Re: The logic of atheism

Paul Holbach wrote:

>> Ron Peterson wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Holbach wrote: THEISM =def "the view that all limited or
>>> finite things are dependent in some way on one supreme or
>>> ultimate reality of which one may also speak in personal
>>> terms."
>
>> Definitions only go so far. Even materialists view that there
>> is an ultimate reality and can speak to it in personal terms.
>
> Put simply, materialism is the view that everything is entirely
> composed of matter. If a materialist believes that God is
> a material person, then he may call himself a theistic
> materialist. But I doubt that any materialist really holds such
> a peculiar view, for materialism is normally considered to imply
> atheism. So if a materialist addresses the ultimate reality as a
> personal "thou", then he may do so only in a non-literal sense.

You seem to be unaware of the Pantheists and associated
kin. Besides, you're making the classical mistrake of modern
Western theists in presuming that your own particular epynymous
god is real, and the proceeding to debate its nature. ``Of course
everybody knows who God is. We just don't all agree on the
details.'' Ignoring, of course, that the disagreement in the
details is as radical as the disagreement between, say, ancient
Egyptian views of Ra, Gnostic views of the Demiurge, and Christian
views of Jesus.

>>> The decisive difference between theism and atheism is that the
>>> latter regards "the ground of being" as something impersonal,
>>> i.e. as something that is not a self-conscious (rational)
>>> agent.
>
>> The difference is that an atheist is not a theist. There is no
>> set of beliefs that an atheist must follow (i.e. atheism).
>
> The atheist must affirm the negation of what is affirmed by the
> theist.
>
> "[I]f you ask what the most fundamental thing is about believing
> in God, I would say that it is believing that there is a
> personal ground of being, that the universe is in some sense
> grounded in a personal reality. The universe is not the product
> of blind unconscious will, law or accident. It is the product of
> a reality which we may rightly call conscious, purposive, wise
> and good."
>
> [Ward, Keith (2003). /God: A guide for the perplexed/. Oxford:
> Oneworld. (p. 241)]

If that's what floats your boat, fine with me. But you /do/
realize that there're plenty of people who believe in one or more
of any number of gods who would vehemently disagree with you, no?

> The atheistic counterpart reads:
>
> "[I]f you ask what the most fundamental thing is about /not/
> believing in God, I would say that it is /not/ believing that
> there is a personal ground of being, that the universe is in
> some sense grounded in a personal reality. The universe is the
> product of blind unconscious will, law or accident. It is the
> product of a reality which we cannot rightly call conscious,
> purposive, wise and good."

Nope. Sorry. Try again.

What's most fundamental about not believing in your god or any
other is exactly the same thing that's fundamental to you about
not believing in all those other false gods--or in Santa Claus,
for that matter.

Now, as a consequence, many come to a dependent conclusion
that the universe (Cosmos, etc.) is without purpose, etc. But
not all--it's hardly a stretch to see the laws of nature as
constituting a /much/ better defined ``purpose'' than any offered
by any religion. Nor is it much of a stretch to see that what we
call ``wise and good'' is naught but a simplification of large
swaths of natural law--for a particular example, see the branch of
mathematics known as ``Game Theory,'' or the general wise advice
against trying to work against gravity by sheer willpower alone.

>>> When I speak of "atheistic humanism" I mean "irreligious
>>> humanism" in the above sense. (The label "naturalistic
>>> humanism" will do as well.)
>
>> Why add the "atheistic" label? Can't people of various beliefs
>> contribute to the dialog that constitutes humanism?
>
> Theists and atheists may certainly share some fundamental
> ethical principles (such as "Do as you would be done by!"),
> even though their respective meta-ethical points of view are
> irreconcilably different. In this respect a universal, i.e.
> interideological humanism is not impossible.

You're right in the matter that atheist and theist morality is
generally founded on irreconcilable differences, but not in why.

Most theists--all that I'm aware of, though I'm sure there must be
exceptions--ultimately believe that ``good'' and ``evil'' are
defined by the personal whim of their favorite head deity, or
perhaps their creator god if the two aren't the same.

Atheists generally assert that ``good'' and ``evil'' are emergent
properties of the universe itself or humanity in particular.

Now, with that in mind, can you understand why atheists generally
get so steamed when we're accused of such nonsense as ``moral
relativism''? What's more relative, a morality based upon
personal interpretation of the genocidal ramblings of a bunch of
goatherding Bronze Age warlords, or one based upon an empirical
inquiry into natural law and logic?

>>> There are beneficial arguments for theism (i.e. the view that
>>> one ought to be believe in God because this belief brings
>>> about good deeds irrespective of its being true or false); but
>>> an atheist will argue that the positive practical consequences
>>> of religious beliefs there might be are outweighed by the
>>> negative ones that occurred in history and still occur
>>> worldwide.
>
>> The argument usually follows the argument that the commandent
>> against killing others in your tribe is a great principle that
>> couldn't have been thought of without religion. And you are
>> right that many have observed where those principles have
>> caused great injustices to be done. But what causes those
>> injustices to be done? Is it the mythology, rituals, or
>> morality of specific religions?
>
> The seed of intolerance and religious violence already lies in
> the so-called holy scriptures. For example, just one quotation
> from the Quran:
>
> Surah 8:12. | Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the
> message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I
> will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye
> above their necks and smite all their finger tips off them." |
> (transl. by Yusuf Ali)

For every verse you care to quote from the Qur'an, I'm sure we
could come up with three from the Bible. That's not because the
Qur'an is three times better than the Bible, but because the Bible
is at least three times longer than the Qur'an.

Want examples? There's God's actions in the Flood, the Plagues,
making a bear eat children because they made fun of a priest, what
Moses did to the Midianites, what Joshua did at Jericho...all the
way up through and including what Jesus will do with unbelievers
come Judgement Day. (Not to mention, of course, what God'll be
doing on said Judgement Day, or what he manipulated Romans and
Jews into doing to Jesus, or....)

Richard Dawkins really is right. Religion--not a few religions in
particular, but all religion--really /is/ the root of (almost) all
(human) evil.

I don't remember if he explains exactly why or not in his recent
BBC trilogy, but it's really quite simple. Religion means putting
your faith not in some god or other, but in what somebody else
says that god wants. (Most of the time for most people--a few, of
course, decide for themselves what that god wants...and, of
course, they have no basis in reality whatsoever for making
such a determination.) Thus, you completely surrender your own
responsibility for moral decision-making to some charismatic
schmuck who, considering the high correlation between charisma and
sociopathy, is far more likely to be more concerned about
furthering his own power base at the expense of others than
anything else.

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The logic of atheism
    ... for materialism is normally considered to imply ... god is real, and the proceeding to debate its nature. ... grounded in a personal reality. ... The universe is not the product ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Re: The logic of atheism
    ... ultimate reality and can speak to it in personal terms. ... materialism is the view that everything is entirely ... beliefs that an atheist must follow (i.e. atheism). ... The universe is not the product of blind unconscious will, ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Re: What is Evolution?
    ... regarding the existence of God. ... Comment corresponds to Atheism. ... There is no difference between Atheism and Agnosticism BECAUSE both ... agree that the concept of God is absent from reality. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Was the US founded as a Christian Nation?
    ... My main argument with atheism is that it leaves us with no rational ... of reality is quite strong. ... Some atheists do undertake the view of a self-aware universe, ... In the end, you either have communion with God, or you do not. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: What is Evolution?
    ... Mainstream science is not atheism, ... Science excludes God, like atheism, but makes no belief statement ... concerning God and reality there are two and only ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading