Media Mike's Soapbox: Agnosticism vs Atheism

This week, "Media Mike" attempts to clear the air.

So it's come to this.

I was in a forum for another Youtube video where people were metaphorically shitting on modern art for reasons like, "it looks bad," "it's lazy," and my personal favorite, "it's offensive to my religion."

Being the bull-headed argumentative jerk that I am, I took exception to this last one, and got into a semantics argument with someone who had the title "Dr." in their screen name, which leads me hope that this was just some clever nickname, and that the person in question was not an actual doctor as they could barely comprehend the English language let alone carry a complex discussion where they might actually learn something.

Dr. Stupid (as I will refer to him from now on) was particularly confused about the terms "atheism" and "agnosticism." A lot of layman seem to have preconceived notions about what these words mean; often they believe that you can't be theist, atheist, or agnostic at the same time. This needs to be addressed.

GNOSTICISM: What is it?

The word "gnostic" is derived from the same ancient Greek word that we derive the word "knowledge" from. And that's really what it means in its simplest terms: "to know." This means that gnostics have perceived some sort of fact or data that they derive truth from. Now, I'm NOT saying that someone's knowledge can't be wrong, but until it is proven otherwise, or until you learn to set a standard for the efficacy of such knowledge, you can claim it. Being "agnostic" means that you don't know, or that your knowledge does not meet your own standard of efficacy, of course.

This term is most often applied to knowledge of gods and the supernatural, but really it can be applied to knowledge about almost anything.

THEISM AND ATHEISM: Really?

These terms specifically apply to belief, and belief DOES NOT equal knowledge; they are like apples and oranges. You can hold a belief in light of knowledge, in the absence of knowledge, or in spite of it (though the latter is disgustingly dishonest -- RE: Republican politicians). 

Theism is the belief that (supernatural) deities exist. That is really all that the term can be applied to. In the video I allude to belief in pocket change, but in reality it can only be applied specifically to belief in gods. Atheism is not the antithesis of theism: Theism is a positive assertion of this belief, but atheism is merely the lack of belief in the assertion, not theism's negative opposite -- that's known as "anti-theism," or the belief that no gods could or do exist. 

What does it all mean?

It means that you can use one term to describe knowledge, and one term to describe belief. That means that you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. The agnostic part of that equation is key: These people are being honest in that they don't know, and are usually open to another argument as long as someone makes a case for it that meets their intellectual standards. The gnostic theists and gnostic atheists (and gnostic anti-theists) are the ones that are perpetually dishonest. They claim knowledge based on things that they could not know by the very definition of what they're arguing. These are usually the people that are assertive about what they believe, and are ready to give evidence on why they believe it. 

And therein lies the problem.

Gnostic theists tend to cite the Holy Bible as evidence for their belief (which is a whole other can of worms that we're not going to get into here) or personal experience which usually amounts to, "I prayed for this thing to be done, it was miraculously done, and that's why I believe," never stopping for a moment to realize that by their own doctrines that they cannot ask their god for those kinds of things to be done, and whether the thing could have happened by other factors like chance. If you have proof, you don't have faith, and if you don't have faith, then your god has no power over you.

Gnostic atheists and anti-theists are every bit as annoying. They cite science as evidence for the lack of the supernatural (even though by its very definition science does not test or explore that outside of the realms of physics or cosmetology, which are both real-world studies and are not beholden to creatures from beyond) and make positive assertions based on an incomplete model of the world around them.

My biggest issues with gnosticism are these: 

1. Without a complete model of the universe and everything in it, how could you know for sure? 
2. If you're hearing voices, why do you assume that's a god? 
3. If your books and studies claim to show supernatural knowledge, why do they often lack descriptions of common things we know to exist in reality, that have real impacts on our lives (like viruses, for example)?

Now, knowledge can be incomplete or incorrect, but beliefs can't really be wrong as long as you continually question them. I will close by saying that in an honest world, we're all agnostics, but you probably knew I was going to say that already.

Curses!

I recently read this article on MSN about the decline of cursive writing in our schools, and I have to say, I don't see what the big deal is.  If you're too young to remember when cursive writing was synonymous with penmanship, then consider yourself lucky.

I understand that there is a certain romanticism associated with cursive writing, but it's not like learning to write cursive is like learning a whole new language, just a different font.  If done correctly, one's result is a thing of beauty that brings to mind poetry, love letters, and an eighteenth century aesthetic.  If done incorrectly, as by 99.999% of the English speaking world, you get a completely unreadable mess of scribbles that brings to mind memories of forged truancy notes and accidentally amputated limbs (because surgeons couldn't read the doctor's writing, see?  Forget it.).

Cursive writing's sweeping design is meant to be swifter and more flowing than standard printed text, but one also needs to realize that this was developed in a time when people of all creeds used quills and inkwells instead of pencils and pens - let alone computers and cell phones - to write their notes because it was easier to drag an ink-sodden feather or nib across a page than letting the ink splatter and drip all over it.  I am more amazed that this romantic fallacy has endured beyond the age of the typewriter let alone into the computer age.

Parents concerned about their child not being forced to use cursive writing for everything need to realize that they are being stupid; the only reason you want your kids to learn it is because you were forced to learn it all those years ago.  I'm sure that there's more than a few of us out there that remember the pointless drills, the countless hours of criticism about the shape and form of our cursive letters simply because we don't possess the natural coordination to do it properly.  Also, try getting the proper instruction when you're left-handed in a class where everyone but you and maybe one other student is right-handed.  That's enough to give me nightmares.  Just because you were made to suffer an outdated practice does not entitle you to force it upon your child.  Grow a brain and come to your senses.

I'm not even sure that cursive works as a time saver as opposed to print anyway.  A few of my friends and I are every bit as capable of writing standard as fast and messy as cursive.  It really makes no difference which one we use, though I know a few younger people who didn't waste their youth on this pointless exercise and who are now far more capable typists than my high-school educated butt (guess who is more marketable in today's dwindling job bank).

In conclusion, if you want to expose children to this pointless "skill," then do so only briefly at an early age, and maybe set up calligraphy clubs for the kids that want to continue with it, but don't force it on the rest of them just because you're bitter that you had to learn it.