"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere — childish analogies. We have to admire in humility and beautiful harmony of the structure of this world — as far as we can grasp it. And that is all."Four years later, in 1949, Raner wrote Einstein again, asking for clarification: “Some people might interpret (your letter) to mean that to a Jesuit priest, anyone not a Roman Catholic is an atheist, and that you are in fact an orthodox Jew, or a Deist, or something else. Did you mean to leave room for such an interpretation, or are you from the viewpoint of the dictionary an atheist; i.e., ‘one who disbelieves in the existence of a God, or a Supreme Being?’” Einstein responded on September 28, 1949:"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
I agree, and would also add what Noam Chomsky said when asked the same question: what do you even mean by "God" or a "Supreme Being" in the first place? At least the believers in an anthropomorphic personal god have something specific in mind that we can dismiss as a fantasy, but the attempts of sophisticated theists to be more nuanced about it quickly devolve into, uh, poetry (if you're feeling generous), or gibberish (if you're not).
I also pretty much agree with his characterization of the "professional atheist". I personally identify as an atheist because, like he said about the Jesuit priest, I am one as far as the vast majority of my society is concerned. Also, given how much actual, dangerous oppression faces those in many countries who refuse to conform, I think it's important to not take for granted our luxury to be open about our lack of belief, to help destigmatize it. But I don't think religion ever will be totally eradicated, and my suspicion of human nature is such that I can't get truly enthusiastic about what a wonderful world it will be if only it could be. And while I certainly understand the impulse, I can't help but shudder a little to see the sort of tribal mentality that wants to highlight all the examples of those on "our side" -- atheist musicians, actors, and other public figures. I know it can be comforting to be reminded that one isn't alone in holding an unpopular belief, but as is so often the case with politics, it's easy to develop a monomaniacal fixation on such a distinction. Roy Edroso has long been keenly critical of conservatives who subordinate art to propaganda for the party line, disowning entertainers who express heretical opinions, but I've seen quite a few liberals as well who care more about the political beliefs of an artist than the art itself.
So I feel like my atheism is more positional than ideological. I am not on anyone's "side". I have no desire to convince other people to agree with me; I only want to retain enough personal space in which to be free from excessive pressure to agree with them. But I'll also assert myself against those who seem to feel that Einstein's "attitude of humility" is somehow incongruous with open expressions of atheism. I've said before, and I'll say again: in my eyes, agnosticism is a statement about the boundaries of knowledge. Atheism is a statement about the credibility of belief. We can fully admit that we don't know absolutely everything, that we can't see everything from a - ahem - God's-eye perspective, while feeling confident enough to say that we see no reason to believe that our imperfect knowledge leaves a loophole for any metaphysical fantasy we can dream up.
9 comments:
"We can fully admit that we don't know absolutely everything, that we can't see everything from a - ahem - God's-eye perspective, while feeling confident enough to say that we see no reason to believe that our imperfect knowledge leaves a loophole for any metaphysical fantasy we can dream up."
I disagree. Well, it's agreement on the generality, reservations on the degree. I agree that one can be fairly certain that not just ANY loophole might exist. For instance, I can argue with a fair amount of confidence that any anthropomorphized God is likely a figment of our imaginations. However, a more general "God", by which I mean, some creative, possibly intelligent source, remains, in my mind at least a possibilty: if only to satisfy some theory of creation. But you and i have had this discussion ad nauseum ;)
But you and i have had this discussion ad nauseum ;)
You say that like it's a bad thing!
Well, after a while it just seems rude to keep saying... yeah, I still think you're wrong. Maybe it's just a Canadian thing.
Oh yeah, if you've never seen Canadian Bacon, A) you need to, and B)Merry Christmas: http://youtu.be/J0R5DTHcmGU
Well, after a while it just seems rude to keep saying... yeah, I still think you're wrong. Maybe it's just a Canadian thing.
Two things. One, the last paragraph isn't referring to you, it's largely a response to a recurring conversation I have with another friend, who keeps saying it's arrogant to call myself an atheist when there's the slightest possibility of some vague something-or-other having something to do with something. Two, the only thing I'm saying anyone is wrong about is the idea that one can't honestly be an atheist, that agnosticism is the only valid stance to take. Hence the distinction I'm making here.
When it comes to people who choose to wonder about some "creative, possibly intelligent source", like you, or the idea of God as "all the knowledge that has ever existed, past, present, and future", as the aforementioned friend said ("So, God is the Internet?" I asked), the most I say is that it doesn't make sense to me to call it "God", since that word already has too many specific connotations.
fair enough. Sometimes when i comment I feel like I get caught up in the minutiae (more to start a conversation than anything else) and wind up defending something I really don't care that much about.I don't care what people call it. (did I write a post on that recently? I must have. My dreams aren't that vivid.)
Plus most people don't really get the distintion between atheist and agnostic (say they're one thing and then when you question them it turns out they're the other)
Besides, semantical hair-splitting is getting boring. We differ (slightly) on a few vectors of thought. Let's find something better to argue about. :D
PS. I didnt think you were referring to me. My head isn't that big!
I decided a while back to stop calling myself an agnostic for similar reasons to Scribbs', but, Scribbs, compared to whom are you not an atheist? When my new room mate in college asked if I believed in God, I said, "It depends on what you mean by God." He said, "You're just supposed to answer 'yes' or 'no'." Turns out, he really didn't care and he was trying to teach me that it is really a political question, like, "Are you with us or against us."
The universe has a creative principle that was responsible for the beginning and is just as active now. It's a lot more like natural selection (what exists is what perpetuates itself) than what people call God, but I think people's witness of its grandeur is the source of some of at least some religious feelings and, by attempted explanations, beliefs. So I think Jesus and St Francis did see God, in a way. But I take almost everything people say to be somewhat metaphorical and due to insufficient evidence at best.
Scribbs, compared to whom are you not an atheist?
It's just a question of emphasis. I don't think the issue of God's existence is all that important compared to that of the existence, or lack thereof, of an immortal soul, something that even a lot of non-theists take for granted. I think it's a lot easier to see clearly that there is no such thing, and without that, what sense does it make to talk of an afterlife or a deity that only reveals himself there? All other things being equal, my response to being asked if I believe in God would be to say, "No, but who cares?" and go from there.
I understand the point your roommate was making, but I tend to have little patience with people who want to reduce everything to a political argument.
I'm just using the term "political" to mean it's more about affiliations than actual beliefs. Most people who "believe in God" don't really care about theology.
Kevin was somewhat sociopathic and when I asked him what he thought about God he aimed his middle finger at the sky and said, "That's what I think of God." He's a psychiatrist now. I worry for his patients.
I'm off to Costa Rica tomorrow! Y'all have some "Happy Holidays", ya hear?
Yeah, that's kind of what I meant too. And that's what I meant in the post when I said I wasn't on anyone's side -- I agree with them, but I don't consider myself to be part of a team with them, if that makes sense. Sometimes I think the "professional atheists" cultivate a bit of that affiliation mentality. I don't like it when this asshole tries to give me an ultimatum, and I wouldn't like it if they did it either.
Happy travels, safe returns.
Post a Comment