h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

If a different key was sticking, you could say:

'od the father, od the on, and od the holy ghot'

<...it tends to imply that theism is in some way the natural state of mankind>

Y'know, I rather think it *was*. In a democratic sort of way, that is, considering only what the majority did, and assuming them to be representative of all. Maybe today things aren't quite so clear-cut, but way back then....

The *term* a-theism certainly came after theism, didn't it?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"<...it tends to imply that theism is in some way the natural state of mankind>

Y'know, I rather think it *was*. In a democratic sort of way, that is, considering only what the majority did, and assuming them to be representative of all. Maybe today things aren't quite so clear-cut, but way back then...."

Well, no, not really. Our social codes grew up with us, and as such they are our creation. We may well have had a sense of spirituality since we walked upright, but theism implies belief in a deity. It's no more a 'natural' state than morality, an urge to tell stories or love of classical music.

A lot of what we consider inherent in ourselves isn't. Society and all its trappings (including theism) are our creation, and thus we predate them (maybe not by much). Of course, such beliefs may have had evolutionary advantages at the time.

When we pare away what we would like to think of as 'natural' the reality is really quite brief and savage.

"The *term* a-theism certainly came after theism, didn't it?"

Well, yes. But the term 'biodegradeable' is a lot younger than plastics, even though biodegradable materials have been aorund longer.

So you are a-PCist (PCism being a religion I'm going to invent tomorrow)? C'mon, this is silly enough already!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

It's a simple matter of sets and partitioning. Just because the term hadn't been coined to describe something, doesn't mean it does not exist.

If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no word for 'noise', does it make a sound? This is getting sillier still....



It does if the 'something' is a human-defined thing in the first place! There is no "two" in nature, nor is there "theism".

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"In the beginning was the Word ..." John 1:1

There you go PC, Queex was right after all

>

> It does if the 'something' is a human-defined thing in the first place!

Ye-es. Or do I mean no-o?

Personally I think that concepts arrive before the words that define them. For example it is arguable that there were Scientists before the early 19th century when the word was coined. However when the word was coined it then framed what a Scientist is and is not.

All abstract nouns limit the concept they define at the same time as they define it.

B

Hi Ben!



For human-defined concepts (that do not otherwise appear in the Real World), I think the best you can claim is a chicken and egg situation. And no, I'm not talking about inventing a term for something that already exists, I'm talking about - for example - atheism, which was invented after theism, and given an appropriate mnemonic.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<"In the beginning was the Word ..." John 1:1 There you go PC, Queex was right after all >

Like everyone else here at FFFF, I wouldn't dream of arguing with Y Beibl. I concede the point.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

* nods enthusiastically *

A concept can exist before the terms in which to describe it - in fact, a lot of the time the concept has to exist before its words, because otherwise you'd not have any need to invent a word for it would you? People don't generally go around saying 'I've thought up this great word, now I need something to describe with it' do they?

And if the concept under discussion is a human-defined one, which does not otherwise exist in the Real World - such as "two" - how would you describe it or talk about it, in the absence of suitable words?

The first thing you'd need to do is to define a word to describe it.... Surely the concept would be trapped inside the mind of its creator prior to the invention of the word? Or might the inventor mime it to his/her contemporaries?



Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Certainly a concept can pre-date the word that names it. "There oughtta be a word for...." It happens all the time. There are countless sensations, feelings, ideas and patterns that are recognizable but unnamed.

The real question is whether a 'thing' can properly be said to 'exist' before someone has bracketed it and recognized it an an 'it', which might or might not need to be named. In other words: humans are forever carving up the domain of phenomena into pieces which are then differentiated from the other bits. To what extent is this 'carving up' arbitrary and creative, and to what extent is is pre-defined, like perforations that we only need to locate and tear along?

As the concepts get more abstract, I'd say it's more arbitrary, and I'd cite different languages as an example. There is no English word corresponding to the Classical Greek 'arete'; no language but German has deemed 'schadenfreude' (sp?) worthy of distinction as a concept; eskimaux have their words for 'snow'; literal translation is ultimately impossible in all but the most concrete/operational of utterances.

Whether the more concrete stuff is also arbitrary - now you get into some interesting waters!


GTB

The Welsh have no separate word for Blue and Grey - hence a Grey horse is actually white, and a Blue Roan is actually grey.

Funny lot, the Welsh!



Ben

Zietgiest, eaning spirit of the times. English is hard to learn as there are no direct sinonyms(?), also we have got split infintives so we can stay stuff like from next week I will have been here three aeons. Apparently ours is the only language that is capable of this.<erm

And the difference between 'I sit at a desk to do my work' and 'I am sitting at a desk to do my work'.

Ben - who will be going to bed to get some sleep

Hearkening back to a topic since drifted over...

"One is the absence of belief in a deity, and the other is the belief that there is not deity, and they are different.

Some Atheists in the first sense are presumably also Agnostics, but others may be Buddhists or Taoists or whatever.

Atheists in teh second sense cannot also be Agnostics, though they could still be Buddhists or Taoists."

Atheism and agnosticism mostly coexist, by varying degrees. One who identifies oneself as an agnostic has an absence of belief in a deity, and is therefore an atheist, but would listen with an open mind to any new arguments for a new religion. But since "atheist" has all sorts of negative associations, they choose not to accept that label... even though it's a label that fits.

One who identifies oneself as an atheist has probably taken that next logical step, from a disbelief in all current meanings of the word "god" to a belief that there is no such thing. These would be your "hard" atheists . However, you'll still find agnosticism in this group... people who are willing to listen with an open mind to new arguments for a particular god, and will consider the new case on its own merits alone.

That's the group I fit into.

And then you have the people who call themselves atheists just because they thing a god screwed them, so they willfully disbelieve. This minority group would be the only ones who could not be identified with both the atheist and agnostic labels.

Hi Ben .

Yes we are a funny lot and strangely numerous upon h2g2. We are not beyond inventing words for new concepts either. We are presently running a competition to describe that deep sinking feeling of reja vu regarding our prospects in the Six Nations....

Blessings,
Craig /|\.

(Btw: 'deja vu' means a feeling that something has happened before, 'reja vu' is the feeling that it will happen again, and again, and again....)

>> no language but German has deemed 'schadenfreude' (sp?) worthy of
>> distinction as a concept;

Well, we have it in Norwegian, but that is because we have the same rules for combinations of nouns, so it was simple to import the German word. "Skadefryd."

"

And if the concept under discussion is a human-defined one, which does not otherwise exist in the Real World - such as "two" - how would you describe it or talk about it, in the absence of suitable words?"

There is a disctinction between words that describe concepts that only make sense in the relatively limited sphere of human conciousness and those are independent.

A tree is an object, and although the word tree has connotations in human conceptualism, it is a well-defined thing. 'Two' is a mathematical concept, and apart from any conceptual baggage built up around it is still independent of human thought. We have a third category, words like 'frightening' that (unlike the previous two examples) have no objective reality and only make sense in the context of conciousness.

The question is, which category is the word 'atheism'? I'd say the first, as by definition it means the state of not recognising nad 'deity'. We do need, of course, to define these concepts thoroughly, but while tedious and time-consuming it is possible to sensibly define them in ways that do not push them into the third category.

We have built up emotion debris around the word that falls into the third category, but being concious we have done that for every word in the first two categories.

It's the difference between the literal meaning of the word, and the emotional meaning of the word.

Ancient man did not have organised religion of faith (if you go back far enough), therefore ancient man was atheist. Assuming he had sufficient language skills, you could explain to him why he was an atheist (you do not think there's some big guy in the sky who created the world etc. etc.) and he would probably agree.

We can still draw distinctions between things even when there is no current need to do so.