Right, so, the usual bit of context: Weekly Blogging Challenge over at Long and Short Reviews. Hit their homepage to see the current week's responses, and add a link to your own if you're so inclined.
This week's challenge is What I'd Want On A Desert Island.
So, I mean, let's start with the basics: a ready supply of fresh water, enough food sources to provide a varied diet, and some way to find or make a shelter. (I'm good with caves, or with enough resources I could probably rough out a lean-to or maybe even a tent. Caves, by the way, don't tend to be terribly good shelter; either they're cracks in the rock, in which case they usually don't keep the elements out, or they're water-carved, in which case they tend at least to get damp and very probably to flood in the weather when you most need to be in your shelter. There are exceptions, of course.)
After that? Well, I mean obviously, an Internet connection and something access it with. That way I can call for help. I don't get that? Really? No cell tower on this deserted island? Well... drat.
Next up: a knife and some way to make fire. If I was stranded as the result of, say, a plane crash, then I don't have a knife on me because the TSA is a pack of idiots engaged largely in a theatrical approach to security. But I do carry a lighter, even though I don't (can't, really) smoke myself. It's a throwback to my misspent youth, when I hung out with a number of smokers and none of them could ever keep up with their own lighters. The number of cigarettes I lit for people whom I then had to move away from because they were, well, smoking... but I digress.
So fire is probably covered. Honestly, even without the lighter I might be okay; I know how to start a fire with nothing more than some dry branches... in theory. I'd hate to have to do it that way in practice. And then if I did, I'd have to make sure I always kept enough live coals to wake the fire again when I needed it. It could be done, but it would be a constant concern and a lot of work.
Some kind of knife or axe, though... I'm either using keys, or I'm hoping to find a usable rock. Or I'm basically banging rocks against other rocks in an attempt to chip them or smooth them into usable shapes. That's a hell of a thing to be doing when you need to be out looking for food or figuring some way to build a shelter. I do normally have my key-ring with me, so the keys might help if used creatively. (The pens, pencils, and thumb drives that also travel with me probably wouldn't be much help.)
I realize that I really haven't listed anything about what I'd want to have available in order to pass the time until I got (hopefully) rescued. That's because honestly, unless the island already had a bunch of resources in place (e.g. I've somehow landed on some millionaire's private island, and it's got a very nice house with some sort of working power sources and plenty of food and supplies, it's just currently deserted) then honestly I probably don't have time to read or listen to the battery-powered radio that miraculously washed ashore with me. At best, I'm telling myself stories while I do all the other necessary things; at worst, I'm panicking and cursing. (Or, y'know, being mauled by a Komodo dragon or something.)
...Which brings me to the main thing that I'd want on a desert island: I'd want to be &^%#ing rescued.
Showing posts with label Pedantic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pedantic. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 2, 2019
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Terminology: agnosticism, atheism, antitheism
I don't have anything prepared for this morning - so, so very tired - so I'm borrowing a piece on terminology that I wrote for something else. And now I must get to wor... zzzzzzzzz
I'd love to tell you that this is going to be definitive, but it's not. These are terms that people use in different ways, with different meanings, and any attempt to absolutely define them is pretty well doomed to failure. However, there are some distinctions that I want to point out here because I think they'll be helpful.
Agnosticism: basically, this is the position that we don't know (or can't know, which is sometimes called "hard" agnosticism) whether or not God exists.
Atheism: this is either not believing that God exists (called "soft" atheism) or the belief that God does not exist (called "hard" atheism).
Antitheism: this is the belief that religion is inherently harmful; generally, that it slows and suppresses social, scientific, and technological progress; that it discourages critical thinking, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
I'm breaking these down this way because it's very easy to confuse these qualities, or to think that they're all basically the same thing. The most common misconception I see is the idea that all atheists are also antitheists. That really isn't the case, but it's an easy mistake, since the most vocal atheists are vocal precisely because they're also antitheists - and also because a lot of newly deconverted atheists go through an angry-lashing-out stage as part of the process of letting go of their former beliefs. (This has been compared to the tendency to demonize ex-wives and ex-girlfriends after a breakup, and I think the analogy is apt.)
The second most common misconception I see is that agnosticism is somehow better or gentler or more honest than full-scale atheism. And, actually, there is some truth to that, particularly because the sorts of people who don't believe in God, but also don't think religion is necessarily evil, are often a lot more comfortable referring to themselves as agnostics than as atheists. (In fact, up until a couple of years ago, I did that myself.)
Mainly, though, there's a lot more overlap between atheism and agnosticism than those categories would tend to indicate. As a practical matter, it doesn't make much difference whether someone doesn't know whether God exists (and so carries on their life as if He didn't), and someone who believes that God doesn't exist (and so carries on their life as if He didn't). Looking at that another way, most atheists - if they're being honest about it - will freely admit that they can't be absolutely sure that God doesn't exist. I've only met a few "hard" atheists, and for them the accusation that they rely on faith just as much as believers seems perfectly legitimate. That's not to say that there aren't any hard atheists out there; I'm sure there are. But most of the forceful "I'm absolutely sure that God does not exist" opinions are part of the rhetoric, rather than cogent philosophical positions.
...Which brings me to my last point: the idea that atheists are secretly just antitheists. Basically, this view says that atheism is just a smokescreen - that the so-called "atheists" really do believe in God, they're just angry at Him or in rebellion against Him. This is, as far as I can tell, absolute nonsense. I mean, I'm sure that somewhere out there, there exists a pure antitheist: someone who, to quote from Pitch Black, absolutely believes in God and absolutely hates the M--- F---. But I've never met anyone like that, in any context. (And, really, is there any meaningful way to oppose an all-powerful being?) For most atheists, the belief that there is no God is not really a choice; it's a conclusion, the best they can come to from their experience and other evidence.
There's probably more to add to this, but I think this is a decent start - and it's certainly long enough already.
I'd love to tell you that this is going to be definitive, but it's not. These are terms that people use in different ways, with different meanings, and any attempt to absolutely define them is pretty well doomed to failure. However, there are some distinctions that I want to point out here because I think they'll be helpful.
Agnosticism: basically, this is the position that we don't know (or can't know, which is sometimes called "hard" agnosticism) whether or not God exists.
Atheism: this is either not believing that God exists (called "soft" atheism) or the belief that God does not exist (called "hard" atheism).
Antitheism: this is the belief that religion is inherently harmful; generally, that it slows and suppresses social, scientific, and technological progress; that it discourages critical thinking, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
I'm breaking these down this way because it's very easy to confuse these qualities, or to think that they're all basically the same thing. The most common misconception I see is the idea that all atheists are also antitheists. That really isn't the case, but it's an easy mistake, since the most vocal atheists are vocal precisely because they're also antitheists - and also because a lot of newly deconverted atheists go through an angry-lashing-out stage as part of the process of letting go of their former beliefs. (This has been compared to the tendency to demonize ex-wives and ex-girlfriends after a breakup, and I think the analogy is apt.)
The second most common misconception I see is that agnosticism is somehow better or gentler or more honest than full-scale atheism. And, actually, there is some truth to that, particularly because the sorts of people who don't believe in God, but also don't think religion is necessarily evil, are often a lot more comfortable referring to themselves as agnostics than as atheists. (In fact, up until a couple of years ago, I did that myself.)
Mainly, though, there's a lot more overlap between atheism and agnosticism than those categories would tend to indicate. As a practical matter, it doesn't make much difference whether someone doesn't know whether God exists (and so carries on their life as if He didn't), and someone who believes that God doesn't exist (and so carries on their life as if He didn't). Looking at that another way, most atheists - if they're being honest about it - will freely admit that they can't be absolutely sure that God doesn't exist. I've only met a few "hard" atheists, and for them the accusation that they rely on faith just as much as believers seems perfectly legitimate. That's not to say that there aren't any hard atheists out there; I'm sure there are. But most of the forceful "I'm absolutely sure that God does not exist" opinions are part of the rhetoric, rather than cogent philosophical positions.
...Which brings me to my last point: the idea that atheists are secretly just antitheists. Basically, this view says that atheism is just a smokescreen - that the so-called "atheists" really do believe in God, they're just angry at Him or in rebellion against Him. This is, as far as I can tell, absolute nonsense. I mean, I'm sure that somewhere out there, there exists a pure antitheist: someone who, to quote from Pitch Black, absolutely believes in God and absolutely hates the M--- F---. But I've never met anyone like that, in any context. (And, really, is there any meaningful way to oppose an all-powerful being?) For most atheists, the belief that there is no God is not really a choice; it's a conclusion, the best they can come to from their experience and other evidence.
There's probably more to add to this, but I think this is a decent start - and it's certainly long enough already.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Not pedantic - precise!
Let's be perfectly clear about this. I am not pedantic. I'm precise.
True, I'm very careful to find exactly the right words to express every nuance of my thoughts. And it's important to make sure that I address every single point relevant to the topic at hand. Sure, maybe that requires using footnotes[1] from time to time, but there's nothing pedantic about that. Footnotes are an easy way of making sure that you include everything without losing track of the main focus of your topic. They're a sign of organization, not pedantry.
And yes, as a matter of fact, it is important to address every little factual inaccuracy, even if the intended meaning is perfectly clear. Accuracy matters, after all. Plus, you never know when a particular distinction, however subtle or unimportant in its current context, might become an issue of vital importance in some other setting. So clearly it's best to correct these issues as early as possible.
I'm not pedantic; I'm precise. That's all there is to it, really.[2]
[1] This didn't require a footnote.
[2] Okay, maybe not. I'd also like to remind you that I have opinions.
True, I'm very careful to find exactly the right words to express every nuance of my thoughts. And it's important to make sure that I address every single point relevant to the topic at hand. Sure, maybe that requires using footnotes[1] from time to time, but there's nothing pedantic about that. Footnotes are an easy way of making sure that you include everything without losing track of the main focus of your topic. They're a sign of organization, not pedantry.
And yes, as a matter of fact, it is important to address every little factual inaccuracy, even if the intended meaning is perfectly clear. Accuracy matters, after all. Plus, you never know when a particular distinction, however subtle or unimportant in its current context, might become an issue of vital importance in some other setting. So clearly it's best to correct these issues as early as possible.
I'm not pedantic; I'm precise. That's all there is to it, really.[2]
[1] This didn't require a footnote.
[2] Okay, maybe not. I'd also like to remind you that I have opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)