Thoughts in a Haystack

I have been trying very hard to keep my pledge to lay off the philosophical deficiencies of Jerry Coyne.

I have resisted the temptation to comment on Jerry's increasing banning of people from his "website," that he ridiculously insists is not a "blog," because they are "rude" to him (probably including me, though I didn't hang around long enough to find out, because I've been at this too long). He has also withdrawn the "title" of "Uncle" from Eric MacDonald for the "sin" of disagreeing with him about scientism.

His latest, "Bertrand Russell on why the term "agnostic" is for show," has driven me over the edge.

He quotes Russell's short piece, "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? " as follows:

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of Homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

Of course, Russell is making a nuanced point. Some years ago, I was asked if I was "religious" and I respected the questioner enough to answer that I was not technically an atheist "but most people might not be able to tell the difference."

Jerry, the alleged animal lover, enthusiastically dons one of his many pairs of dead animal hides to cover his feet while trying to stomp out any nuance that might intrude upon his world:

One problem here is that yes, you cannot give a logical demonstration that the Greek gods don't exist. (That's the "you can't prove a negative" line.) But you can give a practical demonstration that their existence is improbable, for if they interact with the world you should find some evidence of that interaction; and you find none.

One concludes from this piece that philosophers, at least in Russell's time, respected logic more than evidence, and were more concerned with logical possibilities than with probabilities.

The answer, of course, is that if you have no belief in gods, you should call yourself an "atheist." The term "agnostic" is for wimps.

Logic is for wimps! The mind boggles!

Jerry is becoming a caricature of a supposedly liberal intellectual buffoon ... of the sort that Jack Chick might draw!