, Bishop Spong (someone else you might look into) is generally too conservative for me regarding faith and meaning, so I'm not sure what good knowing my beliefs will do you.
posted by klangklangston at 12:45 PM on September 28, 2009
Oh, wait, what kind of God? I'll start over.
The God I believe in is mostly a conglomeration of existence, inherent laws, plus some wild subjectivity that I can't really explain. I've been influenced a lot by Paul Tillich, but I'm not a Christian. I don't believe in pretty much all other gods, except Mammon and Thor, just to be safe.
Seriously, though, this is a terrible question. You're going to get a relatively huge number of atheists, which doesn't really tell you anything about people who do believe in God. And you're going to get one or two folks with traditional or unreflected theology, then a handful of people like myself who have idiosyncratic beliefs that are more concerned with ontology and epistemology than actual hellfire or scripture. I mean, frankly, Bishop Spong (someone else you might look into) is generally too conservative for me regarding faith and meaning, so I'm not sure what good knowing my beliefs will do you.
posted by klangklangston at 12:45 PM on September 28, 2009
Serious overthinking going on here. The point of the original quote is that most of the atheists the theologian meets are arguing against a version of God that he doesn't believe in. Or more generally: most atheists don't understand what most theists mean by "God". That's all.
That is so condescending. It's not like atheists have never had meaningful interaction with religious people -- we live in a very religious society. Some of us atheists grew up quite religious, in fact. We know that the more intellectual theists have more refined versions of God -- generally versions which have been carefully made as unfalsifiable as possible.
As amyms pointed out above, it's like the monster under the bed. I say it doesn't exist, you say, Oh you just don't understand what kind of monster I believe in. It's not like those monsters in children's books! It's sophisticated. And I press, and you get more abstract and fancy with your language, and before long you're talking about the ontological ground of monsterness and how monsters live in your heart and all sorts of other stuff that lets you pretend (yes pretend!) to believe in monsters while refusing to offer any claim which may be tested.
posted by callmejay at 12:48 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
That is so condescending. It's not like atheists have never had meaningful interaction with religious people -- we live in a very religious society. Some of us atheists grew up quite religious, in fact. We know that the more intellectual theists have more refined versions of God -- generally versions which have been carefully made as unfalsifiable as possible.
As amyms pointed out above, it's like the monster under the bed. I say it doesn't exist, you say, Oh you just don't understand what kind of monster I believe in. It's not like those monsters in children's books! It's sophisticated. And I press, and you get more abstract and fancy with your language, and before long you're talking about the ontological ground of monsterness and how monsters live in your heart and all sorts of other stuff that lets you pretend (yes pretend!) to believe in monsters while refusing to offer any claim which may be tested.
posted by callmejay at 12:48 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
It is not Dawkin's job or my job or any atheist's job to argue against every version of God. Dawkin's is specifically responding to mainstream evangelical conceptions of God because mainstream evangelical conceptions of God currently dominate media attention, and furthermore it is a conception that can be disproven.
OK, so Dawkins is picking the specific argument he's picking because it's media-friendly and easily winnable. That's fine, of course. It's just not really particularly relevant, in longer historical perspective, to the question of what God is and whether it exists.
Also, most atheists I know are former believers of one deity or another. So yes, I DO understand what you mean by "God".
Well, personally I'm not a theist. But again, all this would prove is that people who go around describing themselves as "atheists" — almost always, in my experience, people with a weirdly strong emotional investment in making sure everyone knows they don't believe in God — used to believe in one version of God or another. Not that this version is what other theists mean by God.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 12:49 PM on September 28, 2009
OK, so Dawkins is picking the specific argument he's picking because it's media-friendly and easily winnable. That's fine, of course. It's just not really particularly relevant, in longer historical perspective, to the question of what God is and whether it exists.
Also, most atheists I know are former believers of one deity or another. So yes, I DO understand what you mean by "God".
Well, personally I'm not a theist. But again, all this would prove is that people who go around describing themselves as "atheists" — almost always, in my experience, people with a weirdly strong emotional investment in making sure everyone knows they don't believe in God — used to believe in one version of God or another. Not that this version is what other theists mean by God.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 12:49 PM on September 28, 2009
Biru: I don't believe in that God.
I think of God as being exactly like me. Only bigger, stronger, crazier. And immortal, into the bargain. He's sitting on a pile of soft sheepskins, and his hut's the sky....In his right hand he's holding not a knife or a pair of scales—those damned instruments are meant for butchers and grocers—no, he's holding a large sponge full of water, like a rain cloud. On his right is Paradise, on his left Hell. Here comes a soul; the poor little thing's quite naked, because it's lost its cloak—its body, I mean—and it's shivering.posted by jquinby at 12:51 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
"...The naked soul throws itself at God's feet. 'Mercy!' it cries. 'I have sinned.' And away it goes reciting its sins. It recites a whole rigmarole and there's no end to it. God thinks this is too much of a good thing. He yawns. 'For heaven's sake stop!' he shouts. 'I've heard enough of all that!' Flap! Slap! a wipe of the sponge, and he washes out all the sins. 'Away with you, clear out, run off to Paradise!' he says to the soul....Because God, you know, is a great lord, and that's what being a lord means: to forgive!"
- Zorba The Greek
I don't believe you:
you had the whole damn thing all wrong --
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.
In any number of ways Wind Up by Jethro Tull, which I first heard while going to a Jesuit school, summed it up for me. I don't believe in the God with a beard, or that His bearded son was sent down from heaven. I do believe that the teachings of Them with beards have some value to a person who wants to lead a valued life.
posted by Gungho at 12:52 PM on September 28, 2009
you had the whole damn thing all wrong --
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.
In any number of ways Wind Up by Jethro Tull, which I first heard while going to a Jesuit school, summed it up for me. I don't believe in the God with a beard, or that His bearded son was sent down from heaven. I do believe that the teachings of Them with beards have some value to a person who wants to lead a valued life.
posted by Gungho at 12:52 PM on September 28, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
I prefer to think of the universe and all in it as parts of a whole, each trying to better itself or themselves. And by better, I mean "Get what they want".
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 11:44 AM on September 28, 2009