Then Patsy said something which made me drop my monocle into my afternoon brandy.
When Seán politely broached the subject of McGarry's own religious views, Patsy freely admitted to being an agnostic because
it takes too much faith to be an atheist.
At which comment, both men chuckled condescendingly, mentioning 'aggressive secularists' in the same breath as religious fundamentalists.
I was stunned. My head began to spin. McGarry has been religious affairs correspondent for the Irish Times (the paper of record!) for the last 13 years. And he still doesn't know the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Or for that matter, he doesn't even know the definition of an atheist.
Let me elucidate a little for the casual reader.
(For the one millionth time) it takes no faith whatsoever to be an atheist. Atheism is by definition a lack of belief. Does it take 'too much faith' not to believe in astrology? Or in Santa Claus? Or fairies at the bottom of the garden? Zeus, Thor, Mithra, Seth? No, it takes zero faith.
People present all kinds of religious propositions, for example that plenary indulgences can remove the temporal punishment of purgatory, or that wearing the scapular will prevent death by drowning or fire. No, let's take something simpler–that when we die we go to heaven or hell.
To demonstrate their proposition, these people will be asked for evidence. However, none exists. Thus any rational person would conclude that heaven and hell are just simplistic and arbitrary man-made fictions designed to scare naughty children.
So, the proposition (existence of heaven and hell) plus the evidence (none) gives a final result of: Case Not Proven. Next hypothesis please?
But bizarrely to McGarry, this simple logic is some kind of 'leap of faith.' To be fair, this is probably because of his woeful and inexcusable ignorance of what atheism means. As our usual clientèle here are well aware by now, the term atheism (theos) relates to a belief in god(s) while agnosticism refers to actual knowledge (gnosis) of god(s).
So the terms actually refer to two wholly unrelated magisteria. Thus, one can be (as I am) an agnostic atheist. I don't see any compelling evidence for a divine interventionist creator (thus lack belief), but I also admit to having an incomplete understanding of the universe (lack knowledge).
Following his chummy guffaw with Moncrieff, McGarry added a hasty anecdote about an Anglican who, in response to Patsy's admitting he was agnostic, apparently replied 'well, aren't we all.' And we were assured that was a 'typically Anglican' comment, both presenter and guest agreed smugly. The suggestion being that the Anglican was eminently more down-to-earth and philosophical than any 'aggressive' atheist.
How this canard keeps rearing its head I'll never know. That we are all equally ignorant of those very questions for which religion claims to have the answers, is the default position for us secularists. I mean of course no-one knows what happens after death, you idiot.
If an Anglican makes the throwaway comment 'we're all agnostics,' then the follow up question has to be: 'if that's true, then how, in the name of Jabba The Hutt, can you claim to know that God himself dictated a rambling instruction book to some superstitious Bronze Age tribesmen?'
Where is your smugness now? You say we're all agnostics, well fine I agree. Then be an agnostic, leave your childish religion, and stop telling everyone that God told you exactly how we have to live our lives.
But of course, harmless old Anglicanism won't be subjected to any scrutiny by McGarry. No, the lazy, comfortable, inconsistent logic that allows Patsy to entirely misunderstand 'faith' is the very thing that keeps him in his job. He's inoffensive and respectful and 'understanding of faith' (as in 'compassionate to' rather that literally 'knowledgeable about' faith) in all its forms.
Though at first I wondered 'what the hell is going on over at the Times? Thirteen years in the religion business and he doesn't even understand his own position on faith?'
But then I remembered John Waters.
And I said 'Oh.'
::
15 Comments
It takes no faith for me to be an athiest. But Jeebus, it takes a lot of patience to have to explain it.
Robert, who gives a crap about what you belief or don't believe. Don't bother explaining anything if it exacerbates you.
I don't really care for labels for beliefs or lack of beliefs but if not only you have no belief in a god but you deny the possibility of it then it seems like a leap of faith to my mind. Faith in that, you are sure of something. i.e. There is no doubt there. If you compare the belief in a creator to a belief in Santa Claus then you are not even going to see what McGarry was referring to.
Here's a definition of faith: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Some atheists are fairly confident in their grasp of the truth.
Respect faith.
I saw that one before, thanks Darwin. I think you're the one who's upset in this instance though. Does your Atheism deserve respect also?
It's all subjective isn't it. You don't decide what Atheism is on the whole for everybody. If for the Irish Times religious affairs correspondent it takes too much faith to be an Atheist, then you'll just have to accept that. Respect is a two way street it seems. Anyways that video isn't really relevant as it's about all sorts of unfounded religious beliefs. McGarry just said it takes too much faith to be an Atheist. I'm countering your disagreement of that. For him it's a leap of faith to think a creator is comparable to Santa Claus. To know for sure.
And that's my favourite comment in a religious discussion. I.e Mine. Said with a straight face.
FME: I'm not so much upset as just disappointed that McGarry doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.
And if he says 'it takes too much faith…' I certainly don't have to 'just accept' that. It is entirely possible for people to be wrong, and McGarry in this instance is simply wrong about the nature of non-belief.
Besides atheism never denies the possibility of god(s), it only recognises the lack of evidence. Just like James Randi would be delighted if he were shown proof of the paranormal–but that has never happened, thus he does not believe it exists. If you're a chicken, show us the eggs.
I disagree that everything is subjective, suggesting that all viewpoints are somehow equally valid. That is not a sensible position to take. Religious practices often require people to be stoned or beheaded for non-existent crimes like blasphemy. Can we condemn it, or is that just another valid viewpoint?
But does atheism 'deserve' respect? I don't think it can be faulted for its simplicity, consistency and logic, which cannot be said for any religion. Moreover atheism is not really a philosophy or a set of beliefs. It's the application of basic science. Got a claim? Prove it. That should be worthy of respect.
As for respect being some kind of two-way street, that seems like a complete non sequitor. I can't understand why if the scientific method is accorded respect purely on its own merits, it automatically follows that, say, the crazy Mormon story gets respect.
For the record, I genuinely don't see much difference between Jesus and Santa Claus.
::
Darwin, I'm not suggesting absurd beliefs, such as the religious fundamentalists' ones accepted in many Middle Eastern Countries are valid. If you stick to focusing on the lunacy of a lot of religions you'll never get anywhere. As you know there is a wide spectrum in beliefs within Atheism as there is within theism.
You can believe in a creator without having any religious beliefs. Likewise you can have no beliefs in a creator but not call yourself an Atheist.
It seems more like an asserted disbelief in a creator and not only disbelief but knowledge that there is no such thing, if you compare it to fairies and Santa Claus.. but that's fine. That's your view. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just saying some people don't see it in the same light. There is a doubt for some that the certainty of our fundamental origins and existence is all chance and the laws of nature are self determining and always have been, that nothing was set in motion. i.e it takes a bit more surety for them (faith?) to classify themselves as a Atheist.
I don't see much difference between Jesus and Santa Claus either. Both were good men.. liked kids/ the needy a lot. Both were real people that lived. Santa being St Nicholas. Jesus being himself.
Absolutely, let's not focus on absurd fundamentalist beliefs. Let's stick with the central and most important belief of mainstream Catholicism, that a biscuit can turn into Jesus.
Now there's a sensible belief for you.
I'll have to remember that next time I eat that biscuit.. which will be never, so all the one.
I thought that was just symbolism in any case. Maybe I'm mistaken.
Atheism will always look more sensible/logical than religion but there is a whole other spectrum of believers who aren't religious. It's easy to look at child's play and call it child's play.
Unfortunately, you are mistaken, the biscuit is not symbolic. It's called the Doctrine of Real Presence. People are supposed to really believe it.
But yes, I agree that atheism does appear more sensible and logical, I wonder why.
If I could summarise your points: it takes faith to be an atheist, but it takes none to be a believer–or something.
You said you don't like labels. It appears you don't like basic definitions either. In that case, it becomes impossible to usefully discuss anything.
::
I never said it takes no faith to be a believer, but now that you've said it, yes I believe it does take faith to be a believer. I did say, you can believe in a creator without having any religious beliefs.
My only point was I didn't think McGarry was mistaken saying it takes faith to be an Atheist.
I've heard it said an agnostic is an atheist who lacks the courage of their convictions. So if an atheist has more certainty of their convictions than the agnostic.. I think that's what McGarry was referring to when he said it takes more faith to be an atheist.
In terms of labels and definitions. Personally I think it's a load of bollocks. There's positive atheism, negative atheism, agnostic atheism, and probably atheistic agnosticism. There are a range of positions held by atheists, so you can't say something contradicts the true definition.
In terms of atheism appearing more sensible and logical than religion. That's easy. It's hard to prove a negative (i.e prove to me that God doesn't exist) but you can rule out a proposition entirely (i.e. you can prove a negative) if you use the god of religion with it's logical inconsistencies.
Just to clarify I'm not religious in any way. Thanks for the information on the biscuit.
Hi Darwin,
I asked Patsy for some clarification on his comment regarding atheism. It was kind of him to take the time out to reply and I appreciate his perspective.
Please see reply.
*********************
Hi Patsy,
I would appreciate your clarification on some comments that I read were attributed to you from your recent discussion on Newstalk with Sean Moncrieff. I read about that discussion here: http://www.darwin.ie/. The title of the post is, "Patsy McGarry Needs to Do His Homework".
In particular the author of the blog, Darwin seems to think you are ill informed on atheism as you made a comment that "it takes too much faith to be an atheist". Darwin is disappointed that you do not know what you are talking about because according to the article, "it takes no faith whatsoever to be an atheist".
I left a few comments under the name "FME". I am being presumptuous as to your reasons for commenting that being an atheist takes too much faith, but I hazard a few guesses. One being that it takes more certainty to be an atheist than an agnostic.
I would really appreciate any feedback you have to offer on why you made those comments as being the Irish Times religious affairs correspondent I would imagine you are quite informed on these matters.
Thanking you for your time and clarification.
Yours Sincerely,
'FME'
***************
'FME',
Sorry for the delay in getting back. I am up to my eyes.
The arrogance of some atheists can be every bit as off-putting, and as inappropriate, as that of any other fundamentalist and usually indicates a lack of intellectual subtlety/nuance. It has more to do with personality than conviction. `Darwin', the blogger not the original, would appear to fit neatly into that category.
In a culture such as ours when you are confronted from an early age – or were – with unquestioned acceptance of the `reality' of God you are expected to either accept such `reality', disprove it, or plead ignorance.
The very word `atheist' illustrates this. It is derived from the Greek word `theos' meaning `god'. So atheism is itself predicated on the concept of divinity. It could not exist without it.
Atheists dismiss that concept. Where `Darwin' is concerned the very concept which defines his outlook is not necessary, which is illogical. He also defines words such as `atheism' and `agnostic' to suit himself. A bit like `Humpty Dumpty' in `Through the Looking Glass'.
Neither the existence or non-existence of divinity can be proven. It requires faith to assume either position. And in our culture – as in all cultures since man began to think (because no civilisation has yet existed without belief in some sort of divinity) – you either reject divinity or accept it. You cannot be `divinity-neutral'.
In most cultures divinity is a given. It becomes the faith of the majority. Rejection, becomes the faith of a minority. Then there are those like myself who "plead ignorance."
As an agnostic I accept it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of a divinity.
I just don't know and have learned to live, humbly (I hope) and comfortably, with my ignorance.
With very best regards,
Patsy McGarry
***********************
Thanks FME. I'll let Patsy have the last word on this–it's only fair.
::
Since humble Patsy is so keen on explaining the origin of words, he might like to look up "ad hominem"
Here's a definition of "ad hominem" for all.
'Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason.'
And this one seems appropriate too: 'attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.'
Thanks for being reasonable Darwin. I can understand your view on how faith might be moot, but for others it might not be if they admit they simply don't know..I'm using the term faith in terms of confidence in a belief. (which comes within the definition of the word).
By the way, I wouldn't distribute anyone's opinions without permission.
If only atheists weren't so iniquitous..
Kidding.
Post a Comment