Queensland, God, and Good Intentions.

I very much understand the immense sympathy and good-will that many are projecting to some Queenslandian other via pre-fashioned FB statuses and ‘like’ items. However, one very popular strain of these -undeniably well-intentioned as they are- irritates me greatly for it’s unreflective sweetness; I speak here of the ones tinged with Christianity, involving prayer, faith that God will protect those in the line of fire, etc.

The attitude of the individuals who post such statuses are equivalent to that of a Tsarist loyalist under the reign of Nicholas II; singing the praises of the autocrat whose incompetence threatens to unravel the very fabric of civil society. I’ve personally found incomprehensible the idea that one could send prayers - intended, no doubt, to inspire mercy in that cosmic autocrat -  to a God, ostensibly to curtail the worst effects of some disaster or other, when this very agent was not only responsible for the calamity (in the case of nature disasters), in the sense that he created an unpredictable weather system chronically prone to malfunction, but also was intimately aware that the disaster would result before it ever did (God’s omniscient, remember?), at the specific historical point it shows up in, from the weather system he designed.

To call upon the architect of one’s misery to alleviate it seems, to me, to be the result of pure doublespeak; the kind of thought which can move a believer, earnest in prayer, to mouth “God is good” while every fibre of their being aches from the cancer with which they are afflicted. Such a theism - very likely based in the ‘God loves his children’ mantra rather than a First Cause-esque deduction; such a faith is one directly and emotively chosen in the moment of considering it’s inverse, the Absurd, rather than a begrudging acknowledgement of logical necessity - can only survive if it projects defects and ‘evils’ clearly observable onto a blasphemous force, external and antagonistic to their God, and thus, when the shit hits the fan, one fires one’s prayers up to Yahweh to move him to fight the invisible enemy in the field (be it Satan, Sin, etc). However, this “conventionalist twist” (Popper) can only be honestly performed if one willingly ignores elements of one’s own theistic position (i.e., God is the creator and architect of the spatio-temporal universe); after all, if God is omniscient, he fully foresaw that the implementation of the weather system he designed would lead to a monolithic death count (and that’s just considering human lives), and yet implemented it anyway. The consequences of this are either 1) God fully intends for all those who are to die or lose their homes in the coming cyclone to do so, and therefore praying for him to intervene is useless, or 2) God cannot do anything to limit damage to a certain acceptable horizon, in which case he is not omnipotent. A God who designs a universe such as the one we live in is therefore either incompetent, finite, or malicious/sadistic.

Focusing on the issue of whether God will send heavenly aid to suppress the worst of the natural disaster he carefully crafted misses much of the point of any criticism of God’s goodness; the criticism is rather intended to be much more global than the perspective ever can be when confined to a single instance of cosmic neglect. That is to say, the real issue at stake here is: how is it possible that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God could have designed a planet comprised of various natural laws/properties which, through their routine interaction, consistently produce catastrophic excesses of force which wipe out many of the planet’s lifeforms? 

One popular answer hums the merry little tune of Original Sin; namely, that ‘natural evil’ (evil originating from human will is excused by the ‘free will’ defense) is a just punishment for our act of rebellion against God (blasphemously gaining knowledge whereas our loving God bade us be ignorant). This theodicy is fallacious, however, for presupposing the truth of that which is under discussion (‘begging the question’) in it’s formulation; that is, one must first presuppose the notion that God exists, and then the idea that Christian theology is accurate, in order to entertain the theodicy of Punishment for Sin, which is in-itself crafted to justify God’s existence before the existence of natural evil. If you’re struggling to follow that last sentence, don’t worry; the argument is paradox incarnate unless you presuppose (to use a legal metaphor) the innocence of the God on trial before the trial begins. Even if one were feeling generous, decided to stick one’s fingers in one’s ears and pretend that the argument was not fatally flawed, one would then have to pose the following question: Why could an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God not have forgiven mankind for Original Sin without killing anyone? Surely, this would be the course of action most consistent with infinite-goodness/love than the one that God apparently selected (i.e., violent, genocidal retribution against the descendants of the curious rebels he knew would rebel before he created them)? Of course, this issue then puts the necessity of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in question; if it is possible for God to forgive Original Sin without bloodshed, then Jesus’ existence was entirely arbitrary/a public relations stunt, and if it’s impossible for God to forgive Original Sin without punishing humanity, God is both not omnibenevolent and omnipotent. 

The Problem of Evil I’ve been outlining above was never more succinctly and beautifully phrased than by Epicurus, who said thus: 

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? 

Then he is not omnipotent. 

Is he able, but not willing? 
Then he is malevolent. 
Is he both able and willing? 
Then whence cometh evil? 
Is he neither able nor willing? 
Then why call him God?” 

Why call him God, indeed. 

So, I was on Formspring the other day…

…and I was asked this motherfucker of a question. I think the answer is vitally important, and, not wanting to type it out again every time I’m asked, I thought I’d answer the question in all the depth that it merits and post it on my blog, so I can refer people to this post if they’re curious as to the question. Without further ado: THE QUESTION!

How does being an agnostic atheist work?

It actually works perfectly :) I’m a proud agnostic atheist, and I’ll explain why right now. (when I put letters in brackets in a sentence, it means that you can choose to read them or not to do so, and this choice will be based on whether one looks at my arguments from a polytheistic - in which case you’ll want to include the (s) at the end of ‘god’, and forget the (es) on the end of ‘do’ - or a monotheistic - in which case you’ll ignore the plural of gods and include the (es) on the ‘do’ - perspective)

Agnosticism and atheism actually refer to two different fields (‘faculties’, to use Plato’s phrase) of epistemic relations towards gods. These are borne out when examined in the light of their opposites; i.e., gnosticism for agnosticism, and theism for atheism. 

Gnosis (the word around which gnosticism and agnosticism revolves, roughly translated as ‘knowledge’, sometimes as ‘spiritual knowledge’) refers, when discussing propositions concerning supernatural phenomena/agencies in particular, to knowledge; that is, the faculty of gnosis is knowledge. Therefore, gnosticism is the position in which one holds that one knows that gods/supernatural phenomena, etc, exist, while agnosticism is the position in which one holds that they do not know that gods/supernatural phenomena exist. The implications of these stances, when compared in this manner, are usually framed thus: gnosticism is an example of dogmatism/fundamentalism/a faith position, whereas agnosticism is an admission that one’s mind is open, as one doesn’t know either way, as to the outcome. 

Now, keeping to the discussion of gods in particular (as this is the only context in which the word ‘theism’ is appropriate), theistic positions are those of belief as distinct from knowledge. This is not to argue in a Platonic vein and insist that knowledge is a complete understanding of the object in question, whereas belief is only partial understanding (as the mess of varying theories in epistemology at present demonstrates, no-one knows what knowledge is :P), but is instead to distinguish one’s position as to whether the existence of a god is evident, demonstrable, and or can even possibly be demonstrated (gnosticism) from one’s personal stance on the matter, one’s judgement, upon an examination (or lack thereof) of the evidence for either sides of the debate, as to whether god exists or not. Therefore, theism is the belief that the positive existential claim ‘God(s) exist(s)’ is correct, and atheism is the lack of that judgement; that is, a lack of affirmation in the positive existential claim, not a negation of it via a submission of the different claim ‘No god(s) exist(s)’. (the Latin prefix a- means ‘without’ or ‘no’; hence, ‘without-theism’ or ‘no-theism’, not ‘against-theism’ or anything like that). 

Now, it seems quite plausible to suggest that claims about whether a given item is knowable or unknowable - and the related claims involving one’s declaring knowledge or absence of knowledge on said item - and admissions/judgments as to the validity of certain existential claims - such as the judgments that god(s) do(es) or do(es) not exist(s) - can co-exist simultaneously. That is to say, one can have an opinion as to whether or not one can know if god(s) exist(s) and have an additional opinion as to whether one thinks it’s more likely (if one is agnostic, that is), that god(s) exist(s) or not. Having said that, I shall now outline the four major positions regarding the theistic perspective, alongside another one which may surprise you:

-Gnostic theism: the position that one can know that god(s) exist(s), including the affirmation that god(s) do(es), in fact, exist(s). 

-Gnostic atheism: the position that one can that god(s) exist(s), including the affirmation that god(s) do(es) NOT exist(s). 

-Agnostic theism: the position that one cannot know whether god(s) exist(s) or not, including the affirmation that it is likely that god(s) exist(s).

(the degree of ‘likely’ varies with the individual in question from ‘only slightly likely’ to ‘very, very likely’, which is often reflected in the strength with which they defend/articulate their position)

-Agnostic atheism: the position that one cannot know whether god(s) exist(s) or not, including the affirmation that it is likely that god(s) do NOT exist(s).

-Apatheism: the position that discussion of the relevant merits of either position is pointless/the discussion of gods at all is pointless, and the subsequent refusal to affirm any of the above four propositions. 

(there is also the state of simply not knowing whether one believes in god(s) or not, but I find it very unlikely that such a state can be carried on indefinitely; eventually, one often comes to a decision as to which position is the most rational, or collapses into apatheism).

I am of the opinion that individuals who, after observing the four main positions above, still maintain that they are an ‘agnostic’ without a suffix indicating their beliefs, are actually apatheists or those who are genuinely unsure in disguise. There can be no such thing as a ‘committed agnostic’, as agnosticism without a suffix is, by definition, a lack of commitment to any particular position; one’s ‘committed’ affirmation of the epistemological principle that one cannot know whether god(s) exist(s) has no bearing upon one’s beliefs, and is not itself a belief, but a statement of fact (to clarify, I affirm that gnosticism of either stripe is evidently false, as, if it were true, there could be no discussion as to whether god(s) exist(s) or not. Agnosticism is the only epistemological position which makes it possible to have this discussion at all, and, therefore, is ironically factual; one is gnostic that agnosticism, regarding theism, is true :P)

The evolutionary biologist and atheist activist Richard Dawkins set up a ‘scale of belief’ which he frames thus in “The God Delusion”: 

1: Strong (gnostic) theist. 100 percent probability of God. In the words of C.G Jung. “I do not believe, I know”. 

2: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. ‘De facto’ theist: I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there”. 

3: (for brevity, I’m going to shorten them from here on; you get the idea) “I’m very uncertain, but inclined to believe in God”. 

4: Apatheism or ‘Uncertaintism’ (to use a phrase coined by my friend, Lizi): the position that God’s existence and non-existence are equally probable, and therefore, that one cannot form an opinion either way. 

5: “I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical”. 

6: ‘De facto’ atheist: “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbably, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there”. 

7: Strong (gnostic) theist: “I know there is no God.” 

On this scale, Dawkins identifies himself as a ‘6.5”; a rhetorical flourish designed to impart the strength of his belief that no god(s) exist(s). In reality, he’s just a ‘6’, and so am I. I don’t know whether god(s) exist(s) or not, and cannot know, but I think god(s) are wildly improbable, conflict with nearly all available evidence of every kind, and I live my life on the assumption that no god(s) exist(s), or ever have existed. 

As such, although I consider myself a very strongly committed atheist, I am an agnostic atheist through and through. 

Thanks for your question :)

Signing the Will of the Interlude.

The freezing night air has been shattered with beautiful, pan-pipe melodies. Do these gorgeous strings of notes predict a brightly-lit future, or are they the ironic foreshadowing of an even greater Fall? Only time’s inexorable march will tell, but, from the high-pitched optimism of the blown sounds, I suspect the pipe-wielder heralds the breaking of a new dawn, a new day. 

I’m looking for my cat…

Wanted: Schrodinger’s cat: dead AND alive. 

Eternal Recurrence.

Day breaks, eternal recurrence,

Carrion crows gone with the wind.

Sunlight foreshadows its darker twin, immanent,

Hands to the sky, a vacant throne.

Fire and steel, blow by blow,

Pounding lives to fatal sharpness.

Underneath, innumerable demonic mutterings.

Work-whistles grow louder.

Linen histories strewn along the way,

Echoes of childish cocoons, withered to Idea.

 Erotic archaeologist,

Magnifier to mirror, dreams to dust.

Dimming fires negate into ash,

Smiling possibilities birth stoic realities.

Heavy arms unbearably light,

Desperate émigré from Isolation.

Infinity phoenix; recorded funeral,

Arise with the sun to watch it die.

Skins forged in ice and immolation

Speak nervously of warmth.

Faint whispers of evident truths

Fall on sceptical ears.

Gazing at shreds of anonymity

Lining coats, sinking boats.

Treading boardless stages,

Sport of the wise and brave.

Ultraviolent change keeping everything the same,

Faith in a static universe.

Wafting spectral presence,

Turned-back exorcism.

Death clings to life to feel itself,

Fresh-faced actors’ masks wear age and grief.

All in with chips of time and space,

Eternity is a loaded die.

Hourglass eyes drain of joy and misery,

Walk home into a sword.

Day breaks, eternal recurrence,

Carrion crows peck at lives once lost.

Raging dust storms lay themselves to rest

Hands on the ground, forever unknown.   

Breaking News.

Kmart gave me a free book today  

 I went in there to buy my new set of headphones, and, after having bought them, I was dicking around to see if there was anything cool for cheaps. 

 I was in the book section, and what did I spy with my little eye? A lone copy of Albert Camus’ “The Outsider”, the novella which won him the Nobel Prize for Literature in ‘57.

 Naturally, I mentally came and snatched it off the shelf. But as I went to put it through the self-service machines they’ve got, disaster struck!

The thing said ‘unknown product’, and a lady came over, talked to this guy on the phone for a bit in order to find the product on their registry. It was nowhere to be found.
 She told me to take it to a guy in the book section with a scanning device, and he input the relevant data from the book.
 I said: “I sure hope you guys sell this book, as I love this author and have never seen him around these parts”.
 He said: “I hope we don’t sell it so I can give it to you for free”.
 Turns out they didn’t sell it; he told me it must have been from another store and that it was mine, free of charge.Everything went better than expected.  :)