Contact, Religion, and Pi in the Sky
Erik Gregersen
I saw Contact two nights ago, and what follows is a response to the
two Contact threads so far (what do they do with the pi scene, and
what is Contact's attitude toward religion). Spoilers follow.
First, the pi scene. No, the pi message does not appear. What they
do instead is a bit more "visual", I suppose, but much less satisfying.
On the beach, the alien picks up some sand with some glittering stones.
Back on Earth, Jodie Foster picks up some dirt and sees some glittering
stones arranged in the same pattern. I guess the filmmakers didn't want
to explain pi, but I find that strange since they did explain prime
numbers.
Second, religion. Jodie Foster's character, the heroine, is an athiest.
Some Christian conservatives may find the portrayal of an athiest as a
sympathetic human being disturbing. If you are among them, I suggest you
stay away from Contact. As for Contact's overall depiction of science vs.
religion, it is very even-handed in that science (Jodie Foster) and religion
(Matthew McConaughey) both raise questions the other can't answer. However,
the script is also very savvy in showing the more political sides of
science (Tom Skerrit's NSF head) and religion (the swipe at Ralph Reed and
Tom Skerrit's cynical avowal of religion to get the Machine seat). Now, the
last two, along with Jake Busey's psycho, will be enough to make this the
central exhibit in Hollywood vs. America 2. But, if any one thinks that
the political reaction to the Vegan message is unrealistic, I can only
paraphrase David Spade and say, "It's called the news, check into it."
Erik Gregersen
er...@astro.as.utexas.edu
http://bubba.as.utexas.edu/erik
The last good movie I've seen: Face/Off
gjw
Erik Gregersen wrote:
> Second, religion. Jodie Foster's character, the heroine, is an athiest.
Is that surprising? So was its author, Carl Sagan.
I.R.
Erik Gregersen (er...@vesta.as.utexas.edu) wrote:
: [...]
: Second, religion. Jodie Foster's character, the heroine, is an athiest.
I have only read the novel so far. It says, Dr. Arroway (Foster) is merely an
agnostic (a person who does believe in the existance of God, but does not
believe that would have any perceivable effect).
I'd be really surprised, if this is different from the film. Since Palmer
Joss' (McConaughey) character was so immensely strengthened. Are you sure
about her being portraited as an atheist?
: Some Christian conservatives may find the portrayal of an athiest as a
: sympathetic human being disturbing. If you are among them, I suggest you
: stay away from Contact.
(Yeah, stay at home all you stupid lil believers. At least I won't have to
deal with your kind anyway.)
: [...]
--
| Nur ein toter Theologe ist ein guter Theologe | <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< |
|----- Ingo Redeke --- s_re...@ira.uka.de ---- uk...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de --- |
I.R.
: Second, religion. Jodie Foster's character, the heroine, is an athiest.
I have only read the novel so far. It describes Dr. Arroway (Foster) as
merely an agnostic (a person who does believe in the existence of God, but
does not believe that would have any perceivable effect).
I'd be really surprised, if this is different from the film. Since Palmer
Joss' (McConaughey) character was so immensely strengthened. Are you sure
about her being properly portraid as an atheist?
Thomas Andrews
In article <5pkg5n$qr2$3...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
I.R. <s_re...@ira.uka.de> wrote:
>Erik Gregersen (er...@vesta.as.utexas.edu) wrote:
>: [...]
>
>: Second, religion. Jodie Foster's character, the heroine, is an athiest.
>
>I have only read the novel so far. It describes Dr. Arroway (Foster) as
>merely an agnostic (a person who does believe in the existence of God, but
>does not believe that would have any perceivable effect).
I don't know where you've got this definition of agnostic, but it ain't
correct.
Agnostic \Ag*nos"tic\, n. One who professes ignorance, or denies that
we have any knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism,
neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal Deity, a future
life, etc.
--
Thomas Andrews tho...@best.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
"Show me somebody who is always smiling, always cheerful, always
optimistic, and I will show you somebody who hasn't the faintest
idea what the heck is really going on." - Mike Royko
Eugene Zhu Xia
Erik Gregersen (er...@vesta.as.utexas.edu) wrote:
: First, the pi scene. No, the pi message does not appear. What they
: do instead is a bit more "visual", I suppose, but much less satisfying.
: On the beach, the alien picks up some sand with some glittering stones.
: Back on Earth, Jodie Foster picks up some dirt and sees some glittering
: stones arranged in the same pattern. I guess the filmmakers didn't want
: to explain pi, but I find that strange since they did explain prime
: numbers.
Good for them. The bit about pi is pattern nonsense (although it
is clever). The stuff about prime numbers is solid though. I am
speaking here as a mathematician who has read Contact.
Eugene
Matthew Butcher
I noticed that the film credited a "mathematical consultant" -- no idea
why, since there wasn't any math beyond the references to primes, and
they could have cribbed that out of a grade three text.
All of the supreme being stuff from the end of the novel went pretty
much out the window, pi included. Just as well; I don't think it would
have worked in the film.
--
Matthew Butcher | The poodle stabbers were about to arrive.
dbut...@netrover.com | -- Vivian Stanshall
Aaron Bergman
In article <5pks2g$n4k$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, tho...@best.com (Thomas
Andrews) wrote:
:In article <5pkg5n$qr2$3...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
:I.R. <s_re...@ira.uka.de> wrote:
:>Erik Gregersen (er...@vesta.as.utexas.edu) wrote:
:>: [...]
:>
:>: Second, religion. Jodie Foster's character, the heroine, is an athiest.
:>
:>I have only read the novel so far. It describes Dr. Arroway (Foster) as
:>merely an agnostic (a person who does believe in the existence of God, but
:>does not believe that would have any perceivable effect).
:
:I don't know where you've got this definition of agnostic, but it ain't
:correct.
:
:Agnostic \Ag*nos"tic\, n. One who professes ignorance, or denies that
:we have any knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism,
:neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal Deity, a future
:life, etc.
I'll just note in passing that this is not the only definition and isn't
the one used on the *.atheism groups. Unfortunately, when you start
arguing religion, there are too many different definitions of the same
words. Too many arguments are about defintions and not about actual
issues. By my definitions, Arroway was an atheist, BTW. Carl Sagan was
also and atheist. For that matter, so am I.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://pantheon.yale.edu/~abergman/>
Smoke a cigarette. Slit your throat. Same concept.
I.R.
Matthew Butcher (dbut...@netrover.com) wrote:
: I noticed that the film credited a "mathematical consultant" -- no idea
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: why, since there wasn't any math beyond the references to primes, and
: they could have cribbed that out of a grade three text.
Truely surprises me. In one screenshot with Arroway presenting the language
transformation on a monitor you could clearly see a minor, but hairy formal
flaw: "2 + 3 = 4 = False" (and so on). (Does the consultant bite his ass
off now?)
I.R.
David Ellis
I.R. wrote:
> Truely surprises me. In one screenshot with Arroway presenting the
> language
> transformation on a monitor you could clearly see a minor, but hairy
> formal
> flaw: "2 + 3 = 4 = False" (and so on). (Does the consultant bite his
> ass
> off now?)
"2 + 3 = 4 = False" is a -precisely- correct theorem and was part of
what the aliens did to enable the humans to understand the language that
the plans for the machine were in.
Chris Andersen
s_re...@ira.uka.de (I.R.) wrote:
>Erik Gregersen (er...@vesta.as.utexas.edu) wrote:
>
>: [...]
>
>: Second, religion. Jodie Foster's character, the heroine, is an athiest.
>
>I have only read the novel so far. It says, Dr. Arroway (Foster) is merely an
>agnostic (a person who does believe in the existance of God, but does not
>believe that would have any perceivable effect).
Hmm, I've always thought of an agnostic as someone who says that the
question of the existance of God is one that cannot be answered by
humans and therefore must be left perpetually in the "to be answered
later" column.
I.R.
Chris Andersen (chr...@aracnet.com) wrote:
: s_re...@ira.uka.de (I.R.) wrote:
Well, I confess, I am a bit strict here. If you interpret the "legal"
definition of an agnostic you can find in any common dictionary and not
blindly copy it, you will understand that there is only a binary stance
practical. And as someone like that would not want to call him/herself an
atheist, not explicitely excluding the existence of god, he/she practically
includes its existence.
(Prove me wrong, if you can.)
Aaron Bergman
In article <5q8494$p8k$1...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>, s_re...@ira.uka.de
(I.R.) wrote:
:Chris Andersen (chr...@aracnet.com) wrote:
:
:: Hmm, I've always thought of an agnostic as someone who says that the
:: question of the existance of God is one that cannot be answered by
:: humans and therefore must be left perpetually in the "to be answered
:: later" column.
:
:Well, I confess, I am a bit strict here. If you interpret the "legal"
:definition of an agnostic you can find in any common dictionary and not
:blindly copy it, you will understand that there is only a binary stance
:practical.
Huh?
: And as someone like that would not want to call him/herself an
:atheist, not explicitely excluding the existence of god, he/she practically
:includes its existence.
:(Prove me wrong, if you can.)
Perhaps you might want to read the section of the *.atheism FAQ on
definitions. There is plenty of disagreement on what the definitions of
these words should be. Too often, discussions of religion end up being
fights over definition and not over substance.
For myself, the word "atheist" does not represent a belief in the
nonexistance of god. It represents a lack of belief in god. Some people
would term this agnostic, but I don't lack agnostic as it seems to be more
of a wishy-washy type thing--I see no reason to postulate a deity and thus
don't. And, as such, I don't act as if there is a deity.
Chris Andersen
aber...@pantheon.yale.edu (Aaron Bergman) wrote:
>For myself, the word "atheist" does not represent a belief in the
>nonexistance of god. It represents a lack of belief in god. Some people
>would term this agnostic, but I don't lack agnostic as it seems to be more
>of a wishy-washy type thing--I see no reason to postulate a deity and thus
>don't. And, as such, I don't act as if there is a deity.
I can understand that approach. Of course, I don't consider agnostic
to be wishy-washy because I can see good reasons for postulating a
deity, I just don't think there's enough good reasons to firmly decide
that there is.
Richard W. Albin
Chris, please help me here if you will. Is the real question not so
much whether there is a God, but what is the -nature- of that God, if
one exists, and what does He want out of us, if anything. If we define
God as the creator of the universe, I know that this does not really
explain anything, as many have suggested, because it does not explain
how this God accomplished the creative act nor who (or what) created
Him.
I feel that most non-believers look around and see no evidence that any
supernatural forces are at work now in the universe, and therefore,
don't see any relevance of a belief in God to our everyday lives. From
all of the books Sagan has written which I have read, I gather that he
felt this same kind of ambivalence about the God issue.
Christians and others have a well defined picture of God as presented in
the Bible, but does this God square with our modern scientific view of
the universe? Sagan did not think so, but he did create a -fictional-
God in his book CONTACT which could be embraced by scientists and others
of Sagan's same religious persuasion.
Chris, I would like to hear, from you and others who could, if possible,
embrace Sagan's -fictional- God, what kind of "other messages" you might
expect to find deeper in Sagan's fictional pi number, beyond the
introductory "circle image" which is presented as "God's signature", His
calling card. What messages would you expect Sagan's creator God to say
to his chosen elect (those who could discover the deeply hidden
messages) that would be consistent with a -believable- creator God.
Richard ;^) mailto:rwa...@flash.net
---------------------------------------
(reply posted and e-mailed)
Rob Rodgers
chr...@aracnet.com (Chris Andersen) wrote:
>I can understand that approach. Of course, I don't consider agnostic
>to be wishy-washy because I can see good reasons for postulating a
>deity,
Uh, er, which are those?
Kolaga
>Chris Andersen wrote:
>>
>> aber...@pantheon.yale.edu (Aaron Bergman) wrote:
>>
>> >For myself, the word "atheist" does not represent a belief in the
>> >nonexistance of god. It represents a lack of belief in god. Some people
>> >would term this agnostic, but I don't lack agnostic as it seems to be more
>> >of a wishy-washy type thing--I see no reason to postulate a deity and thus
>> >don't. And, as such, I don't act as if there is a deity.
>>
>> I can understand that approach. Of course, I don't consider agnostic
>> to be wishy-washy because I can see good reasons for postulating a
>> deity, I just don't think there's enough good reasons to firmly decide
>> that there is.
>
>Chris, please help me here if you will. Is the real question not so
>much whether there is a God, but what is the -nature- of that God, if
>one exists, and what does He want out of us, if anything. If we define
>God as the creator of the universe, I know that this does not really
>explain anything, as many have suggested, because it does not explain
>how this God accomplished the creative act nor who (or what) created
>Him.
This discussion belongs in another newsgroup. I've set a followup-to
alt.atheism.
>I feel that most non-believers look around and see no evidence that any
>supernatural forces are at work now in the universe, and therefore,
>don't see any relevance of a belief in God to our everyday lives. From
>all of the books Sagan has written which I have read, I gather that he
>felt this same kind of ambivalence about the God issue.
>
>Christians and others have a well defined picture of God as presented in
>the Bible, but does this God square with our modern scientific view of
>the universe? Sagan did not think so, but he did create a -fictional-
>God in his book CONTACT which could be embraced by scientists and others
>of Sagan's same religious persuasion.
>
>Chris, I would like to hear, from you and others who could, if possible,
>embrace Sagan's -fictional- God, what kind of "other messages" you might
>expect to find deeper in Sagan's fictional pi number, beyond the
>introductory "circle image" which is presented as "God's signature", His
>calling card. What messages would you expect Sagan's creator God to say
>to his chosen elect (those who could discover the deeply hidden
>messages) that would be consistent with a -believable- creator God.
>
>Richard ;^) mailto:rwa...@flash.net
>---------------------------------------
>(reply posted and e-mailed)
---
Remove the characters _Bogus from my e-mail address to reply
Chris Andersen
rsro...@wam.umd.edu (Rob Rodgers) wrote:
>chr...@aracnet.com (Chris Andersen) wrote:
>>I can understand that approach. Of course, I don't consider agnostic
>>to be wishy-washy because I can see good reasons for postulating a
>>deity,
>
>Uh, er, which are those?
Ultimate cause. Motivating force. The answer to the question "Why?".
The fundamental essence of the Universe that "is" when all
observational bias is eliminated. Etc., etc., etc.
Chris Andersen
"Richard W. Albin" <rwa...@flash.net> wrote:
>Chris Andersen wrote:
>>
>> aber...@pantheon.yale.edu (Aaron Bergman) wrote:
>>
>> >For myself, the word "atheist" does not represent a belief in the
>> >nonexistance of god. It represents a lack of belief in god. Some people
>> >would term this agnostic, but I don't lack agnostic as it seems to be more
>> >of a wishy-washy type thing--I see no reason to postulate a deity and thus
>> >don't. And, as such, I don't act as if there is a deity.
>>
>> I can understand that approach. Of course, I don't consider agnostic
>> to be wishy-washy because I can see good reasons for postulating a
>> deity, I just don't think there's enough good reasons to firmly decide
>> that there is.
>
>Chris, please help me here if you will. Is the real question not so
>much whether there is a God, but what is the -nature- of that God, if
>one exists, and what does He want out of us, if anything. If we define
>God as the creator of the universe, I know that this does not really
>explain anything, as many have suggested, because it does not explain
>how this God accomplished the creative act nor who (or what) created
>Him.
The nature of God and the existence of God are both the same question
to me, for to say that God exists naturally begs the question "what
kind of God are we talking about here?"
My main problem with most conceptions of God is that they are to
anthropormphic. The big bearded guy in the sky is one of the worst
examples of this, but even more philosophical conceptions of God
suffer from from very human-centric interpretations. Unfortunately,
I've also discovered that the more you remove the anthropormphic
elements from the conception of God the more you end up with, at best,
nothing more than the animating force behind the Universe. In which
case all you have is the answer to the ultimate question "Why?"
My conception of God, if one could continue to call it that, is that
God is the firmament upon which reality exists. God is the ultimate
existence. God is that which does not need an observer to exist. God
is its own observer. God is the something that is when I say
"something is".
>Christians and others have a well defined picture of God as presented in
>the Bible, but does this God square with our modern scientific view of
>the universe? Sagan did not think so, but he did create a -fictional-
>God in his book CONTACT which could be embraced by scientists and others
>of Sagan's same religious persuasion.
I'd challenge the conception that Christians (or any other people of
faith) have a "well defined picture of God". I doubt you could find
two Christians who have the same conception of God, even though they
may say they both believe in the same thing. Everyone personalizes
God, even those who believe that doing so is a sin.
Richard W. Albin
Chris, I tend to agree with you. I see God (the creator) as existing in
a realm outside our universe where the laws of our universe, including
time and space do not apply to Him. We think in terms of cause and
effect because our universe is structured (dare I say designed) that
way. A God who is not constrained by time and space, since these
important components of our universe were created by Him at some finite
time in our past, needs no prior creator.
>
> >Christians and others have a well defined picture of God as presented in
> >the Bible, but does this God square with our modern scientific view of
> >the universe? Sagan did not think so, but he did create a -fictional-
> >God in his book CONTACT which could be embraced by scientists and others
> >of Sagan's same religious persuasion.
>
> I'd challenge the conception that Christians (or any other people of
> faith) have a "well defined picture of God". I doubt you could find
> two Christians who have the same conception of God, even though they
> may say they both believe in the same thing. Everyone personalizes
> God, even those who believe that doing so is a sin.
Chris, even though you and I both seem to have clear but rather
unconventional views of what, or who, we think God is, you can be sure
that athiests and other non-believers will challenge these concepts of
God. They will say that you can call your creator being a God, or a
singularity, or a first mover, or whatever you like, but it still
explains nothing.
Without some evidence or proof found in nature, I'm afraid that we have
nothing to support our personal visions of what God is. We have no
reliable sacred writings, no divine revelations in mathematical
constants like Sagan's message-in-pi, or radio transmissions from aliens
in the star system Vega. Chris, I have spent a lifetime studying and
thinking about these issues, and I want to believe -- I really do -- but
I need more than blind faith that God is out there -- that we are not
alone.
Richard ;^) mailto:rwa...@flash.net
------------------------------------------------------------
(reply e-mailed and posted to rec.arts.movies.current-films
with follow-ups to alt.atheism, and sci.skeptic)
Richard W. Albin
Michael G. Florence wrote:
>
> > issues. By my definitions, Arroway was an atheist, BTW. Carl Sagan was
> >
> > also and atheist. For that matter, so am I.
> >
>
> of the book?
Great question, Mike. I have read almost every popular book Carl Sagan
wrote, and until I read CONTACT, I was sure Sagan was an atheist to the
core. It blew me away when I read Sagan's fictional message-in-pi
sub-plot because it hinted that he might believe in the possibility of a
creator God. Sagan's heroine, Ellie, believed after the message-in-pi
was revealed to her, that "she was not alone".
I have enormous respect for Carl Sagan and I hesitate to suggest this,
but could he possibly have been under pressure from his publishers,
Simon and Schuster, to include a "proof of God" in his book which would
appeal to a wider book market, and thus potentially increase book sales?
I personally think that Sagan had too much integrity to compromise his
basic beliefs for the sake of a few more book sales. Rather, I think
that Sagan considered the possiblity that there may be evidence yet to
be discovered in the fabric of nature which could reveal the existence
of God. I believe he might have kept an open mind about it until his
death.
Additionally, I feel that the book, CONTACT, reveals what kind of God
Sagan might believe in. Sagan's God would be a -selective- God who
chooses to reveal Himself through scientists -- his chosen elect. So,
Mike, to answer your original question, I think Sagan evolved from
atheist to agnostic, and Ellie from agnostic to believer.
Richard ;^) mailto:rwa...@flash.net
--------------------------------------
(reply posted and e-mailed)
Michael G. Florence
Rob Rodgers
chr...@aracnet.com (Chris Andersen) wrote:
>rsro...@wam.umd.edu (Rob Rodgers) wrote:
>>chr...@aracnet.com (Chris Andersen) wrote:
>>>to be wishy-washy because I can see good reasons for postulating a
>>>deity,
>>
>
>Ultimate cause. Motivating force. The answer to the question "Why?".
>The fundamental essence of the Universe that "is" when all
>observational bias is eliminated. Etc., etc., etc.
To which the obvious response is that there can be no "ultimate" about
which someone can't ask "why?"
Early on in my life I grew quite tired of little Catholic snots asking
me how I could possible be so stupid as to not believe in God. They
would frame their questions along these lines, "Where did the universe
come from, then? Who created that?" And any response (such as, "it
just is", pardon me I hadn't read Hawking yet) would generate the
inevitable "Yes, but who caused that?"
Even just the other day I heard a similar mantra repeated by radio
host & failed burgler, Gordon Liddy.
The thing is, when you turn that question around, they're stupidifed:
"Yeah, well, who created God?" "God is eternal, he had no beginning
nor end."
Yeah, well, then it seems a like a hell of a lot stretch to assert
that the universe sprang into existance than that the universe sprang
from an intelligent, eternal, all powerful deity that is as unlikely
and without creation as said universe, but even less likely (not to
mention more contradictory and _stupid_).
There doesn't need to be an ultimate cause or purpose, and postulating
one puts you one step behind in the game.
david farrell
Richard W. Albin wrote:
Anyway...What I thought when I saw this....the alien said something like
this to Arroway "....we need each other to endure the emptiness..." I
thought of the Buddhist take on emptiness, and that it isn't something
to be *endured*, which is a western, alienated position, but rather
emptiness as the fullness of reality, and the realization of emptiness,
or NIRVANA, not something to be endured, but rather a blissful
recognition. I would have thought that after billions of years,
civilization would come to realize what Buddha had, 2500 years ago.
davo
Aaron Bergman
In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970715...@seminole.gate.net>,
Letitia Carey <ath...@gate.net> wrote:
:On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Michael G. Florence wrote:
:
:> But was Carl Sagan (and Arroway, of course) still an atheist at the end
:> of the book?
This was also sent to me in e-mail. Michael--Don't do that without noting
it. It's very rude.
:
:In the book, she was offered a little bit of proof -- the father-image
:told her to study pi in base-13 (I think), and there was a clear symbol in
:the many-manyth decimal place. The reader is left to suppose it's God's
:signature. (Want a better explanation? Read the book -- I don't want to
:give *everything* away!)
:
:If I remember correctly, Sagan believed in God. (This surprised me; I was
:an agnostic when I read this, years ago.) I read that he felt that it was
:impossible to look at all of creation - down to the minute detail of
:biology - and not believe it was divinely *created*.
Nope. Sagan didn't believe in god at all. Read some of his books. Anyways,
my response in e-mail to the above was:
-----
Arroway, no. The book included the Pi thing, however. That was the point.
The book wasn't an endorsement of religious faith--it was a statement of
what Sagan thought would constitute evidence for intelligent creation of
the universe. As no such thing exists in our universe as far as we know,
Sagan was an atheist. Ellie's becoming a theist (of sorts) is actually an
endorsement of atheism in our universe in a way.
Norman Doering
Carl Sagan's last book was "The Demon Haunted World." It's quite atheistic.
Author C. Clarke is also an atheist, yet his fiction books, like
"Childhood's End" are rather theological at times, giving mankind a
higher purpose.
There's a trick to the Pi signal in the novel "Contact."
Have you ever heard of the 6 monkeys typing randomly at a typerwriter
for a million years or so turning out the works of Shakespear?
You know about all the supposed biblical codes?
Letitia Carey
On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Michael G. Florence wrote:
> But was Carl Sagan (and Arroway, of course) still an atheist at the end
> of the book?
In the book, she was offered a little bit of proof -- the father-image
told her to study pi in base-13 (I think), and there was a clear symbol in
the many-manyth decimal place. The reader is left to suppose it's God's
signature. (Want a better explanation? Read the book -- I don't want to
give *everything* away!)
If I remember correctly, Sagan believed in God. (This surprised me; I was
an agnostic when I read this, years ago.) I read that he felt that it was
impossible to look at all of creation - down to the minute detail of
biology - and not believe it was divinely *created*.
My own view (I'm a Wiccan) is that whatever created the universe can be
seen best through the constructs of nature and science. God/dess, if you
will, created all-that-is, and therefore created the scientific laws that
govern all-that-is. Just as the ancients explained it -- one God for
earthquakes, one for fire, one for the sunrise, one for the sea....
Science makes the 'mysterious ways' less mysterious, but no less
miraculous. Your mileage may vary.
--
Letitia Carey ath...@gate.net
"Maggie, when you grow up and you are incredibly beautiful, and
intelligent, and possess a certain sweetness that's like a distant
promise to the brave, to the worthy -- can you please not beat to a
pulp every miserable bastard who comes your way, just because you can?"
-- George Clooney, "One Fine Day"
Edward Flaherty
david farrell <da...@spm.org> writes:
>
> Richard W. Albin wrote:
> >
> > Michael G. Florence wrote:
> > >
> > > > issues. By my definitions, Arroway was an atheist, BTW. Carl Sagan was
> > > >
> > > > also and atheist. For that matter, so am I.
> > > >
> > >
> > > of the book?
> >
>
> this to Arroway "....we need each other to endure the emptiness..." I
> thought of the Buddhist take on emptiness, and that it isn't something
> to be *endured*, which is a western, alienated position, but rather
> emptiness as the fullness of reality, and the realization of emptiness,
> or NIRVANA, not something to be endured, but rather a blissful
> recognition. I would have thought that after billions of years,
> civilization would come to realize what Buddha had, 2500 years ago.
>
> davo
>
> da...@mcn.org
An athiest is someone who believes God does not exist. This was
not Sagan. He did not know whether God existed because of the
lack of evidence in support of it. It would be better to
call him an agnostic.
--
Edward Flaherty Web Site:
Department of Economics http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~eflahert
Florida State University Fax: (904) 644-4535
efla...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
Paul Hager
chr...@aracnet.com (Chris Andersen) writes:
>s_re...@ira.uka.de (I.R.) wrote:
>>Erik Gregersen (er...@vesta.as.utexas.edu) wrote:
>>
>>: [...]
>>
>>: Second, religion. Jodie Foster's character, the heroine, is an athiest.
>>
>>I have only read the novel so far. It says, Dr. Arroway (Foster) is merely an
>>agnostic (a person who does believe in the existance of God, but does not
>>believe that would have any perceivable effect).
>Hmm, I've always thought of an agnostic as someone who says that the
>question of the existance of God is one that cannot be answered by
>humans and therefore must be left perpetually in the "to be answered
>later" column.
I consider myself an agnostic and I can state what it means for me.
I don't know whether there was an intelligent agency behind the creation
of the universe or not. There may never be a final answer to the
question of creation -- it may be ultimately unknowable. In any case
there is no reason to posit the existence of a creator in order to
better understand the universe or our place in it.
--
paul hager hag...@cs.indiana.edu
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
-- Thomas Paine, THE AGE OF REASON
Paul Hager
s_re...@ira.uka.de (I.R.) writes:
>Chris Andersen (chr...@aracnet.com) wrote:
>: s_re...@ira.uka.de (I.R.) wrote:
>: >Erik Gregersen (er...@vesta.as.utexas.edu) wrote:
>: >
>: >: [...]
>: >
>: >: Second, religion. Jodie Foster's character, the heroine, is an athiest.
>: >
>: >I have only read the novel so far. It says, Dr. Arroway (Foster) is merely
>: >an
>: >agnostic (a person who does believe in the existance of God, but does not
>: >believe that would have any perceivable effect).
>: Hmm, I've always thought of an agnostic as someone who says that the
>: question of the existance of God is one that cannot be answered by
>: humans and therefore must be left perpetually in the "to be answered
>: later" column.
>Well, I confess, I am a bit strict here. If you interpret the "legal"
>definition of an agnostic you can find in any common dictionary and not
>blindly copy it, you will understand that there is only a binary stance
>practical. And as someone like that would not want to call him/herself an
>atheist, not explicitely excluding the existence of god, he/she practically
>includes its existence.
>(Prove me wrong, if you can.)
As I have noted in another thread, defining agnostic depends upon how
you define god. If god is characterized as omniscient and omnipotent
then it can't exist -- you have to pitch modern science to embrace such
a concept. If, on the other hand, god somehow started the whole thing
going but can't really control it and has only a limited knowledge of
what is happening, I consider that possible.
Carl Christensen
efla...@garnet1.acns.fsu.edu (Edward Flaherty) wrote:
>lack of evidence in support of it. It would be better to
>call him an agnostic.
His biography on the TV show, well, "Biography" said he died a "strong
agnostic." Of course to many theists "an agnostic is just an atheist
without the courage of his/her convictions."
------
Carl Christensen
C/C++/VB/Web Consultant
Philadelphia, PA USA
E-mail: ca...@op.net Web: http://www.op.net/~carl
Chris Andersen
"Richard W. Albin" <rwa...@flash.net> wrote:
>I have enormous respect for Carl Sagan and I hesitate to suggest this,
>but could he possibly have been under pressure from his publishers,
>Simon and Schuster, to include a "proof of God" in his book which would
>appeal to a wider book market, and thus potentially increase book sales?
Extremely unlikely. For one, I think Sagan had a big enough name that
he couldn't have been pushed around on such an issue. Secondly, even
if he did why in the world would they approve such an obscure proof as
a message in pi?
>I personally think that Sagan had too much integrity to compromise his
>basic beliefs for the sake of a few more book sales. Rather, I think
>that Sagan considered the possiblity that there may be evidence yet to
>be discovered in the fabric of nature which could reveal the existence
>of God. I believe he might have kept an open mind about it until his
>death.
I think another poster put his finger on it when he suggests that
Sagan applied the principles of the SETI project to the question of
the existence of God: instead of trying to prove that God exists, ask
what would be necessary evidence to prove the existence of God. He
came up with a similar response: a message encoded in such a way that
only God could have produced it.
>Additionally, I feel that the book, CONTACT, reveals what kind of God
>Sagan might believe in. Sagan's God would be a -selective- God who
>chooses to reveal Himself through scientists -- his chosen elect. So,
>Mike, to answer your original question, I think Sagan evolved from
>atheist to agnostic, and Ellie from agnostic to believer.
You may be presuming to much to think that Sagan somehow viewed
scientists as "the elect". I would hope that he was enough of a
realist to believe that scientists are no more special then
televangelists when it comes to deciding who should be God's standard
bearers.
That having been said, a message-in-pi proof of God would presume that
God chooses to reveal himself only to those intelligences that are
sophisticated enough to compute pi to enough degree that they could
begin to read that message. But doing so is just a matter of shear
brute-force computation. It demands no moral or ethical element to see
it. I'd have difficulty believing in a God that doesn't subsume morals
and ethics as well as mathematics and science.
Eugene Zhu Xia
Richard W. Albin (rwa...@flash.net) wrote:
: Great question, Mike. I have read almost every popular book Carl Sagan
: wrote, and until I read CONTACT, I was sure Sagan was an atheist to the
: core. It blew me away when I read Sagan's fictional message-in-pi
: sub-plot because it hinted that he might believe in the possibility of a
: creator God. Sagan's heroine, Ellie, believed after the message-in-pi
: was revealed to her, that "she was not alone".
Sagan's motto about religion has always been extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence. In Contact, he was essentially
saying that to convince him of the existence of a divinity, you
had better provide some extraordinary physical evidence. Putting aside
his confusion about physics laws and mathematical theorems, Contact
is saying that nothing short of some fundamental messages in
the very structure of the universe will suffice. Since he found
none to the moment he died, he remained an atheist to the end.
He may have confused mathematics and physics. I do not
agree with his views on various issues concerning religion
and politics, but I understand where he comes from and
have great respect for standing up and defend his principals
no matter how unpopular they may be.
Eugene
Steve Shriver
Richard W. Albin wrote:
>
> Michael G. Florence wrote:
> >
> > > issues. By my definitions, Arroway was an atheist, BTW. Carl Sagan was
> > >
> > > also and atheist. For that matter, so am I.
> > >
> >
> > But was Carl Sagan (and Arroway, of course) still an atheist at the end
> > of the book?
>
> wrote, and until I read CONTACT, I was sure Sagan was an atheist to the
> core. It blew me away when I read Sagan's fictional message-in-pi
> sub-plot because it hinted that he might believe in the possibility of a
> creator God.
As I understand it Sagan was an agnostic. By saying that if there was a
god and it wanted to make itself known to us it could through
transcendental #'s (like pi), he was essentially making two very
important points.
1) that god, if it does exist and wants to be known, could be verified
objectively through science. The aliens in the book were also looking
for the message, and they had not yet found one. So if they had not yet
found the "answer" and they were more advanced then us, then maybe there
really isn't one.
2) by saying that god, if it wanted to be perceived, could make itself
known in an objective way through #'s like pi he is saying that science
can eventually perceive god, if there is one and it wants to be known.
This, however, was not apparent in the movie. He was also saying, and
this was apparent in the movie, that scientific discovery can provide
the type of excitement and wonder that people normally associate with
religion . Thirdly, as is evident in the movie as well as reality,
religion is not necessary for a sense of morality. Thus, the conclusion
is, what is religion necessary for?
Sagan's answer for himself was nothing. This is, IMO, the message of
the book, and, although it was less clear, the message of the movie.
Sagan's heroine, Ellie, believed after the message-in-pi
> was revealed to her, that "she was not alone".
In the book, she had just found out that the man who she thought was her
step father was her real father. She realized that she had been paying
too much attention to her pursuit of ET life, and not enough to those
around her. The "message" in pi, if I remember correctly, was just
another circle. I think Sagan was trying to say that you can look as
long as you want and you may only get led around in circles ;) (ie never
find the answer your looking for). Ellie's problem was that she was
looking for the "answer" at the expense of her relationship with the
people who should matter to her. This is what she realized at the end,
IMO.
> <snip the rest>
> Richard ;^) mailto:rwa...@flash.net
> --------------------------------------
> (reply posted and e-mailed)
--
steve shriver # 553
"It was a narrow escape, if the sheep had been created first,
man would have been a plagiarism." Mark Twain
Letitia Carey
On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Carl Christensen wrote:
> His biography on the TV show, well, "Biography" said he died a "strong
> agnostic." Of course to many theists "an agnostic is just an atheist
> without the courage of his/her convictions."
I don't know whether you agree with the theist statement above, so it's
not my intention to debate you, just to debate the statement. That having
been said....
I was an agnostic for a long time. Now, it isn't really in my personality
to be ambivalent, and a crisis of faith is/was very difficult for me.
Anything I don't feel really passionate about, I tend to ignore.
Agnosticism doesn't seem to me to be so much a conviction, more of a lack
of concern. The human mind can't necessarily wrap itself around the
concept of Whatever-It-Is-That's-In-Charge, and an agnostic declines to
see it as vitally important. An agnostic might argue, "How can you *know*
that?" with a religious person. But s/he knows that *knowing* is in
perception. You can't *know*, in a scientific sense. You can just have
faith.
I.R.
David Ellis (del...@swbell.net) wrote:
: I.R. wrote:
: [...]
: > transformation on a monitor you could clearly see a minor, but hairy
: > formal
: > flaw: "2 + 3 = 4 = False" (and so on). (Does the consultant bite his
: > ass off now?)
: "2 + 3 = 4 = False" is a -precisely- correct theorem and was part of
: what the aliens did to enable the humans to understand the language that
: the plans for the machine were in.
Nope, it is not. I was nitpicking at the fact, that you cannot identify
numbers to truth-values. Every first-year student in math/logic knows that.
(Where was that math-consultant when they have filmed this sequence?)
Jim Rogers
Carl Christensen wrote:
> efla...@garnet1.acns.fsu.edu (Edward Flaherty) wrote:
> >lack of evidence in support of it. It would be better to
> >call him an agnostic.
> His biography on the TV show, well, "Biography" said he died a "strong
> agnostic." Of course to many theists "an agnostic is just an atheist
> without the courage of his/her convictions."
True, many theists see it that way, and they're absolutely wrong; a
"strong agnostic" thinks that no evidence regarding the existence of
gods or supernatural realms is possible, which is a very strong
conviction. The default position in that case is that there is no god,
because a god is a very unparsimonious proposition. There are many
atheists with far weaker convictions than that.
Jim
Matthew Butcher
Carl Christensen wrote:
> His biography on the TV show, well, "Biography" said he died a "strong
> agnostic." Of course to many theists "an agnostic is just an atheist
> without the courage of his/her convictions."
This kind of stuff gets bandied about a lot, and I don't buy it.
Whatever else you might say about Bertrand Russell, he wasn't a man of
weak convictions.
--
Matthew Butcher | The poodle stabbers were about to arrive.
dbut...@netrover.com | -- Vivian Stanshall
I.R.
Paul Hager (hag...@cs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: [...]
: As I have noted in another thread, defining agnostic depends upon how
: you define god.
No, it doesn't. How could anyone be an atheist, if your standpoint depends
only on the definition of god, clearly presuming something like "god" exists?
: [...]
: a concept. If, on the other hand, god somehow started the whole thing
: going but can't really control it and has only a limited knowledge of
: what is happening, I consider that possible.
Sorry to tell you, but in this case you believe in the existence of god, and
therefore you are a theist.
Richard W. Albin
Steve Shriver wrote:
>
> Richard W. Albin wrote:
> >
> > Michael G. Florence wrote:
> > >
> > > > issues. By my definitions, Arroway was an atheist, BTW. Carl Sagan was
> > > >
> > > > also and atheist. For that matter, so am I.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But was Carl Sagan (and Arroway, of course) still an atheist at the end
> > > of the book?
> >
> > Great question, Mike. I have read almost every popular book Carl Sagan
> > wrote, and until I read CONTACT, I was sure Sagan was an atheist to the
> > core. It blew me away when I read Sagan's fictional message-in-pi
> > sub-plot because it hinted that he might believe in the possibility of a
> > creator God.
>
> As I understand it Sagan was an agnostic. By saying that if there was a
> god and it wanted to make itself known to us it could through
> transcendental #'s (like pi), he was essentially making two very
> important points.
>
> 1) that god, if it does exist and wants to be known, could be verified
> objectively through science. The aliens in the book were also looking
> for the message, and they had not yet found one. So if they had not yet
> found the "answer" and they were more advanced then us, then maybe there
> really isn't one.
Steve, I read Contact in 1986, so I am a little foggy on this, but I
think the Vegans -did- discover the message-in-pi, understood its
significance, (that it was God's signature), and they wanted simply to
share their wonderful discovery with earth. To anyone who has recently
read the book, please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> 2) by saying that god, if it wanted to be perceived, could make itself
> known in an objective way through #'s like pi he is saying that science
> can eventually perceive god, if there is one and it wants to be known.
> This, however, was not apparent in the movie. He was also saying, and
> this was apparent in the movie, that scientific discovery can provide
> the type of excitement and wonder that people normally associate with
> religion .
Steve, you are correct that this was not apparent in the movie. I felt
that the message-in-pi was the most important part of the book, and I
wish it had been included in the movie -- many others, of course,
disagree.
Thirdly, as is evident in the movie as well as reality,
> religion is not necessary for a sense of morality. Thus, the conclusion
> is, what is religion necessary for?
Very true -- true morality, for its own sake, without any expectation
for personal reward, transcends religious creed and doctrine.
>
> Sagan's answer for himself was nothing. This is, IMO, the message of
> the book, and, although it was less clear, the message of the movie.
For me, Steve, the message in the book was clear: "we are not alone" --
there are other beings beyond our own world, and an intelligent creator
of the universe -- although the concept of a creator god was less clear
in the movie.
>
> Sagan's heroine, Ellie, believed after the message-in-pi
> > was revealed to her, that "she was not alone".
>
> In the book, she had just found out that the man who she thought was her
> step father was her real father. She realized that she had been paying
> too much attention to her pursuit of ET life, and not enough to those
> around her. The "message" in pi, if I remember correctly, was just
> another circle. I think Sagan was trying to say that you can look as
> long as you want and you may only get led around in circles ;) (ie never
> find the answer your looking for). Ellie's problem was that she was
> looking for the "answer" at the expense of her relationship with the
> people who should matter to her. This is what she realized at the end,
> IMO.
>
Steve, this is an interesting interpretation of the circle discovered in
pi, one that I have not heard before. However, it's very clear to me
that Sagan intended the circle in pi to be "... the artist's signature.
Standing over humans, gods, and demons, subsuming Caretakers and Tunnel
builders, there is an intelligence that antedates the universe."
> > <snip the rest>
> > Richard ;^) mailto:rwa...@flash.net
> > --------------------------------------
> > (reply posted and e-mailed)
>
> --
> steve shriver # 553
>
> "It was a narrow escape, if the sheep had been created first,
> man would have been a plagiarism." Mark Twain
Richard ;^) mailto:rwa...@flash.net
Richard W. Albin
Steve Shriver wrote:
>
> Richard W. Albin wrote:
> >
> > > <snip earlier stuff>
>
> Just two points.
>
> > >
> > > As I understand it Sagan was an agnostic. By saying that if there was a
> > > god and it wanted to make itself known to us it could through
> > > transcendental #'s (like pi), he was essentially making two very
> > > important points.
> > >
> > > 1) that god, if it does exist and wants to be known, could be verified
> > > objectively through science. The aliens in the book were also looking
> > > for the message, and they had not yet found one. So if they had not yet
> > > found the "answer" and they were more advanced then us, then maybe there
> > > really isn't one.
> >
> > Steve, I read Contact in 1986, so I am a little foggy on this, but I
> > think the Vegans -did- discover the message-in-pi, understood its
> > significance, (that it was God's signature), and they wanted simply to
> > share their wonderful discovery with earth. To anyone who has recently
> > read the book, please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> message, in fact they asked Ellie to help them look. That was the
> reason she went back and set the computer to look for the message.
Steve, thanks for the correction.
>
> > > <snip the movie stuff>
> > >
> > > Sagan's heroine, Ellie, believed after the message-in-pi
> > > > was revealed to her, that "she was not alone".
> > >
> > > In the book, she had just found out that the man who she thought was her
> > > step father was her real father. She realized that she had been paying
> > > too much attention to her pursuit of ET life, and not enough to those
> > > around her. The "message" in pi, if I remember correctly, was just
> > > another circle. I think Sagan was trying to say that you can look as
> > > long as you want and you may only get led around in circles ;) (ie never
> > > find the answer your looking for). Ellie's problem was that she was
> > > looking for the "answer" at the expense of her relationship with the
> > > people who should matter to her. This is what she realized at the end,
> > > IMO.
> > >
> > Steve, this is an interesting interpretation of the circle discovered in
> > pi, one that I have not heard before. However, it's very clear to me
> > that Sagan intended the circle in pi to be "... the artist's signature.
> > Standing over humans, gods, and demons, subsuming Caretakers and Tunnel
> > builders, there is an intelligence that antedates the universe."
>
> You may very well be right on this point. I may be reading too much
> Sagan (what I know of him by his other books that I have read,
> especially Demon Haunted World) into the book. The first time I read
> the book, a few years ago, I got the same impression you did. However I
> thought he was making a point that *if* there is an inteligence that
> created the universe, then science not religion could find it. I read
> the book as essentially an argument against religion and for science.
Steve, I got exactly the same impression -- that scientists, not clerics
or mystics would discover God in nature, if He is there to be found. It
appears to me, from the novel, CONTACT, that Sagan's beliefs may have
been closer to "Deism" than "Atheism".
>
> >
> > > > <snip the rest>
> >
> > Richard ;^) mailto:rwa...@flash.net
> > ---------------------------------------
> > (reply posted and e-mailed)
>
the drowning man
Richard W. Albin (rwa...@flash.net) wrote:
: Additionally, I feel that the book, CONTACT, reveals what kind of God
: Sagan might believe in. Sagan's God would be a -selective- God who
: chooses to reveal Himself through scientists -- his chosen elect. So,
: Mike, to answer your original question, I think Sagan evolved from
: atheist to agnostic, and Ellie from agnostic to believer.
Well, Dick, some might call that "devolution"...
(ducking flames)
tdm
--
"You know how women always say that men aren't emotionally available.
Well, a lot of women aren't emotionally available. It's like, if you're
vulnerable, we say, 'Look, we need you to be sensitive.' So you become
sensitive, and then we go, 'You've got no fuckin' backbone,' and we kick you
in the face and run off with a ski trainer."
--Tori Amos
Carl Christensen
Steve Shriver <sac7...@saclink.csus.edu> wrote:
>2) by saying that god, if it wanted to be perceived, could make itself
>known in an objective way through #'s like pi he is saying that science
>can eventually perceive god, if there is one and it wants to be known.
>This, however, was not apparent in the movie. He was also saying, and
>this was apparent in the movie, that scientific discovery can provide
I hate sound like such a big geek and skeptic but if Pi, (as in the
"Contact" book) had a sequence of numbers deep inside it that drew a picture
of a circle that wouldn't mean there was a good. It could have been a
highly intelligent alien civilization that knew enough quantum mechanics to
make universes with special compiler directives for slick transcendental
numbers like Pi that contained a "message" for civilizations 15 billion
years later. Hell, scientists are already saying someday we'll be able to
make our own universes thanks to QM! :-)
David
Edward Flaherty <efla...@garnet1.acns.fsu.edu> wrote in article
<5qfmd1$n3m$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
> david farrell <da...@spm.org> writes:
> >
> > Richard W. Albin wrote:
> > >
> > > Michael G. Florence wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > issues. By my definitions, Arroway was an atheist, BTW. Carl
Sagan was
> > > > >
> > > > > also and atheist. For that matter, so am I.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > But was Carl Sagan (and Arroway, of course) still an atheist at the
end
> > > > of the book?
> > >
> >
>
> An athiest is someone who believes God does not exist. This was
> not Sagan. He did not know whether God existed because of the
> lack of evidence in support of it. It would be better to
> call him an agnostic.
Why should we _believe_ your testament? ;-)
In the most recent "Skeptical Inquirer" on page 5, Carl Sagan's memorial
service is called "an atheist's memorial service", and James Parks Morton
is quoted saying, "Carl the great atheist." Because of this article and
other (more vague) memories, I wrote in two previous posts that Carl was an
atheist.
However, in the same "Skeptical Inquirer" article, his son Jeremy is
paraphrased calling his father agnostic. I looked further, and in the
previous "Skeptical Inquirer" on page 5, snippets from Carl Sagan's article
in the March 10, 1996, "Parade" magazine are given. Judge for yourself,
but he sounds agnostic in the following:
"I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some
thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I
want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural
traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it
is more than wishful thinking."
He continues with the following "strong agnostic" p.o.v.:
"The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is
no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little
good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look
death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent
opportunity that life provides."
BTW, has anyone read Kierkegaard and his opposing p.o.v.? (I.e., a world
without God would be so unbearable that the possibility is not worth
considering). Can anyone make an attempt to defend Kierkegaard's p.o.v.?
David
Paul D. Shocklee
: As I have noted in another thread, defining agnostic depends upon how
: you define god. If god is characterized as omniscient and omnipotent
: then it can't exist -- you have to pitch modern science to embrace such
: a concept. If, on the other hand, god somehow started the whole thing
: going but can't really control it and has only a limited knowledge of
: what is happening, I consider that possible.
Presumably, you're implying that the laws of physics and, in particular,
quantum mechanics would get in the way of the omniscience and
omnipotence of god. But I don't think that's necessarily so.
God could be omniscient in the sense of knowing how all possible futures
can arise from the present. All that requires is that he know the
current quantum state of the universe and how it will evolve in time.
Of course, he'd have to have infinite memory, but if he resides in
an infinite-dimensional space, that's no problem. And, of course, if he
can get a general idea of how things are going to go, and he doesn't
care about every little detail, he doesn't need the infinite memory.
Similarly, he could be omnipotent in the sense that he is completely
free to alter the quantum state of the universe at any time. One could
imagine god as a programmer implementing the universe in a huge
quantum-mechanical computer simulation. If he wants to alter the
quantum state, he just halts the simulation, changes the variables
representing the projections onto his basis eigenstates, and lets
it proceed on its way.
Of course, he couldn't do that without violating the internal laws of the
simulation, but as long as he's careful about it, we'd never notice.
(And if we do happen to notice, he can always reboot and try again.)
Not that this scenario is any more plausible in the absence of evidence
than the "invisible elves are rearranging my furniture when I'm gone"
theory, but it is a logical possibility.
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul D. Shocklee - physics grad student - Princeton University |
| "You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!" |
| - Eros, in Plan 9 From Outer Space |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
no...@nowhere.nospam
Richard W. Albin wrote:
>
> Michael G. Florence wrote:
> >
> > > issues. By my definitions, Arroway was an atheist, BTW. Carl Sagan was
> > >
> > > also and atheist. For that matter, so am I.
> > >
> >
> > But was Carl Sagan (and Arroway, of course) still an atheist at the
> > end of the book?
>
> Sagan wrote, and until I read CONTACT, I was sure Sagan was an
> atheist to the core. It blew me away when I read Sagan's fictional
> message-in-pi sub-plot because it hinted that he might believe in the
> the message-in-pi was revealed to her, that "she was not alone".
Carl Sagan was an agnostic and I believe Arroway was also
even after the pi message. Sure she believed "she was not alone",
after all there was the radio message and she personally went
and met aliens who told her of the messages hidden in transendental
numbers.
But thats ALL she had evidence of...the universe created on purpose.
Normally I would say, "Okay thats a creator God." But don't
forget the aliens where creating galaxies so that new life would
arise so they wouldn't get bored in a few billion years.
The aliens Arroway talked to told her they didn't create the
wormholes and it seems that others who had created the wormholes
had disappeared (left the universe?). Its not difficult to
imagine aliens even father above the ones creating galaxies
as being able to create a universe and leave messages in
the transendental numbers on how to leave that universe.
Going strictly by the evidence (which I think is Sagan's point)
the pi message showed the universe was created on purpose.
You could say it was a 'creator God' that did it, but I think
the correct respose would be 'I don't know what created it.
lets look further into pi and the other transental numbers
and see what we find.'
> Additionally, I feel that the book, CONTACT, reveals what kind of God
> Sagan might believe in.
"Might believe"? Ack. I remember reading in Newsweek an
interview with his wife. They asked if Sagan wanted to believe
and she answered, "He wanted to know".
> Sagan's God would be a -selective- God who
> chooses to reveal Himself through scientists -- his chosen elect.
I think Sagan would roll over in his grave a the mere thought
of "Sagan's God".
> So,
> Mike, to answer your original question, I think Sagan evolved from
> atheist to agnostic, and Ellie from agnostic to believer.
One of the people I saw the movie with is a theist and thought
that also. I asked her what God did Ellie believed in now?
The reply was, no specific God just a creator. Then I said
Ellie needed evidence, what evidence did she see of a God?
The reply was, Ellie was faith differently after no one
believed her. I disagreed since in the hearings she stated
others shouldn't believe what she said on faith.
Gerald Olchowy
In article <33CAECAC...@u.washington.edu>, "Michael G. Florence" <mf...@u.washington.edu> writes:
|> > issues. By my definitions, Arroway was an atheist, BTW. Carl Sagan was
|> >
|> > also and atheist. For that matter, so am I.
|> >
|>
|> But was Carl Sagan (and Arroway, of course) still an atheist at the end
|> of the book?
|>
I believe that both Sagan (and Arroway) were agnostics, not atheists,...
science is basically agnostic on the question of God...God is irrelevant,
and neither God's existence nor non-existence can be proven.
Atheism, just like religion, implies acceptance of beliefs that cannot
be proven.
--
Gerald
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Carl Christensen (ca...@op.net) wrote:
: I hate sound like such a big geek and skeptic but if Pi, (as in the
: "Contact" book) had a sequence of numbers deep inside it that drew a picture
: of a circle that wouldn't mean there was a [god]. It could have been a
: highly intelligent alien civilization that knew enough quantum mechanics to
: make universes with special compiler directives for slick transcendental
: numbers like Pi that contained a "message" for civilizations 15 billion
: years later.
I thought that was what Sagan was trying to say in the book -- that if
there is proof that the universe is a made thing, is simply proof that the
universe is a made thing, not that "god" made it. The sign in pi in the
book could very well have been the corporate logo of Xnsdiuf Industies.
--
***********************************************************
I saw weird stuff in that place last night -- weird,
strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, *evil* stuff!
And I want in!
Homer J. Simpson
***********************************************************
P.J. Gladnick
Letitia Carey <ath...@gate.net> wrote in article
<Pine.A32.3.93.970715...@seminole.gate.net>...
> On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Carl Christensen wrote:
>
> > His biography on the TV show, well, "Biography" said he died a "strong
> > agnostic." Of course to many theists "an agnostic is just an atheist
> > without the courage of his/her convictions."
>
> I don't know whether you agree with the theist statement above, so it's
> not my intention to debate you, just to debate the statement. That
having
> been said....
>
> I was an agnostic for a long time. Now, it isn't really in my
personality
> to be ambivalent, and a crisis of faith is/was very difficult for me.
> Anything I don't feel really passionate about, I tend to ignore.
>
> Agnosticism doesn't seem to me to be so much a conviction, more of a lack
> of concern. The human mind can't necessarily wrap itself around the
> concept of Whatever-It-Is-That's-In-Charge, and an agnostic declines to
> see it as vitally important. An agnostic might argue, "How can you
*know*
> that?" with a religious person. But s/he knows that *knowing* is in
> perception. You can't *know*, in a scientific sense. You can just have
> faith.
>
> Your mileage may vary.
> --
> Letitia Carey ath...@gate.net
>
"You have to find your own truth."
Chris Andersen
Steve Shriver <sac7...@saclink.csus.edu> wrote:
>I hate to be an even bigger geek, but if these alien civilizations are
>*creating* universes, doesn't that make them gods? :)
Yes. But only in the Clarkian sense that their technology is so
sophisticated that they are indistinguishable to us (mere humans) from
gods.
Cheng-Jih Chen
In article <5qik8i$fkg$3...@news.sas.ab.ca>, <cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
>Carl Christensen (ca...@op.net) wrote:
>
>I thought that was what Sagan was trying to say in the book -- that if
>there is proof that the universe is a made thing, is simply proof that the
>universe is a made thing, not that "god" made it. The sign in pi in the
>book could very well have been the corporate logo of Xnsdiuf Industies.
"Intel Inside"
--
In 1997, newcomers to the Internet using WebTV are very impressed with
its content and production values, until they realize they have failed
to activate the WebTV device.
Diana Newman
Carl Christensen wrote:
<snip>
>I hate sound like such a big geek and skeptic but if Pi, (as in the
> "Contact" book) had a sequence of numbers deep inside it that drew a
> picture
> of a circle that wouldn't mean there was a good. It could have been a
>
> highly intelligent alien civilization that knew enough quantum
> mechanics to
> make universes with special compiler directives for slick
> transcendental
> numbers like Pi that contained a "message" for civilizations 15
> billion
> years later. Hell, scientists are already saying someday we'll be
> able to
> make our own universes thanks to QM! :-)
Ever heard of "if it looks like a duck........"? Sounds like god to me,
even if we end up being Him.
Diana
Future
On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 10:40:59 -0700, david farrell <da...@spm.org>
wrote:
>Anyway...What I thought when I saw this....the alien said something like
>this to Arroway "....we need each other to endure the emptiness..." I
>thought of the Buddhist take on emptiness, and that it isn't something
>to be *endured*, which is a western, alienated position,
This was a western movie, made for western culture. Do you really
expect a buddhist point of view? God, the nit-picking that goes on in
here...
>I would have thought that after billions of years,
>civilization would come to realize what Buddha had, 2500 years ago.
A christian would say the same thing about jesus. A cultist would say
the same thing about their leader. It's just a point of view. The
western point of view (that emptiness is loneliness/alienation) is
just as valid. All points of view are valid to those who subscribe to
them.
--
You can Email me at "future at blarg dot net."
Check out my web page at http://www.blarg.net/~future/index.html .
ke...@hotmail.com
In article <01bc919f$9dbbf620$482e74cf@preinstalledcom>,
"David" <da...@private.com> wrote:
> However, in the same "Skeptical Inquirer" article, his son Jeremy is
> paraphrased calling his father agnostic. I looked further, and in the
> previous "Skeptical Inquirer" on page 5, snippets from Carl Sagan's article
> in the March 10, 1996, "Parade" magazine are given. Judge for yourself,
> but he sounds agnostic in the following:
>
> "I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some
> thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I
> want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural
> traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it
> is more than wishful thinking."
>
> He continues with the following "strong agnostic" p.o.v.:
>
> "The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is
> no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little
> good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look
> death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent
> opportunity that life provides."
Did Carl Sagan believe in God? No.
How does one come to the conclusion that Sagan was not an atheist?
Atheism is the lack of belief (or disbelief). Agnosticism is stating
that God is unknowable, which is a form of theism. If Carl Sagan lacked
belief, he is an atheist, pure and simple, no ifs or buts, it's a defined
category and he falls right into it.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Gene W. Smith
In article <5qhk50$mca$1...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
Paul D. Shocklee <shoc...@rogue.princeton.edu> wrote:
>God could be omniscient in the sense of knowing how all possible futures
>can arise from the present. All that requires is that he know the
>current quantum state of the universe and how it will evolve in time.
As a physics grad student, you know there are space-like slices, and
you can evolve these, but there isn't "the present." So you'd better
go back to the drawing board here.
Gene W. Smith
In article <33db177f...@news.op.net>,
Carl Christensen <ca...@op.net> wrote:
>I hate sound like such a big geek and skeptic but if Pi, (as in the
>"Contact" book) had a sequence of numbers deep inside it that drew a picture
>of a circle that wouldn't mean there was a good.
It would probably mean just the opposite--an "up to no good."
>It could have been a highly intelligent alien civilization that knew
>enough quantum mechanics to make universes with special compiler
>directives for slick transcendental numbers like Pi that contained a
>"message" for civilizations 15 billion years later.
Wrong. Numbers are not properties of various universes. In fact, this
involves a contradiction. You can't talk in numerical terms
("universes") unless you already have integers. And if you have 1,2,3
then you have pi.
Gene W. Smith
In article <33CCE1...@nowhere.NOSPAM>, <no...@nowhere.NOSPAM> wrote:
>Richard W. Albin wrote:
>Going strictly by the evidence (which I think is Sagan's point)
>the pi message showed the universe was created on purpose.
It shows no such thing, and does not even make it likely. It provides
evidence, but not evidence for that.
>You could say it was a 'creator God' that did it, but I think
>the correct respose would be 'I don't know what created it.
>lets look further into pi and the other transental numbers
>and see what we find.'
The correct response would be a well-justified paranoia.
Edward Keyes
In article <33CC473A...@saclink.csus.edu>,
Steve Shriver <sac7...@saclink.csus.edu> wrote:
> I read the book again just 1 month ago. The Vegans didn't find the
> message, in fact they asked Ellie to help them look. That was the
> reason she went back and set the computer to look for the message.
Are you certain of this? As I understood it, the Vegans had found an
actual message (with informational content) but were unable to decode
it. Ellie's discovery, I believe, was described as merely the "tip
of the iceberg", a sign of more to come if you keep looking -- which
the Vegans had already done.
I find it impossible to believe that the Vegans needed 20th century
Earth computer technology to find the circle in pi, considering the
knowledge they already had.
[snip]
+------------ Edward Keyes, mist...@1stresource.com -------------+
|............. http://www.1stresource.com/~mistered/ .............|
|.... DaggerWare: "small, sharp, and with a heck of a point!" ....|
+- "A little inaccuracy saves a world of explanation." C.E.Ayres -+
Richard W. Albin
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>
> Carl Christensen (ca...@op.net) wrote:
>
> : I hate sound like such a big geek and skeptic but if Pi, (as in the
> : "Contact" book) had a sequence of numbers deep inside it that drew a picture
> : highly intelligent alien civilization that knew enough quantum mechanics to
> : make universes with special compiler directives for slick transcendental
> : numbers like Pi that contained a "message" for civilizations 15 billion
> : years later.
>
> there is proof that the universe is a made thing, is simply proof that the
> universe is a made thing, not that "god" made it. The sign in pi in the
> book could very well have been the corporate logo of Xnsdiuf Industies.
>
> ***********************************************************
> I saw weird stuff in that place last night -- weird,
> strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, *evil* stuff!
> And I want in!
> Homer J. Simpson
> ***********************************************************
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what most everyone is saying is
that whatever intelligent force, entity, advanced alien culture, or God,
somehow manipulated the very fabric of nature to produce the
message-in-pi, then it does not matter who or what did it if the message
has no relevance to human beings.
If the God of the Jewish or Christian Bible did it, then it would indeed
matter very much, however, because that God demands a lot from man --
live by His Divine Creed and worship Him, or you may go to hell. OTOH,
if the intelligent force that created the message in pi is only the
Creator God, the Deistic God (of Jefferson and Paine), and not a
personal God, then it really doesn't matter if the message in pi proves
His existence or not.
Richard ;^) mailto:rwa...@flash.net
---------------------------------------
(reple posted and e-mailed)
Richard W. Albin
Sagan was fond of using the term "God of the Gaps". When primitive man
did not know what made birds fly, they said "God did it". There were
big gaps of understanding then. As man's knowledge increased over time,
the gaps have grown smaller and smaller.
Ultimately, when man can explain how everything works, the gaps will
close and there will be no more room for a God. However, Dave, Sagan
would have been the first to agree that there are wide gaps which still
exist in our understand of the universe, and within those gaps is plenty
of room for a Creator God. I think Sagan would have agreed that there
might indeed be a Creator God, but of course, not necessarily a personal
God.
yang hu
if pi is indeed a nonrepeating number isn't there a good chance that
there could be a binary message (a morse code type message) that says
Elvis is god?
Yang
Paul D. Shocklee
Spoilers for the book, "Contact"
Steve Shriver (sac7...@saclink.csus.edu) wrote:
[...]
: As I understand it Sagan was an agnostic. By saying that if there was a
: god and it wanted to make itself known to us it could through
: transcendental #'s (like pi), he was essentially making two very
: important points.
: 1) that god, if it does exist and wants to be known, could be verified
: objectively through science. The aliens in the book were also looking
: for the message, and they had not yet found one. So if they had not yet
: found the "answer" and they were more advanced then us, then maybe there
: really isn't one.
[...]
Actually, the aliens in the book *had* found a message in one of the
transcendental numbers. Its length was the product of 11 prime numbers,
which meant that the message itself was 11-dimensional. The interesting
thing was that the aliens, who were otherwise almost god-like in their
technical abilities, still hadn't managed to figure it out.
Diana Newman
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
<snip>
>I thought that was what Sagan was trying to say in the book -- that if
> there is proof that the universe is a made thing, is simply proof that
> the
> universe is a made thing, not that "god" made it. The sign in pi in
> the
> book could very well have been the corporate logo of Xnsdiuf
> Industies.
Oh boy. You know, I see an intriguing pattern developing here. (G) An
atheist so caught up in his insistance that there is no god that he can
look at a universe, admit that *someone* or *something* may have
actually manufactured it to specs....and then decide that this doesn't
mean that *someone* or *something* isn't God!
Rather convenient reasoning, actually, when you think about it. every
time you come up with something that a theist would attribute to god
alone, you change the definition of "god" so that said evidence no
longer applies. ;-)
So; if we actually find evidence that someone actually did create the
universe, does that by definition mean that of course he isn't God,
since we found him? For someone who claims to have no belief in a deity,
you certainly seem to have a firm idea of who he is. :-)
diana, who is having an epiphany about atheist doctrine......(laughing)
Carl Christensen
Diana Newman <b...@utah.uswest.net> wrote:
>Carl Christensen wrote:
>>I hate sound like such a big geek and skeptic but if Pi, (as in the
>> "Contact" book) had a sequence of numbers deep inside it that drew a
>> picture
>
>Ever heard of "if it looks like a duck........"? Sounds like god to me,
>even if we end up being Him.
Well, I mean, they would be god-like if they could make universes but not
necessarily "GOD" since they still might not be able to do anything once
it's made. Maybe they made a universe from an accident, e.g. some advanced
quantum mechanics experiments gone awry. It doesn't mean they would have
control over the worlds in it, or what any inhabitants are doing in it. So
that would be un-god-like.
I mean, maybe they could make a universe where Pi = 42 but they couldn't
change it a few billion years later to 3.14159265.... or 22/7 or just plain
3 because they hate irrational numbers, do you see? I mean, if god is
omnipotent he should be able to change natural laws at his whim right? You
know, maybe just for fun, tomorrow morning, let's have force = mass x
acceleration squared or something.
Carl Christensen
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
>I thought that was what Sagan was trying to say in the book -- that if
>there is proof that the universe is a made thing, is simply proof that the
>universe is a made thing, not that "god" made it. The sign in pi in the
>book could very well have been the corporate logo of Xnsdiuf Industies.
Yeah, exactly, it could have been some advanced alien research project in
physics and little tricks like transcendental #'s with secret messages are
there for a gag.
Just like all that software out there, where if you click on a certain area
of the "About" box, a picture of the programmers cat or girlfriend show up.
Well, maybe the girlfriend picture is a fantasy, but you get the picture.
But universe creation, doesn't mean that Bobby Xtjasdfk, a Physics grad
student at Red Giant Tech is an omnipotent god and is going to follow his
little experiment and torture the inhabitants of a certain world about a
typical star in an outer arm of a spiral galaxy.
David
ke...@hotmail.com wrote in article <8690996...@dejanews.com>...
> How does one come to the conclusion that Sagan was not an atheist?
> Atheism is the lack of belief (or disbelief). Agnosticism is stating
> that God is unknowable, which is a form of theism. If Carl Sagan lacked
> belief, he is an atheist, pure and simple, no ifs or buts, it's a defined
> category and he falls right into it.
Ok, the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are terms whose meanings have varied
(in time and from writer to writer). I am most familiar with the
distinction: "An atheist claims that there is no god, and an agnostic only
claims that s/he doesn't know whether there is a god." It was this
distinction that I was using when I claimed that Sagan was agnostic and not
atheistic.
However, the roots of "atheist" ("a" without + "theos" god) and "agnostic"
("a" not + "gnostos" known) allow for wide interpretation. And, as I have
discovered, those terms have been interpreted widely. Some use "atheist"
to mean anyone who lives "without god" (e.g., without believing in god) and
call "atheist" both those who claim there is no god and those who don't
know whether god exists. You appear to use the term "atheist" in this way.
To further confuse matters, there is something called "Religious
Agnosticism" that seems to claim that god exists but is not knowable. And
you appear to use the term "agnostic" in this way. However, there is also
"Secular Agnosticism", which appears to describe the position of those who
don't know whether or not god exists. If I understand "Secular
Agnosticism" correctly, I'm claiming that Sagan was a secular agnostic.
In short, I think that we agree what Sagan's position was, but that we are
using the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" differently.
David
Paul Hager
ca...@op.net (Carl Christensen) writes:
>cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
>>I thought that was what Sagan was trying to say in the book -- that if
>>there is proof that the universe is a made thing, is simply proof that the
>>universe is a made thing, not that "god" made it. The sign in pi in the
>>book could very well have been the corporate logo of Xnsdiuf Industies.
>Yeah, exactly, it could have been some advanced alien research project in
>physics and little tricks like transcendental #'s with secret messages are
>there for a gag.
>Just like all that software out there, where if you click on a certain area
>of the "About" box, a picture of the programmers cat or girlfriend show up.
>Well, maybe the girlfriend picture is a fantasy, but you get the picture.
>But universe creation, doesn't mean that Bobby Xtjasdfk, a Physics grad
>student at Red Giant Tech is an omnipotent god and is going to follow his
>little experiment and torture the inhabitants of a certain world about a
>typical star in an outer arm of a spiral galaxy.
Exactly so. This is along the lines of what I've been saying about
levels of god-hood. We can talk of a creator god who has limited or
no power over the creation, once made -- like your Bobby Xtjasdfk.
Or there is my social scientist gods running simulations -- they
would be omnipotent in that they would be starting and stopping
simulations and varying the inputs but would not know what the
outcomes would be.
--
paul hager hag...@cs.indiana.edu
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
-- Thomas Paine, THE AGE OF REASON
Paul Hager
Diana Newman <b...@utah.uswest.net> writes:
>cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
><snip>
>>I thought that was what Sagan was trying to say in the book -- that if
>> there is proof that the universe is a made thing, is simply proof that
>> the
>> universe is a made thing, not that "god" made it. The sign in pi in
>> the
>> book could very well have been the corporate logo of Xnsdiuf
>> Industies.
>Oh boy. You know, I see an intriguing pattern developing here. (G) An
>atheist so caught up in his insistance that there is no god that he can
>look at a universe, admit that *someone* or *something* may have
>actually manufactured it to specs....and then decide that this doesn't
>mean that *someone* or *something* isn't God!
I consider it possible that a "universe" can be made. The Standard
Model in physics allows for that possibility. Of course, the maker
of a universe, after inflation began, would be totally cut off from
it and unable to affect it. Is that maker a god? I would say, yes,
in a restricted sense. Could our universe have been deliberately
created in a physics experiment? Yes, if certain ideas about physics
are right. I am an atheist if one posits an all-knowing, all-powerful
god/creator. If god is a lesser being then that MAY be possible
though unprovable. Therefore, I call myself an agnostic.
>Rather convenient reasoning, actually, when you think about it. every
>time you come up with something that a theist would attribute to god
>alone, you change the definition of "god" so that said evidence no
>longer applies. ;-)
Not at all. In my preferred version of god -- the committee of
social scientists running multiple simulations in a planet-sized
quantum computer -- you would have an all-powerful but NOT all-knowing
god. It would be possible for this god to "reveal" itself in the
simulation -- perhaps this would be something that the social scientists
would do on a weekend, just for the hell of it. (If the social scientists
were in Indiana, they could also set pi=3, but I digress.) I doubt that
many theists would consider this god to be very satisfying, particularly
if it told the truth about itself. Were I a being in such a simulation
I'd have to say that the theists were right -- there is a god. Big
deal. Elsewhere I have written that I would expect there was a
possibility that the beings in the simulation, upon finding that
there really was a "creator" mucking around with the "universe", would
tell it to leave them the hell alone.
>So; if we actually find evidence that someone actually did create the
>universe, does that by definition mean that of course he isn't God,
>since we found him?
I'm certainly not saying that. Consider the possibility that
one of the social scientists is a sadist and runs simulations in
his off hours in which there are perpetual wars and genocides.
Not a very desirable god. Discovering god might not be pleasant
for the discoverers.
>For someone who claims to have no belief in a deity,
>you certainly seem to have a firm idea of who he is. :-)
I have a very firm idea of what a deity cannot be: all-knowing AND
all-powerful. Something lesser, as I and others have noted, may
be possible, though I personally expect that it is impossible to
prove the existance of such an entity. Moreover, and most importantly,
the god hypothese is NOT NECESSARY. There is no need to invoke such
a creature in order to explain anything. God is intellectual filligree.
>diana, who is having an epiphany about atheist doctrine......(laughing)
A false epiphany, I'm afraid, where this agnostic is concerned. I
hope I've helped to set you straight on this.
Paul Hager
"Richard W. Albin" <rwa...@flash.net> writes:
>cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>>
>> Carl Christensen (ca...@op.net) wrote:
>>
>> : I hate sound like such a big geek and skeptic but if Pi, (as in the
>> : "Contact" book) had a sequence of numbers deep inside it that drew a picture
>> : of a circle that wouldn't mean there was a [god]. It could have been a
>> : highly intelligent alien civilization that knew enough quantum mechanics to
>> : make universes with special compiler directives for slick transcendental
>> : numbers like Pi that contained a "message" for civilizations 15 billion
>> : years later.
>>
>> I thought that was what Sagan was trying to say in the book -- that if
>> there is proof that the universe is a made thing, is simply proof that the
>> universe is a made thing, not that "god" made it. The sign in pi in the
>> book could very well have been the corporate logo of Xnsdiuf Industies.
>>
>> --
>> ***********************************************************
>> I saw weird stuff in that place last night -- weird,
>> strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, *evil* stuff!
>> And I want in!
>> Homer J. Simpson
>> ***********************************************************
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what most everyone is saying is
>that whatever intelligent force, entity, advanced alien culture, or God,
>somehow manipulated the very fabric of nature to produce the
>message-in-pi, then it does not matter who or what did it if the message
>has no relevance to human beings.
>If the God of the Jewish or Christian Bible did it, then it would indeed
>matter very much, however, because that God demands a lot from man --
>live by His Divine Creed and worship Him, or you may go to hell. OTOH,
>if the intelligent force that created the message in pi is only the
>Creator God, the Deistic God (of Jefferson and Paine), and not a
>personal God, then it really doesn't matter if the message in pi proves
>His existence or not.
Excellent summation. I think we can all go back to work now....
Christopher A. Lee
In article <01bc9263$9662b480$182e74cf@preinstalledcom> "David" <da...@private.com> writes:
>
>
>ke...@hotmail.com wrote in article <8690996...@dejanews.com>...
>> How does one come to the conclusion that Sagan was not an atheist?
>> Atheism is the lack of belief (or disbelief). Agnosticism is stating
>> that God is unknowable, which is a form of theism. If Carl Sagan lacked
>> belief, he is an atheist, pure and simple, no ifs or buts, it's a defined
>> category and he falls right into it.
>
>Ok, the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are terms whose meanings have varied
>(in time and from writer to writer). I am most familiar with the
>distinction: "An atheist claims that there is no god, and an agnostic only
>claims that s/he doesn't know whether there is a god." It was this
>distinction that I was using when I claimed that Sagan was agnostic and not
>atheistic.
The problem is that both these definitions are from a theistic
perspective, and presuppose the theist position. Neither actually
describes the generic atheist/agnostic/non-believer's position
at all.
An atheist is simply somebody who doesn't have a god to believe in,
and it's really a non-event. Compare it to not believing in Santa Claus.
I doubt if either "claiming that there is no Santa Claus" or "claiming
you don't know there is a Santa Claus" describe you: it's probably
irrelevant to you. But understand that gods are no more important to
non-believers than Santa Claus is to non-Santa-believers like you.
Believers make a big thing about it, and assume that because
it's important to them it's equally relevant to us. But it isn't.
>However, the roots of "atheist" ("a" without + "theos" god) and "agnostic"
>("a" not + "gnostos" known) allow for wide interpretation. And, as I have
>discovered, those terms have been interpreted widely. Some use "atheist"
>to mean anyone who lives "without god" (e.g., without believing in god) and
>call "atheist" both those who claim there is no god and those who don't
>know whether god exists. You appear to use the term "atheist" in this way.
Because he's not theist therefore he's atheist. It's just a convenient
label that's only meaningful in the context of a property that doesn't
describe the subject, and says absolutely nothing about whatever other
properties he may or may not have.
It's exactly the same construction as a lot of other a- words like
apolitical, asymmetric, asynchronous etc.
Most believers use the word agnostic as a sort of half-way house between
believing and not-believing in *their* deity (ignoring all the others
they don't believe in either). But this presupposes there is something
to not know whether it exists or not. The theist has this presumption but
the non-believer doesn't.
A lot of non-believers call themselves agnostics rather than atheists
because of negative connotations in the minds of believers even though
they don't share the theistic assumptions that go along with it. But it's
pretty obvious to other non-believers what they mean and it's not what
the theist understands by it.
At that level there's precious little difference between atheist and
agnostic. They're just non-believers. Being linguistically pedantic
atheist is a better word because it says which particular property is
absent: theism. Non-believer and agnostic skirt around it.
> To further confuse matters, there is something called "Religious
>Agnosticism" that seems to claim that god exists but is not knowable. And
>you appear to use the term "agnostic" in this way. However, there is also
>"Secular Agnosticism", which appears to describe the position of those who
>don't know whether or not god exists. If I understand "Secular
Which still presupposes god in order to say they don't know whether or
not it exists. whereas it's not important enough to non-believers to make
that statement about it.
>Agnosticism" correctly, I'm claiming that Sagan was a secular agnostic.
I've never understood why so many people want to put labels on us and
define our position for us from that label. And Sagan certainty didn't
"know whether or not it exists" - it wasn't important enough for that.
>In short, I think that we agree what Sagan's position was, but that we are
>using the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" differently.
Yes. Try to understand it from the position of the person you're
labelling.
>David
no...@nowhere.nospam
Paul D. Shocklee wrote:
> Actually, the aliens in the book *had* found a message in one of the
> transcendental numbers. Its length was the product of 11 prime
> numbers, which meant that the message itself was 11-dimensional.
> The interesting thing was that the aliens, who were otherwise almost
> god-like in their technical abilities, still hadn't managed to figure
> it out.
Dooh, not thats not it at all. The message Ellie found in pi
was 1's and 0's if you converted pi to base 11. Base 2 is binary,
base 8 is octal, base 16 is hexidecmal. What we normally us
is base 10 or decimal.
Since Ellie decoded the message in seconds she surmised there
were more messages deeper in pi and other transcendental numbers
that the aliens had not yet figured out.
no...@nowhere.nospam
Gene W. Smith wrote:
>
> In article <33CCE1...@nowhere.NOSPAM>, <no...@nowhere.NOSPAM> wrote:
> >Richard W. Albin wrote:
>
> >Going strictly by the evidence (which I think is Sagan's point)
> >the pi message showed the universe was created on purpose.
>
> It shows no such thing, and does not even make it likely. It provides
> evidence, but not evidence for that.
Okay, what would it provide evidence for?
> >You could say it was a 'creator God' that did it, but I think
> >the correct respose would be 'I don't know what created it.
> >lets look further into pi and the other transental numbers
> >and see what we find.'
>
> The correct response would be a well-justified paranoia.
Paranoid of what?
Gene W. Smith
>I mean, maybe they could make a universe where Pi = 42 but they couldn't
>change it a few billion years later to 3.14159265.... or 22/7 or just plain
>3 because they hate irrational numbers, do you see?
This is so completely stupid. If they can make pi=42, when it *isn't*
42, they can do impossible things. No, I don't "see"--and neither do
you.
>I mean, if god is omnipotent he should be able to change natural laws
>at his whim right?
This has nothing whatever to do with the issue.
Gerald Olchowy
In article <01bc919f$9dbbf620$482e74cf@preinstalledcom>, "David" <da...@private.com> writes:
|>
|> BTW, has anyone read Kierkegaard and his opposing p.o.v.? (I.e., a world
|> without God would be so unbearable that the possibility is not worth
|> considering). Can anyone make an attempt to defend Kierkegaard's p.o.v.?
|>
Why does it need a defense...he is expressing an opinion based on his
faith? People are entitled to their opinions...did Kierkegaard force
his opinions on anyone...I don't think so.
There seem to be two types of people in the world...those, like
Kierkegaard, for whom the existence of God is self-evident, and
those like Sagan, for whom the existence of God is irrelevant.
i.e. people whose "spirituality" is driven from their inner
perceptions, and people whose "spirituality" is driven from their
external perceptions.
What we need is tolerance of each other...and not "religious
zealots" and "fanatical atheists" waging war on each other.
--
Gerald
Rob Rodgers
golc...@nortel.ca (Gerald Olchowy) wrote:
>I believe that both Sagan (and Arroway) were agnostics, not atheists,...
>science is basically agnostic on the question of God...God is irrelevant,
>and neither God's existence nor non-existence can be proven.
>
>Atheism, just like religion, implies acceptance of beliefs that cannot
>be proven.
Such as? That there is no God? Sorry, that's not a "belief" -- it's
an assumption based on the scanty (read: nonexistant) proof of God's
existence.
Steve Shriver
Edward Keyes wrote:
>
> In article <33CC473A...@saclink.csus.edu>,
> Steve Shriver <sac7...@saclink.csus.edu> wrote:
>
> > I read the book again just 1 month ago. The Vegans didn't find the
> > message, in fact they asked Ellie to help them look. That was the
> > reason she went back and set the computer to look for the message.
>
> Are you certain of this? As I understood it, the Vegans had found an
> actual message (with informational content) but were unable to decode
> it. Ellie's discovery, I believe, was described as merely the "tip
> of the iceberg", a sign of more to come if you keep looking -- which
> the Vegans had already done.
As I remember it Vegans didn't find a message. This question along with
who created the wormholes were the two questions they were still
pursuing.
>
> I find it impossible to believe that the Vegans needed 20th century
> Earth computer technology to find the circle in pi, considering the
> knowledge they already had.
Your right, I thought that at the time I read it too.
>
> [snip]
>
> +------------ Edward Keyes, mist...@1stresource.com -------------+
> |............. http://www.1stresource.com/~mistered/ .............|
> |.... DaggerWare: "small, sharp, and with a heck of a point!" ....|
> +- "A little inaccuracy saves a world of explanation." C.E.Ayres -+
--
steve shriver # 553
"It was a narrow escape, if the sheep had been created first,
man would have been a plagiarism." Mark Twain
Andrew Lias
In article <8690996...@dejanews.com>, <ke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <01bc919f$9dbbf620$482e74cf@preinstalledcom>,
>
>How does one come to the conclusion that Sagan was not an atheist?
>Atheism is the lack of belief (or disbelief).
Sagan described himself as an agnostic. It seems clear that he is using
the (all too popular) misconception that "agnostic" means that one just
isn't sure whether or not there is a god. Never the less, courtesy
usually requires allowing a person to use whatever descriptive for
themselves they find appropriate, so long is the description is not too
egregious. Considering the popularity of this misconception for the term,
it can be argued that it constitutes a valid definition by common usage,
even though it is at odds with the original definition. It may be useful
to distinguish Huxlian agnosticism from popular agnosticism.
>Agnosticism is stating
>that God is unknowable, which is a form of theism.
Er, not quite. Huxlain agnosticism is the proposition that it is
impossible, in principal, to know whether or not a god exists. They sound
similar , but there is a cosmos of difference between the two. The first
assumes the existence of god, the second makes no such assumption.
More so, agnosticism (cf. Huxley) is not incompatible with atheism.
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, whereas agnosticism is a statement
regarding the knowability of gods. Recently I have come to regard the
agnostic proposition more seriously. I wonder how, indeed, we could know
that something is a god, even if one were to manifest. It seems, to me,
that the most we could say is that this entity might exhibit behavior and
attributes consistent with the hypothesis that it is a deity. Note that,
even though I tend to favor the notion that it may be impossible to know
whether or not a god exists, I still lack belief in said deities, and thus
am still an atheist.
> If Carl Sagan lacked
>belief, he is an atheist, pure and simple, no ifs or buts, it's a defined
>category and he falls right into it.
Carl's beliefs are consistent with the definition of atheism *and* the
popular definition of agnosticism (nor is it incompatible with the Huxlian
definition). It is simply one of those examples of how the english
language grows to be such a confusing thing.
--
Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
http://www.wco.com/~anrwlias
Chris Andersen
"Richard W. Albin" <rwa...@flash.net> wrote:
>Sagan was fond of using the term "God of the Gaps". When primitive man
>did not know what made birds fly, they said "God did it". There were
>big gaps of understanding then. As man's knowledge increased over time,
>the gaps have grown smaller and smaller.
>
>Ultimately, when man can explain how everything works, the gaps will
>close and there will be no more room for a God. However, Dave, Sagan
>would have been the first to agree that there are wide gaps which still
>exist in our understand of the universe, and within those gaps is plenty
>of room for a Creator God. I think Sagan would have agreed that there
>might indeed be a Creator God, but of course, not necessarily a personal
>God.
I happen to believe that there will always be gaps that can never be
closed, therefore there will always be room for "God".
Chris Andersen
ke...@hotmail.com wrote:
>How does one come to the conclusion that Sagan was not an atheist?
>Atheism is the lack of belief (or disbelief). Agnosticism is stating
>that God is unknowable, which is a form of theism. If Carl Sagan lacked
>belief, he is an atheist, pure and simple, no ifs or buts, it's a defined
>category and he falls right into it.
I don't believe in God but I believe in the possibility of God. This
is why I consider myself an agnostic. For me it has nothing to do with
saying "he" is unknowable. It has everything to do with believing that
a proof of God's existance is irrelevent to the question.
Gene W. Smith
On Thu, 17 Jul 1997 no...@nowhere.NOSPAM wrote:
> Gene W. Smith wrote:
> > In article <33CCE1...@nowhere.NOSPAM>, <no...@nowhere.NOSPAM>
wrote:
> > >Going strictly by the evidence (which I think is Sagan's point)
> > >the pi message showed the universe was created on purpose.
> > It shows no such thing, and does not even make it likely. It provides
> > evidence, but not evidence for that.
> Okay, what would it provide evidence for?
The most obvious possibility is evidence of a hoax. Normally, this would
mean human hoaxers, but in the situation Sagan set up, it could easily
mean aliens. That none of Sagan's characters saw this staggeringly obvious
point makes it hard to take them seriously as the first-rate thinkers they
were meant to be.
Another possibility would be a deep mathematical reason, perhaps one which
would show that circles *ought* to occur in the base 11 expansion of pi
with a greater than frequency than we would now expect. This would be a
very peculiar theorem.
Of course, it *might* not be evidence of anything, but Sagan set up the
numbers in such a way as to make that unlikely (in a Bayesian sense.)
One thing it can't be is evidence of is the creation of the physical
universe, since the value of pi is no more a physical fact that the value
of three. And like three, you can't "make" pi be some other number, or
"choose" pi to be something other than pi. That is simply babble.
> > >You could say it was a 'creator God' that did it, but I think
> > >the correct respose would be 'I don't know what created it.
> > >lets look further into pi and the other transental numbers
> > >and see what we find.'
> > The correct response would be a well-justified paranoia.
> Paranoid of what?
Who is it who is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, and how powerful
are they?
Diana Newman
Carl Christensen wrote:
<snip>.
> Well, I mean, they would be god-like if they could make universes but
> not
> necessarily "GOD" since they still might not be able to do anything
> once
> it's made. Maybe they made a universe from an accident, e.g. some
> advanced
> quantum mechanics experiments gone awry. It doesn't mean they would
> have
> control over the worlds in it, or what any inhabitants are doing in
> it. So
> that would be un-god-like.
The being you discribe is definately a god...the 'creator god' of deism.
> I mean, maybe they could make a universe where Pi = 42 but they
> couldn't
> change it a few billion years later to 3.14159265.... or 22/7 or just
> plain
> 3 because they hate irrational numbers, do you see? I mean, if god is
>
> omnipotent he should be able to change natural laws at his whim
> right? You
> know, maybe just for fun, tomorrow morning, let's have force = mass x
> acceleration squared or something.
There you go: dictating to god what he should be before you will call
him "god". Although this is very handy--no matter who you meet and what
his powers and purposes may be, you can always keep your atheist badge
simply by declaring that the "real" god would of course be, or do,
something else. Ever heard of the "true Scot" fallacy? This is where you
declare that no *true* Scott would drink whiskey....therefore, if a
Scott drinks whiskey, he is no true Scott. This is what you are trying
to do with the idea of deity.
My I suggest that "god", should there be one, is what he is, and not
what you decide he should be? It isn't up to you to decide what his
attributes should be; after all, considering the incredible number of
theistic ideas out there, he *could* be just about anything, and still
be properly called "god".
If I came to you with a shiny gold nugget, and said; "this is gold", it
isn't logical to decide that it isn't gold because you think that *real*
gold should cut glass.
There are theists who do not believe that God is ominpotent---or that if
He is, He chooses not to act upon His ability. There are those who
believe that God is not omnipresent---that He occupies one proper point
in space, as we do, to the exclusion of others. There are theists who
believe that He (or She) is not concerned with humanity, having
contented Himself with simply starting the process. There are theists
who believe that He IS omnipotent, omnipresent, personal and in total
charge of every minutia of living.
At any rate, the only thing we can conclude from the idea that God may
not be omniscient and omnipotent----is the idea that God may not be
omniscient and omnipotent, not that He doesn't exist at all.
diana
>
Diana Newman
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
<snip>
>>Believers make a big thing about it, and assume that because
>it's important to them it's equally relevant to us. But it isn't.
(raising hand.....) Excuse me?
May I point out that here on alt.atheism, atheists spend a great deal
of time identifying themselves according to their religious beliefs
(claiming not to have any), and discussing things relevant to them
directly because of their atheism. Now, I will freely admit that there
are a great many atheists in the world to whom your statement above
would apply. However, the moment you make "atheist" enough of an
identifier for yourself that you feel called upon to comment upon it,
your lack of belief becomes as important to you as many a theists'
belief is to him---and can no longer claim that the idea of a deity is
irrelevant. In fact, nobody on alt.atheism is can claim this. ;-)
You simply cannot claim indifference while you are interested enough to
post an article about it.
>Because he's not theist therefore he's atheist. It's just a convenient
label that's
>only meaningful in the context of a property that doesn't describe the
subject, and says > absolutely nothing about whatever other properties
he may or may not have.
The trouble with this is that "theism", "atheism", "agnosticism",
"deism",
etc. are all terms that directly relate to specific beliefs about deity,
and cause great confusion when used casually and carelessly. There are,
within the context of the idea, a great many gradations between
"atheism"
(strong and weak) and "theism"----and those gradations don't fit either
end of the spectrum. To confine descriptions merely to those two ideas,
like an on/off switch, is inaccurate, confusing and ultimately useless
in understanding beliefs and for communication
>It's exactly the same construction as a lot of other a- words like
apolitical, asymmetric, >asynchronous etc.
The above words (with the exception of "apolitical") ARE either/or
terms,
and can be used the way you propose. However, you will notice that any
term which attempts to describe human belief, practice and thought
simply
cannot be tied down to an either/or proposition. "Apolitical" describes
a human activity and belief-----"asymmetric", "asynchronous" do not.
>Most believers use the word agnostic as a sort of half-way house
between
>believing and not-believing in *their* deity (ignoring all the others
>they don't believe in either). But this presupposes there is something
>to not know whether it exists or not. The theist has this presumption
but
>the non-believer doesn't.
Brother, is that circular. Of course the non-believer doesn't have
the presumption that there is a god to not believe in. However, if the
non-believer can imagine and describe the concept in thought and word,
then ta da! He now has a concrete "something" in which not to believe.
>A lot of non-believers call themselves agnostics rather than atheists
>because of negative connotations in the minds of believers even though
>they don't share the theistic assumptions that go along with it. But
it's
>pretty obvious to other non-believers what they mean and it's not what
>the theist understands by it.
I have this same problem with "cult" and "Christian". People who
have internalized and completely disparate ideas of the definition of
words,
but yet expect everyone else to just know that when the word is used,
their
particular definition is the correct, assumed, one.
>At that level there's precious little difference between atheist and
>agnostic. They're just non-believers. Being linguistically pedantic
>atheist is a better word because it says which particular property is
>absent: theism. Non-believer and agnostic skirt around it.
True, and understandable----mostly because of a popular conception of
"atheist"
as meaning "one who believes that there is no god", rather than "one who
has no belief in god". The first is a religion (a belief system
revolving
around a concept of deity, in this case, there not being one) in
and of itself, the second is what most atheists claim for
themselves---even
if most of the ones I talk to come down act and speak rather strongly as
members of the first catagory.
>> To further confuse matters, there is something called "Religious
>>Agnosticism" that seems to claim that god exists but is not
knowable.And
>>you appear to use the term "agnostic" in this way. However, there is
also
>>"Secular Agnosticism", which appears to describe the position of those
who
>>don't know whether or not god exists. If I understand "Secular
>Which still presupposes god in order to say they don't know whether or
>not it exists. whereas it's not important enough to non-believers to
make
>that statement about it.
Well, it may not be important enough for a bunch of non-believers, but
you can't say that for yourself, having just made a statement about it.
;-)
>>Agnosticism" correctly, I'm claiming that Sagan was a secular
agnostic.
>I've never understood why so many people want to put labels on us and
>define our position for us from that label. And Sagan certainty didn't
>"know whether or not it exists" - it wasn't important enough for that.
It was important enough for him to write books about it.
>>In short, I think that we agree what Sagan's position was, but that we
are
>>using the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" differently.
>Yes. Try to understand it from the position of the person you're
>labelling.
Everyone is so upset about labels. Labels, used correctly, describe
properties
of a person without prejudice to whatever other properties that person
may have, and help advance understanding and communication. "Atheist",
when used properly to describe only a persons' understanding of the
concept
of deity, is a perfectly good label---as long as we all know exactly
what
we both mean when we say it. Therefore, I propose that we all learn the
definitions and use 'em right.
I know, crazy idea, eh? Why, we just might avoid some interesting (if
unendingly repetitive) arguments that way. Mustn't let that happen.
Diana
Reverend Chuck
Mark E. Smith wrote:
>
> In article <5qm1jg$d...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
> Andrew Pliml <pl...@geom.umn.edu> wrote:
> > Of course there's a circle in pi. Go far enough in pi and you
> > can find any possible pattern.
>
> At first, that seems like an interesting claim, but there's
> really not much substance to it. The trick is in the phrase "go
> far enough," which contains the a priori assumption that there's
> anything interesting at all to be found in pi.
>
> People will go on calculating pi to as many places as possible,
> and if they continue to find no patterns, it's easy to assume
> that they just haven't gone far enough. Easy, but not
> necessarily correct.
> --
> Mark E. Smith <msm...@tfs.net>
All probabilities are satisfied within an infinity. The circle is there if you search
for it long enough.
Wenthold Paul G.
In article <5qm1aj$2jr$2...@news.wco.com>, Andrew Lias <anrwlias@shell.> wrote:
>In article <8690996...@dejanews.com>, <ke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>In article <01bc919f$9dbbf620$482e74cf@preinstalledcom>,
>>
>>How does one come to the conclusion that Sagan was not an atheist?
>>Atheism is the lack of belief (or disbelief).
>
>the (all too popular) misconception that "agnostic" means that one just
>isn't sure whether or not there is a god. Never the less, courtesy
>usually requires allowing a person to use whatever descriptive for
>themselves they find appropriate, so long is the description is not too
>egregious. Considering the popularity of this misconception for the term,
>it can be argued that it constitutes a valid definition by common usage,
>even though it is at odds with the original definition. It may be useful
>to distinguish Huxlian agnosticism from popular agnosticism.
>
In an interview in Skeptical Inquirer a couple of months before he
died (or maybe published right after), Sagen used the old "atheism means you
believe god doesn't exist" line and said he considered himself
agnostic. I considered him atheist, but whatever...
paul
--
"It's always good practice to eavesdrop
outside the door before entering a
room."---Dr. Johnny Fever
David
Christopher,
No offense was intended. I was discussing Sagan and was simply trying to
clarify Sagan's position. The way I used the terms "atheist" and
"agnostic" is the way Edward Flaherty used them, the way I (a non-believer)
am accustomed to using them, and the way my friends (mostly non-believers)
use them. You make a strong arguement for the way "atheist" should be
used, but "should" has little to do with language and communicating. At
least, after hearing your thoughts, I'll know better to listen closely when
someone uses the term "atheist" -- the term is used too many different ways
to be very meaningful by itself. Isn't "non-believer" a more communicative
term?
David
Christopher A. Lee
In article <33CE2651...@utah.uswest.net> b...@utah.uswest.net writes:
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>Believers make a big thing about it, and assume that because
>>it's important to them it's equally relevant to us. But it isn't.
>
>(raising hand.....) Excuse me?
Did you fart?
> May I point out that here on alt.atheism, atheists spend a great deal
>of time identifying themselves according to their religious beliefs
May I point out that I am on alt.atheism to discuss atheists' issues with
other atheists, that on this newsgroup atheism is *not* an issue because
we're already atheists, and that if we wanted to discuss somebody else's
theism we'd be doing it on some other newsgroup.
These issues have very little to do with the deity out of somebody else's
religion but a heck of a lot to do with the problems etc of not sharing
the majority's religious belief in a predominanlty theistic society. Ever
tried to organise a secular funeral? Ever had a girlfriend/boyfriend
chuck you because they couldn't convert you?
These problems include people like you telling us what our position is
and getting it wrong.
My reply that you responded to was an explanation to somebody who
pigeon-holed atheists/agnostics/etc into one of two positions based on
his own presuppositions (claiming that god doesn't exist, not knowing
whether it exists or not) when *neither* describe the generic
non-believer. Unfortunately *this* sort of thing becomes an issue
- when other people define our position for us and get it wrong.
What are *you* doing on alt.atheism?
>(claiming not to have any), and discussing things relevant to them
>directly because of their atheism. Now, I will freely admit that there
>are a great many atheists in the world to whom your statement above
>would apply. However, the moment you make "atheist" enough of an
>identifier for yourself that you feel called upon to comment upon it,
>your lack of belief becomes as important to you as many a theists'
>belief is to him---and can no longer claim that the idea of a deity is
>irrelevant. In fact, nobody on alt.atheism is can claim this. ;-)
No. Our lack of belief in somebody else's deity only becomes relevant
when that somebody else tries to force their deity on us - and it's a
reaction to their negative actions on us, not their hypothetical deity.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
>You simply cannot claim indifference while you are interested enough to
>post an article about it.
It has nothing to do with your god. But a heck of a lot to do with
correcting people when they get get the atheist/agnostic/non-believer
position wrong because they insist on mis-interpreting it according to
their theistic presuppositions.
Try to understand what we've been telling you next time.
>>Because he's not theist therefore he's atheist. It's just a convenient
>>label that's only meaningful in the context of a property that doesn't
>>describe the subject, and says > absolutely nothing about whatever
>>other properties he may or may not have.
>
>The trouble with this is that "theism", "atheism", "agnosticism",
>"deism",
>etc. are all terms that directly relate to specific beliefs about deity,
So what? Anybody who isn't theist is atheist.
Are you symmetric? Then you're asymmetric. Do a lot of symmetrical people
harangue you for not being symmetric? Do they try to define your position
about symmetry for you?
Did you even try to understand what I wrote?
>and cause great confusion when used casually and carelessly. There are,
>within the context of the idea, a great many gradations between "atheism"
>(strong and weak) and "theism"----and those gradations don't fit either
>end of the spectrum. To confine descriptions merely to those two ideas,
>like an on/off switch, is inaccurate, confusing and ultimately useless
>in understanding beliefs and for communication
Go back and re-read what I wrote. But this time try to understand it
without your theistic preconceptions.
An atheist is simply somebody who isn't a theist. The original poster was
trying to define atheist as somebody who claims your god doesn't exist,
and an agnostic as somebody who claims he doesn't know whether it does or
not.
Neither of these define the vast majority of non-believers, for whom your
deity is not important enough to make either of the statements about.
However important your deity is to you, we couldn't care less about it
BUT WE CARE VERY MUCH ABOUT THE PROBLEMS NON-BELIEVERS HAVE IN A
PREDOMINANTLY THEISTIC SOCIETY, which is a comment on the difficulties
non-believers face just getting on with our lives.
>>It's exactly the same construction as a lot of other a- words like
>>apolitical, asymmetric, asynchronous etc.
>
>The above words (with the exception of "apolitical") ARE either/or terms,
Only in the sence that one is apolitical if one is not political, atheist
is one is not theist, etc. They are not opposites.
>and can be used the way you propose. However, you will notice that any
>term which attempts to describe human belief, practice and thought simply
>cannot be tied down to an either/or proposition. "Apolitical" describes
Actually all "apolitical" says is that somebody isn't political. It's the
use of the alpha privative prefix from classical Greek to show the
absence of a property - in this case they're not political.
>a human activity and belief-----"asymmetric", "asynchronous" do not.
I wouldn't call apolitical a belief, just the absence of being political.
But they're all labels showing the absence of a particular property.
Please try to understand this instead of telling atheists what our
position is and getting it wrong.
If you don't understand, ask for clarification next time instead of
mis-interpreting the atheists' position according to your preconceptions
and then telling us you know it better than we do ourselves.
>>Most believers use the word agnostic as a sort of half-way house between
>>believing and not-believing in *their* deity (ignoring all the others
>>they don't believe in either). But this presupposes there is something
>>to not know whether it exists or not. The theist has this presumption but
>>the non-believer doesn't.
>
>Brother, is that circular. Of course the non-believer doesn't have
>the presumption that there is a god to not believe in. However, if the
Sister, actually it isn't circular. It's the root of the argument. *Y*O*U*
are defining our position for us in the light of your preconceptions -
which simply don't apply to us so you are getting it wrong.
>non-believer can imagine and describe the concept in thought and word,
>then ta da! He now has a concrete "something" in which not to believe.
Do I? That's news to me.
Try to understand that there are people for whom "God" is just the deity
out of somebody else's religion and therefore irrelelevant. I know this
is difficult for you, but telling them/us/ME that your deity is more
important to them/us/ME than it actually is, is the height of arrogance.
You're not a mind-reader, so don't presume to tell them/us/ME what is
in their/our/MY mind.
>>A lot of non-believers call themselves agnostics rather than atheists
>>because of negative connotations in the minds of believers even though
>>they don't share the theistic assumptions that go along with it. But it's
>>pretty obvious to other non-believers what they mean and it's not what
>>the theist understands by it.
>
>I have this same problem with "cult" and "Christian". People who
>have internalized and completely disparate ideas of the definition of words,
>but yet expect everyone else to just know that when the word is used, their
>particular definition is the correct, assumed, one.
A lot of Christians have a problem with the word "Christian" too: anybody
else who calls themself a Christian but doesn't follow their exact
interpretation "isn't really a Christian". With the corollary that any
respected historical figure who was any kind of Christian *has* to have
been *their* kind because that's what "Christian" means.
>>At that level there's precious little difference between atheist and
>>agnostic. They're just non-believers. Being linguistically pedantic
>>atheist is a better word because it says which particular property is
>>absent: theism. Non-believer and agnostic skirt around it.
>
>True, and understandable----mostly because of a popular conception of
^^^^^^^^^^
Make that "misconception". I've already explained that this is a
definition by people who aren't atheists who don't actually know
what an atheist is, and explain it according to their preconceptions.
>"atheist" as meaning "one who believes that there is no god", rather
>than "one who has no belief in god". The first is a religion (a belief system
It's no more a religion that "there ain't no Santa Claus". Try to
take off your god-blinders and understand what we've been telling you.
>revolving around a concept of deity, in this case, there not being one) in
Hardly. Why don't you ask AND ACCEPT THE ANSWERS instead of telling us
and getting it wrong?
The *only* reason atheists get together as atheists is in reaction to the
negative actions of theists - nothing to do with their deity. We could
care less what their motivations are, it's their actions.
>and of itself, the second is what most atheists claim for themselves---even
>if most of the ones I talk to come down act and speak rather strongly as
>members of the first catagory.
Maybe you shouldn't ram your Santa-Claus belief in our faces. Then it
would never occur to any of us to say it doesn't exist.
>>> To further confuse matters, there is something called "Religious
>>>Agnosticism" that seems to claim that god exists but is not knowable. And
>>>you appear to use the term "agnostic" in this way. However, there is also
>>>"Secular Agnosticism", which appears to describe the position of those who
>>>don't know whether or not god exists. If I understand "Secular
>
>>Which still presupposes god in order to say they don't know whether or
>>not it exists. whereas it's not important enough to non-believers to make
>>that statement about it.
>
>Well, it may not be important enough for a bunch of non-believers, but
>you can't say that for yourself, having just made a statement about it.
Actually I haven't: I WAS SIMPLY CORRECTING SOMEBODY WHO TOLD ME WHAT MY
POSITION WAS VIS A VIS YOUR GOD. Which word didn't you understand?
>>>Agnosticism" correctly, I'm claiming that Sagan was a secular agnostic.
>
>>I've never understood why so many people want to put labels on us and
>>define our position for us from that label. And Sagan certainty didn't
>>"know whether or not it exists" - it wasn't important enough for that.
>
>It was important enough for him to write books about it.
Essays like "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection".
>>>In short, I think that we agree what Sagan's position was, but that we are
>>>using the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" differently.
>
>>Yes. Try to understand it from the position of the person you're
>>labelling.
>
>Everyone is so upset about labels. Labels, used correctly, describe properties
^^^^^^
You meant "some labels". Others, like atheism, apolitical, asynchronous,
asynchronous, adiabatic etc just say that the subject does not posess
that particular property.
>of a person without prejudice to whatever other properties that person
>may have, and help advance understanding and communication. "Atheist",
>when used properly to describe only a persons' understanding of the
>concept
Bzzzztttttt. Wrong answer. You're not explaining what atheists are to
some fellow god-squadder. YOU ARE TELLING ATHEISTS WHAT OUR POSITION IS
AND GETTING IT WRONG.
I am not theist. Theist is the property of having a belief system with a
god in it. I do not have that property. Therefore I am atheist.
>of deity, is a perfectly good label---as long as we all know exactly what
>we both mean when we say it. Therefore, I propose that we all learn the
>definitions and use 'em right.
Why not ask atheists what our position is? That way you might get it right.
Don't you think atheists might actually know what their/our/MY position
is better than dictionary definitions written from theistic presuppositions?
>I know, crazy idea, eh? Why, we just might avoid some interesting (if
>unendingly repetitive) arguments that way. Mustn't let that happen.
So stop telling us what our position is and getting it wrong.
>Diana
David
Gerald,
Please, don't be defensive ;-) My question was asked out of curiosity. As
well, there are natural follow up questions: for example, does Sagan make
any references to Kierkegaard or his views in Contact? After all, in
Sagan's statement (in my previous posting), Sagan denies that a world
without God is unbearable.
As well, Kierkegaard wrote much on his views. Kierkegaard does try to
convince others of the importance of faith. I can't really properly
present Kierkegaard's views, but I understand that he claimed that either
there is no god and we live in ever-present "dread" or there is god (a
christian god, I think he qualifies) and we live with meaning and
direction. And he describes the dread in detail. He was an early
existentialist; I don't really know what his idea of dread is, but other
existentialists describe similar things, such as Sartre's Nausea. Sartre's
Nausea was a sickly feeling that overcomes a person whenever the person
realizes how unrooted they are in a world that is constantly forcing itself
on that person. For example, he would describe how people are completely
free to do anything, are constantly aware that they affect the world (even
when doing nothing), and have no basis (no grounds) for deciding to do one
thing over another. I'm guessing, but I think Kierkegaard argued that a
god provides us with the grounding that we lack if there is no god (and
only dread or nausea). Since a life of dread was (to Kierkegaard but not
Sartre) unbearable, Kierkegaard argued that we should just assume there is
a god.
Of course, my presentation here of Kierkegaard's views contains many
guesses. I'm still curious if someone else can present his views better;
and I'm curious what Sagan thought (or would have thought) of Kierkegaard's
views.
David
David
Richard,
"God of the Gaps." I like that expression. Explaining things can be so
much easier when one uses an undetected but affecting thing in the
explanation. Religion isn't the only area of human thought guilty of such
liberties; sophomoric uses of the psychological concept "the unconscious
mind" leaps to mind (or consciousness?). But, at least, science tends to
be wary of such mistakes; is religion?
David
Aaron Bergman
In article <5qikdr$h...@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>, golc...@nortel.ca (Gerald
Olchowy) wrote:
:I believe that both Sagan (and Arroway) were agnostics, not atheists,...
:science is basically agnostic on the question of God...God is irrelevant,
:and neither God's existence nor non-existence can be proven.
:
:Atheism, just like religion, implies acceptance of beliefs that cannot
:be proven.
Definitional problem again. Some people disagree with your definition of
atheism. You can check out the *.atheism FAQs for more details.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://pantheon.yale.edu/~abergman/>
Smoke a cigarette. Slit your throat. Same concept.
Paul Johnson
In article <Pine.BSI.3.96.970717...@river.gwi.net>,
gws...@gwi.net says...
>The most obvious possibility is evidence of a hoax. Normally, this would
>mean human hoaxers, but in the situation Sagan set up, it could easily
>mean aliens.
No. Aliens cannot alter the value of pi. Its "built into the fabric of
the Universe" as Ellie put it.
Or are you going to argue that the aliens can cause every computer on Earth
to produce exactly the same false result? Remember that pi is a highly
reproducible result: if Ellie could get it, so could anyone else.
>One thing it can't be is evidence of is the creation of the physical
>universe, since the value of pi is no more a physical fact that the value
>of three. And like three, you can't "make" pi be some other number, or
>"choose" pi to be something other than pi. That is simply babble.
Sagan's point was that ony the entity who defined mathematics could have
done that.
Paul.
--
Paul Johnson | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. |
+44 1245 242244 +-----------+-----------------------------------------+
Work: <paul.j...@gecm.com> | You are lost in a twisty maze of little
Home: <Pa...@treetop.demon.co.uk> | standards, all different.
Letitia Carey
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, yang hu wrote:
> if pi is indeed a nonrepeating number isn't there a good chance that
> there could be a binary message (a morse code type message) that says
> Elvis is god?
Could be. ("Elvis isn't dead. He just went home.")
Something that isn't stated in the movie is that the math in the building
instructions would seem to be in our own, beloved, base-10. I'm going for
the no-prize here:
If the Message was tailored to humans, rather than just a form letter, the
Vegans or whomever could have deduced that since humans (Hitler & Co.) had
10 digits, we'd order our numbering that way (although it could as easily
have been base-5). Good thing a Mickey Mouse cartoon wasn't sent out as
our 'birth announcement to the tech age'; they would have responded in
base-8 (or 4). Still with me?
I also noticed that the primer (the equations, 2+3=4 is false) didn't
depend on us reading left-to-right, or even top-to-bottom; just linear.
Nice touch.
Strange, though, that the TV signal from Vega was turned 90degrees with
the values reversed. Trying to make us think sideways and inside out to
solve the puzzle, maybe?
On a slightly-related subject, Douglas Adams fans may remember that the
Ultimate Answer (42) and the Ultimate Question (6x9=?) didn't match.
That is, they don't match unless you do the math in base-13. Maybe if we
had 13 digits, understanding the Universe would be a cinch?
--
Letitia Carey ath...@gate.net
"Maggie, when you grow up and you are incredibly beautiful, and
intelligent, and possess a certain sweetness that's like a distant
promise to the brave, to the worthy -- can you please not beat to a
pulp every miserable bastard who comes your way, just because you can?"
-- George Clooney, "One Fine Day"
Letitia Carey
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, yang hu wrote:
> if pi is indeed a nonrepeating number isn't there a good chance that
> there could be a binary message (a morse code type message) that says
> Elvis is god?
Is there a numbering system (such as binary or base-10) in which pi is
*not* nonrepeating?
I.R.
Diana Newman (b...@utah.uswest.net) wrote:
: Christopher A. Lee wrote:
: >>Believers make a big thing about it, and assume that because
: >it's important to them it's equally relevant to us. But it isn't.
: May I point out that here on alt.atheism, atheists spend a great deal
: of time identifying themselves according to their religious beliefs
: (claiming not to have any),
That is wrong. Atheists have no religious beliefs.
(I wonder where you got that nonsense from, Diana)
: and discussing things relevant to them
: directly because of their atheism. Now, I will freely admit that there
: are a great many atheists in the world to whom your statement above
: would apply. However, the moment you make "atheist" enough of an
: identifier for yourself that you feel called upon to comment upon it,
: your lack of belief becomes as important to you as many a theists'
: belief is to him---and can no longer claim that the idea of a deity is
: irrelevant. In fact, nobody on alt.atheism is can claim this. ;-)
It seems as if you don't understand what is meant by relevance in this field.
Since you (the theists) have always severe trouble explaining the reasons
for why you believe and how your religions work, coming up with tons of
all those fantastic stories about deities, everything about it becomes
more and more relevant to you.
On the other hand, one of us can more easily predict what you might come
up with, what the causes are for this mental distraction you call religion.
Discussions about this don't affect us so much, as we don't have to
counteract like you do. We are not being attacked.
: You simply cannot claim indifference while you are interested enough to
: post an article about it.
He doesn't say he is indifferent about it, he merely says this subject
has far less impact on him than it has apparently on you.
: >Because he's not theist therefore he's atheist. It's just a convenient
: label that's
: >only meaningful in the context of a property that doesn't describe the
: subject, and says > absolutely nothing about whatever other properties
: he may or may not have.
: The trouble with this is that "theism", "atheism", "agnosticism",
: "deism",
: etc. are all terms that directly relate to specific beliefs about deity,
Nope, not all of them. "Atheist" stands for no specific deity that is being
rejected and which was defined before. It is simply the pov when you
don't believe in any kind of deity.
: and cause great confusion when used casually and carelessly.
Then keep your eyes open, Diana.
: There are,
: within the context of the idea, a great many gradations between "atheism"
: (strong and weak) and "theism"
Nope, that is illusionary. A statement like that is nourished by the wish
to consume atheism into theism and thus to destroy it's power.
: ----and those gradations don't fit either
: end of the spectrum. To confine descriptions merely to those two ideas,
: like an on/off switch, is inaccurate, confusing and ultimately useless
: in understanding beliefs and for communication
A binary attitude like this confuses nobody, Diana. As a matter of fact,
it is precisely this binarity which makes understanding of religion possible.
: >It's exactly the same construction as a lot of other a- words like
: apolitical, asymmetric, >asynchronous etc.
: The above words (with the exception of "apolitical") ARE either/or
: terms,
: and can be used the way you propose. However, you will notice that any
: term which attempts to describe human belief, practice and thought
: simply
: cannot be tied down to an either/or proposition. "Apolitical" describes
: a human activity and belief-----"asymmetric", "asynchronous" do not.
Somebody who does not behave political is apolitical. What's the problem
you have here? I tell you what it is: you don't like the idea of a strong
character which simply denies a certain way of life and who will hold
on to it.
: >Most believers use the word agnostic as a sort of half-way house
: between
: >believing and not-believing in *their* deity (ignoring all the others
: >they don't believe in either). But this presupposes there is something
: >to not know whether it exists or not. The theist has this presumption
: but >the non-believer doesn't.
: Brother, is that circular. Of course the non-believer doesn't have
: the presumption that there is a god to not believe in. However, if the
: non-believer can imagine and describe the concept in thought and word,
: then ta da! He now has a concrete "something" in which not to believe.
No, Diana. The idea of supernatural beings is related to the fact of
the lack of knowledge, and it's implications. This is as abstract as you
can be.
: [...]
: >At that level there's precious little difference between atheist and
: >agnostic. They're just non-believers. Being linguistically pedantic
: >atheist is a better word because it says which particular property is
: >absent: theism. Non-believer and agnostic skirt around it.
: True, and understandable----mostly because of a popular conception of
: "atheist"
: as meaning "one who believes that there is no god", rather than "one who
: has no belief in god".
Nope, wrong again, Diana. Atheists do not "believe" there is no god, they
simply know it.
And therefore...
: The first is a religion (a belief system revolving
: around a concept of deity, in this case, there not being one)
is no valid description of atheism.
: in and of itself, the second is what most atheists claim for
: themselves---even
: if most of the ones I talk to come down act and speak rather strongly as
: members of the first catagory.
As I stated before, the systematic of relative atheism is invalid too.
: [...]
: >I've never understood why so many people want to put labels on us and
: >define our position for us from that label. And Sagan certainty didn't
: >"know whether or not it exists" - it wasn't important enough for that.
: It was important enough for him to write books about it.
What do you know about Dr. Sagan's intentions, hmm? :-)
The man was a scientist, so you can legally expect him to have been able to
look behind the machanisms of your.. religions and what their effects are.
: [...]
: "Atheist",
: when used properly to describe only a persons' understanding of the
: concept of deity,
"Atheist" described this way is not the proper one, Diana.
: is a perfectly good label---as long as we all know exactly what
: we both mean when we say it.
Before you understand what you mean by that, I think you should clear your
mind about it. You seem to have severe trouble understanding it.
I.R.
--
| Nur ein toter Theologe ist ein guter Theologe | <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< |
| -- Ingo Redeke -----(for email-reply cut off the "XX" from s_redekeXX)---- |
Gene W. Smith
In article <5qm4cj$632$1...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
Paul D. Shocklee <shoc...@rogue.princeton.edu> wrote:
>Gene W. Smith (gws...@river.gwi.net) wrote:
>: In article <5qhk50$mca$1...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
>: Paul D. Shocklee <shoc...@rogue.princeton.edu> wrote:
>: As a physics grad student, you know there are space-like slices, and
>: you can evolve these, but there isn't "the present." So you'd better
>: go back to the drawing board here.
>So pick a space-like hypersurface. Geez.
How in the name of Mike does picking one *help*? Is God supposed to
live on it?
Try thinking about it.
Andrew Lias
In article <5qmcui$b...@lace.colorado.edu>,
Wenthold Paul G. <went...@jila02.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>In an interview in Skeptical Inquirer a couple of months before he
>died (or maybe published right after), Sagen used the old "atheism means you
>believe god doesn't exist" line and said he considered himself
>agnostic. I considered him atheist, but whatever...
I will agree that Sagan's definition of atheism is only descriptive of a
certain category of atheism, and that his definition of agnosticism is
probably identical to weak atheism. I *am* a bit surprised that Sagan was
ignorant of the distinction, but even Homer nods (d'oh).
Colin Dooley
Letitia Carey wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, yang hu wrote:
>
> > if pi is indeed a nonrepeating number isn't there a good chance that
> > there could be a binary message (a morse code type message) that says
> > Elvis is god?
>
>
This page let's you search for numbers (eg. your birthday) in pi.
http://www.facade.com/Fun/amiinpi/
--
<\___/> | If you want to understand the US government, don't start
/ O O \ | with the Constitution. See the Washington phone book
\_____/ FTB. | for all organizations beginning with the word "National".
Christopher A. Lee
In article <01bc932f$ff2cbfc0$662e74cf@preinstalledcom> "David" <da...@private.com> writes:
>Christopher,
>
>No offense was intended. I was discussing Sagan and was simply trying to
Thanks for the reply. Sorry if I came over too strongly myself....
>clarify Sagan's position. The way I used the terms "atheist" and
>"agnostic" is the way Edward Flaherty used them, the way I (a non-believer)
>am accustomed to using them, and the way my friends (mostly non-believers)
>use them. You make a strong arguement for the way "atheist" should be
>used, but "should" has little to do with language and communicating. At
>least, after hearing your thoughts, I'll know better to listen closely when
>someone uses the term "atheist" -- the term is used too many different ways
>to be very meaningful by itself. Isn't "non-believer" a more communicative
>term?
Not really. Everybody interprets labels from their own point of view.
Theists try to shoehorn non-believers into the categories you gave
(which is why I thought you were a theist), neither of which describe
the generic atheist/agnostic/non-believer from his own perspective.
But they then use those categories to define our position for us,
invariably getting it wrong because they've insisted on a false trilemma
- believe it exists, believe it doesn't, not know either way (with its
50/50 implications). There's a huge excluded middle here.
In places where religion (read Christianity) is largely symbolic (read
England) you can find non-believing theists who practise a religion
with a god in it but don't really believe in it. The Bishop of Durham
comes to mind as well as some ministers I met who had a vocation for
ministering but treated most of it as symbol and allegory.
From my own reading of Sagan's Cosmos and Demon Haunted World,
he didn't come over to me as agnostic in the way theists use the word,
more as the way non-believers use it, although Contact's (the book, I
haven't seen the movie yet) ending surprised me given his other stuff.
To me (stress the 'to me') an agnostic gives more importance to deity
than atheists, and it's usually a particular deity. Either the one they
used to believe in or a nebulous deistic creator when somebody else
raises the subject. Just saying "agnostic" doesn't really give much
information - but the listener assumes it's *his* own deity concept.
At that level there's not much difference between an atheist and an
agnostic (or even a deist although he makes the unjustified assumption
of a creator and most deists are agnostic about it). Often the agnostic
calls himself that out of respect for the theist he's talking to, who
assumes it means agnostic about his particular version of the
god-concept. Or because he doesn't want the theist to assume the
latter's definition of atheist with the (to theists) negative
connotations.
Although the word agnostic appears to give equal weight to existence and
non-existence. Never having been any kind of theist even as a child
(unlike a lot of atheists here) I see no reason even to postulate a
deity; I neither believe they exist nor believe they don't - but then I'm
not the once making any claims at all for them. Which makes me an atheist
although I certainly don't "believe they don't exist". That belief is not
part of me. And I certainly don't "know whether they or not they exist"
either.
But there are two families of definitions of the word "atheist" in
dictionaries anyway. Some describe it from the atheist's perspective and
get it right. But a lot of theists in particular forget that these
definitions are or-ed: if one of the definitions describes me them I am
an atheist by definition :-) while they think that if I am an atheist
then I am as described by the definition they choose.
It's far better to try and understand somebody else's position by asking
them for it rather than asking them for a label, or by reading (and
understanding in context) their their writings.
I use the word "atheist" to describe myself because I don't have a god,
and it's semantically correct: a- theist, absence of the theist property.
It's also the closest of the theist's understandings/definitions. Some
atheists *do* say they believe "God" doesn't exist but it's hardly an
active belief - more like "there ain't no Santa Claus".
But this brings us back to the original problem of the listener
interpreting it from his own perspective: believers don't just believe,
they *K*N*O*W*, and it's extremely important to them. So they assume
it's just as important to us too. And don't understand that it isn't.
So they see "there's no God" as an equivalent article of faith to
theirs.
Which wouldn't matter if they didn't tell us it was.
They can't understand people whose world-view doesn't include deities as
anything other than something out of somebody else's religion, and think
we're being unreasonable for not presupposing their deity; or at least not
assuming it might be behind everything - but would you buy a computer
system from engineers whose fault analysis includes "well, God might have
caused that"?
>David
Karin Weber
Chris Andersen wrote:
> You may be presuming to much to think that Sagan somehow viewed
> scientists as "the elect". I would hope that he was enough of a
> realist to believe that scientists are no more special then
> televangelists when it comes to deciding who should be God's standard
> bearers.
Well spoken. It always scares me when people claim that a certain group
are "more in the know" than others. Especially the scientifically
minded, who decidedly "don't know" until the proof is presented.
Claiming to be one of the few enlightened ones is not only arrogant,
it's dangerous.
____________________________________________________
Karin Weber remove "nospam" to reply
Derek Harley
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
> > May I point out that here on alt.atheism, atheists spend a great deal
> >of time identifying themselves according to their religious beliefs
>
> May I point out that I am on alt.atheism to discuss atheists' issues with
> other atheists, that on this newsgroup atheism is *not* an issue because
> we're already atheists, and that if we wanted to discuss somebody else's
> theism we'd be doing it on some other newsgroup.
>
> These issues have very little to do with the deity out of somebody else's
> religion but a heck of a lot to do with the problems etc of not sharing
> the majority's religious belief in a predominanlty theistic society. Ever
> tried to organise a secular funeral? Ever had a girlfriend/boyfriend
> chuck you because they couldn't convert you?
If I'm not mistaken, there is a newsgroup called "soc.atheism" that
deals with such issues, and the newsgroups "alt.atheism" and
"talk.atheism" deal with the validity and nature of atheism.
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: >>Believers make a big thing about it, and assume that because
: >it's important to them it's equally relevant to us. But it isn't.
: (raising hand.....) Excuse me?
: May I point out that here on alt.atheism, atheists spend a great deal
: of time identifying themselves according to their religious beliefs
: (claiming not to have any),
Thank you for proving Chris' point. And, no matter how much you keep
repeating "atheism is a religion", it simply isn'y going to come true.
--
***********************************************************
I saw weird stuff in that place last night -- weird,
strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, *evil* stuff!
And I want in!
Homer J. Simpson
***********************************************************