atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)

[Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>]

Forwarded message:

> From: pjm@spe.com
> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:13:38 +0200
> Subject: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)

>      Personal philosophies are a superset of personal religious
> beliefs.  Personal philosophies that include the concept of a god are
> clearly religious in nature.  Personal philosophies that include the
> concept of "faith" are probably religious in nature.  Personal
> philosophies that include the concepts of empirical evidence,
> sceptical inquiry, and willingness to reject previously held positions
> due to new evidence or argument are probably not religious in nature.

Here is the catch in your distinction, the belief in those empirical
positions is fundamentaly based on faith. Critical to those beliefs are
at least two (any scientist worth anything could list many more) assumptions
that can *only* be taken on faith:

The universe and its operation is isotropic and homogenious

So clearly a belief in science as a method to describe the relations between
individuals and nature (at whatever scale) is fundamentaly based on faith.

As to your assertion that such a belief system is not a religion, please
take the time to review pantheism. It is clearly a religion in that it
addresses the relationship of the individual, society, nature, and God.
It does so by abandoning transcendence. You really should read some of
Spinoza's work as well as William James'.

Everything a person believes, for or against, is fundamentaly based on
unprovable axiomatic assumptions whose (in)correctness is based on faith
and by extension a belief in the correctness of the holder and the implied
fallibility of all other individuals who hold beliefs to the contrary. In a
very real sense religion is the epitomy of hubris.

>      The reason I challenged your assertion is that religious people
> often use such statements as a basis for further arguments that end up
> equivocating based on the term religion.  They first broaden the
> definition, by fiat, to be almost meaningless and then later use a
> much narrower definition to support their ultimate point.  I'm not
> suggesting that you were going to do this; I am simply pointing out
> why it is something of a sore point.

This entire paragraph makes no sense.

>      No, they are not.  The distinction is crucial to the main point I
> evidently failed to make in my previous message:  Atheism is not a set
> of beliefs that constitutes a personal philosophy.  There are Buddhist
> atheists, Universalist-Unitarian atheists, objectivist atheists,
> Wiccan atheists, etc.  Atheism isn't even a belief, it is merely the
> statement of a lack of one particular belief.

No, atheism is the statement that "God could exist, but doesn't". Whether
one chooses to hang 'Bhuddism' or 'Wiccan' on is irrelevant. We aren't
discussion labels but rather characteristics. Fundamentaly *ALL* atheism
states:

While it could happen that way, I don't believe it does.

Which is identical in meaning to:

While it could happen that way, I believe it doesn't.

>      Getting back to the strong v. weak distinction, the weak atheist
> position that one "does not believe god(s) exist" does not constitute
> a belief, a set of beliefs, or a personal philosophy, let alone a
> religion.  The strong atheist position that one "believes god(s) do
> not exist" is actually making a knowledge claim and so does constitute
> a belief.

Try to sell that spin-doctor bullshit to somebody else, and read a book on
basic logic.

>      I'm not trying to prove anything either.  I'm simply pointing out
> some issues regarding atheism that are too often ignored or confused.

Hence you are trying to prove that atheism is confused or ignored and as a
result is misundestood. I've got news for you, it isn't either. If anyone is
confused (and about to be ignored) it's yourself.

>      Now this part of the discussion I entered to satisfy my own
> curiosity.  Since it is so far off-topic for this list I'd be glad to
> take it to personal email if you wish.

Thanks but I don't generaly exchange private mail with strangers.

>  When you say "more than the
> earthly veil" do you mean that there exist phenomena that cannot, even
> in principle, be detected by our five senses or by any physical
> mechanism we can create?  If so, how do you know and why would it
> matter?

You didn't understand a single word in that explanation of transcendance.

There are many(!) phenomena that occur in nature that are not transcendental
that we can't in principle or practice experience with our five senses. Take
your Machian view of reality somewhere else.

As to knowing if something matters or not, that is the fundamental issue
involved in the question:

Does God exist?

We're back to where we started.

Signing off.
 
    ____________________________________________________________________

                            The seeker is a finder.

                                     Ancient Persian Proverb

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------