Over at talk.origins they're having a debate on Is it becoming fashionable to be an atheist?" One of the participants asked about well-known atheists and quickly received a reply. I'm posing the names here from Celebrity Atheist List...
Douglas Adams, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Woody Allen, Lance Armstrong, Darren Aronofsky, Isaac Asimov, Dave Barry, Ingmar Bergman, Lewis Black, Richard Branson, Berkeley Breathed, Warren Buffett, George Carlin, John Carmack, Adam Carolla, John Carpenter, Asia Carrera, Fidel Castro, Dick Cavett, Noam Chomsky, Billy Connolly, Francis Crick, David Cronenberg, David Cross, Alan Cumming, Rodney Dangerfield, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, David Deutsch, Ani DiFranco, Micky Dolenz, Harlan Ellison, Brian Eno, Richard Feynman, Harvey Fierstein, Larry Flynt, Dave Foley, Jodie Foster, Janeane Garofalo, Bill Gates, Bob Geldof, Ricky Gervais, Ira Glass, James Gleick, Seth Green, Robert Heinlein, Nat Hentoff, Katharine Hepburn, Christopher Hitchens, Eddie Izzard, Penn Jillette, Billy Joel, Angelina Jolie, Wendy Kaminer, Diane Keaton, Ken Keeler, Neil Kinnock, Michael Kinsley, Richard Leakey, Bruce Lee, Tom Lehrer, Tom Leykis, James Lipton, H.P. Lovecraft, John Malkovich, Barry Manilow, Todd McFarlane, Sir Ian McKellen, Arthur Miller, Frank Miller, Marvin Minsky, Julianne Moore, Desmond Morris, Randy Newman, Mike Nichols, Jack Nicholson, Gary Numan, Bob Odenkirk, Patton Oswalt, Camille Paglia, Steven Pinker, Paula Poundstone, Terry Pratchett, James Randi, Ron Reagan Jr., Keanu Reeves, Rick Reynolds, Gene Roddenberry, Joe Rogan, Henry Rollins, Andy Rooney, Salman Rushdie, Bob Simon, Steven Soderbergh, Annika Sorenstam, George Soros, Richard Stallman, Bruce Sterling, Howard Stern, J. Michael Straczynski, Julia Sweeney, Matthew Sweet, Teller, Studs Terkel, Tom Tomorrow, Linus Torvalds, Eddie Vedder, Paul Verhoeven, Gore Vidal, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Sarah Vowell, James Watson, Steven Weinberg, Joss Whedon, Ted Williams, Steve Wozniak.
Here's a list of famous wimps (also called agnostics) ....
Margaret Atwood, Antonio Banderas, Susie Bright, Vincent Bugliosi, Robert X. Cringely, Clarence Darrow, Charles Darwin, Alan Dershowitz, Richard Dreyfuss, Umberto Eco, Timothy Ferris, Carrie Fisher, Stephen Jay Gould, Matt Groening, Bob Guccione, Robert (Bob) James Lee Hawke, David Horowitz, Bob Hoskins, Robert Jastrow, Matt Johnson, Jack Kevorkian, Larry King, Tony Kushner, Dave Matthews, Larry Niven, Neil Peart, Sean Penn, Roman Polanski, Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, Dan Savage, James Taylor, Charles Templeton, Uma Thurman, Ted Turner, Robert Anton Wilson.
Some of those so-called agnostics sound an awful lot like atheists to me and others sound like spiritualists of various sorts. Some of you may not be familiar with the name Charles Templeton. He's a former evangelical Christian from Toronto who abandoned his faith near the end of his life.
Most of the agnostics are probably wimps. We could expand the atheist list if only we could get Jodi Foster to talk some sense into Margaret Atwood ...
Or maybe Bill Gates could work on Antonio Banderas?
17 comments :
Ah, yes! Wise In Many Particulars. Thanks!
"I do not consider it an insult,
but rather a compliment to be
called an agnostic. I do not
pretend to know where many
ignorant men are sure -- that is
all that agnosticism means."
Clarence Darrow. Scopes trial, Dayton, Tennessee, July 13, 1925
"My practise as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world. And I should be a coward if I did not state my theoretical views in public."
J. B. S. Haldane
As a public high school science teacher, I have followed the creationism/evolution culture war with much enthusiasm. As much as I cheered when the Dover decision came down, I can't help but wince everytime I see science being tied to anti-religiosity or outright atheism. I'll have to disagree with Haldane regarding scientific practice being atheistic and with you regarding agnostics being wimps.
While it is certainly correct that as scientists we limit ourselves to causes that can be described by natural laws, I don't see that as a positive assertion that the supernatural does not exist at all. This is a statement that would itself be untestable. Also, that the naturalistic assumption is a wildly successful scientific tool only improves our confidence in its application to science. Such assumptions allow us to apply the scientific method to problems and phenomenon with precision. However, success of hypotheses that rely on those assumptions should not be taken as proof positive in favor of them on their own.
I could tell the physics joke about assuming a spherical cow, but that gets old even to physics majors. But the point can be made without bad humor. Models in general make all sorts of assumptions that are not realistic because they simplify calculations tremendously. I can't imagine any astronomer bothering to account for the distribution of the mass in the Earth when calculating the orbit of Jupiter, yet it would be false to carry the assumption of a point mass Earth to situations outside of solar system scale celestial mechanics. Therefore, the required absence of the supernatural in scientific reasoning, in my opinion, does not in itself justify asserting the absence of the supernatural in total.
As for the wimpifying of agnostics, I think you might agree with Isaac Asimov.
I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time. -- Isaac Asimov, in "Free Inquiry", Spring 1982, vol.2 no.2, p. 9
From that point of view, I can see why an atheist might view agnostics as simply being too squeamish to admit that they are really atheists. But I feel that is an over-generalization. I, for instance, truly believe that since the supernatural is untestable, that it is ultimately unknowable. I leave room for the possibility of a god, since there is no way to prove it one way or the other, but like Asimov, I'm not going to waste my time trying to find out.
"There is no absolute knowledge.
And those who claim it, whether they are scientists or dogmatists,
open the door to tragedy. All information is imperfect. We have to treat it with humility."
Jacob Bronowski
I think Russell's chickens explain pretty well why I prefer the agnostic stance.
Oops.
"I think Russell's chickens explain pretty well why I prefer the agnostic stance."
Well, that was me.
My atheism is similar to Dawkins', so this will probably read as somewhat of a paraphrase of his writings in various places.
I am functionally an atheist because I can find no evidence that there is a god or there are gods. Though I cannot disprove its or their existence(s), that does not mean that the likelihood of god's existence is somehow more likely.
Additionally, a being that supposedly created the universe must be considerably more complex than the universe. The unlikelihoods pile up.
Where is the observable evidence?
Add atop these things that God is supposed to also be Jesus Christ, an amalgam of fiction and non-fiction, hearsay and conjecture, or Yahweh or Allah, and this gets incongruent and wrapped into devastatingly immoral behavior.
So, though I don't know that god doesn't exist and am therefore, technically, an agnostic, I am at heart an atheist.
It looks like dogmatic atheists are quickly joining religious fundamentalists in becoming self-righteous assholes. Although I’m agnostic, I’ve taken tough stands on a lot of difficult issues, and most people who know me would not consider me a wimp. However, I guess it’s easy to sit behind a keyboard and pass judgment on people you don’t know, just as it is easy for preachers to pass judgment from behind the pulpit.
Jeff, you're right, I don't know you.
I understand that you think it's impossible to prove for certain whether there is a God or not. Therefore, you're an agnostic. I'm sure you feel the same way about Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, right?
Now, how 'bout telling me a bit about yourself? I'm curious about your beliefs.
Do you believe in a personal God? If so, you're a theist. You're an agnostic theist because you believe in God but you know you can't prove that God exists.
Do you believe in a spritual God who set things in motion but doesn't play around here any more? If so, you're a deist—an agnostic deist.
Maybe you've never bothered to become a theist? In that case you don't believe in God. If so, you're an atheist—an agnostic atheist.
That pretty much covers the main possibilities although there are some minor variants like pantheism.
So which is it? Are you a theist, a deist, or an atheist ... in addition to being an agnostic? And please don't tell me that you haven't made up your mind. If you haven't decided to believe in God then you are, by definition, an atheist, whether you want to admit it or not.
Uma Thurman is an agnostic? Kewl. Anyone got her number?
Hi Larry,
You asked where I stand. I try to seek the truth, and base what I believe to be true on my best understanding of the best information I have available, while realizing that neither my understanding nor my information will be complete, and therefore I’ll always need to hold my beliefs somewhat tentatively.
I lean somewhere between being a deist and an atheist, probably more towards atheism. The dictionary says an atheist is “someone who denies the existence of god”. This definition is different from yours – someone who hasn’t decided to believe in god. Certainly I haven’t decided to believe in god, but I’m also not convinced enough to take a stand that says that there is not a being that got it all started – something I still see as a possibility. Not an involved creator, but possibly an originator. So my doubt more closely matches the definition of an agnostic – defined as a “person unsure God exists”.
My question is would I be stronger person if I adopted your definition instead of the dictionary’s and call my self an atheist? Does trying to live as close as possible to my beliefs make me a wimp?
Charles Templeton wrote his book "Farewell to God" near the end of his life.
However, he went public about his lost faith decades earlier than that. He was in his 40s, or half-way through his life. It caused quite a stir, given that he'd previously been preaching with Billy Graham.
Neither Bertrand Russell nor Carl Sagan were agnostics, nor wimps, for that matter.
While Russell called himself both atheist and agnostic at various times, you need to take into account that the usage of the word "agnostic" has changed subtly over time, and Russell's lack of belief was unequivocal.
Having read Carl Sagan's work exstensively, I don't recall him ever using either term, though again, his views were clear enough. Rather than "agnostic," I would simply call him a scientist, who didn't make a practice of making statements he couldn't substantiate. Also, neither self-aggrandizement nor professing atheism were his purpose; his purpose was educating the public.
Incidentally, I see that Neil Peart is on the agnostic list, as well. Once again, he doesn't belong there either. While in an old interview he called himself a "linear-thinking agnostic" or something along those lines, in a much more recent book, "Ghost Rider," he clearly states that he doesn't believe in God. His lyrics always made that clear enough, anyway. Labels aren't the issue.
I am an atheist, and not only do I not believe in God, I don't believe in agnostics, either. If you are questioning a thing, you cannot be said to believe in it, can you? One might make the mistake of thinking that it works both ways, that you can't be said to disbelieve, either, but that is a fallacious argument. Belief is active, disbelief is passive. Disbelief comes stock on all models.
---AAG/cneron
In reply to Larry Moran:
“I understand that you think it's impossible to prove for certain whether there is a God or not. Therefore, you're an agnostic. I'm sure you feel the same way about Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, right?”
First off, let’s distinguish between god being the Christian/Jewish/Islamic god, and God being any supernatural source of creation. OBVIOUSLY, to anyone willing to admit it, the former god is as laughable and unlikely as Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. He is an angry, jealous, megalomaniacal murderer who changes dramatically from the Old Testament to the New Testament, as well as within these books, and yet somehow remains “perfect.” I want you to know that I assume that this god, like all religions on this planet, is as laughable as Santa Claus… and that when I speak of ‘god,’ I am referring to any source of supernatural creation.
I digress, a lot. To claim to *know* that there is no god at all, which would be a claim of knowing the ultimate nature of reality (the outer shell of the onion if you will) is just as deluded as a Theist claiming to *know* god exists. At that point, you become a believer just like them, because you can only *believe* god does not exist, since you are not omniscient.
Secondly, if you don’t understand why it is impossible to prove that there is no god, you need to expand your mind a little bit. Let’s say for a moment that our universe, that is to say all these galaxies that are expanding outward in all directions, truly has no god. It has also existed, or at least it seems, forever.
But in reality, this could all be a computer program world much like the matrix, or a dream, or any other number of things that can be engineered to be un-testable/unknowable. What’s important to accept is that in outermost reality, there could be a god, which created everything. You can likely never know whether or not this is the case, which may be frustrating, but claiming to know that it is not the case is downright lying to yourself. It is claiming to have knowledge/information that you cannot possibly have. If the definition of god was “a cubic sphere,” well, it would be pretty easy to disprove its existence.
The most important concept to understand is that there is some hope. One of two things *should* be the case:
A god exists.
1. If god were interfering with this reality in any way, outside of its creation of it, this may open up the system for us to discover its existence. At the very least, we might be able to discover that we are inside of some kind of ‘bubble,’ that I use as a general term to mean any artificial reality that is not coherent with and a part of the ultimate nature of reality.
2. If this god does not interfere with our ‘bubble,’ then its existence is negligible and likely unknowable.
3. If there is a god, but no bubble, then god would be have to be a part of our reality, and we should therefore, at least, have the ability to discover/prove its existence. This is because it would be forced to take up space and influence this reality, miracles aside.
A god does not exist.
1. If god doesn’t exist, we have nothing to worry about.
Personally, I find it very unlikely that there is a god, simply because a creator of all existence, no matter how many onion shells we are inside, would need to be complex. And there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for which complexity could spontaneously exist or always exist. Every other process in this universe points to simpler entities giving rise to more complex entities, not the other way around. I am not willing; however, to claim that this applies to the ultimate nature of reality, I just find it logical. There is a perfectly natural explanation for how the human eye could have developed from the simplest of origins (skin cells that are sensitive to photons). But can you imagine how ridiculously illogical and superfluous it would be to take the human eye, assume it has always existed, and then try to explain how more simpler things came from it, for example, skin cells that are sensitive to light? You’re still left with a monster in the room, a full, complete, complex, human eye, so you haven’t really explained anything at all.
I’m pretty sure that I repeated myself too many times throughout this… trifle, but I do hope someone can salvage some understanding from it.
Post a Comment