Assessing Moral Relativism

I want to form a critique of various forms of moral relativism, particularly cultural moral relativism. This is not a disproof of moral relativism, but rather, as stated, a critique--displaying the absurdity that is [cultural] moral relativism.

I want here to create a new term--or, if not new, a term I've yet to encounter outside this short essay: familial moral relativism. A family can be compared to a culture; and is, in a sense, a miniature culture of its own. Even within the same culture, every family is different. Each family has its own methods of communication and interaction. Each one has its own ideas, values, rules, rewards and punishments, and miniature social ladders. All of the building blocks for a culture exist within the family: the family is the base unit for the culture.

"Different rules for different families." This quote, or some variation thereof, would be the motto of the familial moral relativist. It implies not just different rules, but different moral values as well--different standards of "right" and "wrong." While if not taken absolutely, this is (or can be argued to be) true to a certain extent, the familial moral relativist states that absolutely no standards of right and wrong exist from family to family--but only within families. That is, what is wrong for one family is not wrong for another, and a member of one family should never judge the values and actions within another family. E.g., if a child in one family is alloted a $10 weekly allowance while a child in another family is allotted $5, we are not to judge this apparent discrepancy--different families, different rules. An easy enough concept to accept on the face of it. And, where in one family a child is rewarded for good grades, and in another family a child is beaten and half-starved as punishment for poor academic performance--this, too, we should not judge. Different rules for different families.

At this point a sensible person might become disgusted at the idea of familial moral relativism. After all, how could one possibly morally accept the family with the drunken father who beats his wife and children? If we don't accept that different families can hold to drastically different "moral values," why do some of us accept this of different cultures?

I should note here that I am not advocating (within this essay) any sort of alternative moral theory (absolute or otherwise). I am not suggesting or implying that one set of standards apply to all. If I may give an example without diverging too far from the primary subject, I would not judge the discrepancy of two families who give their respective children different amounts for their weekly allowances as per the earlier example; this does not, however, make me a familial moral relativist, regardless of the fact that the familial moral relativist and I agree on that point. In short, moral absolutism is not the only alternative to moral relativism, and this essay should not be seen as promoting any kind of absolutist (or other) moral theory--it exists only as a critique of moral relativism.

It may be a concern of some that I have made too simple a comparison between familial moral relativism and cultural moral relativism, without addressing the issues that differentiate the two and might make cultural moral relativism "more valid" than its new familial cousin. But the truth is that these differences don't exist, though they may have the illusion of existing without closer inspection.

It could be said that cultures persist in their existence for a reason--that the moral values they've created (or that have emerged) have enabled the survival of the cultures and are thus morally acceptable. Immoral values would have been abandoned in favor of more beneficial values that would better aid the culture. It is arguable whether the survivability of moral values within a culture actually validates them. As it is not relevant to this essay I will not address that specific issue, but instead concentrate upon the illogic of such "validation" and how this does not differentiate families and cultures.

When logically followed through, cultural moral relativism is anti-progressive and adherents to the moral theory, were they to follow through with their logic, would has us go back to primal societies (at best). If everything within a culture (with regard to moral values) is already morally correct, there is no need for progression or change. But the truth is that moral values in cultures do progress and change. When a culture abandons an archaic moral value in favor of a new one, the cultural moral relativist is left with a paradox: if he accepts that both values (both the abandoned and the new) are valid, he accepts a contradiction that makes his theory fallacious. If instead he accepts one or the other value as valid, but not both, he denies his own moral theory in his very attempt to accept it. Finally, if he states that the old value was once valid until replaced by the new value which is now valid, then he accepts moral nihilism rather than moral relativism.

In order for the cultural moral relativist to be correct, cultures would have to remain unchanged. Movements like the Women's Suffrage or the Civil Rights Movement would have been immoral because the status quo of the time was already morally acceptable.

The cultural moral relativist might argue that cultural moral values are correct (where familial values might not be) because of their survivability. But cultures do change and progress. Values within cultures are still changing. The same standard is not being applied to both varieties of moral relativism: cultural moral values are allowed to change and progress where familial moral values must be aligned with its culture's values.

Also, the cultural moral relativist does not realize that families have the same sorts of histories that cultures do. A home that consists of a mother, father, and two children did not suddenly appear out of an empty vortex and begin anew with moral values from scratch (or borrowed from its culture). No, the members of that family belong to a larger family outside of the home. Traditions and moral values, as well as family history, has been passed down from the parents of the parents, and from their parents, and so on. The family here has actually survived and changed, just like any culture has--it has persisted in its existence in the exact same manner, and therefore you cannot differentiate the two in this manner.

Any other attempt to differentiate families and cultures is completely arbitrary. In this manner the cultural moral relativist must instead adopt familial moral relativism (or accept fallacious logic). Hen then must morally accept the families in his own culture where members of that family might be treated poorly (beaten, starved, etc) because the moral values of those families permit such activity.

Powered by ScribeFire.

You Can Have Your Music and Shove It

Religion and politics are supposed to be the two topics sure to ruin any party or even friendship. But today's pop-culture fanaticism has produced a topic far more deadly to life, fun, and relationships, than the previous two topics could possibly ever be: music. That's right, music. It's the touchiest subject possible with most people. Bring up music and everyone is at each other's throats. Don't even go there. Fuck, you mention Led Zeppelin and someone who's angsty and dead-set against the band (probably because it hurts the person's fragile ego to think that there's a band that could possibly be better than the band he or she chose as a "favorite" as a child) will flame you and "educate" you on how they "ripped off" a bunch of blues artists and The Who, and all you want to say is, "I don't really give a fuck," because it's not like you're some die-hard fan-- you just like the fucking music.

Fucking Christ. People and their music. Indeed, all of your musical likes in regards to songs suck, and are uninspired pieces of corporate whoredom. You have no taste, and therefore, no right to breathe the same air as the more "distinguished in musical taste."

And the same person will turn around and explain how Panic! At the Disco and the Arctic Monkeys are great, innovative bands (when it really makes no damn sense to say that; you can just as easily say they are the shittiest bands in existence and their songs are audio excrement).

What. The. Fuck.

And I have to pretend that I like Incubus just to avoid further argument from the self-styled elitists in musical taste (who are usually fangirls enamored by Brandon Boyd, the pop-culture king of swaying young girls' hearts while pretending to be some rock badass with a voice that sounds like shit). I mean, who the fuck is Incubus anyway? Anyone ever heard of these jackoffs? The fuck if I know who they are. In the 20GB of songs downloaded from the internet I have on my hard drive, maybe three of them are by Incubus. That might be stretching it.

Frankly, why can't people just let each other listen to their fucking music and deal. I mean, it isn't like you have to listen to music you don't like. If you have an iPod, or a CD player, or MP3 player, something, you can listen to your own shit or just ignore it. Whatever.

Here's the deal. I like what I like. And if I happen to like Led Zeppelin, or Nirvana, you can fuck off about it.

Thanks to Mr. Smith and Rano for letting me steal some of the shit they said in this thread. Here's your credit. Now fuck off. ;)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Blacks and Whites are Equally Intelligent, My Dear Watson

It may seem to some to be a bit astonishing that recently, James Watson, co-discoverer of the double-helical structure of DNA (along with Francis Crick) would openly display a racist attitude when he claimed that black people are less intelligent than whites. But Watson is a scientist! He won a Nobel Prize, for crying out loud! Science says blacks are less intelligent! Science is racist!

I'm curious as to what methods (if any) Watson used to determine the level of general intelligence between races. There is no reliable means by which to quantify intelligence. Even just defining intelligence is enough of an ordeal; not to mention the criticism that IQ tests generate among the scientific community (which, by the way, show no significant difference between white test takers and black test takers). And there is certainly no means by which to conclude that there is any correlation between race and intelligence.

The problem is that Watson doesn't cite any of his sources or explain how he comes to his conclusions. As Keith Vaz (of the Home Affairs Select Committee) puts it, Watson's comments are "baseless, unscientific, and extremely offensive..." They're his own personal prejudices, not backed whatsoever with any scientific findings. But this shouldn't be totally surprising, coming from Dr. Watson. His sexist attitude is just short of infamy, having completely mistreated Rosalind Franklin in his book The Double Helix and just short of completely stealing her remarkable work and leaving her uncredited. This, of course, without mention of Dr. Watson's previous racist commentary, when he suggested (without conclusive evidence) that black men have stronger libidos than whites.

Of course, anyone who hates science, including the theory of evolution (or even heliocentrism), is going to jump on this and claim that "science" itself is racist, and that anyone who puts any stock into science is racist. This seems silly to anyone who actually understands science and the scientific method, because we know that just because a reknowned scientists claims something is true, that doesn't make it true-- we need evidence, review, and concurrence (other scientists agreeing it's true). But that won't stop the anti-scientists, the anti-evolutionists, from claiming that Watson's statements prove that atheists, scientists, and skeptics are all racist, and that everyone should drop to their knees this instance and accept Jesus Christ as their Personal Lord and Savior. Ridiculous, really, but it makes sense when you consider their mentality. The counter argument creationists and other anti-science persons present to the scientific method is argumentum ad verecundiam: appeal to authority. It's the same reasoning they use in perpetuating the myth that Charles Darwin recanted on his deathbed. This myth for creationists implies that they regard science as an appeal to authority; they seem to believe that scientists don't support scientific theories because of their validation, evidence, review, etc., but that scientists hold their views because of the weighty authority of the original theorist. This, of course, is quite far from the truth; as if Galileo's recantation of the motion of the planets under threat of torture somehow makes geo-centrism true.

Current scientific thought disagrees with Watson's baseless and offensive assertions. There is zero reason to suppose that blacks and other racial minorities are any less intelligent than whites are. It's as if the good doctor is completely ignorant of the accomplishments of George Washington Carver, W.E.B. Dubois, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King (Jr.), Benjamin O. Davis (senior and junior), Thurgood Marshall, Malcolm X, H. Rap Brown, Colin Powell, Edward Brock, Lewis Latimer, Mark Dean, Daniel Hale Williams, the Infidel Guy, and others.

Watson, you're just a racist, sexist prick.


Technorati Tags: james watson, rosalind franklin, dna, racism, race, intelligence

Powered by ScribeFire.

This is Our Earth

Today is Blog Action Day, and as a result, I thought I'd educate myself on global warming. I'm a little ashamed that I haven't gotten around to doing this earlier. Of course the wiki article on global warming was interesting, as were a few of the other sites, but the most helpful site was fightglobalwarming.com, which puts everything in a simple language for anyone just learning about global warming (or rather, human-caused climate change).

Look, I'm not asking you to just out-and-out believe whatever I say, here. Look into this stuff yourself if you want. That's your choice. But don't throw me some crap like, "Well I heard [this or that myth], and so we don't have to worry about global warming." That's crap. If you're not going to just take my word for it, that doesn't mean just take the opposing word for it, either. Look into this stuff. Scientists around the world aren't involved in some global conspiracy to "trick" us all into thinking that humans are creating a problem in warming the global climate. Oh my God! Scientists are evil! They want us to put less pollution into the air! How dare they!

Let me tell you a little about the scientific method. You could write a full essay on the scientific method, and maybe I'll write a blog on it one day, but now I'm only giving you a quick lesson. The way science works isn't by an appeal to authority; "so-and-so said it so it's true." No, not at all. It's by reviewing evidence and coming to a general consensus that such-and-such explanation is likely. It's objective and every explanation is questioned. Nothing is certain and scientists don't unanimously agree on something unless there are mountains of evidence to back it up. So when every major scientific society and academy of science-- as well as almost every single individual scientist-- agrees that human-caused CO₂ emissions are creating a devastating problem for the earth's climate, well, maybe we should take a listen.

Some of you don't want to listen so easily. You've heard some "fact" (read: myth) about global warming and so you decide that it's not worth bothering to look into. Thanks to fightglobalwarming.com, I'm going to address a few of those myths, but feel free to check out this page in case I haven't listed a "fact" (read: myth) that you've heard yourself (I'm only covering a few, here).

MYTH

The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.

FACT

There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.

The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005)

The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now.

MYTH

Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.

FACT

The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.

People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO₂ into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO₂ is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO₂ and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)

Though natural amounts of CO₂ have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO₂ levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO₂ levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)

As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.

We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.

MYTH

Recent cold winters and cool summers don’t feel like global warming to me.

FACT

While different pockets of the country have experienced some cold winters here and there, the overall trend is warmer winters.

Measurements show that over the last century the Earth’s climate has warmed overall, in all seasons, and in most regions. Climate skeptics mislead the public when they claim that the winter of 2003–2004 was the coldest ever in the northeastern United States. That winter was only the 33rd coldest in the region since records began in 1896. Furthermore, a single year of cold weather in one region of the globe is not an indication of a trend in the global climate, which refers to a long-term average over the entire planet.

MYTH

Accurate
weather predictions a few days in advance are hard to come by. Why on
earth should we have confidence in climate projections decades from now?

FACT

Climate prediction is fundamentally different from weather prediction, just as climate is different from weather.

It
is often more difficult to make an accurate weather forecast than a
climate prediction. The accuracy of weather forecasting is critically
dependent upon being able to exactly and comprehensively characterize
the present state of the global atmosphere. Climate prediction relies
on other, longer ranging factors. For instance, we might not know if it
will be below freezing on a specific December day in New England, but
we know from our understanding of the region's climate that the
temperatures during the month will generally be low. Similarly, climate
tells us that Seattle and London tend to be rainy, Florida and southern
California are usually warm, and the Southwest is often dry and hot.

Today’s
climate models can now reproduce the observed global average climates
over the past century and beyond. Such findings have reinforced
scientist’s confidence in the capacity of models to produce reliable
projections of future climate. Current climate assessments typically
consider the results from a range of models and scenarios for future
heat-trapping emissions in order to identify the most likely range for
future climatic change.

Again, remember that all of this is according to scientists. Not some crackpot on the street. These people aren't alarmists, and they aren't trying to swindle you out of your money, or your life. You can plug your ears and go, "No, no, NO!" but that isn't going to make this problem magically disappear. Human-caused climate change is not in debate among scientists. When it comes to global warming, the only thing in debate among the scientific community are details concerning the exact effects of global warming in the future and other minor details including its cause. Scientists agree that human pollution, including CO₂ emissions, is causing a huge problem for us.

Want to help? Click here to find out what you can do.

As a final note, here is wiki's article about the Kyoto Protocol, and here is an article about the United States' hesitation to ratify it. Enjoy, and be nice to the Earth-- or it won't be nice to you (and trust me, the Earth will kick our behinds without a second thought).


Technorati Tags: blog action day, science, environment, environmentalism, earth, global warming

Powered by ScribeFire.

Fundy Agnostics, Beware!

You don't have absolute knowledge! You can't know this or that! Be just like me or else you're an idiot! Agnosticism is the One True Path! Sound familiar?

By my personal definitions, and by the accepted definitions of those within my social circles and most intelligent people I meet, I am both an agnostic and an atheist. So it sometimes infuriates me to see psuedo-dogmatic self-labeled agnostics telling me and other atheists that we're the dogmatic ones and that we have as much faith as any Christian, Muslim, or other religious person. You know the type. He's the jerk that tells everyone that they're wrong in believing whatever it is they believe unless they take the "middle path" that he himself claims to take. He's the one that tells you what it is that you believe and that it's wrong. He claims, as if with some kind of absolute knowledge, that no one can know absolutely (oh, yes, the irony) what the "Truth" is, and therefore, because of this, we know that Agnosticism is the Truth (again, the irony). This is what I light-heartedly call the "fundy agnostic." Beware, fundies, your time is up!

That's right, I'm calling you out. Your era of misinformation, denial, and stupidity is over. Your fundamentalism is coming to an end, agnostics! (Keep an air of humor, here; I'm an agnostic myself and do not mean to stereotype us.) You leave a bad taste in my mouth and I, along with the earth itself, am about to spit you out. You call atheists "fundamentalists" all the time-- but you seem to understand neither atheism nor fundamentalism. Your first problem is your incorrect assumptions that atheists believe that there is no God. The definition of "atheist" that most self-labeled atheists use is "someone who lacks a belief in gods" (the same definition I use, myself). So, right there, you're making an ass of yourself. I'm sorry, but someone had to point it out. It's for your own good, I assure you. After this intervention you can walk away a brighter, happier, more enlightened human being.

Even supposing, for the sake of argument, that an atheist is necessarily someone who believes that there are no gods, you make a gross error, Mr. Fundamentalist Agnostic, in equating this sort of belief with fundamentalism. We believe in lots of things without evidence-- that there is no Santa Claus, there are no leprechauns, no gold at the end of a rainbow, and no invisible pink unicorns. You can't take a single belief someone has and suddenly equate it to "faith" or "fundamentalism."

But, you know, that's not even where my real problem with the fundy agnostic lies. It's when the fundy agnostic claims that someone cannot know with any certainty regarding God's existence. Well, how does the fundy agnostic know that? Does the fundy agnostic have absolute knowledge of everyone's beliefs? Does the fundy agnostic know, with absolute knowledge, that someone does not have absolute knowledge of the universe? Does the fundy agnostic know, with absolute knowledge, that someone doesn't know that God does not exist? How does the fundy agnostic know that the atheist doesn't know for sure? The fundy agnostic would have to have absolute knowledge to know something like that! The fundy agnostic has faith that other people are as clueless as he is about God's existence. But the fundy agnostic doesn't actually know that other people don't know. He simply has faith. The same kind of faith that a Christian has in believing in God.

Enjoying the satire, yet? You see, fundamentalist agnosticism is highly irrational. It is paradoxical and self-contradicting. When the fundy agnostic claims that someone cannot know something without absolute knowledge, he's making the kind of claim that he claims you'd have to have absolute knowledge in order to know. In short, agnostics are hypocrites.

So, no, Mr. Fundy Agnostic. I don't want to be "just like you." I don't want to believe that we somehow magically know what everyone else does or doesn't know. When someone says that the believe God exists, or believe God doesn't exist, I don't jump to conclusions and make an ass of myself by assuming that no matter what kind of evidence that person has encountered, and no matter what kind of arguments that person has encountered, that she could not possibly truly know what it is she claims to believe. That, to me, is an irrational position to take. So quit being a jerk to everyone. You're giving agnostics like myself a bad name, and I'm getting sick of it.


Technorati Tags: atheism, agnosticism, god, religion

Powered by ScribeFire.

Defining Atheism

Atheism. It's kind of a buzz word these days. But what, exactly, is it? Depending on who you ask, or what dictionary source you look up, you'll get different answers. Some will tell you that an atheist is one who believes that there is no God. Others, however, will tell you that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. Who is right? Who is wrong? Where do you look for the answers? In a dictionary, an encyclopedia, or somewhere else?

Your typical self-righteous, self-labeled "agnostic" will tell you that an atheist is someone who believes that there exists no God. And, according to askoxford.com,they're right. Askoxford tells us that atheism is "the belief that God does not exist." So it's true, right? That's what atheism is, right? It's looking that way at the moment. But let's ask the same agnostic who gave us this definition what he would tell us agnosticism is. He would tell us that an agnostic is someone who neither believes there is a God, nor believes that there isn't one. Keep that in mind while we ask askoxford what an agnostic is: "a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God." It's not quite what the self-titled "agnostic" told us, is it? And yet this same person, this person that would have us adhere strictly to the dictionary definition of "atheism" to make his case, has now had the rug swept up from under him by the very same dictionary. He would now have us believe other than what the dictionary tells us an agnostic is. He would look for any and all other sources that conform to his definition of agnosticism to prove his point, all while having us adhere strictly to the same definition of atheism.

I've painted a rather ugly picture of this "agnostic," haven't I? Not all agnostics are like the above, however. In fact, as an agnostic myself, I am not like the picture I've just painted. I am not trying to stereotype agnostics (or atheists) here. However, I'm quite sure we've all run across the above example of an "agnostic." Someone who believes that atheism is the belief that there are not Gods, and that agnosticism is not believing "one way or the other" about God's existence. In my opinion, both of these definitions (of atheism and of agnosticism) are incorrect. Hello, I'm squarecircle. I'm an agnostic atheist.

So, I'm an agnostic and an atheist. But what does that mean? I have to apologize, because I'm not going to address that just yet. But I promise, I'll get back to it. Now, let's look at the dictionary again. I know you aren't familiar with those terms yet, so let's look at a different one. Most of us are familiar with the term, "religion." We know what it means. We know what a religion is. Well, what is it? It's not so easy to actually say it, is it? Askoxford tells us a religion is:

• noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion. — ORIGIN originally in the sense life under monastic vows: from Latin religio ‘obligation, reverence’.

Does that seem correct to you? Maybe it does. Well, when we're talking about religion, we generally aren't talking about "a pursuit or interest followed with devotion." We know that this is a more casual definition, which actually plays on the actual definition of "religion." But which definition is that? The second definition, "a particular system of faith and worship," is a little vague. Also, it is the second definition. Let's look at the primary one. "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Ah, that's it! That describes religions just right! Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, pagan and neo-pagan faiths all fall under this definition. They're religions. So we must have hit the so-called "jackpot," right?

We know what a religion is. So, what about religions like Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, and other faiths? They don't fall under this definition of "religion." They don't explicitly include the worship of gods. According to the dictionary-- they aren't religions. Oops. We goofed.

Well, we all know what dragons are. The dictionary can't keep messing up on us like this. Let's see what it has to say about dragons. Askoxford says: "a mythical monster like a giant reptile, typically able to breathe out fire." Well, a dragon is a mythical monster, like a giant reptile, and we certainly do imagine them breathing out fire. But does this mean that any giant reptile creature is a "dragon?" The dictionary doesn't even tell us it has to breathe out fire, and certainly, not all dragons of great mythologies did. So that leaves us with a giant reptile-like creature. All giant reptile-like creatures are dragons, then? No, that doesn't seem right. But the dictionary tells us exactly that!

The dictionary is just a reference piece. A place to go when you don't know what a word means at all. It's better than a shot in the dark when you've just heard a new word. But that's all it is-- a reference book. You have to be intimate with a word to know its true meaning. Or, at least, look it up in an encyclopedia. The dictionary is not some ultimate source for definitions. It cannot tell us what words like "a," "is," or "not" mean. We have to know what they mean. We are intimate with those words and we know exactly what they mean. But their dictionary definitions, if you can even find them, wouldn't tell us much. In fact, askoxford.com has no entries for any of those words. But I'm curious what another dictionary would say about it, so let's look up "a" at MSN Encarta:

noun
Definition:
1. 1st letter of English alphabet: the first letter of the English alphabet, representing a vowel sound

2. letter "a" written: a written representation of the letter "a"

That's a bit silly. That's not what we mean when we say, "I just saw a bird," or, "There's a french fry in your soup." I'm curious. What is "is" according to Encarta?

Definition:

3rd person singular present of be

It can't really tell us, because as simple as "is" seems to be, it is a rather complicated word. Well, I suppose we'll look up "be."

		be (1st person singular past indicative was, 2nd person singular past indicative were, 3rd person singular past indicative was, 1st person plural past indicative were, 2nd person plural past indicative were, 3rd person plural past indicative were, past subjunctive were, past participle been, present subjunctive be, present participle be·ing, 1st person present singular am, 2nd person present singular are, 3rd person present singular is, 1st person present plural are, 2nd person present plural are, 3rd person present plural are) CORE MEANING: a verb used most commonly to link the subject of a clause to a complement in order to give more information about the subject, e.g. its identity, nature, attributes, position, or value This is my coworker. He's a very sweet person. Her new car is blue. The supermarket is on the left. The clock was worth $3,000.
		Definition:
		1. intransitive verb giving description: used after "it" as the subject of the clause, to give a description or judgment of something It is a good thing that we left early.
		2. intransitive verb exist or be true: used after "there" to indicate that something exists or is true There are many problems with her research.
		3. intransitive verb exist: to exist, have presence, or live I think, therefore I am.
		4. intransitive verb happen: to happen or take place The meeting was at four o'clock.
		5. intransitive verb stay: to stay or visit I was in Italy during the summer.
		6. intransitive verb have particular quality: to have a particular quality or attribute This sentence is concise.
		7. intransitive verb remain: used to indicate that a particular situation remains The facts are these: it is cold and unhealthy here.
		8. aux v expressing continuation: used as an auxiliary verb with the present participles of other verbs to express continuation My legs are getting tired. I am leaving on the next train.
		9. aux v forming passive: used as an auxiliary verb with the past participles of transitive verbs to form the passive voice She was sent on the mission.
		10. aux v expressing future: used as an auxiliary verb to indicate that something is planned, expected, intended, or supposed to happen in the future ( used with an infinitive ) The meeting is to take place tomorrow. What am I to do?
		11. aux v expressing unplanned action in past: used as an auxiliary verb when reporting past events to indicate that something happened later than the time reported and was unplanned or uncertain at the time ( used with an infinitive ) It was to be the last time he ever saw her.
		12. aux v forming perfect tense: used as an auxiliary verb with the past participles of some intransitive verbs to form a perfect tense ( archaic ) She is come back.
		13. intransitive verb introducing sentence: used to introduce a full, often quoted sentence ( informal ) They were, 'The tickets are way too expensive.'
		[ Old English bēon, via Germanic, "exist, dwell" < Indo-European, "exist, grow"]
		been there, done that (bought the T-shirt) used to indicate a blasé attitude to a situation (slang)
		be off to leave somewhere It's already seven o'clock; I'm off.

Well that was interesting. You can write an essay on this stuff. Have you had enough, or shall I look up the word "not?"

not

adverb

Definition:

1. forming negatives: a negative adverb used to form structures indicating that something is to no degree or in no way the case or conveying the general notion "no." It is often used to express refusal, denial, or the negation of a statement just made. ( often contracted in spoken and informal written English to "n't" ) Don't you think you've done enough? Not every household has a dishwasher. There's nothing in my account, not one cent. Not only was the meal expensive, the service was bad, too.

2. sentence substitute: used as a sentence substitute when indicating denial, refusal or negation, in order to avoid repetition "Won't you come with us?" "Certainly not." I don't think I'll be late, at least I hope not.

3. indicating opposite: tagged onto the end of a statement to indicate that the truth is the opposite of what has been stated ( humorous ) You're really going to enjoy this - not!

[14th century. Contraction of nought]

not at all used as a polite way of acknowledging somebody's thanks

not that used to introduce a clause that explicitly denies something that the listener might infer from a previous or subsequent statement I'm actually seeing her tonight. Not that it's any of your business!

Is this what we think of when we want a "definition?" Is this a "definition" of "not?" Does this 100% accurately describe the word "not" to us? If we did not know the word "not," would this series of definitions and explanations reveal it to us? Or would we have to become intimate with the word to at least some extent?

Since we've switched from AskOxford to Encarta, I'm curious what it has to say about the terms "atheism" and "agnostic." Let's look them up.

atheism

a·the·ism

noun

Definition:

unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities

atheist

a·the·ist (plural a·the·ists)

noun

Definition:

unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities

agnosticism

ag·nos·ti·cism

noun

Definition:

view that God's existence is unprovable: the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists

agnostic

ag·nos·tic (plural ag·nos·tics)

noun

Definition:

1. somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists

2. somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood I'm an agnostic concerning space aliens.

I'm sorry, my curiousity just got the better of me. That's all. But you can already see, with just two dictionaries, we have a discrepancy with the word "atheism." AskOxford tells us that atheism is the belief that there is no God, while Encarta tells us that it is simply not the belief in gods.


The point is that words don't have definitions in the way we tend to think they do. They aren't set in stone, and they aren't easy to pinpoint. Most words we can agree on, because we speak them commonly, casually, and in the same language. And in certain social circles, more "obscure" words and jargon are used within those circles and carry the intended meaning, and outside of these circles people may confuse or misdefine words. Resorting to a dictionary is fine for personal curiousity, but it is not an absolute reference to throw at someone else to "prove" them "wrong." It is a reference. That's it. When you get into a "definition war", a dictionary might be a good place to start, but what you'll really need to do is consult encyclopedias and other sources, and look at the usage of a word within its intended "social circle" or group. If nothing else, you could look at the origin and/or the etymology of a word. The truth is, however, that you really can't get to "know" a word until you become intimate with it. That means more than just "using" the word as much as you can. It means using it properly, and in the correct context, as well as amongst the correct audience. It means discussing it with others who commonly use the word.

To self-labeled atheists, the term "atheism" means, almost unanimously, "the lack of belief in gods." It means nothing more than "not theism." It is easy to pick out from the root words. "Theism" is the belief in god(s), where the prefix "a-" means "not," "non-," or "without." "Atheism," therefore, would simply not be theism, or rather, it is "not the belief in god(s)." While this is not exactly the etymology of the word "atheism," it is typically how the word is viewed today. As far back as 1772, d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God" (Good Sense). Most atheists view themselves simply as non-theists. The terms, to self-labeled atheists, are synonymous with each other. In short, "atheism" means "non-theism" the same way "areligious" means "non-religious" or "irreligious." An areligious person isn't "anti-religious" or anything like that. She simply isn't religious. In the same line of thought, an atheist simply isn't a theist.

In any case, if you're going to throw dictionary definitions at someone, the least you could do is use multiple definitions from multiple dictionaries, and cite all of your sources.

Technorati Tags: religion, philosophy, atheism, god

Powered by ScribeFire.