A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Another Atheist Starts To Think
Over at Vox Day's place, an ex-Atheist tells the story of his intellectual journey.
3 comments:
Martin
said...
I agree with much of what the atheist says, especially the part about the New Atheists. However, I part ways with him where he says that secularism is bad for society, for two reasons:
1. It's unclear which worldview does more harm than good, if any. Atheists can point to the crusades, the inquisitions, etc. Theists can point to Stalin, Pol Pot, reign of terror, etc. Both sides will scream at each other till the end of time about which one is the TRUE atheist/theist. I just don't think it's easy to hammer down and both cases might just be the result of factors relevant to all humans, theist or not, such as land use, money, etc.
2. The truth of a worldview is not determined by how bad or good it is. It might very well be the case that secularism, bad as it might be, is true.
I'm not sure that secularism is a worldview so much as a governmental model. As a model it might be valid but without truth content, depending on how it receives its ethical foundations. The secular governments of China and Russia are valid (they work) but at the expense of human rights. What the truth content of that might be, I don't know, except that it violates theistic principles of personal value and integrity. But theism is a personal issue, not a governmental one. So universal truth doesn't seem to apply.
I don't know that body counts are a great reason to believe something or not. With that said, I do think that given the low percentage of people who claim to be atheist, it is true that they have a higher proportion of the body count than would be expected by chance. (the usual way of determining the validity of such claims).
3 comments:
I agree with much of what the atheist says, especially the part about the New Atheists. However, I part ways with him where he says that secularism is bad for society, for two reasons:
1. It's unclear which worldview does more harm than good, if any. Atheists can point to the crusades, the inquisitions, etc. Theists can point to Stalin, Pol Pot, reign of terror, etc. Both sides will scream at each other till the end of time about which one is the TRUE atheist/theist. I just don't think it's easy to hammer down and both cases might just be the result of factors relevant to all humans, theist or not, such as land use, money, etc.
2. The truth of a worldview is not determined by how bad or good it is. It might very well be the case that secularism, bad as it might be, is true.
I'm not sure that secularism is a worldview so much as a governmental model. As a model it might be valid but without truth content, depending on how it receives its ethical foundations. The secular governments of China and Russia are valid (they work) but at the expense of human rights. What the truth content of that might be, I don't know, except that it violates theistic principles of personal value and integrity. But theism is a personal issue, not a governmental one. So universal truth doesn't seem to apply.
Maybe I misunderstand your point.
I don't know that body counts are a great reason to believe something or not. With that said, I do think that given the low percentage of people who claim to be atheist, it is true that they have a higher proportion of the body count than would be expected by chance. (the usual way of determining the validity of such claims).
Post a Comment