|
cognitivemagic -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/5/2008 6:45:34 PM)
|
quote:
Well, it seems to me that you are arrogating yourself to a position akin to Mike Tyson, Oxford UP, etc. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though I would like to point out that everyone brings different things to the table from their experiences, so you might reconsider using your reading list as the litmus test to who is a UFC champ and who is a couch potato.
Well, there's nothing else to go by here.
The fact is, I've read those books. Perhaps you and others have not.
But that list hardly exhausts all the books that may have some relevance to this topic that I have poured through.
I offered an analogy. Both theists and atheists can "bully" others by unfairly engaging in a debate that is not equally measured.
But also, my reasoning, language and approach is not going to be understood by just any person. For instance, if I were to raise questions in the area of epistemology and someone hadn't the faintest idea of what "epistemology" was, does it make any sense to begin that sort of discussion? Likewise with quantum physics, linguistics and historiography.
Unfortunately, we live within the democratic framework of "all men are created equal"; which some have taken to mean that all are equally studied and prepared for debate. But that is patently absurd, and hopefully there won't be any more need for explanation here.
quote:
That said, the logical and philosophical arguments I have heard for theism are easily countered. (The same can probably be said of the atheistic or agnostic arguments, but that simply illustrates my point about armchair philosophy. Who is 'right' ends up being based on which arguments you find to be more compelling, rather than who actually is.)
Really?
You know what a more interesting question than "why should I believe in God" is?
It's this:
"Why should I believe anything at all"?
To me, it's not merely theistic beliefs that you should be "skeptical" of. Let's be consistent with your skepticism here. How are any beliefs "justified", especially atheistic beliefs? How is it that your own beliefs make any sense, including your belief that "logical and philosophical arguments for theism..are easily countered"? How does skepticism avoid the pendulum's swing back into itself?
On the one hand, the atheist universe is merely the sum of physics, chemistry and biology, along with the attendant laws of physical causation.
So, "beliefs" are merely the natural result of the combination of nature and natural laws.
But when we come to the world of reason and argumentation, we aren't speaking of any of these laws at all. Rather, we are thinking about truth values of proposition and laws of inference, both of which stand outside the category of physical causation.
Now, if you say that "beliefs" are merely natural occurrences, then it's pointless to speak of debating about anything, since you and I cannot help but have these opposing "beliefs" that we in fact do have.
But if we cannot change our beliefs because we are bound by physics, biology and chemistry, then the very idea of "debate", "argument" and "persuasion" is a sham.
So when you recourse to saying that scientific explanations offer the only valid explanations for beliefs, in effect, you have lobotomized human reason altogether.
But even when you begin to talk of "laws of nature", you aren't speaking of anything that you actually detect by sense perception. Rather, "laws of nature" are explanations of what you sense that perceptible objects behave like. For instance, when you throw a ball in the air and it drops, you only perceive the behavior of the ball rising and falling, and then postulate some notion, like mass and gravitation, as a means of accounting for the behavior. But you don't "see" and "sense" gravity at all. Gravity is merely an umbrella term for repeated experiences that are classed under the explanatory category of "gravitation".
Now, when pressed as to exactly what and how gravity and mass exist and are related to one another at all, your atheism is going to have a Promethean task ahead.
But let's extend your category of explanation to include human volition, ethical categories and personal responsibility. How is your "laws of nature", as exhaustive descriptions of the totality of existence, going to avoid deeply counter-intuitive notions of what these interrelated ideas of ethics and choice mean and imply?
So when someone tells me that the "theistic" position is easily countered, I can only think that such a person is deeply ignorant of their own ignorance.
Since you believe that theistic explanation is easily refuted, now you can enlighten us all as to how your atheism/skepticism deals with these important ideas. Let's deconstruct your position now.
If you cannot offer some plausible alternative explanation to theism, you really haven't refuted anyone.
I maintain that atheists, skeptics, God doubters, agnostics and God haters do not critically assess their own position and probably don't care to. Their interest in "science", "logic" and "reason" is only an investment aimed at critiquing religious viewpoints. All tools are used at debunking views they dislike and constructing views that help foster their avoidance of thinking about God.
And it is to this behavior that atheists, and not theists, foster the "future of an illusion", keeping them pacified in the Nietzchean abyss. Therefore, atheism truly is the opiate of the jaded. When God becomes an unbearable anxiety, the atheist fabricates a position that allows him/her to feel good and cope with their life. The aim of proselytizing theists is to make the atheist feel comfortable; both in the crusade itself, as well as it's results. Just like potheads/junkies only feel comfortable when they are around other potheads and junkies, likewise with atheists.
|
|
|
|