From: Ant (antallan@mac.com)
Date: Fri Nov 21 2003 - 09:32:55 MST
I think is futile to try and "create" a definition that is consistent
with other a- words.
Definitions in English have to reflect idiomatic usage... and idiom
tends to be (i) inconsistent and (ii) mutable.
Otherwise you could go mad about people using "disinterested" when they
mean "uninterested": in common usage, disinterested now means both
impartial and not interested. Where's the consistency with other dis-
or un- words?
I think the Lexicon should reflect idiomatic usage. If we want to be
discursive, fine, but that's really annotation not definition.
Regards,
Ant
On Friday, November 21, 2003, at 03:45 pm, Kalkor wrote:
> [Ant]
> <snip>
> There's no such thing as weak atheism (or "uncertain atheism"): what's
> been
> called weak atheism in this thread is really agnositicism!
>
> The Lexicon definition: The doctrine that the existence of God is
> unknown
> and probably unknowable.
>
> This definition is likely too narrow... it could usefully be extended
> in
> line with [MW]:
> (agnostic) "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as
> God)
> is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to
> believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
> [Miriam-Webster; http://www.m-w.com/]
>
> So, should the Lexicon definition of atheism be changed?
>
> No. To do so as suggested would be conflating it with the idiomatic
> meaning
> of agnosticism.
>
> But maybe in the second sentence... ?
>
> I don't think you can be so absolute about the reasons for such a
> doctrine.
> You should say, maybe, "Atheists may believe that...". Another possible
> reason is Occam's razor (essentially, the existence of God is
> unnecessary or
> at least unnecessarily complex). And there may be many other reasons...
>
> Regards,
> Ant
>
> [Kalkor]
> As you point out, there are many reasons people can be atheist. Not
> all of
> them are rational, such as:
> "Atheists may believe that..."
>
> Some are more rational, like:
> Another possible reason is Occam's razor (essentially, the existence
> of God
> is unnecessary or at least unnecessarily complex).
>
> Some are downright foot stomping closed-minded:
> "The doctrine that there is no God.
>
> However, regardless of the reason they are atheist, all of them have a
> LACK
> of belief in a god.
>
> Wordsmyth suggests:
> http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/
> home.php?script=search&matchent=theist&matchty
> pe=exact
> Definition 1. belief in the existence of one God that created the
> world and
> is known through revelation. (Cf. deism.)
> Definition 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods. (Cf. atheism.)
>
> And for Gnostic:
> http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/
> home.php?script=search&matchent=gnostic&matcht
> ype=exact
> Definition 1. of, pertaining to, or having knowledge, esp. spiritual
> understanding.
> Definition 2. (cap.) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of
> Gnosticism or
> its adherents.
>
> A characteristic of Gnosticism?
> Definition 1. an early Christian religious movement whose adherents
> believed
> in salvation through gnosis, in the evil nature of the material world,
> and
> in the incorporeality of Jesus Christ, and that was condemned as a
> heresy by
> the Church Fathers.
>
> Now, I try as hard as I can everyday to remain consistent, concise and
> precise with my communication. I guess you could say it's an internal
> belief. In order to avoid being hypocritical, I must in my speech and
> writing adhere as strongly as I can to the beliefs I have about
> consistence,
> concision and precision.
>
> To remain consistent, I use the same prefix the same way when feasible.
> To remain precise, I use words that most closely match the definition
> of the
> idea I'm communicating.
> To remain concise, I use as few words as possible to convey an idea.
>
> However, these do not guarantee effective communication. I've gotta
> make
> sure I use the same set of symbols as the guy I'm talking to. This
> enforces
> the idea of consistency; if I use the same prefix to mean the same
> thing
> there is a better chance that I, when using it in conversation, will be
> using it in the same way my recipient does.
>
> So the way I see it, we've got a couple choices. Lemme know if you see
> others ;-}
> 1) Use atheist in a consistent manner with all the other a-prefix
> words, and
> when doubtful about your listeners' definitions, clarify (sacrifice
> concision for precision).
> 2) Use whatever definition of atheist you come up with at the time,
> and hope
> the guy you're talkin to uses the same one.
>
> My vote is for #1 above. And following along with that, I think we
> should
> also change the definition of agnosticism in our lexicon from:
> AGNOSTICISM:(vl) The doctrine that the existence of God is unknown and
> probably unknowable.
>
> To something that jives with the prefix convention a bit more, like:
> "An absence of knowledge, esp. spiritual understanding. Absence of
> Gnosticism."
>
> Which I don't think conflicts at all with weak atheism, sounds like
> the two
> of them go hand-in-hand actually.
>
> ;-}
>
> Kalkor
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 21 2003 - 09:33:17 MST