"CHOMSKY: When we talk about religion, we mean a particular form of religion, the form that ended up dominating Western society. But if you take a look at other societies in the world, their religious beliefs are very different.
"People have a right to believe whatever they like, including irrational beliefs. In fact, we all have irrational beliefs, in a certain sense. We have to. If I walk out the door, I have an irrational belief that the floor is there. Can I prove it? You know if I'm paying attention to it I see that it's there, but I can't prove it. In fact, if you're a scientist, you don't prove anything. The sciences don't have proofs, what they have is surmises. There's a lot of nonsense these days about evolution being just a theory. Everything's just a theory, including classical physics! If you want proofs you go to arithmetic; in arithmetic you can prove things. But you stipulate the axioms. But in the sciences you're trying to discover things, and the notion of proof doesn't exist." and later on Atheism
"CHOMSKY: You could be an intellectually respectable atheist in the 17th century, or in the fifth century. In fact, I don't even know what an atheist is. When people ask me if I'm an atheist, I have to ask them what they mean. What is it that I'm supposed to not believe in? Until you can answer that question I can't tell you whether I'm an atheist, and the question doesn't arise.
"I don't see anything logical in being agnostic about the Greek gods. There's no agnosticism about ectoplasm [in the non-biological sense]. I don't see how one can be an agnostic when one doesn't know what it is that one is supposed to believe in, or reject. There are plenty of things that are unknown, but are assumed reasonably to exist, even in the most basic sciences. Maybe 90 percent of the mass-energy in the universe is called "dark," because nobody knows what it is.
"Science is an exploration of very hard questions. Not to underrate the theory of evolution, that's a terrific intellectual advance, but it tells you nothing about whether there's whatever people believe in when they talk about God. It doesn't even talk about that topic. It talks about how organisms evolve."
from Science in the Dock: Discussion with Noam Chomsky, Lawrence Krauss & Sean M. Carroll Science & Technology News<http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-2680.htm>, March 1, 2006.... http://www.chomsky.info/debates/20060301.htm
I find this amusing because most people who are religious in the world would consider Chomsky an atheist. This is very much the situation that figures such as Spinoza, Hume and Shelley were in.... The rejection of the myth and cosmology of the traditional gods of any given society always makes one an "atheist" or some such thing, even if no one can identify what an atheist is.
But Chomsky seems to slip through the net that he constructed for himself. The problem isn't that no one can define what an atheist is, the problem is that no one can define what it is be a theist outside of a particular religion. To ask whether Spinoza or Hume were atheists is a little beside the point, because basically what they believed in was the possiblity that there might be some kind of reality, even if Hume didn't quite believe that knowledge of such reality could be based on anything but a hope that what we perceive and can be put together rationally might conform to a mind independent reality.
It seems to me to call a person an atheist, is a little like calling a person a (spiritual) terrorist. It is a term of abuse....
When I read a poll like the one mentioned above I wonder what in the world the poll can be really telling us except something about the nature of conformity in our society.
On 3/23/06, Andy F <andy274 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/23/06, Wendy Lyon <wendy.lyon at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/23/06, jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net < jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > What's the difference between No Religious Belief and Agnostic?
> >
> > Possibly to account for people like me who can't entirely shake the
> > religious beliefs we were raised with, in the same way a lot of
> > otherwise rational people can't shake superstitions about walking
> > under ladders and the like. I definitely wouldn't consider myself a
> > believer, but at the same time I couldn't honestly say that I have
> > *no* religious belief, so I settle for "agnostic".
>
> With a flash of self-recognition I recently learned of the term
> "ignostic":
>
> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignostic>
>
> For most purposes, this view may be considered a form of agnosticism
> (sometimes referred to as "apathetic agnosticism"), and falls under
> the general category of nontheism. But it is a particular form. From
> this approach, the "I don't know" of agnosticism ceases to mean "I
> don't know if God exists or not" and becomes "I don't know what you're
> talking about when you talk about God." This underlies the form of the
> word: ignosticism, indicating an ignorance of what is meant by a claim
> of God's existence. Until this ignorance is cleared up, the ignostic
> is justified in ignoring putative arguments for or against.
>
> So, when the word "God" is spoken, the ignostic may seek to determine
> if something like a child's definition of a god is meant or if a
> theologian's is intended.
>
> A child's concept generally has a simple and coherent meaning: a big
> powerful man in the sky responsible for the weather and other such
> matters. The ignostic is probably atheistic toward this notion,
> regarding the balance of evidence to deem against it. In taking this
> view the ignostic is in agreement not only with all atheists but,
> ironically, with any serious modern theist.
>
> A theologian's concept is more complex and abstract, often involving
> such concepts as first cause, sustainer, and unmoved mover and
> claiming such attributes for God as omnipotent, omniscient, and
> omnibenevolent. To the ignostic these abstractions, taken singly or in
> combination, cannot be said to be false; rather, they are muddled,
> self-contradictory, linguistically empty, or perhaps poetic. Hence,
> one cannot meaningfully expound on the existence or nonexistence of
> God.
>
> The consistent ignostic, therefore, awaits a coherent definition of
> God (or of any other metaphysical concept to be discussed) before
> engaging in arguments for or against.
>
> --
> Andy
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/
His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/
Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060327/702401f7/attachment.htm>