To Bricoleur:

1. On the matter of semantics, the very concept of something makes no sense without the privative concept of nothing.

2. You might believe that you can reach atheism through agnosticism, but Huxley did not believe this to be the case. Your comments are somewhat deceptive in this regard. You quote Huxley as essentially arguing that there are limits to knowledge, but your conclusion is completely at variance with his. On the very website you draw from, you make no mention of a preceding quote where he clearly distinguishes agnosticism from atheism:
“When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain “gnosis”–had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence, while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion …
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of “agnostic[.]” It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the “gnostic” of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes.” [Quoted in Encylopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 1908, edited by James Hastings MA DD]
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html

3. There can be a test for a large fish living in a lake but, as Huxley tells us above, there can be no such test for God. Where would you look? How would you measure or register the existence of God? No atheistic scientist – not even Dawkins – makes such a claim. The most they can claim is what an astronomer once told Napoleon, “[God] is unnecessary for this equation.” As Joe S. points out, science does not disprove the existence of something. That’s why Huxley is not an atheist and is determined to create a term to describe his position. Clearly the two are not interchangeable in the above.

4. Looking at this differently, I ask: What if God is the fabric of the universe from a perspective beyond our ken? In other words, what if God is immanent and not transcendent? Consider that the frontiers of science – black holes, dark matter, etc. – suggest dimensions intersecting with our experiential reality that we’ve not yet (perhaps ever in some cases) learned how to access.

OO-No

Well, remember…’nothing’ doesn’t technically exist. It would potentially exist if it weren’t labelled, but giving it a label, semantically speaking, makes it a ‘thing’… therefore, ‘nothing’ is really ‘some thing’. So if the intellectual concept of ‘nothing’ is in existence, then the physical concept of ‘nothing’ doesn’t exist, otherwise there wouldn’t be a word for it.

Semantically speaking…

nothing; syn.: void, null, nihl, vaccuum, etc…

“By agnostic, Huxley meant that he believed that the question of God could not be answered.”

This is a common misrepresentation. Here is what he stated:

“Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, ‘Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.”

Therefore, agnosticism is the process of using the scientific method to come to the conclusion that something is not supported. Agnosticism can be applied to other things too, not necessarily gods. For example, for years I held an skeptical perspective towards the supposed Loch Ness Monster, on the basis that the evidence for it was weak and the arguments that a population of such creatures could be sustained by the limited biosphere of a fresh water Scottish lake were stretches. After the instrumentation and sonar search of the lake agnosticism towards the Loch Ness Monster lead to my concluding that the always weak evidence had been shown to be a fabrication and a result of “wishing to believe” on the part of the proponents of the supposed monsters. At which point it took no belief whatsoever to make the absolute statement that there are no physical “monsters” in Loch Ness. No belief because there was no credible evidence compelling or even suggesting acceptance of their reality. Not too little evidence, but no credible evidence. Given that there is even less evidence for gods than there was for the Loch Ness Monster, agnosticism if used to evaluate the idea of gods and lack of evidence for gods would lead a rational person to atheism. Atheism and agnosticism are not opposed, indeed, atheism may be reached through agnosticism. An agnostic is somebody who uses the process of agnosticism. They may or may not be atheists. Gods are not spoken to by agnosticism.

As for my real answer to “Why believe that human life has a goal?” as Alice requested? Because having goals makes one productive. You don’t have to believe it, but once you do things start to happen and life starts to get more interesting and fulfilling, which sort of ends up being a self-perpetuating cycle in itself. That, and for me it keeps the boredom at bay.

Worse than my article about the giant inflatable dog turds? Jeez-a-loo! *wrings hands*

But seriously…

For whatever it’s worth, I find Heidegger’s writings fascinating. He was a brilliant man whose contributions to 20th century philosophy were invaluable. I’ve hung onto my collegiate copy of “Truth and Being” through countless cross-country moves, and some of his “Question Concerning Technology” tenets make my heart skip a beat.

That said, I think that attempting to diminish the weight and significance, and yes, the infamy, of overwhelming documentation that shows him to have been an enthusiastic supporter of the Nazi regime during its rise to power, would be unwise. To be dismissive of the acts of a college rector in Nazi Germany whose judgment call to banish all Jewish professors from the school –most notably his aging mentor, Edmund Husserl– likely doomed men to their deaths, or to deflect concerns many modern scholars have raised over the state of mind of a supposedly reasoned and rational man who privately acted as an informant to the Nazis sits with me less easily than any resentment you might have towards 00-No’s heavy-handed (and quite intentionally combative) tone.

Heidegger can be profound and loved and monstrous in a single breath. He was an immensely influential man who also identified, during a very tumultuous and terrifying time, as a Nazi, and exerted his authority to ensure the success of acts that I’d hope anyone in this thread would safely define as despicable, regardless of context. I do think it’s more important to bear all that in mind than (DARE I SAY IT AGAIN? RUHH ROHH! I do!) to be TOO resentful about the questionable semantics of a line like “infamous Nazi philosopher”.

I write in defense of the line, “Martin Heidegger, the infamous Nazi philosopher,…”

I find it interesting that you do not consider Heidegger’s public embrace and direct involvement with the Nazi Party enough to qualify him as a “Nazi philosopher.” At the time, however, Adolph Hitler thought Heidegger a Nazi philosopher and offered him the rectorship of the University of Freiberg. In his acceptance speech Heidegger declared: “The Führer himself and he alone is German reality and law, today and for the future” and “we do will that our people fulfill its historical mission.” More details on Heidegger’s behavior during the Third Reich can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidegger_and_Nazism It should be added that Heidegger never renounced his affiliation with the Nazis, even after the war and at the behest of some of his former students.

As to whether Heidegger’s Nazism is “infamous,” in his forward to Martin Heidegger and European Nihilism, one of the principle works on the subject, Richard Wolin uses the phrase “infamous political lapse” to describe Heidegger’s robust, enduring commitment to the Nazi party and its implications for his philosophy. (p. 7) Wolin’s is one of several major works on the subject beginning with Victor Farias’s Heidegger and Nazism in 1987.

That an essay on God, the grounds of belief, and the evasiveness of knowledge would raise some hackles is, I suppose, to be expected. If Heidegger’s identification with the Nazi Party does not bother you it is your business, but it is important to keep the historical record straight. If, however, knowing that he willingly joined a supported a party whose avowed goal was world domination in the name of racial superiority is a big pill to swallow, it may be time to re-evaluate Heidegger.

Thank you so much for inviting me to elaborate on this topic. Keep those card and letters coming !

OO-NO

Points for COILHOUSE for taking the risk with this article, though.

He wasn’t an infamous Nazi philosopher — he was a philosopher whose main interests included metaphysics, language & ontology, who also happened to be active in Germany during the time of, and became involved with, the Nazi’s. He supported their cause as being a member of their party, but he did not have any direct role in developing the Nazi political philosophy in any meaningful way.

Big Difference. Duh.

Sadly, that line & a few others, have made this the worst article I’ve read here since Coilhouse started. And that’s sad. Because I like Coilhouse -and- Normal Bob Smith. Lamors!