Gratitude: An Atheist’s Dissonance
April 14, 2011
Alma Acevedo
“When I lie on my back and look up at the Milky Way on a clear night and see the vast distances of space and reflect that these are also vast differences of time as well, when I look at the Grand Canyon and see the strata going down, down, down, through periods of time which the human mind can’t comprehend . . . it’s a feeling of sort of an abstract gratitude that I am alive to appreciate these wonders, when I look down a microscope it’s the same feeling, I am grateful to be alive to appreciate these wonders.”
These moving, and ostensibly sincere, words were pronounced by Richard Dawkins at the “Atheism is the new fundamentalism” debate staged by the U.K.-based organization Intelligence Squared in November 2009. Spoken in a deliberate tone and convinced demeanor, these words interjected a dissonant note to Dawkins’ otherwise fairly consistently crafted atheistic and anti-religious presentation. Elsewhere, the evolutionary biologist has described his feeling of “exultation,” and the “overwhelming feeling of being” elicited by his experience of the natural world. Wonder, exultation, overwhelmed—all empirically appropriate and logically suitable responses to the magnificence of the universe. But, gratitude?
Unlike “being comfortable,” which requires the preposition with (as in “I feel comfortable with these shoes”), if any, “being grateful” calls for a to another person. Gratitude is not a self-enclosed or self-sufficient feeling but a human person’s response to another person or persons—whether human or divine—for benefits, gifts, or favors received from them, such as the gratitude due to caring parents, loving friends, and dedicated teachers or mentors. As Kant succinctly observes, “The duty of gratitude consists in honoring a person because of a benefit he has rendered us” (italics added). When gratitude is due to a country, an organization (e.g., a school, a hospital, a shelter), or some other collective, it is owed to them as communities of human persons, not as impersonal institutions.
Dawkins might reply that he is grateful for the Milky Way and the Grand Canyon. Being grateful for a good, an event, or a state, however, presupposes a gift-giver. Those grateful for a promotion or applause, their health or their sufferings, are, albeit implicitly, grateful to the persons who brought about the event or state. “Abstract” gratitude, therefore, is as meaningless as abstract piety, as oxymoronic as abstract repayment. Gratitude without a benefactor is as incongruous as a refund without a payer.
The recipients of gratitude are not abstract, but concrete persons who, even if no longer physically with us, live on in our thankful memories. Gratitude that is not deliberately aimed at a person—human or divine—whose gifts or favors deserve it is not gratitude at all, but complacency, conceit, pride, pleasure, or wonder and awe at best.
Nor can Dawkins claim to be grateful to himself. Thanking oneself is hardly reasonable. As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, “In things that one does for oneself, there is no place for gratitude or ingratitude, since a man cannot deny himself a thing except by keeping it” (Summa Theologica, 2a2ae, 106). One may feel surprised, satisfied, joyful, happy, proud, even self-congratulatory, but “self-thankful” is, plainly, inconsistent. Thanks are reserved to the other—to the parents for their understanding and support, to the special friends for their encouragement, to the mentors for their patience, to the boss who granted the unique opportunity.
We may be happy to be alive; but if also grateful to be so, it must necessarily be to the Giver of that gift. If “nature” is “thanked,” it is, in reality, in an anthropomorphic or personalized guise. If natural selection or sheer luck developed the Milky Way and the Grand Canyon, why should gratitude be felt at all? An impersonal, inevitable, or chance benefit is not a fitting recipient of gratitude. Gratitude entails humbly reaching out, acknowledging, appreciating, and even honoring the benefactor by means of thankful words, gestures, deeds, goodwill, or material signs—a card, memento, or some token of heartfelt recognition.
According to Aquinas, since “every effect turns naturally to its cause,” and a benefactor “is cause of the beneficiary, . . . the natural order requires that he who has received a favor should, by repaying the favor, turn to his benefactor according to the mode of each.” That is, the virtue of gratitude entails that the recipient ought to repay the giver with spontaneous “affection of the heart” in a manner commensurate with the gift received.
Since the nature of the “debt” depends on its causes, the gratitude owed to God (“the first principle of all our goods”) is the greatest, followed by that owed our parents, persons “excelling in dignity,” and other benefactors. The response to these human persons can be disproportionate, degenerating into vices such as flattery or exhibitionism, besides ingratitude. Excessive gratitude to God, however, is inconceivable. To the Gift-giver, the Giver of all being, a worshipful “grateful to be alive to appreciate these wonders” is called for.
In his outburst of gratitude, the famous atheist was not thanking his parents, his family, his teachers, his friends, his followers, nor even an anthropomorphous nature. He certainly was not irrationally thanking himself. In Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton tellingly confided his own experience of gratitude: “The test of all happiness is gratitude; and I felt grateful, though I hardly knew to whom.” Does Dawkins know?
Alma Acevedo teaches courses in applied ethics.
Comments:
4.14.2011 | 11:19am
Soodonim says:
This entire essay is predicated on the denial of another person's phenomenological reality. It is as insincere as it is pointless to argue that another person cannot feel as they feel. Perhaps gratitude is simply the best articulation of a feeling he otherwise could not communicate. That you would propose to use appeals to Aquinas or some equally recondite philosophical method to disprove another person's feelings is disturbing. All of a sudden, Dawkins many shrill cries of religious persons harboring secret insanities and personal delusions become profound, when you give gravity to an invasive analysis of the validity of another person's emotional state.
4.14.2011 | 12:00pm
Katie says:
I don't think this article is telling Richard Dawkins that he does not, may not, or should not feel gratitude.
I think, actually, that it's a deeper look at what, precisely, gratitude is, and how, as a feeling, it is experienced with regard to others (individual persons, groups of persons, etc...) To explore the relational and philosophical underpinnings of any particular "feeling" is not to denounce or destroy the feeling, neither is it to suggest that such feelings are inappropriate or unwarranted or "not allowed."
If I say to a friend, "I feel sad when I hear about an animal being mistreated," and she then decides to write an article about what "sadness" is, where it comes from, how it is generated when the object of the sadness is known personally to the "feeler" vs. when it is unknown, and so on, she is not attempting to take away from my feelings, to tell me that it's dumb to feel sad for a dog I never met, or to suggest that I do not, in fact, feel what I think I feel. She's simply exploring the concept of sadness.
As for Mr. Dawkins, gratitude is, in fact, probably "the best articulation of a feeling he otherwise could not communicate." And praise God for that! Indeed, "the Spirit intercedes for us, with sighs too deep for words." Alleluia! (Yes, even in Lent...)
I think, actually, that it's a deeper look at what, precisely, gratitude is, and how, as a feeling, it is experienced with regard to others (individual persons, groups of persons, etc...) To explore the relational and philosophical underpinnings of any particular "feeling" is not to denounce or destroy the feeling, neither is it to suggest that such feelings are inappropriate or unwarranted or "not allowed."
If I say to a friend, "I feel sad when I hear about an animal being mistreated," and she then decides to write an article about what "sadness" is, where it comes from, how it is generated when the object of the sadness is known personally to the "feeler" vs. when it is unknown, and so on, she is not attempting to take away from my feelings, to tell me that it's dumb to feel sad for a dog I never met, or to suggest that I do not, in fact, feel what I think I feel. She's simply exploring the concept of sadness.
As for Mr. Dawkins, gratitude is, in fact, probably "the best articulation of a feeling he otherwise could not communicate." And praise God for that! Indeed, "the Spirit intercedes for us, with sighs too deep for words." Alleluia! (Yes, even in Lent...)
4.14.2011 | 12:45pm
pentamom says:
I doubt the point is to deny how Dawkins feels or to attempt to dissuade him from feeling that way.
I believe the point is to show that his genuine feelings, and his description of them, do not comport with his own account of his beliefs about the nature of reality. It is probably up to Dawkins to figure out where the problem lies that creates this disconnect, but surely pointing out the disconnect is not an illegitimate enterprise, especially in the case of someone both so prominent and so self-referential an advocate for his particular views.
I believe the point is to show that his genuine feelings, and his description of them, do not comport with his own account of his beliefs about the nature of reality. It is probably up to Dawkins to figure out where the problem lies that creates this disconnect, but surely pointing out the disconnect is not an illegitimate enterprise, especially in the case of someone both so prominent and so self-referential an advocate for his particular views.
4.14.2011 | 12:50pm
Codgitator says:
Meanwhile, of course, neuro- and cognitive scientists compete for grants and win respect by seeking to explain why we are all deluded for clinging to the phenomen(ologic)al idols of free will, unified ego, etc.
This piece is not being disingenuous: it is simply reminding us that words have meaning. Gratitude is a response to grace––gratia––and a gift necessarily requires there be a Giver. Dawkins is not forbidden from using the word, but doing so is, philosophically, as impressive as asserting, scientifically, that, since we see the sun rise, therefore the sun really does move around the earth. Better for him and others just to use "lucky" or "groovy."
"The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank." -- Dante Gabriel Rossetti
This piece is not being disingenuous: it is simply reminding us that words have meaning. Gratitude is a response to grace––gratia––and a gift necessarily requires there be a Giver. Dawkins is not forbidden from using the word, but doing so is, philosophically, as impressive as asserting, scientifically, that, since we see the sun rise, therefore the sun really does move around the earth. Better for him and others just to use "lucky" or "groovy."
"The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank." -- Dante Gabriel Rossetti
4.14.2011 | 12:52pm
Ray Ingles says:
Humans have been living around other humans since there have been humans - around 200,000 years. More than that, the precursors of humans were living in groups for several million years before that.
Indeed, we know that humans are intensely social creatures, and indeed we have a tendency to attribute things to minds that don't come from minds. More - things that on an intellectual level we know don't come from minds.
Looking for someone to thank when something good happens is hardly a surprising instinct under such circumstances. (Imagine the prospects for someone who never thanked anyone for anything...)
Feeling gratitude for things that one knows, intellectually, were not given by anyone may be 'incongruous' or 'dissonant' - but is not a sign of insincerity or repression.
Consider - almost every human being, religious or not, engages in superstitious rituals sometimes. How many Christian athletes who know in their hearts that God is in control, yet still wear their special shirts or avoid shaving or only pick up a bat with their left hand before the big game? They aren't being unfaithful... they are simply being human.
Indeed, we know that humans are intensely social creatures, and indeed we have a tendency to attribute things to minds that don't come from minds. More - things that on an intellectual level we know don't come from minds.
Looking for someone to thank when something good happens is hardly a surprising instinct under such circumstances. (Imagine the prospects for someone who never thanked anyone for anything...)
Feeling gratitude for things that one knows, intellectually, were not given by anyone may be 'incongruous' or 'dissonant' - but is not a sign of insincerity or repression.
Consider - almost every human being, religious or not, engages in superstitious rituals sometimes. How many Christian athletes who know in their hearts that God is in control, yet still wear their special shirts or avoid shaving or only pick up a bat with their left hand before the big game? They aren't being unfaithful... they are simply being human.
4.14.2011 | 1:12pm
Soodonim says:
"If I say to a friend, "I feel sad when I hear about an animal being mistreated," and she then decides to write an article about what "sadness" is, where it comes from, how it is generated when the object of the sadness is known personally to the "feeler" vs. when it is unknown, and so on, she is not attempting to take away from my feelings..."
She would be if she argued that you cannot in fact feel sad about animals being mistreated, which would be the analogous situation. Acevedo doesn't just explore gratitude, a definition is created which precludes Dawkin's feelings altogether. Hence the essay's title. He cannot feel as he does and remain an atheist, in good conscious. There's cognitive dissonance there. It's not an innocent project.
She would be if she argued that you cannot in fact feel sad about animals being mistreated, which would be the analogous situation. Acevedo doesn't just explore gratitude, a definition is created which precludes Dawkin's feelings altogether. Hence the essay's title. He cannot feel as he does and remain an atheist, in good conscious. There's cognitive dissonance there. It's not an innocent project.
4.14.2011 | 1:13pm
pentamom says:
Ray, I wonder at the impulse to defend Dawkins here -- I understand that you want to show that his position juxtaposed with his reactions isn't indefensible, but does that mean it's beyond criticism? Does the fact that he *could* be reacting in a typical human way mean that it's impossible that there's something to Alma Acevedo's point?
Or, to put it another way, does the defense of irreligion require that Dawkins be right, all the time, about everything, that he never be conflicted, or that he never present himself in a way that does a disservice to his own views? Sometimes that's the feeling I get when issues like this get raised.
Or, to put it another way, does the defense of irreligion require that Dawkins be right, all the time, about everything, that he never be conflicted, or that he never present himself in a way that does a disservice to his own views? Sometimes that's the feeling I get when issues like this get raised.
4.14.2011 | 2:11pm
Barry Arrington says:
Many times I have expressed my gratitude to God for revealing himself to me so that I would know the proper object of my gratitude. That's right. One of the things I am grateful for is the ability to express gratitude at all, for the urge to do so is irrepressible.
4.14.2011 | 2:18pm
CKG says:
As I read the article, the point is not to tell Mr. Dawkins what he may or may not feel, but, acknowledging that he feels gratitude (or at least, says he does), to simply ask, "to whom?"
4.14.2011 | 2:49pm
Ray Ingles says:
Pentamom - No, neither I nor atheism require Dawkins to be infallible nor unconflicted. In fact, I was kinda arguing the opposite - I was agreeing that his sentiment isn't in sync with the positions he advocates.
What I was disputing was the conclusion to be drawn from that. I was pointing out a potential explanation Dawkins could turn to for what "creates this disconnect" that didn't involve god(s).
There are definitely aspects of Dawkins' positions that can be legitimately criticized. For example, I think he underestimates the positive impacts religion has had across history. But when I think a criticism misdirected or overstated, I don't feel overly defensive in pointing that out.
What I was disputing was the conclusion to be drawn from that. I was pointing out a potential explanation Dawkins could turn to for what "creates this disconnect" that didn't involve god(s).
There are definitely aspects of Dawkins' positions that can be legitimately criticized. For example, I think he underestimates the positive impacts religion has had across history. But when I think a criticism misdirected or overstated, I don't feel overly defensive in pointing that out.
4.14.2011 | 3:05pm
Henry James says:
Dawkins extends the normal, literal usage of "gratitude"; which seems appropriate here. As atheists rethink the old concepts, it does seem appropriate to be "grateful" even to Nature - if it created us.
In some ways in fact, atheism is a new fundamentalism. And indeed has something in common with oldtime religion. But to be sure, it has a slightly different idea of our creator.
By the way, the authors of the American Constitution lived in an era when some people were considering a possible relation, between God, and Nature. A concept that found its way into our founding documents; when they acknowledge the "laws of Nature and Nature's god." And that concept continued partially in Catholic theology, as "natural law."
This link between religion and atheism should in fact, make Atheism a bit more understandable for religious traditionalists. Who should after all, simply celebrate this link. And ideally, humbly, and without the usual gloating "I told you so" attitude. Since, if there is such a link? Then after all, Atheism is not merely rediscovering what Catholics always knew; but adding a new layer to it.
In a way, such moments confirm old religious beliefs. But in a way though the New Atheism also seems it is trying to improve and update them. In ways Catholics need to understand.
This isn't just modern atheists rediscovering old truths, exactly. It's atheists ... discovering a whole new layer on top of, or underneath, the old beliefs.
In some ways in fact, atheism is a new fundamentalism. And indeed has something in common with oldtime religion. But to be sure, it has a slightly different idea of our creator.
By the way, the authors of the American Constitution lived in an era when some people were considering a possible relation, between God, and Nature. A concept that found its way into our founding documents; when they acknowledge the "laws of Nature and Nature's god." And that concept continued partially in Catholic theology, as "natural law."
This link between religion and atheism should in fact, make Atheism a bit more understandable for religious traditionalists. Who should after all, simply celebrate this link. And ideally, humbly, and without the usual gloating "I told you so" attitude. Since, if there is such a link? Then after all, Atheism is not merely rediscovering what Catholics always knew; but adding a new layer to it.
In a way, such moments confirm old religious beliefs. But in a way though the New Atheism also seems it is trying to improve and update them. In ways Catholics need to understand.
This isn't just modern atheists rediscovering old truths, exactly. It's atheists ... discovering a whole new layer on top of, or underneath, the old beliefs.
4.14.2011 | 3:43pm
Paul says:
I'm grateful I survived my possibly-lethal bike crash. I'm also grateful to the EMTs who scraped me off the pavement and zipped me into emergency. These are not the same. The first is simply a recognition of a positive outcome due only to the triumph of blind luck over my own foolish addiction to speed. The second is a debt of thanks owed to real people. To argue that a hard-core empiricalist and outspoken opponent of the kind of muddy thinking involved in religious belief is going wobbly because he uses the word "gratitude" in reference to the deeply amazing structure that is the universe is - is exactly the kind of muddy thinking you'd expect from a religious believer.
4.14.2011 | 3:53pm
Mark says:
Muddy thinking? I'm sorry, my friend, it is muddy thinking to say that you are grateful to nothing.
4.14.2011 | 4:30pm
Billy Bean says:
If a Christian or some other type of theist were to say she felt "lucky to be alive," would that constitute a lapse of faith in an unguarded moment, or merely a nonsignificant, careless use of language? I think we have to cut Dr. Dawkins some slack here. He seems quite sure that he doesn't believe in the existence of God.
4.14.2011 | 4:31pm
Eli says:
This is just embarrassing. Feelings are not propositions; to argue that the *feeling* of gratitude rationally requires a person as an object is just as silly as saying that fear rationally requires something to be afraid of. So is it "dissonant" to be scared by a movie when one knows full well that it's harmless fiction? Hardly - all this demonstrates is the utterly obvious fact that our feelings aren't governed by our rationality. That you people continue to jump up and down and shout about this is, as I said, embarrassing.
4.14.2011 | 4:33pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Soodonim and Paul are looking to be offended on Dawkins behalf, I think. I think Henry's picking up an "I told you so" attitude is similar. I don't think it is there.
Dawkins' statement is at a minimum ironic. It may be no more than that, as the language of feeling and impression may simply not be precise enough to make his distinctions. But he said what he said, the words mean what they mean (and no, Acevedo is not producing any idiosyncratic or convenient definition here), and they do indeed suggest that Dawkins does not have full insight into all his thoughts. It would be odd if he did, as none of us have the self-awareness we pretend to.
Is Acevedo picking on Dawkins a bit? Perhaps, though he can hardly complain when he puts his chin out so often. But the shrillness of the defences here speak volumes. Listen louder, or we might think you (gulp) illogical, and prone to cultural biases in your beliefs. Just for the record, leaping into the comments in a bullying tone is not usually effective here. In some places, people are impressed by it, and change their views so that they can be thought smart. If that situation is more familiar to you, it should give you pause.
Dawkins' statement is at a minimum ironic. It may be no more than that, as the language of feeling and impression may simply not be precise enough to make his distinctions. But he said what he said, the words mean what they mean (and no, Acevedo is not producing any idiosyncratic or convenient definition here), and they do indeed suggest that Dawkins does not have full insight into all his thoughts. It would be odd if he did, as none of us have the self-awareness we pretend to.
Is Acevedo picking on Dawkins a bit? Perhaps, though he can hardly complain when he puts his chin out so often. But the shrillness of the defences here speak volumes. Listen louder, or we might think you (gulp) illogical, and prone to cultural biases in your beliefs. Just for the record, leaping into the comments in a bullying tone is not usually effective here. In some places, people are impressed by it, and change their views so that they can be thought smart. If that situation is more familiar to you, it should give you pause.
4.14.2011 | 5:24pm
David Nickol says:
It would seem that if theists want to criticize Dawkins for his atheism, that's one thing, but to pounce on the phrase "it’s a feeling of sort of an abstract gratitude" and cry "Gotcha!" strikes me as bizarre. If he had said, "I am grateful to . . . um . . . gee, I don't know" then maybe it would be worth noting.
I have participated in a number of other religious forums, and the topic of atheism has come up rarely. Here, though, there seems to be kind of at least mild preoccupation with atheism that gives me the sense that some are uncomfortable with atheists, perhaps because they feel insecure about their own belief when there are people who don't share it.
I have participated in a number of other religious forums, and the topic of atheism has come up rarely. Here, though, there seems to be kind of at least mild preoccupation with atheism that gives me the sense that some are uncomfortable with atheists, perhaps because they feel insecure about their own belief when there are people who don't share it.
4.14.2011 | 5:49pm
Torontonian says:
Dawkins could be experiencing awe at the order of the universe, which extends back through vast time and space. At the cosmic and quantum levels the universe just happens to be the one that we find ourselves living in . Humanity lives at a mid-point to the extremes and imputes a Creator because it has evolved psychological relationships necessary for its survival. Relationships are artifacts of human activity that has no bearing in the larger scheme of the universe. And Dawkins is unconsciously moved by that artifact.
4.14.2011 | 6:00pm
Don Roberto says:
I, for one, deny the existence of real atheists. (Dawkins clearly isn't one.) I fear many who call themselves atheists are just so unwilling to accept authority or limits on their own will that they construct the notion of atheism as a psychological defense (which is ironic, in that they see religion as the same thing for its adherents). Many of us are very lost in our search for Truth, others do not care or at least tell themselves they don't. God willing many of us will find it, despite the wrong turns, at our journey's joyful end.
†
†
4.14.2011 | 6:30pm
Paul says:
OK, Mark, let me be more precise.
From Webster's, in context, the definition of gratitude is
1a : appreciative of benefits received
There is nothing there about having to be grateful TO someone, or something. All that has to happen is that you receive something you perceive to be beneficial, and that you're appreciative of that. The active verb is appreciate, and you can appreciate something all by yourself, no counterparty required. You can be grateful FOR a starry sky without being grateful TO the sky for being starry, or conversely grateful TO a person for helping you without being grateful FOR that person in general.
In this case, I was grateful my accident wasn't worse because I appreciate not being in a wheelchair. I suppose I'm also grateful I haven't been devoured alive by a radioactive plague of carnivorous cockroaches. Who should I be thanking for that?
Now if you believe in an all-powerful and divinely intervening God, then perhaps you will argue that everything ultimately comes from God, so I should express my appreciation for not being in a wheelchair or eaten by cockroaches there. Not so fast. Should I thank God it wasn't worse? Or should it be Satan I'm thanking, for not hurting me more? Or should I resent God for the ongoing pain in my shattered vertebrae? Is God punishing me for my many (many) sins? Should I start loving God lest I get another good, hard sin-punishing? And isn't someone who punishes you for not loving them enough called a domestic abuser?
I'm sorry, but that's too muddy for my little brain. I'm going to stick with a generalized, undirected gratitude for still being able to walk, and while I'm at it, I'm going to take a moment to share Richard Dawkins generalized, undirected gratitude for living in a completely empirical yet subtly non-deterministic universe. It's awesome.
And while Richard and I are appreciating the universe, Mark, you can be grateful I came into your life to correct your gross misunderstanding of the word 'gratitude'. I doubt you're actually grateful TO me, but as a good Christian I'm sure you'll work on it.
And of course you're welcome, I'm pleased to help. May the deity or deities of your choice locally alter the laws of physics such that the sun shines on you today.
Paul
From Webster's, in context, the definition of gratitude is
1a : appreciative of benefits received
There is nothing there about having to be grateful TO someone, or something. All that has to happen is that you receive something you perceive to be beneficial, and that you're appreciative of that. The active verb is appreciate, and you can appreciate something all by yourself, no counterparty required. You can be grateful FOR a starry sky without being grateful TO the sky for being starry, or conversely grateful TO a person for helping you without being grateful FOR that person in general.
In this case, I was grateful my accident wasn't worse because I appreciate not being in a wheelchair. I suppose I'm also grateful I haven't been devoured alive by a radioactive plague of carnivorous cockroaches. Who should I be thanking for that?
Now if you believe in an all-powerful and divinely intervening God, then perhaps you will argue that everything ultimately comes from God, so I should express my appreciation for not being in a wheelchair or eaten by cockroaches there. Not so fast. Should I thank God it wasn't worse? Or should it be Satan I'm thanking, for not hurting me more? Or should I resent God for the ongoing pain in my shattered vertebrae? Is God punishing me for my many (many) sins? Should I start loving God lest I get another good, hard sin-punishing? And isn't someone who punishes you for not loving them enough called a domestic abuser?
I'm sorry, but that's too muddy for my little brain. I'm going to stick with a generalized, undirected gratitude for still being able to walk, and while I'm at it, I'm going to take a moment to share Richard Dawkins generalized, undirected gratitude for living in a completely empirical yet subtly non-deterministic universe. It's awesome.
And while Richard and I are appreciating the universe, Mark, you can be grateful I came into your life to correct your gross misunderstanding of the word 'gratitude'. I doubt you're actually grateful TO me, but as a good Christian I'm sure you'll work on it.
And of course you're welcome, I'm pleased to help. May the deity or deities of your choice locally alter the laws of physics such that the sun shines on you today.
Paul
4.14.2011 | 6:36pm
Amos Wang says:
I don't agree being grateful implies someone to be grateful to. Let me give an example that sometimes happens. Suppose I jump out of a plane and my parachute fails. All reason says, I'm seconds from death, but I notice some pine forests below and try to maneuver myself to them, hoping that they will break my fall enough. I survive with only a few broken bones and several cuts. Even if I didn't believe in God, I would be grateful simply to be alive. Being grateful is simply the recognition that what we have, did not have to be this way. If you look at the stars, they didn't have to exist, and even if they did, the earth could have been naturally cloudy so that one couldn't see them if we wanted to, and even if there were no clouds, we could have been born blind. There is so much that did not have to be this way and anyone who isn't able to see this is unable to see is truly sad.
4.14.2011 | 7:57pm
Susan says:
This essay is an exploration of the feeling of gratitude, yet it begins with a supposed limitation of what the word means. I personally do not think that a feeling of gratitude requires a "giver" to whom one is thankful.
I do not believe in a god or "Creator," yet when I look at the wonders of the world, I feel grateful in many different ways. Looking at the stars above, I am grateful for the knowledge and appreciation of what I am actually seeing. I am moved by the majesty of mountains and feel grateful for the ability to live in (or visit) a place with such beauty.
When I say that I am grateful for being alive, I do not mean that I am grateful that I was created by a supernatural god. I mean that I am thankful that I have survived this long and haven't yet been done in by any of the countless ways that people can die. I am grateful that I haven't been accidentally run down by a truck, shot in a store robbery or taken with a fatal disease.
From my point of view, it feels silly to limit a feeling of gratitude to situations where there is a person or entity in which to give thanks. Perhaps there are better words to describe this joy of being alive and ability to appreciate the world, but I do not see why the word "gratitude" should not apply.
To try to quibble over the meaning of a single word choice and use it to imply a dissonance in a person's beliefs (or lack of beliefs) is simply absurd.
I do not believe in a god or "Creator," yet when I look at the wonders of the world, I feel grateful in many different ways. Looking at the stars above, I am grateful for the knowledge and appreciation of what I am actually seeing. I am moved by the majesty of mountains and feel grateful for the ability to live in (or visit) a place with such beauty.
When I say that I am grateful for being alive, I do not mean that I am grateful that I was created by a supernatural god. I mean that I am thankful that I have survived this long and haven't yet been done in by any of the countless ways that people can die. I am grateful that I haven't been accidentally run down by a truck, shot in a store robbery or taken with a fatal disease.
From my point of view, it feels silly to limit a feeling of gratitude to situations where there is a person or entity in which to give thanks. Perhaps there are better words to describe this joy of being alive and ability to appreciate the world, but I do not see why the word "gratitude" should not apply.
To try to quibble over the meaning of a single word choice and use it to imply a dissonance in a person's beliefs (or lack of beliefs) is simply absurd.
4.14.2011 | 8:47pm
Billy Bean says:
.Amos Wang: "There is so much that did not have to be this way and anyone who isn't able to see this is unable to see is truly sad." I had thought that, on atheistic or naturalistic accounts of the universe, every phenonenon must be the result of causal connections that extend backward in time to other natural phenomena. At no point is anything transcendent or inherently purposeful allowed to enter this causal chain. What I am now typing, is caused entirely by particles and events and forces that have produced this genetic collection of conflicting impulses and responses that I call "myself." My opinions and convictions, even my present actions in typing this paragraph, are ultimately and entirely explicable in terms of these nonrational and purposeless conditions. Was I misinformed? And if I was, did I really have any choice?
4.14.2011 | 8:53pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Rules of thumb: 1. when a sermon or speech starts with a definition from Webster's, it's gonna be boring. 2. When someone quotes a dictionary to prove their point about meaning they will always leave important parts out, because it's too damn inconvenient.
Paul, just do more research before you make pronouncements. Gratitude, in nearly all its meanings, implies an "other." Your own definition, which has "appreciative," and "received" in it, both of which strongly imply an other. Words mean what they mean, and trying to strip them for your purposes does not change that.
This does not in any way prove that Dawkins is committing some grave inconsistency of belief and his entire belief-set is in shreds. But it IS an irony, it may be meaningful, it is worth examining for its implications, and it's fair game. That some atheists - and I assume that those who go blog-commenting are not a representative sample - feel that this is some dreadfully unfair attack and bending of meaning is thin-skinned in the extreme.
Note to Christians who might jump to conclusions about atheists from their blog comments (and I have to fight against it constantly, as that group shows the same personality traits repeatedly): Michael Novak had an article about types of atheists a few years ago that was quite calming. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223273/christmas-atheists/michael-novak
Paul, just do more research before you make pronouncements. Gratitude, in nearly all its meanings, implies an "other." Your own definition, which has "appreciative," and "received" in it, both of which strongly imply an other. Words mean what they mean, and trying to strip them for your purposes does not change that.
This does not in any way prove that Dawkins is committing some grave inconsistency of belief and his entire belief-set is in shreds. But it IS an irony, it may be meaningful, it is worth examining for its implications, and it's fair game. That some atheists - and I assume that those who go blog-commenting are not a representative sample - feel that this is some dreadfully unfair attack and bending of meaning is thin-skinned in the extreme.
Note to Christians who might jump to conclusions about atheists from their blog comments (and I have to fight against it constantly, as that group shows the same personality traits repeatedly): Michael Novak had an article about types of atheists a few years ago that was quite calming. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223273/christmas-atheists/michael-novak
4.14.2011 | 10:05pm
Ye Olde Statistician says:
Elis wrote: This is just embarrassing. Feelings are not propositions
Agreed. And Dawkins' whole position is about his feelings. He is not known for precise language or close reasoning.
Agreed. And Dawkins' whole position is about his feelings. He is not known for precise language or close reasoning.
4.14.2011 | 10:06pm
Peter A. says:
'At the cosmic and quantum levels the universe just happens to be the one that we find ourselves living in.' - Torontonian 14/4/2011
The implication here being that there are other universes in existence that we are not aware of. This could be argued if there really were parallel universes 'out there' somewhere, and that there was some method whereby we could actually gather data about them (according to current theory, there isn't, because they do not - and cannot - in any way interact with each other), so one is only left with the option of accepting this notion on faith.
The current popularity of the multiverse concept is largely based upon the conviction that it does away with any need to explain how, against all the odds, we are even here at all. If, as seems likely, there is only one universe - this one - then our existence is nothing short of miraculous, and atheism becomes impossible to adhere to.
Torontonian, you cannot just insert an assumption, one that has neither evidence nor reason to justify it, in an attempt to bolster a position that is otherwise untenable. This is what you have done here, and is a trick that many atheists use in the expectation that no-one will notice it.
The implication here being that there are other universes in existence that we are not aware of. This could be argued if there really were parallel universes 'out there' somewhere, and that there was some method whereby we could actually gather data about them (according to current theory, there isn't, because they do not - and cannot - in any way interact with each other), so one is only left with the option of accepting this notion on faith.
The current popularity of the multiverse concept is largely based upon the conviction that it does away with any need to explain how, against all the odds, we are even here at all. If, as seems likely, there is only one universe - this one - then our existence is nothing short of miraculous, and atheism becomes impossible to adhere to.
Torontonian, you cannot just insert an assumption, one that has neither evidence nor reason to justify it, in an attempt to bolster a position that is otherwise untenable. This is what you have done here, and is a trick that many atheists use in the expectation that no-one will notice it.
4.14.2011 | 10:51pm
Paul says:
Well, AVI - I'll take the fact that you chose my post to comment on as evidence that it was interesting enough. Thanks for your appreciation! However, accusing me of not doing research and simultaneously castigating me for looking the word up in Webster is pretty muddy thinking. For brevity's sake, I did present only the definition I found most appropriate, but I'm happy to present all of them.
Grateful
1
a : appreciative of benefits received
b : expressing gratitude
2
a : affording pleasure or contentment : pleasing
b : pleasing by reason of comfort supplied or discomfort alleviated
NONE of these meanings REQUIRE a counterparty to be used correctly.
However this article is predicated on the assumption that there MUST be a counterparty, and furthermore that the counterparty Dawkins is implying MUST be God (and not, for example Thor, mighty space aliens, or his mom). And of course it's predicated on Dawkins not making a minor grammatical error.
So if you really want to you can believe that this is what Dawkins really meant - disregarding both his strong stance against religion and his strong joy at the beauty of the universe. You can then believe that it's ironic he would say such a thing, and applaud the article's deep insight into this fundamental conflict in the poor man's God-denying character.
But if you believe in that, you'll believe in anything. Even prayer.
Paul
Grateful
1
a : appreciative of benefits received
b : expressing gratitude
2
a : affording pleasure or contentment : pleasing
b : pleasing by reason of comfort supplied or discomfort alleviated
NONE of these meanings REQUIRE a counterparty to be used correctly.
However this article is predicated on the assumption that there MUST be a counterparty, and furthermore that the counterparty Dawkins is implying MUST be God (and not, for example Thor, mighty space aliens, or his mom). And of course it's predicated on Dawkins not making a minor grammatical error.
So if you really want to you can believe that this is what Dawkins really meant - disregarding both his strong stance against religion and his strong joy at the beauty of the universe. You can then believe that it's ironic he would say such a thing, and applaud the article's deep insight into this fundamental conflict in the poor man's God-denying character.
But if you believe in that, you'll believe in anything. Even prayer.
Paul
4.14.2011 | 10:52pm
Peter A. says:
'...some are uncomfortable with atheists, perhaps because they feel insecure about their own belief when there are people who don't share it.' - David Nickol
...and perhaps - just maybe - there are atheists who feel the need to resort to personal insults (as R. Dawkins does) because they have secret doubts about their own philosophical position regarding the existence or otherwise of God. I don't know this for sure, but it is easy to just speculate without anything to actually justify such speculation.
...and perhaps - just maybe - there are atheists who feel the need to resort to personal insults (as R. Dawkins does) because they have secret doubts about their own philosophical position regarding the existence or otherwise of God. I don't know this for sure, but it is easy to just speculate without anything to actually justify such speculation.
4.15.2011 | 7:45am
ferd says:
A momemt of gratidude??? What is far more revealing about Professor Dawkins is his persistently intense, obsession with God in the first place.
4.15.2011 | 9:22am
Ray Ingles says:
Ye Olde Statistician - "[Dawkins] is not known for precise language or close reasoning. "
Well, actually, in my experience all he's guilty of is not using theological and philosophical jargon. For an example of an actual Christian philosopher completely misunderstanding and dismissing Dawkins because of that, see here: http://blogs.christianpost.com/tentativeapologist/2009/10/does-religion-lead-to-bad-parenting-30/index.html
Search for "10:22 am".
Well, actually, in my experience all he's guilty of is not using theological and philosophical jargon. For an example of an actual Christian philosopher completely misunderstanding and dismissing Dawkins because of that, see here: http://blogs.christianpost.com/tentativeapologist/2009/10/does-religion-lead-to-bad-parenting-30/index.html
Search for "10:22 am".
4.15.2011 | 10:34am
Dan says:
I'm grateful there is no god. I'm grateful that I get to live without the delusion of superstition. I'm grateful for the clarity I acheived when I finally realized why I couldn't make sense of religion or claims of the supernatural. I'm grateful that my mind is unfettered by made up cosmology. I'm grateful that I do not live in fear of being ceaselessly monitored and judged by a being who cretor who hides himself, commits genocide with glee, who disrespects women and who would punish me for not conforming. I'm truly grateful to be living through the death throes of religion. But I'm not grateful to a god who doesn't exist. I'm grateful for my good fortune as an abstract concept. If this is hard for you to understand then perhaps you are not very smart.
4.15.2011 | 11:00am
Amos Wang says:
Billy Bean, you've opened up a much bigger issue. Yes, from the materialistic aspect all that exists is particles in motion in arbitrary groupings. You can't derive value or identity or morality or rights from such arbitrary collections, though an honest materialist would simply say "Yes, you're right, but my arbitrary construction derived from my genetic code and arbitrary life conditions compells me to appreciate these things, and since there is no value, you would be wasting your time to disagree with me." Of course, most materialists don't live this way (not even the most extreme nihilist and absurdists). Ultimately, they want to affirm some truth...beauty is not always in the eye of the beholders (i.e. some things are beautiful regardless of what you think), some things are truly immoral (even if you disagree or don't understand), and some things are true (whether or not you agree). To affirm "The Good", "The True", and "The Beautiful" not just your hardwired arbitrary opinions of such you need to be at least believe in a soul and/or a God, even if that soul "dies" after the person dies and even if that God created the universe and left the universe on its own.
4.15.2011 | 11:07am
Miguel G says:
If the universe is the merely a product of blind forces, then Dawkins himself – and by extension his sloppily arrived at conclusion about the origin of all things - can not claim special exemption from his naturalistic theory of origins. In a universe governed by chance, as C.S. Lewis once wrote, “all thoughts are mere events with irrational causes”. One in which ideas, including Dawkins’ intimations about the beauty of the universe and his feelings of wonder, are mere reactions “determined by ultimately amoral and irrational sources, and no more capable of rightness or wrongness than a hiccup or a sneeze”. Thus Dawkins expressions of thanks, however heartfelt, are ultimately and utterly meaningless; and that is using his own criteria.
4.15.2011 | 11:35am
David Nickol says:
Peter A.
I don't disagree. I think it would be odd if the existence of nonbelievers didn't unsettle believers, if only just a little bit, and vice versa. I think what's important for both believers and nonbelievers is to recognize and accept in themselves doubts and insecurities rather than to fight those doubts and insecurities by becoming hostile and abusive to those who disagree with them.
I don't disagree. I think it would be odd if the existence of nonbelievers didn't unsettle believers, if only just a little bit, and vice versa. I think what's important for both believers and nonbelievers is to recognize and accept in themselves doubts and insecurities rather than to fight those doubts and insecurities by becoming hostile and abusive to those who disagree with them.
4.15.2011 | 12:41pm
Billy Bean says:
Amos Wang: I think your reasoning on this matter is impeccable. We are in agreement.
4.15.2011 | 4:26pm
norman ravitch says:
Be thankful that "while we were sinners Christ died for us." and leave atheists alone.
Be grateful that "while we were yet sinners Christ died for us" and leave atheists alone.
Be grartefuk thjat "while we were still sinners Christ died for us,"
'
Be grateful that "while we were yet sinners Christ died for us" and leave atheists alone.
Be grartefuk thjat "while we were still sinners Christ died for us,"
'
4.15.2011 | 4:41pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Paul. I suppose I will have to say that if you cannot detect an other in "thankful," or "appreciativeness," or "gratitude," then others insisting it will not get you to see. Historically, the meaning is present in the word. Words do change in meaning over time, and I'll touch on that below.
Even the Wikipedia entry has quite a bit to say about the meaning of gratitude, both historically, and in more precise recent terms for research.
If you wish to go deeper, there's Kant, briefly noted above, and Hume as well, who made not only passing reference to gratitude and its meaning but considered it key to understanding the universe. Confucious among the non-Western ancients, and Terrance McConnell more recently, focus on gratitude as an understanding of both human society and the universe. All four of these - and perhaps this is where the comments section should have started, for clarity - focus on the opposite, on how ingratitude undermines society and understanding. Ingratitude can only mean "not giving some one or some thing the thanks that they are due." Thus the traditional meaning of gratitude, if that route is clearer.
Etymology and related terms are not conclusive, but are often illustrative. From L. gratus; thankful, pleasing - related to "grace"
As "feelings" in general are rather simple bodily processes, mediated by brain understanding for refinement, it is true that "gratitude" simply as a feeling is not any different from a thousand other positive feelings. From the neck down, we're just big frogs. We feel "good," much the same as an infant does passing gas, or a family does as they begin to eat dinner. It's rather primitive. If all you are saying is that Dawkins had a positive feeling, and this has no connection to any understanding of the universe, then I suppose one could hardly argue. But Dawkins chose specific language and concepts to work with, and when he did so he moved into the realm of common understanding of those words and concepts. One can know longer claim the idiosyncratic meaning as the true one. All contained meaning, whether denotative or connotative, are now in play - even the obscurer ones, never mind the more common, as we are discussing here.
Words change, as I said, and if there is significant energy among the secular to use the word "gratitude" to describe some vague feeling of approval, with no implied attention to source, over the next fifty or one hundred years, then the word will come to mean that, and our current use of the word will require a gloss for people to understand in 2111 that our use implied an other. No collection of letters has a necessary meaning which it must keep. It moves.
Nonetheless, at any given point, a word carries its common meaning when uttered, regardless of the speaker's intention. Whether you believe the word should require an implied other, or can be conceived in such a way that it's just a good feeling in the speaker's body, is irrelevant.
Even the Wikipedia entry has quite a bit to say about the meaning of gratitude, both historically, and in more precise recent terms for research.
If you wish to go deeper, there's Kant, briefly noted above, and Hume as well, who made not only passing reference to gratitude and its meaning but considered it key to understanding the universe. Confucious among the non-Western ancients, and Terrance McConnell more recently, focus on gratitude as an understanding of both human society and the universe. All four of these - and perhaps this is where the comments section should have started, for clarity - focus on the opposite, on how ingratitude undermines society and understanding. Ingratitude can only mean "not giving some one or some thing the thanks that they are due." Thus the traditional meaning of gratitude, if that route is clearer.
Etymology and related terms are not conclusive, but are often illustrative. From L. gratus; thankful, pleasing - related to "grace"
As "feelings" in general are rather simple bodily processes, mediated by brain understanding for refinement, it is true that "gratitude" simply as a feeling is not any different from a thousand other positive feelings. From the neck down, we're just big frogs. We feel "good," much the same as an infant does passing gas, or a family does as they begin to eat dinner. It's rather primitive. If all you are saying is that Dawkins had a positive feeling, and this has no connection to any understanding of the universe, then I suppose one could hardly argue. But Dawkins chose specific language and concepts to work with, and when he did so he moved into the realm of common understanding of those words and concepts. One can know longer claim the idiosyncratic meaning as the true one. All contained meaning, whether denotative or connotative, are now in play - even the obscurer ones, never mind the more common, as we are discussing here.
Words change, as I said, and if there is significant energy among the secular to use the word "gratitude" to describe some vague feeling of approval, with no implied attention to source, over the next fifty or one hundred years, then the word will come to mean that, and our current use of the word will require a gloss for people to understand in 2111 that our use implied an other. No collection of letters has a necessary meaning which it must keep. It moves.
Nonetheless, at any given point, a word carries its common meaning when uttered, regardless of the speaker's intention. Whether you believe the word should require an implied other, or can be conceived in such a way that it's just a good feeling in the speaker's body, is irrelevant.
4.15.2011 | 6:35pm
GlennB says:
I do think that gratitude requires an object if not a person towards which the recipient of a benefit is thankful or appreciative. I might be thankful for a dog like Lassie who saves my life or my child's life. Or I might be thankful for my snowblower after a winter like this past one. No one has gratitude in the abstract. But it is when I contemplate my existence and experience of all existence itself that reflect all the more on the experience of gratitude. The dog and the snowblower point beyond themselves. I find I'm thankful for engineers who invent labor saving devices like snowblowers. But then how to account for the engineers themselves? Ditto for those who train dogs to do amazing things. Is there a Creator who is the source of every good gift (with evil being a perversion of the good) or is every good gift that I experience the result of time and chance? In other words, when I'm thankful for my very experience of existence, towards what object am I directing my gratitude? Toward Whom or What am I ultimately grateful? Which is another way of asking what is more incredible...to believe that God created everything out of nothing or that out of Nothing everything came to be? From that premise all else flows.
4.16.2011 | 9:00am
Ray Ingles says:
Miguel G - In a universe governed by chance, as C.S. Lewis once wrote, “all thoughts are mere events with irrational causes”.
Thankfully, in this universe, chance and necessity share power. Water molecules bounce around randomly in a liquid, but somehow a puddle exactly conforms to the depression it's in. Air and water molecules bounce randomly into irregular dust motes... yet organized snowflakes form.
Thankfully, in this universe, chance and necessity share power. Water molecules bounce around randomly in a liquid, but somehow a puddle exactly conforms to the depression it's in. Air and water molecules bounce randomly into irregular dust motes... yet organized snowflakes form.
4.16.2011 | 10:51am
michael Currie says:
Torontonian, you say "relationships are the artifacts of human activity that has no bearing in the larger scheme of the Universe."
In a way the attempts over the years to come up with a "Theory of everything" has been an attempt to see through the clutter of relationships that characterize every element of the Universe in order to see or find that pure singularity from which everything has sprung. Your statement would seem to negate the entire way in which existence is manifested. I would venture to say that relationship is the very underpinning of existence for everything that anyone or any thing has ever experienced or could experience is the result of a relationship. Try to think of anything that is not in relationship and if you can then you have found what no one else ever has.
In a way the attempts over the years to come up with a "Theory of everything" has been an attempt to see through the clutter of relationships that characterize every element of the Universe in order to see or find that pure singularity from which everything has sprung. Your statement would seem to negate the entire way in which existence is manifested. I would venture to say that relationship is the very underpinning of existence for everything that anyone or any thing has ever experienced or could experience is the result of a relationship. Try to think of anything that is not in relationship and if you can then you have found what no one else ever has.
4.16.2011 | 1:05pm
Ye Olde Statistician says:
Ye Olde Statistician - "[Dawkins] is not known for precise language or close reasoning. "
Ray Ingles replies
...in my experience all he's guilty of is not using theological and philosophical jargon.
Ye Olde Statistician answers
Perhaps. But doesn't that make it difficult to speak of matters theological and philosophical? He also talks of physics without using physics "jargon." But then geneticists like Shapiro and naturalists like Gould have also criticized him for his imprecision regarding both "genes" and "natural selection." Read THE SELFISH GENE for examples of massive equivocation on the term "selfish," the self-contradictions, and the invention from whole cloth of "memes."
Ray Ingles replies
...in my experience all he's guilty of is not using theological and philosophical jargon.
Ye Olde Statistician answers
Perhaps. But doesn't that make it difficult to speak of matters theological and philosophical? He also talks of physics without using physics "jargon." But then geneticists like Shapiro and naturalists like Gould have also criticized him for his imprecision regarding both "genes" and "natural selection." Read THE SELFISH GENE for examples of massive equivocation on the term "selfish," the self-contradictions, and the invention from whole cloth of "memes."
4.16.2011 | 4:29pm
Ray Ingles says:
Ye Olde Statistician - Perhaps. But doesn't that make it difficult to speak of matters theological and philosophical?
Sometimes, it enables a whole lot of clarity, actually. A different paradigm uses different terms to refer to the same things.
But then geneticists like Shapiro and naturalists like Gould have also criticized him for his imprecision regarding both "genes" and "natural selection."
Popularizing does run the risk of imprecision, I'll grant.
Read THE SELFISH GENE for examples of massive equivocation on the term "selfish," the self-contradictions, and the invention from whole cloth of "memes."
Well, one of his key points was that 'seflishness' on one level could lead to unselfishness at a higher level. You can call that "equivocation" but it seems more like a misunderstanding to me. I strongly suspect that your (oddly unelucidated) "self-contradictions" are further misunderstandings. But since they weren't spelled out, I suppose I'll never know.
As to the invention of memes... he clearly and specifically stated that section was speculative. You don't have to like it but you can't claim false advertising there.
Sometimes, it enables a whole lot of clarity, actually. A different paradigm uses different terms to refer to the same things.
But then geneticists like Shapiro and naturalists like Gould have also criticized him for his imprecision regarding both "genes" and "natural selection."
Popularizing does run the risk of imprecision, I'll grant.
Read THE SELFISH GENE for examples of massive equivocation on the term "selfish," the self-contradictions, and the invention from whole cloth of "memes."
Well, one of his key points was that 'seflishness' on one level could lead to unselfishness at a higher level. You can call that "equivocation" but it seems more like a misunderstanding to me. I strongly suspect that your (oddly unelucidated) "self-contradictions" are further misunderstandings. But since they weren't spelled out, I suppose I'll never know.
As to the invention of memes... he clearly and specifically stated that section was speculative. You don't have to like it but you can't claim false advertising there.
4.17.2011 | 6:48am
Steve Hedger says:
Quote mining is an abhorrent practice at the best of times, but to draw out gratitude from the phrase 'a sort of abstract gratitude' and not recognise the use of 'abstract' at all is intellectual dishonestry, frankly.
If the author wishes to claim 'god' they need a better proof than one slightly unwise word-choice from Professor Dawkins.
See if you can make a similar conjecture from 'clutching' and 'straws'...
If the author wishes to claim 'god' they need a better proof than one slightly unwise word-choice from Professor Dawkins.
See if you can make a similar conjecture from 'clutching' and 'straws'...
4.17.2011 | 12:06pm
Ben Finiti says:
The closest synonym for "grateful" is "thankful". The cognate verb is "to thank". "To thank" is a transitive verb; it requires an object. This much is not the fault of Christian rhetorics, but of English grammar.
Dawkins' statement poses an obvious inconsistency, and one which crosses the human need to feel gratitude (i.e., to love) with the atheists need to deny the transcendent nature of love.
We may be misunderstanding Dawkins here. Has he said anything to clarify his meaning? Did anyone at the "Intelligence Squared" debate in 2009 ask him to explain the inconsistency? Has anyone since? If so, has he responded?
I gather Mr. D is not shy about discussing these issues. Why no clarification?
Dawkins' statement poses an obvious inconsistency, and one which crosses the human need to feel gratitude (i.e., to love) with the atheists need to deny the transcendent nature of love.
We may be misunderstanding Dawkins here. Has he said anything to clarify his meaning? Did anyone at the "Intelligence Squared" debate in 2009 ask him to explain the inconsistency? Has anyone since? If so, has he responded?
I gather Mr. D is not shy about discussing these issues. Why no clarification?
4.17.2011 | 5:30pm
Skavar says:
AVI, your comment "and if there is significant energy among the secular to use the word "gratitude" to describe some vague feeling of approval, with no implied attention to source, over the next fifty or one hundred years, then the word will come to mean that"
What we are dealing with here is a Semantic change or shift... "Semantic change, describes the evolution of word usage — usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage."
The word's much broader meaning is used in much of secular society and most certainly in all freethinker's minds.
Those who wish to wait fifty or one hundred years, are "the usual crowd" who invariably need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the reality of modern usage and changed definitions.
This is how word definitions change, first in use then by the technical observance of that redefinition within society... and in some circles, long after the change comes awareness and grudging acceptance.
Anyone who cannot imagine Dawkins using "Grateful" in a much broader sense, and who somehow gain a modicum of comfort clinging to the buoy of it's "original meaning" are, dare I say, card carrying members of the "usual crowd".
What we are dealing with here is a Semantic change or shift... "Semantic change, describes the evolution of word usage — usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage."
The word's much broader meaning is used in much of secular society and most certainly in all freethinker's minds.
Those who wish to wait fifty or one hundred years, are "the usual crowd" who invariably need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the reality of modern usage and changed definitions.
This is how word definitions change, first in use then by the technical observance of that redefinition within society... and in some circles, long after the change comes awareness and grudging acceptance.
Anyone who cannot imagine Dawkins using "Grateful" in a much broader sense, and who somehow gain a modicum of comfort clinging to the buoy of it's "original meaning" are, dare I say, card carrying members of the "usual crowd".
4.18.2011 | 10:03pm
Ye Olde Grammarian says:
"The word's much broader meaning is used in much of secular society and most certainly in all freethinker's minds."
That explains why the New! Improved! Up-to-Date! usage is less precise.
"need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the reality of modern usage and changed definitions."
It is of a piece with locutions like "mistakes were made" in place of "I made a mistake." It is a way of simulating emotions without actually engaging them. You are probably correct to note that Dawkins used the term "gratitude" in a vague and amorphous manner, or that "feelings" matter more than correct usage.
That explains why the New! Improved! Up-to-Date! usage is less precise.
"need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the reality of modern usage and changed definitions."
It is of a piece with locutions like "mistakes were made" in place of "I made a mistake." It is a way of simulating emotions without actually engaging them. You are probably correct to note that Dawkins used the term "gratitude" in a vague and amorphous manner, or that "feelings" matter more than correct usage.
5.6.2011 | 2:07pm
Tajuana Renault says:
And while Richard and I are appreciating the universe, Mark, you can be grateful I came into your life to correct your gross misunderstanding of the word 'gratitude'. I doubt you're actually grateful TO me, but as a good Christian I'm sure you'll work on it. Torontonian, you cannot just insert an assumption, one that has neither evidence nor reason to justify it, in an attempt to bolster a position that is otherwise untenable. This is what you have done here, and is a trick that many atheists use in the expectation that no-one will notice it.
