Another reason why the Howard government must go

Wow! I didn't think agnostics cared about things like that! Doesn't your position oblige you to consider the possibility that they may be correct and there is a God who cares about Australia? How can you be so anti-religious and still be an agnostic?

Larry Moron i think you are letting your christianly views run away with you and over look what john has actually said , and you then suggest he is anti-religious .If you read his post again without getting your religious back up , you might be able to understand he is suggesting there is more people in Australia than just christians .And that the Australian constitution makes this country a secular state, with no preference to be shown for any religion .So why do we have so many of the God squad doing their dodgy deals and trying to run everything ? .Wow ! thats not anti-religious thats anti dodgy dealers .

...Hey, guys, in case you haven't noticed, the Australian constitution makes this country a secular state, with no preference to be shown for any religion.

Does the Australian constitution actually require that the country be secular or that there be a total seperation of church and state?

I know that Australia doesn't have an established church like the Mother country but that isn't the same as seperation of religion and state.

Now, obviouslly, you know your country better than I do but hasn't there has been a long history of state funding and preferences given to various churches at state level if not national?

Larry is doing his "I don't understand" routine as a way of tweeking us agnostics. The point of agnosticism, of course, is that (at least much of) the range of beliefs about god(s) (including belief in their non-existence) is not determinable by human means of knowledge. That would be one reason why none of those beliefs should be socially favored over another.

But the more cogent reason for a secular state is a belief in liberal democracy (hardly contrary to agnosticism), where the state should not determine a person's "worth" based on his/her personal beliefs or take action for or against any person for what that person thinks or says instead of what the person does.

I didn't know atheists didn't understand democracy.

Let's assume for the sake or argument that there really is a God and He demands, and deserves, to be worshiped. Under those circumstances it would be entirely appropriate to have a state that recognized the existence of God and took the appropriate steps to remain in His favor. After all, the state is simply recognizing a fact that everyone agrees on. A state like that could also be a democracy, indeed, it could easily be a liberal democracy.

Agnostics claim that it's not possible to tell whether God exists or not. If that's true then what are the grounds for preferring a secular state over a religious one? There are many Christian agnostics who might prefer a liberal democratic Christian state if given a choice.

I maintain there are many agnostics who are also atheists. They don't believe that God exists even though they admit to being unable to prove it. Those atheist agnostics feel perfectly comfortable with the idea of a secular state but it derives from their atheism and not their agnosticism.

... it could easily be a liberal democracy.

Ah, I see ... you're talking about a "liberal democracy" in some esoteric abstract sense, not the actual idea of liberal democracy that arose out of the Enlightenment that, itself, was the product of and reaction against the English Civil War and the 30 Years War. Needless to say, those who don't learn from (or don't know) history are condemned to repeat it.

There are many Christian agnostics who might prefer a liberal democratic Christian state if given a choice.

Really? You have empiric evidence for that, of course ... given that we all know you wouldn't be pulling this stuff out of your ass.

I maintain there are many agnostics who are also atheists.

And I maintain that mixing hydrogen and oxygen together results in chocolate sundays. Unfortunately, my assertion is no more true than yours.

Those atheist agnostics feel perfectly comfortable with the idea of a secular state but it derives from their atheism and not their agnosticism.

Even if your bizarre assertions were true, in what way would one of your "Christian agnostics" be uncomfortable with a secular state? For that matter, why would Christians necessarily be uncomfortable with a secular state (since many Christians support separation of church and state, i.e. Barry Lynn). And if that's the case, just what the heck are you babbling about?

Larry Moran writes:

Let's assume for the sake or argument that there really is a God and He demands, and deserves, to be worshiped. Under those circumstances it would be entirely appropriate to have a state that recognized the existence of God and took the appropriate steps to remain in His favor.

I'm completely opposed to this line of reasoning. Just because He's God doesn't automatically give Him any particular rights in a democracy. If He wants to have influence on government decisions, then He can vote and/or run for public office, just like anybody else.

We in Australia have a state church, which, it turns out, is the very best way to disestablish actual religion in a secular democracy. Who knew?

But the constitution specifically says

116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

This has seen atheists, Jews and other religions have representatives in Parliament.

Larry is equivocating on the notion of agnosticism. I maintain it means one is, relative to a particular claim, unable to say one way or the other if the claim is true. In my case, it means that a suitably empirically innoculated deity claim is neither falsifiable nor verifiable. It doesn't mean, as Larry well knows, that I must say this about every religious claim. I know some of them are false (and some of them are true).

: Let's assume for the sake or argument that there really
: is a God and He demands, and deserves, to be worshiped.

There are several unspoken-not-so-innocent assumptions in this sentence. First of all, what is meant by "God" ? How does He "demand" and "deserves" to be worshiped ?

God, God....Are there only one (monotheistic) or several (polytheistic) ? Is He/She/It more deistic ("laws of nature") or has It an independent will and conscience ? Is It interested at all in humanity ? Or it is more an underlying structure of the universe and all in it is a manifestation of its will (pantheistic) ? How powerful it is ?

If we look at your specific image:

Concerning humanity something can only "demand" something on the global scale if it a) can communicate its wishes and b) can offer carrot or stick. If a) fails, people must attribute reward and punishment to unknown causes. If b) fails, "God" will be likely ignored or He falls out of favor (It is a tradition of historic local deities that they are rewarded with incense for a good harvest and stomped if the drought comes).

Lacking these requirements, the believers in our world were
never able to enforce "demands" of their God without use of force (education included). They used further carrot("heaven"), stick("hell") and communication("Bible" etc.) for their believers. And the enormous number of different "demands" of specific Christian, Jews and Muslim religious groups and sects clearly indicates that we have either a whole bunch of Gods or It does not state Its demands very properly.

So if we assume an active God in our world who can communicate his wishes and has some power to reward and punish, I have the problem that this God will actively punish those who resist him and reward those who support him, so over the time only believing societies would have survived. So the question of recognizing him or incorporate him into society is already solved.

So apart from the problem that the argument is invalid for Gods which haven't a strikingly similarity to the one Christians, Jews or Muslims one, I see an inconsistent image of the God you imagine.

: Those atheist agnostics feel perfectly comfortable with
: the idea of a secular state but it derives from their
: atheism and not their agnosticism.

There is no use to attach preconceived dilemmas (either "theist" or "atheist") to unloved terms ("agnostics") to heal the own cognitive dissonance.

The polytheistic ancient Greeks had in fact an almost secular state; the influence of religion on the government
was practically nil due to the very high individualism and tolerance of the Greek system. But it is difficult to compare our society and ancient ones; they have a totally different mindset (states were equivalent with cities). Secularism is not a product of atheism.

John said 116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Well if you take into account that Dr Dean Drayton, former president of the Uniting Church, tried on some four occasions to arrange meetings with the PM both as president of his church, and representative of the National Council of Churches, which represents 4 million people. The subjects he wished to discuss, among others, were asylum seekers and WorkChoices. But "there was no real response from the Prime Minister's department".

Contrast this with the numerous meetings between Exclusive Brethren members and John "governing for all of us" Howard .

Well it seems to me to blow the 116 that John has posted right out of the water ! even looking at it from a religious point of view , whats happening seems to be kind of imposing .Forget the democracy with Howard and co , it seems more like a dictatorship is trying to get a hold in the country .

It might be correct there might be a God who cares about Australia , and maybe he doesnt like warmongers or dictators ! , i wonder has Larry thought about that .

That's even more interesting, as it suggests it's not religion per se, but politically motivated (and donating) religion that has the Howard government's ears.

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest we are heading to a theocratic dictatorship (although who knows? These things can happen very quickly), but it does seem to me that there's a religious exceptionalism going on here that is malign and dangerous.

Why is it hard to be an agnostic and be anti-religious? If you are sceptical about the existence of the deities worshipped by the mainstream churches - as agnostics presumably are - you may have every reason to be hostile whenever those same churches are given inordinate political influence.

Moreover, one can be agnostic about the general existence of God, and yet be carefully critical of particular religious organisations. For instance, I have no problem with the Uniting Church mentioned above (like the United Church in Canada); they are socially responsible and do not do anything that is detrimental to secularism. The Catholic Church does, habitually, and these extremist groups do too.

John Wilkins says,

Larry is equivocating on the notion of agnosticism. I maintain it means one is, relative to a particular claim, unable to say one way or the other if the claim is true. In my case, it means that a suitably empirically innoculated deity claim is neither falsifiable nor verifiable. It doesn't mean, as Larry well knows, that I must say this about every religious claim. I know some of them are false (and some of them are true).

I understand that part. The part I'm having trouble with is your strong support for a non-religious state.

I can see the practical aspects of this position because a religious state would almost certainly be controlled by a particular religion and agnostics do not have to believe in the truth of a particular religion. However, as long as the existence of God remains a viable option--as it does for agnostics--then what's the rationale for insisting that public institutions be effectively atheist?

That was the question behind my hypothetical. If there really was a God then surely he/she/it would be an integral part of all social consructs, including government and the schools? No?

I can see the practical aspects of this position because a religious state would almost certainly be controlled by a particular religion and agnostics do not have to believe in the truth of a particular religion. However, as long as the existence of God remains a viable option--as it does for agnostics--then what's the rationale for insisting that public institutions be effectively atheist?

Because the one religion that gets to be in charge is quite likely to wind up fighting the other religions. It don't matter which one might be right if you are in the crossfire ... as anyone, including theists and religionists, might take from the lessons of the English Civil War, the 30 Years War and many others, up to and including the Arab/Israeli wars and Iraq. That reason for a secular (not atheist) state (you don't have to give up religion to vote or hold office or to express an opinion as what the best course of government should be in a secular state) is independent of agnosticism.

If you insist on agnostic grounds as part of your fractured premise, my feeling is that it is unlikely that any one religion would be completely correct about any god(s) that might exist. So, any possible good that could come out of there being a God who cares about a particular country/people/ethnicity/etc. would be offset by the likelihood that any particular religion would be pissing him/her/it off.

If there really was a God then surely he/she/it would be an integral part of all social consructs, including government and the schools? No?

If he/she/it is already a part of them, then he/she/it has already made it clear that he/she/it isn't interested in being so transparent and easy to discern as to make the choce of one god obvious out of many possibilities. If you find that theologically unappealing, that is, of course, your right. De gustibus non est disputandum ... though your gustibus when it comes to theology would not be my first choice.

If we need to instantiate the god(s) into the various social consructs, the impossibility of knowing which of the suitably empirically innoculated deities is the right one is sufficient reason to refuse to choose one to be in charge. And it's an execellent excuse to keep the clearly false ones out (if we can).

Huxley argued that our belief in any claim should be in proportion to the evidence which supports it. We are no more obliged to accept an unevidenced claim for the existence of a god than we are an unevidenced claim that it doesn't.

That doesn't mean, as some atheists are wont to suggest, that agnostics are bound to adopt a strict neutrality towards any claim. Remember, Huxley advised that our belief should be proportional.

The agnostic can reject as easily as the atheist the Christian concept of a God on the grounds that there is no evidence for its existence and that, as proposed, it is incoherent. But that does not, of itself, rule out the possibility of some other formulation of a deity.

If there is an essence to agnosticism it is the rejection of unjustified certainty and, as one consequence, any form of government based thereon. An absolute theocracy, of whatever religious stripe, is as abhorrent as any form of secular totalitarianism.

This is why agnostics are arguably better democrats than atheists. However much they may protest the contrary and however much they struggle against it, atheists are lured by the siren-song of certainty that gods do not exist just as believers are drawn to the certainty that they do. The potential for totalitarianism lurks beneath.

Some agnostics, like me, will admit to being atheist in practice. We see no evidence for any god and, where choices have to be made, act on the assumption that such beings do not exist.

We choose to call ourselves agnostic, however, because we believe it is a more defensible philosophical position. We also do it as a reminder to ourselves and others that we are all weak, corruptible, fallible and ignorant and that, by such an admission, we can resist the temptation to find comfort and strength in a delusion of certainty.

Kevin did try his hand a the religion issue, with an essay in The Monthly, October 2006, Faith In Politics, pp22-etc.

Well worth reading, and not the Fundamentalist BS either.

Cheers

Clifford M Dubery

Thanks for the heads-up. It's available here.

Quote John :They are now toadies of the Exclusive Brethren, who fund campaign advertisements for the Liberal Party.

Just out of interest as to the type of people they are toadies for .Here is some ministry of the leader of the exclusive brethren spoken in their church in Sydney.

Notes of Meetings
B.D.Hales
Saturday April 12 2003
Volume 16

BDH
"Can't exactly expect to get mercy in the judicial system. Of course, the assembly is the highest court, so that's a matter that we can take comfort in. It's a very great matter, I think, to know that this place, the assembly, is the highest court. It's the area of God's direct dealings, and it's got the power to overrule other judgements if there's a righteous basis for it."

Howard is mates with people who seem to suggest they are a law unto themselves ? .Should we be surprised with the way their election campaigns have been run with this type of speech from the exclusive brethren elect leader ? .Should we be relaxed about Howard seeming to feel so cosy with these types .Will the country be ruled properly or will it be ruled by deals behind the scene .

I agree with john in his post 13# ,but when things seem to get out of hand we have to be sensible and think where is this leading .Where will it end , is this good .

If we dont have some boundarys this book the bible as well as many other religious books and even books , could be transulated in many differnt ways and used by different religious groups or even groups .To condone sanctify and do almost anything they want .

To Ian,

There are 2 strawmen in your post.

First, you're assuming somehow that an atheist is a person who is _certain_ that there are no gods. This is an error. In fact, we actually have 2 terms to refer to atheists, according to whether they are certain that there are no gods, or whether they admit that they can't know for sure.

Second, you seem to assume that a person is either an atheist (or a theist) or an agnostic. That's a category error. An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of gods. An agnostic is a person who claims that one cannot know for certain about X (not necessarily gods). If you are of the opinion that gods don't exist, you are an atheist. Period. Whether you are certain or not is irrelevant. If you are certain, you are simply an atheist (or strong atheist); if you are not, you are an agnostic atheist (or weak atheist) - note that strong and weak do not relate to the person's character, but merely to the "intensity" of the position.

Those terms are not new and you will find them in virtually any book about atheism, and their meaning is pretty much fixed. The problem resides in the fact that some people - I'm not pointing fingers - are refusing to call themselves atheists for reasons that are purely emotional - or out of dishonesty or pedantry (for example people who think - mistakenly - that agnosticism is a better philosophical position; the demonstration that it is not is readily available in books and on the Web).

Keep in mind that being uncertain does not prevent you from having an opinion. As an exemple, although you cannot know for certain that I am not a god posing as a human, I'm pretty sure you are 99.999999999% certain that I am not.

Mark:

I believe that any opinion about the existence or nonexistence of god(s) (including my own) is ill-founded, in that it is, ultimately, not based in any humanly-available knowledge. I don't have to accept your "categories" when they don't cover the issues I consider important. Frankly, you can take your language fascism and shove it.

Marc L. wrote:

First, you're assuming somehow that an atheist is a person who is _certain_ that there are no gods. This is an error. In fact, we actually have 2 terms to refer to atheists, according to whether they are certain that there are no gods, or whether they admit that they can't know for sure.

An interesting thing about the more belligerent atheists is that they revel in their public notoriety as vehement God-deniers but, when challenged about professing an unwarranted certainty, they tend to beat a hasty retreat back towards the agnostic position.

Yes, there is considerable overlap between the agnostic and atheist positions, so much so that it seems that the choice of label is really determined by the impression likely to be created in the minds of others - a sort of 'name-framing'.

Second, you seem to assume that a person is either an atheist (or a theist) or an agnostic. That's a category error.

Not true. As I wrote:

Some agnostics, like me, will admit to being atheist in practice. We see no evidence for any god and, where choices have to be made, act on the assumption that such beings do not exist.

Again, I have no difficulty in calling myself atheist in respect of belief in the existence of specific gods in the practical sense quoted above. But, as you admit, we do not have certainty about the existence or non-existence of gods and it is misleading to let people think otherwise.

The choice of label, as I said, seems to be decided more by the impression you are trying to create. If you want to emphasise doubt as a defence against dogmatism, you call yourself agnostic. If you want to make dramatic pronouncements about God being a failed hypothesis or a delusion or just not great, you call yourself an atheist.

Marc L #20:

Why do atheists try and change the meaning of the word they use to describe part of their belief set/worldview?

I have come across this attempt at atheist inclusionism before, just seems like a position taken to say "oh I'm not that type of atheist" or to claim that people who hold some views in common with them are fence sitters or cowards.

Agnostics are diverse, you can be religious and Agnostic.

There are Agnostic Theists; they believe in God and even their particular creed knowing that they can't know it is The Truth.

No, I'm not talking about people making Pascal's wager.

Some atheists have been known to blame this on stupidity or cognitive dissonance or other name calling.

Ian #22 suggests it depends on the impression one wants to make; I would disagree on behalf of my own self-labelling at least. Agnosticism is a firm position, though mine tends to come with apathy vis-a-vis the existance of the Vanir unless its party time on the slopes.

John has already given an excellent explanation of why the simple dualism of people like MarkL, with its "weak atheism" bullhockey, doesn't really cover the conceptual space.

But since such people feel free to accuse others of dishonesty and pedantry (!) based on nothing more than pedantic references to "virtually any book about atheism," I think its high time we create our own virtual books on agnosticism (the vague references, that is -- creating actual books is too much work and opens you up to making an arse of yourself like Dawkins and, especially, Hitchens did).

So I propose we just recast the whole thing as a debate between those who unjustifiably claim knowledge in areas where human knowledge is unavailable (i.e. theists and atheists) and those who correctly understand the limits of knowledge: the trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent agnostics. (Okay, maybe "reverent" is going too far.)

This actually solves the "atheist in respect of belief in the existence of specific gods" problem because any god about which it is asserted that his/her/its existence depends on some fact of the world amenable to human knowledge (i.e. the age of the Earth) automatically falls within the area where agnostics recognize valid human knowledge and, therefore, the correct agnostic position is that such a being can be said not to exist.

Now all we need is a name for the benighted non-agnostics. Unfortunately, "gnostic" has a historical usage incompatible with our requirements (drat Huxley!). Let's see if we can come up with some value-neutral term ... how about "knowledge Nazis"?

Just remember that all we have to do is say that virtually any book about agnosticism has made the distinction between agnostics and knowledge Nazis and we'll never need to justify our bare assertions again!

John Pieret #24
the trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent agnostics.

obedient?

reverent depends on what we revere so may sound odd but needn't be wrong.

Now what would you call your virtual library of books?

I am a, I don't believe in any fucking thing at all type of atheist but I think in future I shall lie and say that I am an agnostic so that I can also claim to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent!

obedient?

I don't know about you but my mother had a wicked left hook! Talk about socialization! ...

reverent depends on what we revere so may sound odd but needn't be wrong.

But given where my tongue was, irreverent might be even less wrong.

Now what would you call your virtual library of books?

Why, the collected works of the New, Newer, Newest Agnostics, of course. We have a sense of proportion ... not to mention humor.

I am a, I don't believe in any fucking thing at all type of atheist ...

Letting you call yourself what you want to be called? What a concept!

John Pieret #27

I don't know about you but my mother had a wicked left hook! Talk about socialization! ...

No left or right hook, but boy could she make me want to shrink away to nothing when she chastised me verbally or even worse with just a sad look.

But given where my tongue was, irreverent might be even less wrong.

Well perhaps we could reverence irreverence :o)

Why, the collected works of the New, Newer, Newest Agnostics, of course. We have a sense of proportion ... not to mention humor.

The Collect Works of Learned Ignorance Vols I to MMCV :o)

Agnostics have to have a sense of humour; so many people trying to explain why we aren't.