Atheists who willingly defend misleading language are a frustration

Two weeks ago, I blogged about the latest Pew Research Poll on American religious beliefs, noting this absurdity, among other things:

Americans are so religiously and metaphysically STUPID, on average, that one out of five Americans who claim to be religiously unaffiliated and atheist claim to also believe in a divinity. Half of agnostics in that group make the same claim. ...

Hey, idiots. If you believe something, you can’t be agnostic about it!

But, all is not well in atheist land from where I sit.

Apparently, some people, some atheists, want to defend the use of misleading language, specifically, the illogical phrase “agnostic theism.” It’s a bad enough phrase in general, but in response to a blog post, and an original story, that both talked about “theism,” “agnosticism” and “atheism” all as belief states, it’s off-putting to say the least.

Here is the bottom line, with a sharp, hard-hitting analogy from American politics:

“Agnostic theism” is like “Democratic Republicanism” and “theistic agnosticism” is like “Republican Democratism.” (Allow the neologism for the noun parallel.)

Or, for Konstantine in Germany, “Agnostic theism” is like “Social Democratic-Christian Democratism” and “theistic agnosticism” is like “Christian Democratic-Social Democratism.”

There. I know everybody reading can understand that analogy.

To Konstantine, Adrian and Austin, I adapt my longer reply based on comments from my original post, with concluding thoughts following this long blockquote:

I stand by the original post, and I stand by saying that you’re using (potentially) misleading language. You, too, or you especially, Austin.

First, it’s clear that I, and the NYTimes linked story were talking about beliefs (or, my alternative phraseology, influenced by Dan Dennett, of “metaphysical belief,”) all along, and not knowledge. The word “belief” is in the first paragraph of my original post.

So, Austin, I never conflated “belief” and “knowledge.” I then said, if you can get Bob Carroll of The Skeptic’s Dictionary to prove me wrong, I’d listen.

Well, I went ahead and did my own research:
First, in hardcopy, my “Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion,” by William L. Reese, says this under “agnosticism”:

It is usually applied, however, principally, to suspension of belief with respect to God. (Emphasis added.)

Now, Bob Carroll does use the word “knowledge,” but as subordinate to “belief”:

Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God is impossible.

Note the definition is about belief, again.

Again, I've been referring to belief all the time.

So has the Pew poll.

And, per that definition, let me rephrase my original critique:

Phrases like “agnostic theism” or “theistic agnosticism” in that both the governing noun and the adjective talk about states of belief, or metaphysical stances, to use my phrase ...

ARE MISLEADING.

You have incompatible belief states being smashed together.

I don't care if “agnostic theism” has 5,000 Google hits, either. I don’t even care if there’s a website called AgnosticTheism.com. No, I refuse to give it a hyperlink. (Added note to all: remember, “appeal to the crowd” is a logical fallacy anyway.)

I argue that is further proof of the Pew poll, anway. And, beyond that, neither Reese nor Carroll use either that phrase or “theistic agnosticism.”

And, as I said earlier, Austin, I don’t even care if you’re the atheism “guide” for About.com.

Thank doorknob there’s only 5,000 deluded Google hits, too. (Even more fortunately, the equally oxymoronic “theistic agnosticism” has less than 500 hits.)

Next, to tackle this linguistic oxymoron from another angle, let me go to a comment I made on the original post:

Re the Wiki link on agnostic theism that (db0) posts, let’s carefully analyze the English language used here.

“Theism” is the noun. Nouns always take precedence over adjectives like “agnostic.”

For example, you can have simple noun-verb, or N-V, sentences. You cannot have a noun-adjective, or N-Adj, sentence.

The reverse also holds true. You CANNOT be an agnostic, as a primary belief state, and modify it with “theistic,” either. (See below, outside of this blockquote, for a

But I will get beyond that

As for (Konstantine's) implication that many people in Germany, or elsewhere in Europe, or in online communities of his, may understand “atheism” to mean “irreligious,” well, then obviously a bunch of people in those communities are as stupid as they are here. Maybe the equivalent of Pew should poll them. And, I’ll call irreligious people in the UK who call themselves “atheists” idiots, too, db0. Give me e-mail addresses, and I'll even e-mail them that.

Ditto for agnostics using misleading language, or atheists who abet them.

And, as for Konstantine criticizing me, well, instead, he could have taken my article as it read and corrected stupid people on his and Adrian’s side of the pond.

And, per that definition, let me rephrase my original critique of all of you:

Phrases like “agnostic theism” or “theistic agnosticism” in that both the governing noun and the adjective talk about states of belief, or metaphysical stances, to use my phrase ...

ARE MISLEADING.

Merriam-Webster also agrees with me on the use of “agnosticism.”

Dictionary.com, especially in its first listed definition, agrees as well.

Wittgenstein would be turning over in his grave, if he could.

If I were dead, and could turn over in my grave, I definitely would, too.

I didn’t do my original post, nor this follow-up, seeking to be a one-person English-language equivalent of the Académie française, but I stand by my grammar and linguistics comments. I’m not against neologisms by any means; that’s how Shakespeare enlivened our language 400 years ago.

I AM against confusing, or unnecessary, neologisms, though, and this one, or the two non-equivalent ones, are confusing.

And, I am going to critique Thomas Huxley a bit, too.

I offer one more analogy:

It’s as if Huxley were working on a syllogism. “Knowledge” may have been the fulcrum of his major premise, but “belief” was the keystone of his conclusion.

Beyond that, I blame him for bad language; even though etymology doesn’t determine meaning 100 years out or more, he should have invented “apisteia” or similar, rather than “agnosticism.”

Also, as I e-mailed Austin, I stand by my psychological observation that “agnostic theism” is an attempt to give an intellectual gloss to theistic beliefs. I do not mean that Konstantine or Austin is doing this. But, I mean that I believe it can be used that way, as a sort of a “intellectual New Ageism” for want of a better term. It’s like smearing lipstick on a dying-and-rising savior god, to riff on an American English cliché.

Let me add more.

As far as the “about me,” I don't know if you’ve clicked on that on my blog.

I have a graduate divinity degree, and have read philosophy at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. Admittedly, that degree is 22 years old now. And, no, Austin, all my study was here in the U.S.

That said, I had never seen the phrase “agnostic theism” until you used it, Konstantine. No, Austin, I don’t read metaphysics books every day, but I do still keep my nose in philosophy books from time to time.

All that said ...

To the degree Konstantine objects to my “stupid” or “idiots” language, no apologies. Just like Hitchens has no need to apologizes for having the “strongest” language of the New Atheists. To go back to politics, would you call Dick Cheney a “not so nice guy”?

If it’s “condescending” to tell someone I think I have a variety of evidences for my use and understanding of the word “agnostic,” and that therefore I don’t want to “flog a dead horse” anymore, I don’t apologize for that, either. Argue with the dictionaries I linked.

And note that etymology does not define meaning. Besides, I believe Huxley was focused ultimately on “belief” and not “knowledge” anyway.

In my day job, I write an editorial column every week. Some times, there's no soft-spoken way to state something. And, yes, somebody may call that condescending too.

I absolutely reject Konstantine’s “Humpty Dumpty” argument via e-mail:

However, as long as people are speaking about the same thing then it’s all good. It doesn't matter if it’s called Theistic Agnosticism, Fidei[s]m or Purple Banana.

No it’s not. That’s why I said “read Wittgenstein” early on in the thread of comments to my original post.

I have certainly heard of “fideism,” but I don’t think it and “agnostic theism” mean the same thing.

Let’s go back to Wittgenstein once more. Along the lines of the “Tractatus,” not his later writings, I think “agnostic theism,” in one sense, says nothing. That is the thrust of my opening analogy.

And, if it’s “condescending” to say, “No, I won’t let you be Humpty Dumpty with words, at least not on my blog,” I can live with that, too.

In a softer vein, I told Konstantine that’s part of what enables fuzzy thinking and its growth. I do not know if this is an English-language issue, in some part, but I think not.(And, no, I do not mean that to be condescending.)

Adrian or anyone else who, after accepting the apology I offered to Konstantine about calling him a theist, and inferring he was British, still wants to delink my blog because I criticize his or your use of language?

Be my guest.

I would rather not be linked to you, in that case.

Final note: I reserve the right on this post to moderate or delete comments. Per comment to Konstantine, I do not at all mind sharpening wits with other people, but, the core issue has been defined. And no, I don’t think the linguistics are minor. As I told Konstantine, I do not want to go through the frustration of dead horse flogging. The core issue has been defined.

Beyond that, I don’t want the hassle of wondering when I’m going to be called “condescending” again.