Re: The logic of atheism

Ron Peterson wrote:

> Paul Holbach wrote:
>> Ron Peterson wrote:
>>
>>> A person needs to look beyond the theology or myths of theisms
>>> and understand that those theisms are a social phenomena.
>>
>> Theisms as ideological systems are certainly cultural products,
>> and, thus, can be examined by sociology and psychology.
>
> Can objective study determine whether a theism is harmful to
> individuals or society in general?

I'd say that fundamentalism in general, with fundamentalism in the
Middle East and the United States two prime current examples,
pretty emphatically proves the harm caused by theism. I don't
think it's at all an exaggeration to say that the more theistic a
person is, the greater the threat that person represents to those
around him and to society as a whole. (Of course, one can be
religious without being theistic, as is the case with Zen
Buddhists...but I think that's a pretty important datum right
there.)

The general form of the problem is that the theist places supreme
authority in a fictional being who only speaks through select
humans. These humans, by proxy, therefore wield supreme power
over their subjects...and they have no incentive at all to do
anything with that power but to gather yet more power to
themselves, at the expense of anybody not currently under their
sway (as well as their own subjects when convenience dictates).

If the gods take a more hands-off approach, as is the general case
with liberal Western Christians, there's less opportunity for
somebody to speak with the god's own authority. If the gods speak
to everybody equally, as is the general case with New-Age
religions, you wind up with an anarchistic hodge-podge that's
incapable of decisive action. But, in either case, it's pretty
clear that the power of the gods to directly intervene in human
affairs has been greatly reduced, making the theists in question
less theistic. They're much more on their own, left to their own
devices without the help of the gods.

>> The crucial philosophical question is whether the theoretical
>> objects of those systems correspond to anything real or not.
>
> Theisms aren't required to be logical and correspond to reality,
> so why bother?

Because theists /claim/ that their theisms /are/ logical and that
they /do/ correspond to reality.

Con artists aren't required to be logical and their claims aren't
required to correspond to reality, so why bother seeing if that
deed to the Brooklyn Bridge is fake or real?

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