Can we be 100% sure there is/isn't a God?

schrafinator writes:

quote:

---

Wow, it is so interesting that the sexism in our language is so ingrained that to refer to any unknown entity as a "she" instead of a "he" not only is terribly noticable, but elicits an eyeroll.

​

There is no standard gender-neutral pronoun, so for many years the male pronoun has been used to refer to both genders.

---

Um, not quite true.The etymology of the word "he" is that it originally was a neuter construction...(pulling out the Oxford)...in Old English, "he" was the root for every third-person pronoun: masculine, feminine, neuter, singular, and plural. In fact, if you look at the old constructions, they varied all over the place: Dative and genitive constructions used the same words for the masculine and the neuter while the nominative and the accusative used the same words for the feminine and the plural.There is a standard gender-neutral pronoun in English: He. The problem is that people don't use it in a gender-neutral fashion.Along related lines, "female" is not an inflection of the word "male." Instead, through a wonderful happenstance of linguistic coincidence, the two words come to English from an origin in Latin: "Male" from Latin "mas" and "female" from Latin "femella." They just happen to look like "female" is derived from "male" in English.Too, "woman" is not an inflection of "man." While it is true that the constuction of "woman" is "wif-" + "man," the word "man" in German was a neuter term for humans. The congruent construction for males was "wer-" + "man" (where do you think the term "werewolf" for "wolf-man" came from?) But, as languages evolved, the "wer-" prefix was dropped and the neuter acquired a gendered meaning.Now, should the concept of god being female elicit an eye-roll? Depends upon why it is being suggested that god is being female.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

Um, not quite true.
The etymology of the word "he" is that it originally was a neuter construction

---

Um, not quite true.That the word "he" was used as a gender-non-specific pronoun is quite different from saying it had a neuter grammatical construction. That the underlying etymology of gramatically masculine, neuter and feminine pronuns comes from the gramatically masculine has nothing to do with gender neutrality in the sense schraf describes.

quote:

---

In fact, if you look at the old constructions, they varied all over the place: Dative and genitive constructions used the same words for the masculine and the neuter while the nominative and the accusative used the same words for the feminine and the plural.

---

Hardly all over the place - remember that such forms frequently converge to the "same" word through different lines, through vowel shifts, loss of terminal consonants and loss of distinction through transcription into writing.You're wrong on nominative form for feminine and plural - feminine nominative is "heo" and the plural in all forms is "hie" or sometimes "hi." Check out Beowulf lines 1076-1087, the episode of Finn and Hengest and the mourning of the daughter of Hoc

quote:

---

There is a standard gender-neutral pronoun in English: He. The problem is that people don't use it in a gender-neutral fashion.

---

No there isn't - usage is everything in language. To say there is a gender-neutral pronoun in modern English is like saying we should be using datives like thissum.I don't that in the distant past "he" was used in a gender-neutral manner, but a masculine construction, but that has long gone.Nice post, though. I enjoyed it thoroughly. Sorry to be picky.

This is compatable to my view that there is no such thing as evil, just a lack of good.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

That the word "he" was used as a gender-non-specific pronoun is quite different from saying it had a neuter grammatical construction.

---

It would help if you had read my full post. Here is the important sentence you seem to have missed:The etymology of the word "he" is that it originally was a neuter construction.I don't know how much more direct I can be. The root of all the pronouns in English is the single word "he" which was inflected for all other forms, including the masculine.

quote:

---

That the underlying etymology of gramatically masculine, neuter and feminine pronuns comes from the gramatically masculine has nothing to do with gender neutrality in the sense schraf describes.

---

Incorrect. The underlying etymology of the grammatically masculine, neuter, and feminine pronouns comes from the grammatically neuter.

quote:

---

Hardly all over the place

---

Let's see, current English has 12 third-person pronouns:he, him, his, she, her, hers, it, its, they, them, their, and theirs.Some of these words are used in multiple instances, but other than "he," none of them cross genders. Instead, they cross cases. That is, "his" is used in cases where both "her" and "hers" would be used.But in Old English, the crossing of words is all over the place, crossing case as well as gender. That is, "hi," "hie," and "heo" were used for nominative feminine singular as well as plural (which in English has no gender).

quote:

---

You're wrong on nominative form for feminine and plural - feminine nominative is "heo" and the plural in all forms is "hie" or sometimes "hi." Check out Beowulf lines 1076-1087, the episode of Finn and Hengest and the mourning of the daughter of Hoc

---

You're saying the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong? I recall mentioning where it was I was getting my information...or does "pulling out the Oxford" mean nothing? You're right that "heo" is nominative feminine form and that "hie" and "hi" are plural...but they are also feminine singular.

quote:

---

No there isn't - usage is everything in language.

---

Didn't I just say that? Yes, I'm sure I did:"The problem is that people don't use it in a gender-neutral fashion."That would seem to me to be a direct statement that the problem rests in usage. The word is there, but we don't use it in that manner. Thus, if nobody is using it, it will cause communication errors when somebody who does use it encounters somebody who doesn't.Take, for example, the word "moot." Most people seem to think it means "unworthy of discussion" and, indeed, it does carry that meaning. But ask a lawyer whether or not "moot court" is something that is "unworthy of discussion."Take a look at the number of times we have to explain what a "theory" is to those who don't know the scientific meaning? The word is there and it carries the meaning, but people who don't understand science simply don't use the word that way and when it is used in front of them, they do not attach the same meaning to the word that those who do understand science do.The point I am making is that the original claim of "the sexism in our language is so ingrained" is simply not true. The language isn't sexist.The usage, on the other hand....

quote:

---

To say there is a gender-neutral pronoun in modern English is like saying we should be using datives like thissum.

---

This sentence no verb.I don't understand why you are trying to combine modern English with older versions. Modern English does have a gender-neutal, singular pronoun. In fact, it has two, depending on if the object is anthropomorphized or not. One is "it" while the other is "he." We are currently in a transition where "their" and it's derivatives are being used as singular in certain instances where the object is somewhat abstracted. At the moment, that is still considered "non-standard," but it is happening and eventually will be considered definitive.Since modern English doesn't use datives, why would the existence of a gender-neutral, third person, animate pronoun require the use of the dative?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

If I can jump in to address this point...Mr. P's point is that since we don't use the word, it isn't there. "Usage is everything" in the sense that usage defines language - not the other way around.In particular, a large number of modern speakers and writers of English feel that the "he/his" pronouns are not gender-neutral, no matter what their etymology. You can certainly argue that it has no sexist connotation, but if a sizeable fraction of English speakers feel differently - indeed, if the majority of English speakers feel it to be so - then that's the way it is.The speakers of a language define its meanings and connotations as the speak. That's the way natural language works. If people feel that "he/his" is sexist, then it is.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

Mr. P's point is that since we don't use the word, it isn't there. "Usage is everything" in the sense that usage defines language - not the other way around.

---

Indeed, but since there are people who do use the word that way, the claim that "we don't use the word" is proven false.Take, for example, the word "orientate." It's being used. And much as I detest the word (the word you're looking for is "orient"...it's already a verb...there's no need to make it a verb yet again by tacking on the "-ate" suffix), the fact remains that it is being used and thus exists and has a meaning.There are people, myself included, who use "he" as the singular animate third-person pronoun. "Everyone takes his lunch." "A scientist shouldn't have to feel as if he needs to give a justification for his personal beliefs."This is not some new usage of the word. It has existed for a long time and the vast majority of speakers of English understand what is meant by the word.Now, some people don't like that definition. They are leading a linguistic push to have that definition go away. But for the moment, they are not in the majority and while they don't have that definition for that word, other people do and do use it in such a manner.

quote:

---

In particular, a large number of modern speakers and writers of English feel that the "he/his" pronouns are not gender-neutral, no matter what their etymology.

---

Indeed. But the point in contention was not current usage but that the "sexism in our language is so ingrained." The simple fact of the matter is that it is not. Questions of whether or not the language contains a "sexist" bias are questions of etymology, not usage.That is, the language does not force one to necessarily conclude that "he" is always male and that there is some political/social conditioning that male=good/female=bad. That is a matter for usage.

quote:

---

You can certainly argue that it has no sexist connotation, but if a sizeable fraction of English speakers feel differently - indeed, if the majority of English speakers feel it to be so - then that's the way it is.

---

Incorrect. Not all answers are correct. The etymology of a language is not up for debate. Words have a history and that history cannot change simply because modern people don't like it.Take, for example, a common claim amongst some that the word "history" is actually a contraction of the words "his" and "story." They claim that this is somehow part of the reason that the field of history, especially as taught in many schools, is so filled with the deed of men and not of women.But there's a problem: It isn't true. While the word "history" certainly looks like it could be a contraction of "his" and "story," it isn't. It comes from the Greek "histor" meaning "knowledge." One simply cannot force one's opinions onto the etymology of the word and make it be something that it is not.The language has no sexist connotation. The usage, on the other hand, can easily have one. The language uses a single word for both masculine and neuter objects. That doesn't mean the language in and of itself has any confusion over the two. That can come only from usage. If a speaker of the language has confusion over the concepts, then it will be refelected in the usage of the language. The language doesn't force you to think in a certain way. However, you will force the language to conform to the way you think.

quote:

---

The speakers of a language define its meanings and connotations as the speak. That's the way natural language works. If people feel that "he/his" is sexist, then it is.

---

So why is it only the people who feel that it is sexist who get to have their opinions count? Why don't the people who feel that it isn't sexist get to have an equal claim to the language?The original claim is that the language, itself, is sexist. Well, if we look at the etymology of the words, we find that it isn't true. That doesn't mean there is no sexism involved. It simply means that if there is sexism, it isn't found in the individual words but rather in the way they are used.And to determine that, you have to look at the people on either side of the message: The sender and the receiver. It is quite possible that the receiver heard something that the sender didn't mean. And that is not the fault of the language.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Sure, why not?A friend has a small plaque hanging in her house which reads,"God is coming, and she is pissed!"

quote:

---

There is a standard gender-neutral pronoun in English: He. The problem is that people don't use it in a gender-neutral fashion.

---

LOL!!Thank you for the history of the words. That was interesting.However, if nobody uses it as neutral, then it isn't neutral.Language is formed much more by how people use words, not how the words are defined at a single point in time.

quote:

---

Let's see, current English has 12 third-person pronouns:

​

he, him, his, she, her, hers, it, its, they, them, their, and theirs.

​

Some of these words are used in multiple instances, but other than "he," none of them cross genders. Instead, they cross cases. That is, "his" is used in cases where both "her" and "hers" would be used.

---

I have seen and used "their, they , and theirs" used as a gender neutral pronoun.

quote:

---

The point I am making is that the original claim of "the sexism in our language is so ingrained" is simply not true. The language isn't sexist.

---

Of course it is.It doesn't matter what the original gender of the word "he" is if nearly everyone who speaks English understands it to be masculine and uses it that way.In addition, what about the use of the word "guys" to mean, "a group of people."It's not strange or uncommon to address a all-female group and say, "Hi guys." Of course, one can do the same to a mixed group or a group of all-males. But if one were to describe someone as a "guy", it is immediately understood that the person't gender is male.Also, what about the fact that the use of "Mister" makes no reference to the marital status of the male, yet "Mrs." and "Miss" indicate the marital status of the female. "Ms.", which does not indicate marital status, was only invented a few decades ago during the last wave of feminism.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-05-2003]

okeley dokely neighborinos, let's move the English language discussion to the Coffee House - where I am sure Schraf will enjoy pamboli's first post.Let's keep this one on knowledge of God. [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-06-2003]

Crash,I've seen your argument about the immoral or powerless God a few times, and it has made me ask myself how I would answer it, since I believe in God. I don't fully have an answer yet, but I do need to address one flaw I think I see in your logic.

quote:

---

Since God doesn't intervene in situations of extreme moral injustice (genocide, etc.), he's either uninterested, immoral, or powerless.

---

In context, this is hard to argue with.

quote:

---

And personally I don't see the point in believing in a powerless or immoral god, so I don't.

---

Now we are no longer in a particular context, and I think powerless is too strong a word. A god that cannot fix every situation he wishes to fix is not necessarily powerless, he is only limited in power, and thus not omnipotent. For example (please don't correct me if my politics are wrong; you'll follow the example either way), America is powerful enough to force its will upon Iran, but it is not powerful enough to force its will upon China. Does this mean America is a powerless nation? Of course not. America is a powerful nation, perhaps the most powerful on earth.In context, America is "powerless" to enforce its will upon China. I cannot therefore say that I don't care to live in a powerless nation like America, because America is not a powerless nation.I don't know what to do with your overall argument against an omnipotent, omniscient and moral Creator. Logically, I just can't answer it. However, my consistent experience of God is way too powerful to ignore--in my opinion, in verifiable, real, and describable ways--so I am powerless to not believe in God, just as I seem to be powerless to answer your arguments against an omnipotent, omniscient, and moral Creator.I can, however, point out that you have made a case only for a non-omnipotent god, not a powerless one.I hope that's on topic.

This is an interesting argument. I appreciate you thinking about this and bringing these comments to me.To start with, I see at least one flaw with the idea of a non-omnipotent god. It would seem to me that moral entities of limited power tend to (perhaps paradoxically) exert their power more than those of greater power. For instance, America can't overtly exert it's will on China - but we make pretty sure that China doesn't forget that we can exert other kinds of pressure. In general, we make sure China knows we exist.So, why would a god of limited power remain so "behind-the-scenes"? It would seem to me that such a god would want to hedge his bets against his imperfect knowlege by exerting as much public influence as he could. I mean, that's assuming that god thinks the same way we do, which is of course an assumption on my part - but if god is the source of human morality it doesn't make sense to assume anything else. How could a god who wouldn't know what it was like to be human dictate human morality?Anyway, I guess my point is that I think a god of limited power would choose to show himself considerably more so as to compensate for his decreased ability to cause direct change.But it's an interesting argument. The idea of a non-omnipotent god is not one that I think a lot of believers would be comfortable considering. I think it says much in your favor that you're able to approach it with an open mind.

I think it would profit this discussion to think about what science has to say about good ol' mickey. Because science utilizes inferrence to the best explanation, a scientist would start by questioning what is making you say these awful things about mickey mouse (God bless him). After looking at the signs - an MRI, a cat scan, abnormalities in behaviour, evidence of halucinations - and symptoms - depression, headaches - a scientist would suggest the natural explanation that best maps the data. He might say that you are schitzophrenic, but he would rely on a natural explanation that could be falsified, unlike Mickey Mouse. So at the end of the day, science only posites claims that are falsifiable, thus it has no need to posite God.However, individuals often feel obliged to posite God, and rightfully so. Their intuitions tell them that there is more to life than science can tell them. For instance, science can tell us a lot about the way things are but cannot tell us about the way things should be Thus people draw on a concept of God for morality and meaning. Some people, on the other hand, simply make the metaphysical claim that a mind precedes order. Unlike the Intelligent Design crew, this argument is not based on "scientific evidence," it is more like a synthetic a priori claim. Other people make the equally justified claim that order is simply a brute fact. Both positions are equally burdened with assumptions. At the end of the day, you can never prove that there is a God, especially using science, but this belief is as justified as believing that there is not a God.

scharfinator responds to me:

quote:

---

However, if nobody uses it as neutral, then it isn't neutral.

---

Um...and you just happen to have personal knowledge of how everybody uses it such that you are absolutely certain that nobody uses it as neutral.Wow...some power you have there. I don't recall receiving a survey about it. Did you do this by eavesdropping on the conversations of all speakers of English or perhaps by stealing their written material? Or do you have psychic powers that allow you to see inside the minds of everybody who has even a remote passing for English such that you are capable of determining if they use "he" as neuter? If so, how do you control that? If there are a bunch of people in the room, do you hear them all at once or can you focus in on a single person so that you don't have to be distracted by the cacophony of all the voices?I see you haven't quite made it to my later posts:Since I use "he" in the neuter, you claim that nobody does is proven false.And since the vast majority of speakers of English understand how "he" is used in the neuter, your claim that the language is "inherently biased" is proven false.

quote:

---

Language is formed much more by how people use words, not how the words are defined at a single point in time.

---

Indeed. As I said, you hadn't made it to my later posts, so you hadn't seen the place where I said precisely that.But here's the question: Why is it that your usage of the words gets precedence over everybody else? Yes, we all know that you don't particularly like the use of "he" in the neuter, but the vast majority of speakers of English don't seem to find any confusion in the terms. After all, most of them use that very construction so if they're using it, they must be of the opinion that the understand it.So if language is formed by how people use words and current usage is that "he" is the neuter pronoun, then I am wondering how you can say that it isn't.If language is formed by how people use words, then physician, heal thyself. The word "he" is used at this point in time to mean third person singular in cases where "it" would seem inappropriate.It's slowly changing. In many constructions, the "they" set is taking over: "Everybody takes their lunch" rather than "Everybody takes his lunch." But, we haven't reached the point where "he" has lost the meaning of neuter.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!