Soft Play

If there's one thing I'm certain of, then it's that people who are certain about things unnerve me. Those that would purport to grasp the absolutes of good / evil, beauty / dissonance or right / wrong are, in my view, quite tiresome and in some cases profoundly dangerous.

To put it more simply - they get on my tits.

Which begs the question - why do I describe myself as Atheist - that absolute position of godlessness, rather than agnostic?

Well, I'm agnostic of gods in the same way I'm agnostic of triangles with four angles. I'm also agnostic that the sun may not rise tomorrow morning. Considering the evidence however, I don't think they're eventualities worth preparing our children for.

God may very well come down to earth in his fiery chariot, beard all tangled by the wind and smite the faithless with his thunderbolts.

If he does, I plan on saying "Well, bugger me" just before getting zapped.

So technically you could call me Agnostic. But for all intents and purposes, my position is indistinguishable from Atheism.

Also if I'm honest, I don't like the term Agnostic. It's a soft bellied, limp excuse for a word and one that I'd rather not be labelled with.

Agnosticism is a continuum, not a position, as it can imply someone ready to take Pascal's Wager and believe in God, through to someone like me - pretty much the Atheist. This is why religious people find the word 'Agnostic' so much more palatable I think, as 'Atheist' has so many angles that it's difficult to swallow. Whereas Agnostic slips down just nice.

So, amongst friends I may call myself agnostic, but in public I'll remain atheist. I'd rather people understood my position than be cushioned from it by a soft, cuddly word.

****

I like words. You may have already guessed this. As to my skill with them, you're the better judge than I.

Currently my favourite word is Perhaps. I catch myself using it all the time. The word, I think, is like fabric conditioner. Used in sufficient quantities, it can soften many things, such as disagreements, opinions and ideas. Also, when prefixed to a statement, the word can remind the listener that nothing is entirely certain.

Perhaps you know what I mean?

I would however, give up using this word forever, if it meant I could still say Fuck. This beyond doubt is my favourite word of all. I can think of none other so versatile.

The other day, I walked past a small garage and overheard a mechanic with his head under the bonnet of an old car;

"Ahh fuck, this fucking fucker's fucked!"

Beautiful.

Trojan Horses

Words have no intrinsic value. They are simply instruments by which ideas are transmitted. Some people are skilled craftsmen. They can use these instruments to craft great works of profundity, which infect minds with near perfect efficiency. Their words however, are only embodiments of their ideas.

Some of us are less skilled. Ho hum.

For us dullards, some words can come ready made, primed and ready for use; safety catches disabled, you could say. These are labels;

• Gay
• Black
• Schizophrenic
• Liberal
• Muslim
  
• Conservative
• Atheist
• Fundamentalist

These words are Trojan Horses. As a collection of letters they are utterly harmless. Once inside the head however, they can explode with a myriad connotations.

Take Fundamentalist for example. Which is a "strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles". It can also mean violent, dangerous, wrong, intolerant, Muslim, evil, foreign and frightening. Fundamentalists want to eat your children, I'm telling you.

Whoever first juxtaposed "Atheist" and "Fundamentalist" knew what they were doing.

Mistrusted x Dangerous = Terrifying.

A load of tosh

Prof PZ Myers has had a dig at the word Spirituality. He feels it's another word for lies and empty noise.

In many contexts he's right. The word is so wooley in its definition, it can be bent to pretty much any meaning. That said, it can be of some use; Not everyone who uses the term is a dim wit.

As ususal with Pharyngula, the value is in the numerous comments. I encourage you to go and contribute. In the mean time, here's some of the more thought provoking ones;

Nodoze: people also blather on about art, morality, metaphysics, and a host of other vague things of a transcedent or metaphysical nature that are "real" but defy science and, for that matter, truth. they are the serious business of mankind, in Popper's words the "ultimate questions," and there is no way to distinguish their serious answers from nonsense, as far as science can say. obviously science isn't enough. it has limits. oh well!

Neolotus: PZ, try reading the Introduction portion of Roger Ames translation of "Sun-Tzu: The Art of War" where it deals with the differences between the two-world view of the West and the one-world view of the East or watching "The Last Samurai" or perhaps just learning about Eastern philosophy.

Shorter version of spirituality: treating the living world/universe with respect and humility and learning to live in harmony with it.

The feeling of commiseration is the beginning of humanity. Is there something in this you fail to understand?

Oh, something you might understand is Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" as a place to begin.

Al: There's nothing vague or "transcendent" about art, morality or metaphysics. As far as aesthetics and ethics, science can't tell us the "oughts," but there are certainly reasonable descriptions for why aesthetics and ethics exist from an evolutionary, psychological and sociological standpoint.

As for metaphysics, there are reasonable discussions one can have about epistemology, ontology and other areas of metaphysics while sticking to reason and empiricism and without the need to invoke anything "mysterious," "transcendent," or "ineffable." The latter is the hallmark of bad philosophy anyway, as it just means you've thrown your hands up and given up on attempting to come to an understanding.

MartinC: Too much spirituality can obviously be bad for you. I think the maximum recommended dose is 3 milligrams per kilo. Unfortunately its taking rather a long time to invent a spiritual weighing scale. Don't worry though, I'm sure it will turn up soon, just like Demski's 'Specified complexity measurer'.

SAM: I would have thought the maximum dose for a human was 21 grams. Overdosing woud be more than a spirit could handle without accidentally evolving. Perhaps I am wrong.

Potenilla: Guys, have you ever considered that the consciousness of being connected with something greater than onesself - or, better, the "feeling" or "sensation" thereof, has a genetic substrate and there is individual variation within the human species?

Just because none of you have this consciousness/feeling (and I don't, either), doesn't mean to say it doesn't exist in ohers. Sometimes (often) is gets translated into religion, and sometimes into something more like treating the living world/universe with respect and humility and learning to live in harmony with it.

We would do better in concentrating on reducing the political effects of (organised) religion, and making sure that people who don't have the spiritual consciousness/feeling don't feel they have to pay lip-service to religion, than in wasting our time trying to convince those people who do have it that they are wrong to do so. IMHO the latter is much like trying to convince gay people that they shouldn't be gay. Or, perhaps, to convince heterosexual men that looking at a woman's legs as she walks down the street is ALWAYS wrong and "treating her as a sex object".

Daenku32: consciousness of being connected with something greater than onesself
Does earth count?

Watch where you're pointing that thing will you!

There's a growing tendency amongst atheists to use the psychiatric lexicon whilst describing the religious. A collective delusion we may say. Psychosis, even.

As we've already established however, this language is as slippery as a fish. It's a language of morality and conformity. It shifts and writhes as our cultural norms develop.

Invoking these dangerous constructs against people with whom we disagree, places us firmly in the camp of witch hunters and inquisitors. We're using half baked and blurry ideas to condemn people. Perhaps ducking stools and public floggings will work equally well.

Now, I know from first hand experience that psychosis is a very real thing. I've known people lost in their tormenting realities; ravaged by persecuting voices, bitten by snakes and stalked by murderers. These same people have disintegrated right in front of their families.

Often, our society has compelled them to accept aggressive treatments - chemical straight jackets, in the name of recovery. We're protecting the individual and the general public apparently. In doing so we may rip away their spirit, hope and self-respect. It can take years, decades even for people to recover from these experiences. Often, the very treatment itself damages the person more than their psychosis. Some never recover.

The religious may have beliefs that cannot be substantiated by the consensus reality. However, most are not tormented and disintegrated by true madness. They are far from ill.

It upsets me when dangerous words are used willy nilly. As I've said, words can kill. So don't waggle your linguistic shotgun about without the safety catch enabled. Please.

I, thou, you & me

Yesterday, whilst lurking in my den of self-pity, I watched day time TV. Trisha Goddard was my nurse for the day. She numbed my throbbing brain with a stream of guests, presented for my mindless consumption.

To be honest, I can't recall what they were on about. But suffice to say, it was the usual banal, melodramatic crap that the 'lowest common denominator' seem to enjoy sharing on TV. I make no apologies for being a snob. Anyways, I'm still ill. I have a letter from my mum that says I can be nasty.

However, my smugness was curtailed when I realised I shared a common character flaw with them. Let's call it the 'You Tendency'.

I first became aware of my own You Tendency during clinical supervision some years back. We were talking about a particularly irksome patient who really got on my tits. I couldn't abide the man. Yet I had an obligation to care for him. My supervisor, being the good mental health worker, asked me the standard question;

"So, how do you feel?"

My reply went something like this;

"Well, you know, you feel guilty and you get frustrated. You think you're not doing your job well enough..."

"You mean I, surely?" She interjected.

And at that point I realised what I'd done. Uncomfortable with my own feelings towards the man, I'd projected them out of myself. Not only that, when I said 'you' I didn't mean 'thou' - my supervisor, I meant you - as in everyone. All of us.

<unsaid>There's nothing wrong with feeling like this. It's fine to hate a patient and avoid contact with him, possibly to the detriment of his health. Because everyone agrees that he's a twat.</>

In using this linguistic trick, we can delude ourselves that our prejudices are acceptable.

So, how do you feel about this?