From: pjm@spe.com
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 05:16:37 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd))
In-Reply-To: <199809171915.OAA15655@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <6485-Sat19Sep1998112432+0200-pjm@spe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jim Choate writes:
[ . . . ]
 > A personal philosophy is a religion, different words but same idea. If your
 > thesis is that for something to be a religion it requires some sort of
 > social approval you miss the whole point. Even Jesus recognized that a
 > persons religion didn't rely on a 'church' and the implied infrastructure.
 > This is the reason he told his listeners to pray in a closet alone.

     Not all philosophies are religions.  Asserting so is an attempt
to make one or both of the terms meaningless.

 > > There is no reason to think that a god does exist, so why would one even
 > > need to think about or believe in the negative.
 > 
 > There is no reason to believe one doesn't either. If we take your claim at
[ . . . ]

     There are two forms of atheism (visit alt.atheism.moderated for
an unending discussion).  "Strong" atheists state that they "believe
that god does not exist."  "Weak" atheists state that they "do not
believe that god exists."  The first is a faith based positive
assertion, analogous to "god exists".  The second makes no assertion
and hence has no associated burden of proof.  Given the lack of
evidence for the existence of a god, it is the default, logical
position.

     Do you believe in leprechauns, because there is no proof that
they don't exist?  Do you believe in the Hindu pantheon?

[ . . . ]
 > Ah, another of your mistakes. Religion and by extension faith are not
 > constrained by reason or logic. It's this realisation that puts some
 > issues and aspect of human inquiry outside of the reach of science, logic,
 > etc.

     Without reason and logic, how do you propose to prove these
assertions?  Reason and logic don't "constrain", they provide a
framework for discovery.  This framework is unavailable to, and indeed
actively rejected by, believers in the supernatural.  Any meaningful
definition of the word "inquiry" presupposes the use of logic.

 > No, only some religions are irrational. The point you're missing is not
 > one of rationality or irrationality but rather transcendance.

     All faith-based assertions are by definition irrational.  Mystics
frequently speak of transcendence as if the word denotes a concept
with a particular meaning, but never provide a coherent definition.
Perhaps you'll surprise me?

Regards,

pjm