What do you get when you combine the complexity of the life-sustaining digestive process of mammals with the Internet's ever-churning entropic exploration into the far corners of informational state space? You get the "Four C's of Poop."
I encountered Bart Ehrman many years ago, when I encountered his excellent book, Misquoting Jesus. Today I learned that Ehrman writes at his own website, The Bart Ehrman Blog. Yesterday he published an article that makes sense out of a confused topic: the difference between agnostics and atheists? Erhman holds that the difference is not a matter of degree, a common misunderstanding. The title of Ehrman article is "On Being an Agnostic. Or Atheist?" Here's an excerpt:
. . . I think it is possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist. And that’s how I understand myself. So, in this newer view of mine, agnosticism is a statement about epistemology – that is, about what a person *knows*. Do I know whether there is a God in the multiverse? Nope. I really don’t. How could I know? I’m just a peon on a very big planet, circling around a very big star, which is one of some 100 billion stars in this galaxy, which is only one of anywhere from 100 billion to 2 trillion galaxies in this universe, which may be only one of trillions (infinite number?) of universes. So, well, I don’t have a broad perspective on the question. So I don’t know. I’m agnostic.I like this approach. No one knows whether there is a god hiding behind a distant star. It's possible that there is such a lurking god, even though I'll never be able to prove or disprove such a claim. This inability to prove or disprove god is an epistemic challenge, according to Ehrman. I am forced to live a life of ignorance about many things, including shy gods hiding in outer space (or in my toaster, or wherever). Ehrman would attach the word "agnostic" to that epistemic predicament. Fair enough.Atheism, on the other hand, (in my way of thinking) is not about knowledge but about belief. Do I *believe* that there is a God? No I don’t. I especially do not believe in the biblical God, or in the traditional God of Jews and Christians (and Muslims and so on). I simply do not believe that there is a God who created this world (it is the result of forces beyond my comprehension, but it goes back to the Big Bang, and we are here because of evolution, and I exist only because of some pretty amazingly remote chances/circumstances…); I don’t think there is a divine being who is sovereign over this world who interacts with it and the people in it, who answers prayer, who brings good out of evil. I don’t believe it. So I’m an atheist.
So I’m an agnostic atheist. Or an atheistic agnostic. Take your pick!
And in the meantime, I need to either act as though god does exists or that god doesn't exist. As I see it, this is a question of where I'm setting my default for belief. Some people set the bar low and they believe in all kinds of mystical claims and conspiracy theories. I am extremely skeptical about claims about gods (and many other things). This might also be seen as how I set up my "burden of proof," as we might say in a courtroom. Those of us who are highly skeptical need extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims.
I consider the question of whether god exists to be an extraordinary claim, but others might set the bar much lower. Some of them believe with with nothing more than a hope and a duty old book of apocryphal tall tales. What do I believe when I (a person who sets the bar for proof high) don't see any evidence of a god and yet I can't disprove the existence of god? Shall I act "as if" or not "as if" there is a god? A lack of belief in a god is what Ehrman calls "Atheism." This nomenclature makes sense to me.
I will give this some more thought, but I'm inclined to join Ehrman as new member of the church of Atheist Agnostics.
As Matt Taibbi indicates in his article, he is not taking a position on whether the "lab origin" theory is true. That said, in his article on "fact-checking," he describes what goes for serious reporting on a most urgent topic in modern day America:
Fauci’s new quote about not being “convinced” that Covid-19 has natural origins, however, is part of what’s becoming a rather ostentatious change of heart within officialdom about the viability of the so-called “lab origin” hypothesis. Through 2020, officials and mainstream press shut down most every discussion on that score. Reporters were heavily influenced by a group letter signed by 27 eminent virologists in the Lancet last February in which the authors said they “strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,” and also by a Nature Medicine letter last March saying, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct.”The consensus was so strong that some well-known voices saw social media accounts suspended or closed for speculating about Covid-19 having a “lab origin.” One of those was University of Hong Kong virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan, who went on Tucker Carlson’s show last September 15th to say “[Covid-19] is a man-made virus created in the lab.” After that appearance, PolitiFact — Poynter’s PolitiFact — gave the statement its dreaded “Pants on Fire” rating.
. . .
Fact-checking was a huge boon when it was an out-of-sight process quietly polishing the turd of industrial reportage. When companies dragged it out in public and made it a beast of burden for use in impressing audiences, they defamed the tradition.
We know only a few things absolutely for sure, like the spelling of “femur” or Blaine Gabbert’s career interception total. The public knows pretty much everything else is up for argument, so we only look like jerks pretending we can fact-check the universe. We’d do better admitting what we don’t know.
I applaud 60 Minutes for broadcasting this balanced report on trangender medical issues.
[Added May 24, 2021]
The ACLU's famously pro-censorship attorney, Chase Strangio probably liked the first half of 60 Minutes' recent discussion on transgender health care, the part discussing the fact that many states, including Arkansas, are attempting to restrict surgery and hormone injections for minors who claim to be transgender. I agree that this legislation should be critically examined and should not interfere with legitimate well-researched healthcare. Lesley Stahl indicated that "the vast majority" of people who have transitioned are satisfied. But Strangio's Tweet-rant claims that it is "dangerous" and "unaccountable" that 60 Minutes considered concerns with transgender health care.
As part of this topic, Stahl interviewed thirty teenagers and young adults who detransitioned, all of them having regrets, many of them after surgery and hormones. These young adults regretted that they got caught up in the excitement, many of them frustrated that their counselors "blindly affirmed" the transgender diagnosis and did not push back or dig deeper into what was really going on in their lives. I assume that Strangio was also outraged that 60 Minutes dared to mention the existence of a growing sub-Reddit Detrans group with more than 19,000 members.
The show also featured nationally recognized psychologist (and transgender woman) Erica Anderson, in accordance with the positions taken by many major medical organizations, criticized the new wave of state laws, characterizing them as "ominous." Anderson admitted, however, that there are no existing accreditation standards for work in this field of transgender health care. Anderson expressed concern that many health professionals in this field are not well-trained and she called treatment offered by many healthcare professionals "deplorable."
Another expert, Laura Edwards-Leeper, a psychologist at one of the first transgender clinics (in Boston), stated that she is concerned about rampant unethical behavior by many practitioners. She noted that many therapists in the field share her concerns, but are "scared to speak up" for fear of pushback from the trans community.
For Strangio of the ACLU, however, this well-balanced investigative piece is not good enough. It contains too much information. Ira Glasser and John Stuart Mill are both spinning in their graves.
Earlier this month, independent journalist Andy Ngo gave a talks at Hillsdale College. I saw images and videos I hadn't before seen, including massive disruption and violence in downtown Portland, Oregon. Until I saw this, I only had a vague notion of the goals and history of ANTIFA. Ngo's account is the only detailed account I have heard, so I won't pretend that anyone should stop their research after watching this one presentation.
That said, Ngo's account of ANTIFA provided considerable detailed information I had not heard before, even though I had often heard the term ANTIFA. Mostly, I had heard the term ANTIFA as part of a dispute of whether the group even exists. Ngo showed the audience these headlines:
My reason for sharing this video is twofold. Andy Ngo presents detailed information about an ideology (Ngo explains it is not one cohesive group) about which I hadn't before heard detailed information.
Much more interesting and concerning to me is the legacy media's almost total shutdown of selected events. I invite you to visit NPR/NYT/WP and word search for the terms "ANTIFA," "Portland" or "riot" and compare the threadbare on-the-ground news coverage of what happened on the streets with the vast and intense news coverage you will see for "Capitol Riot." I was disturbed by both of these incidents. I see them both as attacks on my government. These were both attempts to invoke a feeling of chaos and loss of confidence in the social order. In Portland, I see a federal courthouse under attack, night after night, forcing police into a defensive shell, hopelessly waiting it out. As I watch these videos and photos it repeatedly occurs to me that Courthouse are where our Civil Rights Laws are often enforced, where people abused by government action find a remedy. Yet the images show repeated attempts to damage or destroy it. The attacks on Portland (and Seattle) lasted for weeks, and they included substantial violence and destruction of property, far more than the damage down the our DC Capitol. The violence in Minneapolis amounted to a half-billion in uninsured property losses, substantial amount of this falling on fledgling businesses and immigrant shopkeepers.
I can think of no better evidence proving that the left-leaning media consciously embraces its chosen narrative every bit as much as FOX does on the political right. This is important to see, at a time when numerous left-leaning people I know insist that there is no such thing bias on the left. I personally know dozens of people who deny media bias on the left, people who hunker down only with NPR/NYT/WP and assume that they are getting the full story.