From: pjm@spe.com
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 16:06:35 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199809191325.IAA08217@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <8888-Sun20Sep1998201338+0200-pjm@spe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jim Choate writes:
 > Patrick May writes:
 > >      Not all philosophies are religions.
 > 
 > If we are talking philosophies of the range to include 'natural philosophy'
 > (ie physics) then you are correct. Fortunately, this attempt at shifting the
 > topic of discussion away from personal or individual philosophies relating
 > to the relationship between individuals, God, and the cosmos  won't work.

     Excuse my shorthand:  Not all "personal" philosophies are religions.

[ . . . ]
 > >  Asserting so is an attempt
 > > to make one or both of the terms meaningless.
 > 
 > And trying to change the subject of discourse is as well. A philosophy is a
 > set of beliefs, period. In this particular case we are discussing personal
 > or individual philosophies and from definition and practice they are
 > identical. Religion after all is nothing more than a set of beliefs and
 > therefore falls under 'personal philosophy'.

     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.

     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.

[ . . . ]
 > >      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."
 > 
 > Changing the side on which the 'do not' resides doesn't change the meaning.
 > These two sentences are identical in content and meaning.

     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.

     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.  Recognizing that someone holds the strong atheist position
may give some clues to their other beliefs and the remainder of their
personal philosophy, but, again, that position alone does not
constitute a personal philosophy or religion.

[ . . . ]
 > >      Without reason and logic, how do you propose to prove these
 > > assertions?
 > 
 > I'm not trying to prove anything, you are. I'm just blowing holes in your
 > reasoning.

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

[ . . . ]
 > >      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?
 > 
 > Transcendence is the belief that there is something more than the earthly
 > veil. In other words, if you practice a transcendantal religion then by
 > definition you believe in a ghost-in-the-machine of one form or another.
 > 
 > If you like you can think of it as one set of religions believes there is
 > purpose and reason in existance whereas others believe that it is all random
 > dice (and yes that is a broad brush I'm painting with).

     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.  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?

Regards,

pjm