JB>But the "leap of faith" for the de facto atheist is faith in the very
thought
>processes that he presumes to rule his life.
My thought processes ARE my life. The rest, however interesting,
aesthetically pleasing and technically fascinating, is
mechanics/electronics. And certainly, as an atheist, I have faith in myself.
JB>Further, logic itself is a concept that is meaningless without an
>"outside" referrent.
There are systems of logic that are internally consistent. Euclidean
geometry is one example. But, for the purposes of this discussion, the
outside referrent is the rationality of the human mind, specifically MY
mind. I accept MY capacity for rationality as an axiom, and the capacity of
other humans for rationality I have determined by observation.
JB>So to be presumed "reasonable" is an act of faith.
It may be an act of faith for me to presume myself to be reasonable. Then
again, it may just be how I choose to define the concept of "reasonable".
JB> Which is why I'm puzzled by this:
>DM<< This simply means
>that logic is of no use in deciding to be a theist or atheist.... Faced with
>this choice, a person who is sceptical about unverified revelation, faith, or
>authority will reasonably choose atheism or agnosticism.>>
JB>How can one "reasonably" choose if "logic is of no use" in deciding?
Where is
>the standard that determines this reasonableness? There seems to be a bit of
>confusion here, a "borrowing" from theistic reality in order to justify an
>atheistic conclusion.
One reasonably chooses based on one's own standards of reason. I
"reasonably" choose to live as though there were no God, for the same
reasons I choose to live as though there are no fairies, trolls, or pixies.
To choose otherwise, in the face of NO acceptable evidence, leads, as I said
in my previous post, inexorably to gullibility. And how do I choose my own
standards of reason? I observe the practical application, and consider the
theoretical application of standards of reason that others have chosen or
rejected, and DECIDE for myself.
>DM<<Zacharias has made an error by focussing on the "straw man" of the
>strict atheist position, rather than atheism as a working hypothesis. My
>personal experience is that atheism as a working hypothesis lives quite well
>with itself.>>
JB>As long as one recognizes that this is, and can only be, a strictly
subjective
>stance, there is not much argument.
There is an objective statement that can be made, and, I understand, is
generally believed by theists, agnostics and atheists. There is no PROOF for
the existence of God. Beyond that statement, all statements of a
religious/philosophical nature are subjective.
JB>But atheism, by its terms, cannot give us universal morality.
I fail to see why this is a problem. Many non-monotheistic communities have
lived and now live in greater harmony than many monotheistic communities.
And I also note that, while monotheistic religions can give us a theory of
universal morality, they have certainly failed to deliver a practice of
universal morality.
JB> So while it may live quite well with itself on a personal
>level, on a communal level it's disastrous.
So are you now claiming that all we need is a COMMUNAL, rather than
necessarily a UNIVERSAL morality?
JB>One need go back no further than Stalin for confirmation of this reality.
In view of your question below, I would ask you for a logical argument
confirming that the evils perpetrated by Stalin were a specific result of
his atheism, rather than any other cause.
As a follow-up you might provide a logical argument, consistent with the
first, confirming that the evils perpetrated by Torquemada were or were not
not a specific result of his theism, rather than any other cause.
JB>As I've asked many times before: Can the atheist give a logical argument to
>prove that Stalin was evil? I don't think so.
I don't think so, either.
Stalin wasn't proclaimed evil by any process of logic. Stalin was evil
because he was JUDGED to be evil by a consensus of those who were influenced
by his life and deeds.
Good and evil are not subject to logical argument. Good and evil are, and
always have been, defined by each person for themselves, and by the
consensus of people wielding power/influence in any group of people. In
defining good and evil, each person uses their own mental processes and
draws upon their own beliefs and experiences, and on the known beliefs and
experiences of those who influence them.
I believe that God, and claims of absolute standards, were introduced into
the good/evil debate by people who wanted their views on good and evil
accepted by their community and/or state. These people increased their
power/influence by claiming (with or without appropriate theatrics) to speak
for a supreme supernatural being. An effective strategy in a superstitious
world!
Can a theist give a logical argument to prove that any person of their
choice was good?
JB>So, a person MAY live without God, but it will be, perforce, an insular
life.
For an atheist surrounded by an overwhelming majority of theists, this would
be true. "An insular life" would also be the fate of a theist surrounded by
an overwhelming majority of atheists. However, there are many communities
and states that are effectively atheist and many that are effectively
theist. So, as long as one finds oneself in communion with people who share
some commonality of belief (or unbelief), insularity need not be a problem.
Regards
Derek
-----------------------------------------------------
| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au |
| Melba ACT | dmclarne@ncomcanb.telstra.com.au |
| Australia | |
-----------------------------------------------------