The Semantics of Secular Labels

Ever since I started doubting the existence of God, I have frequently encountered confusion between the numerous labels used to describe non-theistic belief systems. This is most commonly seen between the words “atheist” and “agnostic,” both of which signify the absence of definitive belief in a deity. At first glance, the distinction may seem obvious: an atheist disbelieves the existence of God or gods, while an agnostic believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God and thus refuses to commit to either belief system. However, in reality these two terms tend to overlap to the extent that two people holding exactly the same (non)belief may label it differently, one identifying as an agnostic and the other, an atheist. Further, one’s label of choice is heavily influenced by the public perception of these terms, the word “atheist” being the more pejorative of the two in the eyes of the public. This probably convinces many non-theists to describe themselves as “agnostic,” as this label seems more palatable and less presumptuous than “atheist.” If one carefully examines the definitions of these terms, however, one should become more hesitant at rejecting one label for another.

I will begin my exposition by quoting from Bertrand Russell’s 1947 pamphlet, Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?

[. . .] 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

…
Share

Continue ReadingThe Semantics of Secular Labels

Interested in really living simply?

Check out the Simple Living Network, a non-profit website (absolutely no commercials) that provides lots of information on how to pare down your material excesses.  The site is run entirely by volunteers, who sincerely try to practice what they preach.  Here's the basic approach, as indicated on the home page:…

Continue ReadingInterested in really living simply?

The U.S. should stop characterizing China as an inevitable military threat.

Dick Cheney and other conservatives constantly warn us of the “China threat.”  Check out these headlines and articles:

This belligerent U.S. attitude that insists that China will inevitably ripen into our next big enemy concerns me for two reasons.

First, why can’t the U.S. work toward an upcoming era of cooperation with China, rather than assuming that we must eventually go to war because China is an emerging superpower?  This preference for aggression rather than cooperation is a xenophobic tactic that Neocons have previously used to make “enemies” out of many other countries with whom we should be working to develop strong relationships.  What is China’s sin, by the way?  China is doing the same things the United States does.  For instance, China competing economically with vigor.  China is accruing wealth.  China is testing sophisticated weapons. China is expanding its influence into parts of the world where petroleum can be found in the ground.  Yet the U.S. is paranoid about China.    If our frustration is that the Chinese practically own us (along with Japan), that is our own fault that we can’t control our own profligate government spending.  I’m not advocating being naive. Perhaps China will someday threaten American interests.  I’m suggesting that we should save harsh rhetoric if that happens. 

Second, I have a personal stake in …

Share

Continue ReadingThe U.S. should stop characterizing China as an inevitable military threat.

Spoof ads, anyone?

Madison Avenue is so clever these days that most commercials are, to some extent, fun to watch. Adbusters.org is working hard to top Madison Avenue, though, with its own spoof commercials.  Some of these are quite well done.                           You'll find more of Adbuster's spoof ads here.  Here's what Adbusters…

Continue ReadingSpoof ads, anyone?

The effect of media images of sexed-up girls and women posing as adolescents

According to a recent report by the American Psychological Association,

Inescapable media images of sexed-up girls and women posing as adolescents can cause psychological and even physical harm to adolescents and young women.
According to this APA report, the pressure of this "sexualization" can lead to depression, eating disorders, and poor academic performance. See, also, Yahoo's article on this report. What are the sources of these images? The report points to these examples:
Advertisements (e.g., the Skechers “naughty and nice” ad that featured Christina Aguilera dressed as a schoolgirl in pigtails, with her shirt unbuttoned, licking a lollipop), dolls (e.g., Bratz dolls dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas), clothing (thongs sized for 7– to 10-year-olds, some printed with slogans such as “wink wink”), and television programs (e.g., a televised fashion show in which adult models in lingerie were presented as young girls).
It is difficult to not notice this modern smearing of the boundaries between female childhood and adulthood. Our media is obsessed with presenting images of women acting like little girls and little girls forced to act "sexualized." What's the difference between "sexualization" and healthy sexuality? According to the APA report, "sexualization" occurs when
a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics; a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;

Continue ReadingThe effect of media images of sexed-up girls and women posing as adolescents