<underfire> Atheism and Peace
christopher.w.young at thomson.com
christopher.w.young at thomson.com
Mon Nov 20 16:39:45 EST 2006
Dear Steve,
Your statements are those that have been argued about for thousands of
years and will continue to be argued about for thousands of years to
come. Claiming to be a rationalist, as you mentioned in your post, you
must be aware that rationalist thought does not just rest on the premise
that there is no God. Many rationalists have laid claim to an opinion
that there is a God and he is the foundation of our knowledge. For
instance, the Innate Knowledge thesis lays claim that our innate
knowledge is not learned from experiences but rather was inherent within
us from the beginning of life. Gleaning from your post, you appear to
be more in line with an empiricist and seem to stand by the idea that
all learning comes from experiences and such experiences are only valid
if they are scientifically proven.
Taking my typical post modern stance, how can you prove that the
epistomological foundation of science from which you argue is correct
and valid as a measure to test the validity of god. It is this exact
belief system from which atheists and other modernist employ to help
make sense out of something that is beyond our realm of understanding.
Rather than focusing on those things unexplainable, atheists and others
who argue against religion or more importantly belief in a deity, should
spend more time trying to understand why people believe in such crazy
superstitions, no? Coming out of the Enlightenment, most modernists
believed that by elminating the salience of religion thru modern
inventions, society as a whole would be much better off -- not to
mention safer from the religious zealots who killed during the 30 year
war, etc...Well - this is like the second greatest story ever told...
thoughts?
We need to get over the idea that science can explain 'why'..it never
will. 'Why' is a metaphyical question that can only be understood in
the mind and in the conscious.
Christopher W Young
PhD Candidate - Rutgers University
I would argue that both the below positions are mistaken for though "you
cannot cannot disprove the existence of God". This is merely one of a
set of objects that cannot be proven not to exist. (Saddam's weapons of
mass distruction also fit in this category...) The inability to disprove
the existance of God provides no positive reason to believe. The point
is that the the burden of proof is really on the advocates of the
existence of God. Since these proofs have always failed there is no
reason to accept that any of the mentioned god(s) exist. A proof should
and must obey the same basic rules that any scientific proof requires,
which is to say that empirical evidence for the existance of god(s) is
required before anyone should accept the existance of god(s). This may
be too rationalist for you, but the point is surely that given the lack
of empirical evidence to support the existanmce of god(s) it's simply
bizarre to have faith in any diety...
________________________________
From: underfire-bounces at underfire.eyebeam.org
[mailto:underfire-bounces at underfire.eyebeam.org] On Behalf Of
sdv at krokodile.co.uk
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 2:44 PM
To: underfire at underfire.eyebeam.org
Subject: Re: <underfire> Atheism and Peace
Mary/Michael,
As a slightly different form of atheism needs to be represented here
allow me to quote Richard Dawkins from in his rather nice little book
'The God Delusion'
" Very low probability, but short of zero. De Facto Atheist. ' I cannot
know for certai but i think that god is very improbable, and I live my
life on the assumption that he is not there..." and " Strong atheist. '
I know there is not god with the same conviction that Jung kows there is
one...' " Dawkins states he is a de facto atheist, which is rather nice
of him really... Most of the time and whenever I start reading and
meeting the theologically inclined I start to veer to the latter
position myself. Statements such as "I don't need God. I don't count on
transcendentals. I am happy to become worm food. I'm not looking for
wings." and "...a disbelief in god does not necessitate a disbelief in
an afterlife...." rather convince me that perhaps a strong atheism is
ncessary if we are going to manage to survive the present situation.
I would argue that both the below positions are mistaken for though "you
cannot cannot disprove the existence of God". This is merely one of a
set of objects that cannot be proven not to exist. (Saddam's weapons of
mass distruction also fit in this category...) The inability to disprove
the existance of God provides no positive reason to believe. The point
is that the the burden of proof is really on the advocates of the
existence of God. Since these proofs have always failed there is no
reason to accept that any of the mentioned god(s) exist. A proof should
and must obey the same basic rules that any scientific proof requires,
which is to say that empirical evidence for the existance of god(s) is
required before anyone should accept the existance of god(s). This may
be too rationalist for you, but the point is surely that given the lack
of empirical evidence to support the existanmce of god(s) it's simply
bizarre to have faith in any diety...
The statement "I don't need God. I don't count on transcendentals. I am
happy to become worm food. I'm not looking for wings." probably does
need to be addressed. It is very perculiar statement for even within my
limited knowledge of religious positions it is obvious that
theologically speaking it is deeply problematic because it discards all
the immanent religious positions that do not require transcendence. (as
for the worm food and wings, sigh what can you say...) The actuality of
the human condition is much more problematic than this suggests; the
consequence of scientific and industrial revolution was that the world
has been living under the thrall of the Cartesian question " How can we
dominate the world ?" but in the present we now have an entirely
different question - " How can we dominate our dominion, how can we
master our mastery ?" (Serres) The situation has arisen because in
all practical terms we (humans) completely dominate the planet and
consequently we are completely responsible for it. The consequences of
this is that the statement that you are both neglecting and which
renders your relations to 'theism' irrelevant becomes. That in our
accountability for the planet ".....We are going to have to decide about
every thing, and even Everything..." (serres again) Of course as an
atheist this does not particularly concern me but i can see how in your
transcendentalism it would be a problem.
Does an atheist such as myself care that there is no god or gods ? Only
to the extent that those who have faith seem to be happy deferring their
recently acquired authority - which cannot be justified or even
understood within theological terms. Memories of two evangelicals one
justifying 'sexual abstinance' over simply supplying condoms in an aids
stricken village, and another justifying human supremacy of the basis
of allah as the intelligent designer.
regards
steve
Melani McAlister wrote:
Oops, sorry. I misnamed Michael Goldhaber as Michael Goldfarb,
the correspondent for National Public Radio.
MM
Melani McAlister
Associate Professor of American Studies
and International Affairs
George Washington Univ.
mmc at gwu.edu
Mailing address: Office location:
2108 G. St. NW 609 22nd St. NW
Washington, DC 20052 Room 203
Main office: 202-994-6070 Direct: 994-6073
fax: 202-994-8651
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael H Goldhaber <mgoldh at well.com>
<mailto:mgoldh at well.com>
Date: Monday, November 20, 2006 4:37 am
Subject: <underfire> Atheism and Peace
To: underfire at underfire.eyebeam.org
Mary, et al.,
Mary Keller wrote:
From this perspective the a-theist is signifying
the significance
of their
location in the world. When someone tells me, as
you did, that they
are an atheist I hear "I don't need God. I
don't count on
transcendentals. I am happy to become worm food.
I'm not looking
for wings." From my perspective the atheist
and the theist are
both exercising the cognitive desire to map out
the significance
of their location in the world.
Mary, I mistook your original position, it would seem,
but here you
mistake mine, and that of many atheists. [FOOTNOTE:
Taken literally,
a disbelief in god does not necessitate a disbelief in
an afterlife
(e.g., the original Buddhism, in which to be released
from the cycle
of reincarnation was a major goal) nor vice versa (Torah
Judaism has
"G-d" but no mention of an afterlife; on the holiest
day of Yom
Kippur, one prays only "to be inscribed in the book of
life for
another year," i.e. not to die within the year.) But
ignore these
subtleties.]
Atheists believe there is no god. This has nothing to do
with what
they would like. Further, as an atheist, along with many
others, I
would not be happy to become worm food, in two ways.
First, "I" will
not exist after death (except in the minds of others).
My dead body
will not contain not myself; the self will have ceased.
Second, the prospect of death does not make me happy,
but, no matter
what I might want, heaven does not seem to be available
as an
alternative. Many atheists wish to avoid death simply
by remaining
alive. Some, such as Ray Kurzweil, think that we have
reached, or
shortly will reach, a time, when, at least for a
fortunate few, life
expectancy increases by more than a year every year, due
primarily to
medical advances, so living "forever" may become a
scientific
possibility.
Thus, for many atheists, life, at least their own, can
become an
"ultimate value." Like other ultimate values, if taken
alone, this
can be dangerous. Some people may ruthlessly harvest
others' organs,
for example. However, most recognize that acting to
prevent murder
and against violence can be mutually beneficial. Thus, I
think it is
no accident that where religion has most waned, in
Western Europe, we
also find, on the whole, quite little support for war,
in comparison
with the past.
The commonplace proverb "there are no atheists in a
foxhole," can be
taken two ways. The common one, of course, is that being
in foxhole
under fire leads to prayer. The other is this: Without
religious
feeling, why give up your life, the most precious thing
you have?
The fact is that much of western Europe's long history
of war and
conquest was quite explicitly religious: the
"reconquista" of the
Iberian peninsula, the various crusades, the eastward
expansion of
the Teutonic knights, the thirty-years' war, much of the
move into
Mexico, Cnetral and South America, the Puritans in New
England, the
American Civil War, etc. Perhaps later the religion of
"the
nation" (the "Motherland" or the "Fatherland") or the
pseudo-
religions of Nazism or Marxism (both of which imposed
belief) to
some degree held sway. Now with social democracy, and no
imposed
religion, nor imposed atheism, Western Europeans seem to
have become
much more peace-loving.
Here in the United States, most military recruits and
support for the
current war come from areas where religion is also
strong - chiefly
the South and Midwestern and other rural areas. But,
implicitly, even
Bush recognized, for all his rhetoric that "we are at
war," that
ordinary Americans are sufficiently atheistic in reality
that they do
not want to make any personal sacrifices whatsoever in
this war.
Best,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://underfire.eyebeam.org/pipermail/underfire/attachments/20061120/6e5e846e/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Underfire
mailing list