ctd
>> I refute this completely, unless you care to elaborate what looks like your own binary reductionism<<
I am not sure what ”binary reductionism” you “refute completely”. The two possible perspectives related to the two ways natural scientists and literary critics or social scientists look at the world are well described in the original C.P. Snow’s “The Two Cultures” (1959), and in what constituted the “Science Wars”.

Snow calls those who see things differently than (natural) scientists literary critics, in the “Science Wars” they were the social scientists or social constructivists (of all reality including what the scientists investigate). A good collection of papers credibly representing both sides, both perspectives, is e.g. “The One Culture?” (Ed. J.A. Labinger, U of Chicago, 2001) or “The Sokal Hoax” (Ed. editors of Lingua Franca, Uni of Nebraska, 2000).

I could not summarize the variety of opinions expressed in e.g. these two collections, in 350 or so words, even if I understood them all. However, I feel you would find also your views well represented in one of the contributions. I was just warning against using the one perspective to make far reaching statements about the state of affairs that the other perspective sees better.

So no need to get piqued; these are just two mainstream perspectives, one making sure the other does not get ensnared in sweeping - scientistic or “postmodernistic” respectively - generalizations.

Also, by pointing out that there were hundreds of definitions (and that, in case of religion, they convey something about the authors) does not mean I was accusing you of attempting to reduce them all to only two.

George I am a PhD student, in my final year, and am in English literature but my dissertation has ranged into continental philosophy and is a critique of the school of thought known as Cultural Materialism. But I came to university very late when my wife died and I had to quit work to bring up the kids. So yes I am the dreaded literary critical theorist, but I'm as appalled as anyone by some of the excesses and banalities the school (all schools!) is ocassionally guilty of, and I was up on the arguments before I went to university. Besides, as I say, my thesis is a critique of the impasse that theory has led us into, though it's impossible to not be influenced and impressed, at the same time, by the insights deconstruction, for instance, affords us. I've no doubt your own area expertise affords comparable, or even superior insights.
I recall out discussions on the topic, though not in detail, but I did get the Sokal book also--I haven't read much of it but have to say I wasn't particularly impressed. Can you recommend particular parts or arguments in it I should look at? That would save me the bother of trying to read the whole thing, which unfortunately I don't have time for.
I do disagree with the doctrine of constructivem, though there's no doubt in my mind, as I've said, that we are subjectively constructed.

I should have realised you weren't being sarcastic, sorry, it was just the use of the word "essay" which these days tends to be synonymous with prolixity, rather than an "attempt".

Squeers,
Thanks for the kind words.
>>I recall our discussions on the topic, though not in detail, but I did get the Sokal book also--I haven't read much of it but have to say I wasn't particularly impressed. Can you recommend particular parts or arguments in it I should look at?<<

There are three things to be distinguished:

(i) The Sokal hoax itself - the parody “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” published in ‘Social Text’ in 1996, that triggered the Science Wars;

(ii) The book by the authors Alan Sokal, Jean Bricmont, “Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals Abuse of Science”, Picador 1998 mentioned in our earlier discussions, c.f. e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3445#82275;

(iii) The two books - collections of papers commneting on (i) mentioned in my previous post.

You can fully appreciate (ii) - the ridiculous nonsense written by some postmodernists - only if you know some higher years’ mathematics and theoretical physics. The associated world-view, the authors explain there, might indeed feel too one-sided in the sense of my previous posts.

I own both the books mentioned in (iii), and have annotated some of the papers. However, it is now ten years or so that I read them.

In “The One Culture?” (Ed. J.A. Labinger and Harry Collins, U of Chicago, 2001), the second editor - sorry, I omitted him before - is a a social scientist, so you might prefer to read his two articles. Anyhow, you can easily decide which contribution you want to read, by the affiliations of all authors listed at the end.

The second book in (iii) - called “The Social Hoax: the Sham that Shook the Academy - has a reprint of (i) as well as of Sokal’s paper in Lingua Franca where he explains why he wrote (i). Here the most “anti-science” paper seems to be that by S. Aronowitz, although I don’t think you will completely endorse it.

As for the scientists’ perspective, articles by Steve Weinberg (physicist and atheist) in both books are most illuminating, and in my opinion he is also philosophically not as shallow as Dawkins.

George,
the book I have is "Beyond the Hoax" (Sokal 2008), a hefty tomb that covers the whole saga. It's been mostly gathering dust as some of it's over my head, but I'll have more of a dip. If you have a copy perhaps you can recommend sections, otherwise I'll look at passages connected to some of the names you mention in the index.

All the best.

"This is how "believers" are now able to categorize atheists"

Atheists have always been atheists, the target has always been on disbelievers. It has just come to the point where many are not going to just sit silent and take it anymore.

"You obviously have no concept of public relations. Perceptions are everything."

Perception has had the religious claim rights above and beyond others, simply because they have a belief in an afterlife. It's not about 'selling' atheism to believers, it's about being recognised for the diversity we are and having believers deal with it. Why should we pander to religious sentiment?

"I'd be intrigued to hear where you differed, by the way."

I've had discussions with him in regard his scale of 1 to 7, with himself being 6. Putting forward this concept has reinforced the incorrect assumption that agnosticism is a middle ground of belief.

Agnostic/gnostic is in regard knowledge. Atheism/theism is in regard belief.

I am gnostic atheist in regard the abrahamic gods as I know they could not exist because the properties claimed present logical paradox, therefore impossible. I'm agnostic atheist to the concept of a wishy washy deistic god as I cannot know such a god does not exist.

I do not have a belief that a god exists, therefore atheist.

"Better?"

There are multitudes of concepts, yes, but I was referring to the ability to express to a large audience.

"Then what does the word "atheist" mean, in this new construction?"

It's not a new construction. Atheists simply lack a belief in the truth claim a god exists. Some atheists may say god does not exist, some atheists may say they do not know (agnostic).

Lacking a belief in the god claim however makes them atheist.

"If the "A" in GAC now does not mean "atheist" in the sense that an atheist "takes the stance that there is no god", you have now drained it of all meaning."

Atheism means godless. Lacking a belief in a god. It is not the claim that a god does not exist.

Thank you for explaining your position on theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic, woot.

>>I am gnostic atheist in regard the abrahamic gods as I know they could not exist because the properties claimed present logical paradox, therefore impossible. I'm agnostic atheist to the concept of a wishy washy deistic god as I cannot know such a god does not exist. I do not have a belief that a god exists, therefore atheist.<<

It certainly gives insight as to why you feel the need for a forum on the topic. I am still struggling with the concept "gnostic atheist", which sounds very much like someone who barracks for both Carlton and Collingwood.

But please, please don't try to explain it to me. I have enough trouble discerning any difference between Methodists and Baptists, and to get into a similarly angels-on-pinheads discussion does not interest me in the slightest.

But may I disagree with this, briefly.

>>Atheism means godless. Lacking a belief in a god. It is not the claim that a god does not exist.<<

In the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, William Rowe presents the primary definition of atheism as "the position that affirms the nonexistence of God". He does allow a secondary position, "simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God", but I think he was maybe just pandering to the normal debasement of the language that occurs over time.

But it would appear that there are turning out to be as many brands of atheism (witness Dawkins' "scale" - what a cop-out!) as there are religions.

To me, it is a binary situation: God? yes or no?

Any position in between is most definitely of interest to philosophers, and is a gravy train of some significance for those who spend their lives pontificating about it. And in the abstract, your rank-and-file human can have many a fun hour musing over life, the universe and everything. Possibly even wondering whether they are a four, or maybe a five, on the Dawkins-meter.

But to otherwise allow it to impact one's life is to me nonsensical.