Agnostic.com

29 8

For the grammarians: The atheist might say, “If there WERE a God there would be no unjustified suffering”; no problem. But what should the agnostic say? Should it be, “If there BE a God there is no unjustified suffering?” or, “If there IS a God there is no unjustified suffering”? What’s the difference between the present subjunctive and the indicative here?

Wallace 7 May 1
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

29 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

4

You may be thinking about this too hard....

4

Okay, I cannot resists a challenge like that, so here goes (and puts on a tin helmet to avoid all the bricks that will be thrown at my head) ...

The capitalisation of a word indicates uniqueness. Examples include the Indian Ocean and the Andes (mountain range). The usage "a God" has an indefinite article at its start, indicating one of a number of gods, not a unique god, so the capitalisation is inappropriate. However (please excuse my continued pedantry), if you are referring to the biblical God, then any immediately preceding article in this context becomes redundant. But (yes, there is more), a preceding article is necessary when differentiating two specific and allegedly unique gods, as in for example the God of the Bible and the God of the Torah.

Will anybody get as far as reading this final line? 😉

I did. I love your pedantry!!

4

who the fuck cares? the less we talk about religions and gods the better, much less to be discussing the grammatical properties of bullshit.

Can one grammatically say "the shit of bulls"?

@Krish55 More properly: the excrement of bovines.

@Krish55 Ah... male bovines.

@Krish55 Umm... mature male bovines.

@Krish55 Or even better: mature male bovine (singular).

3

I am an agnostic - anti-theist.

I'm with Penn Jillette on this:
Agnostic and atheist answer two different questions:
We cannot know fur shur how our universe started: agnostic (without knowledge)
There ain't no all-powerful invisible critters fucking with humans on the earth: atheist

And I agree with Sam, and Christopher,... I am an anti-theist because I oppose religionists imposing their mental illness on all us good folks.

3

One of them studied Latin; the other didn’t.

And the latin dude, was wrong::: Not ending a sentence with a preposition was never a rule for english.

3

well, your whole problem is words. words limit things. listen to kierkegaard. if there really were a god then that word couldnt possibly encompass a true understanding of him so it's best not to give him a name. and not even talk about him really. that way we all properly pay homage to his amazing powers. with our silence.

@TheMiddleWay you might like this

[holybooks.com]

@TheMiddleWay I read it often. it's wonderful.

3

As an atheist since age 13, I:

Don't believe in an invisible deity that resides somewhere beyond the clouds.

Stopped having imaginary friends at age four.

Chose rational thought, not magical beliefs.

3

I know it best from Spanish where the verb reflects uncertainty of something. Even, if I rememeber right, 'I believe' and 'I hope' get the subjunctive.

Something like this:

I have a job. Tengo un puesto
I hope I have a job by Friday. Espero que tenga un puesto para el proximo viernes.

I wonder does the subjunctive express a humility about uncertain things that the present tense can obscure.

it would be "espero tener una chamba....."

@TheDoubter Espero tener una chamba pa’l viernes.

I don’t think it is humility. Perhaps you are thinking that the use of the subjunctive in Spanish is a sign of insecurity. Yo lo haría, yo podría, yo tendría, SI esto o aquello sucediera. Like always depending on something else for things to happen. Many people “feel” that way. However, the use of the subjunctive is perfectly valid when there is a real condition upon which something else depends.

@Rodatheist No, I didn't mean insecurity. I meant uncertainty, and I think uncertainty is humbling.

@brentan if you're talking about yourself it's "espero tener" but if you're talking about another person it's "espero que tenga"

@brentan Oh, I see.

@TheDoubter Thanks - every bit helps!

3

I forget the commandments on correct grammar. Sister, please don't hit me with the ruler!

3

Why worry about the "correct" grammar for expressing a fallacy?
Both suffering and pleasure result from evolution and natural selection. No god is/was involved.

You stole my answer!

2

Grammatically, when using if or wish, use the subjunctive were. Something that isn’t but spoken as a possibility.

2

I went to your bio to determine if I thought this was a serious question....determined that I am not a grammarian, and is above my payscale.

2

I'm going with if there were a god there would be no children in St. Jude with cancer and suffering because of "sins of their fathers." Some religions still use that lame excuse you know.

I agree. Actually, if a god existed, at least the saint judes of the world would not have to be imploring for funding.

2

if i weren't put off by diverse, unrelated takes on a grammatical question i would join you (subjunctive followed by conditional)

😂😂😂

2

I be confused reading this...

I would expect to hear that form of words near the Welsh Marches. (I lived close to them for several years.)

You BE right!

2

How about giving the entire fairy tale thing a rest?

I’m stuck at home. Why would I? 😅

@Rodatheist makes my brain feel fatigued & annoyed.

2

Use “were” in “if” statements contrary to fact (as with the song If I Were a Rich Man). Since atheists believe there is/are no god(s), “were” is correct. Agnostics, it would seem, would use “is.”

I’d say “there be” is archaic.

I'm not expert, but I would have thought that it would be, if there was a god, (singular) or, if there were gods. (Plural).

@Cyklone In the subjunctive mood, you use “were” (whether singular or plural).

[grammarly.com]

@Apunzelle thanks. Learnt something new. 🙂

1

What be "is?"

Well, it depends on what”is” is.

1

I think what you really said, was 3 ways that the proposed god was responsible for all the suffering. I agree with that.
But to try to make some dividing line for a group that is hugely diverse except in their criticism of religions, is highly problematic....

1

I'M agnostic and I wouldn't say anything remotely like that.
I'd say, "If there IS a god, it is impersonal and uninvolved in the minutae of individual lives.
"Other than that, not much of anything about any prospective 'god' can be deduced or even induced by the details of the physical world, except perhaps SOME explanation for it's existence must be obtainable, given more research and investigation."
Then I'd go back to my TV program.

1

Why say anything? There is unjustified suffering in the world, therefore, there is either (1) no god, (2) a god who does not care, or (3) a god incapable of doing anything about it, none of which seems worthy of a great deal of contemplation. (Actually, hypothetically there is a fourth option, multiple rival gods, whose actions may actually be leading to unjustified suffering, but that's a whole other kettle of fish).

JoeB Level 6 May 1, 2020

How about (4) a god who is blind? Omnipotent, omnibenevolent, existent - just doesn't know what the fuck's going on.

OK - another option that makes religion look ridiculous, but still another option.

A god who doesn't know what the fuck's going on would be incapable of doing anything, & is therefore covered under (3).

How about a God who doesn't consider you worthy of her worry. You know, like a super hot woman doesn't care about the average Joseph. 😁

A god that uses suffering to teach lessons is a fourth. As well as a god that’ just a shit and likes watching people suffering for a fifth.

The god that uses suffering to 'teach' or simply enjoys it are variants on (2) the god that doesn't care.

1

If god existed, then...
If god exists, then...

But I see no problem using the subjunctive for an atheist, agnostic, or theist. If you feel it makes your position unclear, then simply state your position to make it clear. If you were clearer in your communication, you would clarify.

"If there WAS a god, he would have hung up on your ass by now..." --Matt Dillahunty when talking to a particularly annoying caller (emphasis his, although he was just repeating the grammatical structure of the caller)

0

Not quite correct. We might say if there was a God who was actually all powerful and all beneficent then there would be no unjustified suffering. The God of Moses is NOT all beneficent in an way.

0

Grammatically I would have started with, "If there WAS a god...." But since there isn't, the point is moot.

0

That is like saying "If there was a unicorn, there would be no unjustified suffering". It is a ridiculous statement, so trying to reply to it results in nothing of merit. Part of the problem is an Agnostic does not automatically think of a christian god, an Assyrian god, or necessarily any other man-made god. Most Agnostics that I know have a very wide view of how the word could be applied. Even Einstein seemed to consider the thought of "god" to be more akin to the laws of the universe.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:491356
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.