Episode 35: The COI2009 so you don’t forget the code episode
The Atheist Alliance International’s convention director and Rochester Atheism Examiner Viktor Nagornyy joins us this week to tell us a little bit about their convention in Burbank California beginning on October second. We talk about the cavalcade of speakers that will be in attendance and Viktor even hooks us up with our own SUPER SECRET SPECIAL CHARIOTS OF IRON CODE that will get you$10 off the price of admission when you sign up online!
Don’t say we never did nothin’ for ya.
But before that, of course we have some news for you: faith healing quackery, the “stuff that sits in front of the zoo” single-single issue voter platform sweeps Oklahoma, the Yale Press needs a magnifying glass to find its balls, more drama over the burqa (wee!), Afghanistan promotes its new diet plan and we are convinced quite quickly that no one sings worse than Rabbis.
Stream this episode!
I disagree with the assertion that you can’t not know what you believe. I’m going to flip a coin right now. Do you believe it landed on heads or tails?
Btw, I love your podcasts.
The question of belief in God(s) is binary, meaning you either believe in God or you don’t. The reason it’s binary is because it’s a choice between belief and lack of belief. It is not possible to be unaware of whether or not you believe in God.
Here’s what I mean by that. Imagine you were one of those twats that hang around shopping malls badgering every pitiful bastard you run into to take your crumby survey. On this survey you have one question: “Do you believe in God(s)?” On this survey there is simply a blank line for each participant. It’s up to you, the surveyor, to interpret their answer as yes or no.
Answer 1: “Yes” (That’s easy enough now isn’t it)
Answer 2: “No” (This one isn’t so bad either)
Answer 3: “Who’s God?” (This one may be a puzzler, but can someone who has never heard of God believe in God? I honestly don’t think so. The answer here would be “No” since this person cannot believe in God.)
Answer 4: “I don’t know.” (Finally! We have someone that doesn’t know whether or not they believe in God. At least that’s what they’re saying right? Well, claiming to not know whether or not you believe is not the same as believing. If they do not actually believe, then the answer must be “No”.)
My point is this: anything short of believing is not believing. It’s really that simple. Claiming that you “don’t know” is functionally equal to saying “No” since neither answer is “Yes”. Belief is something one actively participates in and it’s not possible to not know if you are actively participating in something. An equivalent example would be: “Are you swimming?” If someone answers, “what’s swimming?” that still equals “No.” If someone says, “I don’t know,” that’s still “No.”
Hold the press! If someone answers “I don’t know” doesn’t that mean they really don’t know? Not exactly. We give special consideration to the question of God belief because of the elevated status that religion enjoys in our culture. Take the swimming example from above. The answer, “I don’t know,” no longer makes any sense does it? Believing is no less a verb than swimming, so why should “I don’t know” be any less of a ridiculous answer? No one of sound mind can possibly “not know” if they believe in God or not.
The primary reason that we point out this absurdity on the show is because many folks that lable themselves as “agnostic” use this ambiguity and intintionally blur the line of distinction. I honestly don’t mind people using the agnostic lable. Indeed, all rational people are agnostic (wheither theist or atheist) so it’s a fine lable to use. My problem is with muddying definitions in order to create ambiguity which is basically used for misdirection. It’s a selfish shell game that is only advantageous to those that wish to remain ambiguous. The rest of us are stuck cleaning up their shit.
Now, the coin flipping scenario you offered doesn’t really work here. Your example, unlike the question of God belief, does not offer a binary option. The choices you offer aren’t between belief and disbelief; they are between belief A and belief B. The options to disbelieve that the coin was even flipped or it landed on it’s side aren’t offered, but they’re still just as valid.
The only rational answer to your example is to believe none of your options for the same reasons I don’t believe in God: no evidence. All I have to work with is your anecdotal story about flipping a coin. In other words nonparticipation is always an option, but with the question of belief in God, nonparticipation is equivilant to No.
Sorry if this explanation seems poorly thought out. It’s after 2:00am here and I’m just up because I can’t sleep right now :P
Oh, I’m really glad you like the show. Thanks for listening!
Well regardless of what I believe (heads or tails, or on it’s edge) I do not know either way. Belief can be independent of knowledge. Of course to know something and not believe it is called denial. To believe something without knowing it is called faith.
But you either believe something or you don’t, you either know something or you don’t.
Your belief or knowledge can be incorrect, tentative or incomplete but you still have it or you don’t. There’s no “I don’t know if I know” and there is no “I don’t know if I believe”.. if you don’t know if you believe then you don’t believe… that’s the identity of “belief”.