Interesting quote

July 19, 2006 12 Comments

I was looking around for WordPress Widgets this afternoon, when I found this blog, with a very interesting quote:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen F Roberts

Related posts:

  1. Interesting…
  2. Well isn't THIS interesting…
  3. Interesting article
  4. Interesting Article from Court TV's Crime Library
  5. Customer Quote of the Day
Ramblings of the Dan
  • http://justagirlintheworld.com Lisa

    One of my favs – glad you found it interesting. :)

    Cheers!

  • http://www.sonic.net/jdf/ Burrowowl

    This would be one of those great oversimplifications that make serious theological discussion nearly impossible.

  • http://ianferrel.wordpress.com Ian

    I disagree, Burrowowl. It’s a particularly witty formation of a valid argument, but it need not be the end of a discussion.

  • http://www.deguia.net Daniel

    I liked the quote because, yes, while over simplifying a complex and emotional issue, it kicked the issue off its pedestal and brought it down to a graspable.

    It obviously assumes that those who believe in a god are monotheistic, but nevertheless, I liked the simplicity of it. I would also have to say it is by far the best “reason” I’ve come across for why someone doesn’t believe in a deity. It’s one that even god-believers can relate to.

  • http://burrowowl.net Burrowowl

    It presupposes that the argument for the non-existence of God is necessarily tied to a particular religious tradition, which is one of the more insidious forms of the straw men erected on all sides of the God-or-no-God discussion. Rather than address fundamental questions regarding the evidence or quality of reasoning behind either side, people attempt to poke holes in the incidental details of each others’ belief systems.

    In this case, the assumption is made that the theist believes in a single God and rejects outright the existence of any others. Furthermore it is implied that the reasons for the belief in that particular God are shaky while the reasons for rejecting any others may be valid. The Roberts quote offers nothing of substance besides some wittiness.

  • http://ianferrel.wordpress.com Ian

    In this case, the assumption is made that the theist believes in a single God and rejects outright the existence of any others.

    This is a valid assumption for the vast majority of theists. It’s also not actually relevant to the logic of the argument. If the quote instead went “…I just believe in n fewer gods than you do…” for some value of n, it would still leave the theist to explain why some particular subset of gods is worthy of belief, and the rest are not.

    It presupposes that the argument for the non-existence of God is necessarily tied to a particular religious tradition, which is one of the more insidious forms of the straw men erected on all sides of the God-or-no-God discussion.

    Again, a valid assumption for the vast majority of theists. But I think that you’ve misconstrued the point of the quote. It’s not an argument for atheism, necessarily. It’s an argument against any given religious system of belief. You seem to be arguing that this quote means nothing because it doesn’t apply to deists. I agree with you. But, then, you’d have to acknowledge that both the scarcity of deists and the relative lack of distinction between a deist and an atheist make this a substantive argument against religion.

  • http://www.sonic.net/jdf/ Burrowowl

    There’s a relative lack of distinction betweena deist and an atheist? Please explain.

  • http://www.evilblog.net Ian

    Compared to the distinction between an atheist and most other religious beliefs, yes.

    A deist believes in an absentee god and a clockwork universe. Or, at least believes in a god uninterested in human affairs. Deism, like atheism, is grounded in reason and logic, rather than faith and culture.

    If presented with a man who didn’t attend church, didn’t pray, believed in science and reason and natural law, and based his morality on philosophy and reason, you couldn’t even tell if he were an atheist or a deist unless you asked.

  • http://www.sonic.net/jdf/ Burrowowl

    Ah, but if you don’t go to the same church as somebody, how can you tell upon what he bases his application of reason, science, or philosophy (none of which are necessarily-exclusive of religion) without asking? Secret handshakes count as “asking” for this purpose.

  • http://ianferrel.wordpress.com Ian

    You could, say, eat a meal with him, and notice him pray, for one. You could invite him to do something on Sunday morning. And yes, I’m sure there are religious people who don’t pray before meals, or who do so in an unnoticeable manner, and who don’t attend church Sunday morning. And the same for any other sign of religion. But none of that changes the fact that it’s quite easy to tell if someone is part of a mainstream religion. They mention it, the activities involved, or their church regularly.

    But the point is not that a deist is a particularly discrete theist; it’s that his outlook on life, the universe, and everything is fantastically similar to that of an atheist. I claim that a deist is more similar in beliefs to an atheist than any other major religious believer is. Do you disagree with that general statement? Which major religious belief would you substitute?

  • http://burrowowl.net Burrowowl

    Yes, I would unabashedly disagree with that statement. An atheist believes in no god. A deist believes in no less than one god. There was a specific “natural religion” movement that called itself “Deism” wich espoused a “there is no god that you have any particular reason to worship” line of reasoning, but aside from a lack of active prayer, atheism and deism are polar opposites of each other. Now, it may be more socially-acceptable in some circles to claim to be a deist than to claim to be an atheist, but that would just be practicing deception.

    I noticed that I’ve been casual about the difference between a theist and a deist here, which may be hampering the discussion a bit. Simply because the writer of the original quote (who has an interesting website of his own, I’ve found) is assuming that the arguments against a theist’s particular personal god would necessarily dislodge that theist from the core belief in any divine being at all. This assumption is built into the quote insidiously, hence my general dislike of the quote. I think what we have here is an implied fallacy of circularity: arguments against a particular god are valid, therefore arguments against your particular god are valid.

  • http://ianferrel.wordpress.com Ian

    An atheist believes in no god. A deist believes in no less than one god.

    Yes, that is, by definition, the difference between an atheist and a theist. But that doesn’t respond to my point, which was that deism is more like atheism than any other major theistic belief. Since all theists believe in a god, and all atheists don’t, pointing out that that makes them different doesn’t disprove my point. And there’s a lot more to most religion than the belief that a god exists. Consider religious texts. They talk all about what god wants, how we are to behave, how god has historically interacted with us. It’s not just: “god is.” For clarification, I am using the “natural religion” definition of deism. In very brief summary: “There is a god who created the universe, but he does not interact in human affairs.”

    I agree that an argument against a particular god is not an argument against the concept of god, or against theism in general. But I still claim that an argument against a particular god is effective against the vast majority of religious beliefs. It’s particularly effective against the parts of religion that I consider detrimental to society: zealotry, fundamentalism, schism, and so on.

    Many people are so sure that their particular brand of theism is the right one, and often, I find, without doing any particular study of other religions, and without thinking critically about why they have their beliefs.