| | Oy, Luke. And all black people steal color TV sets, too, right? Where and what time commences the burning of religious material? Maybe Linz should stick people on moderation if they display suspicious behavior. I recommend a keyword search of all posts, stat. Start the housecleaning with me.
Adam: "The rational man only believes in what he perceives by the evidence of his senses, or in what he needs to explain the evidence. By this criterion, there is no more need to believe in a God than to believe in the existence of an invisible unicorn looking over one's shoulder."
I hope you aren't planning on attacking pragmatism any time soon, because if you do, it looks like you'd be poking a hole in your own swimming pool. Pragmatism has great merit in it, and as much as I love James' work on pragmatism, and the significance of experience, there is a trouble to be considered. Bertrand Russell points it out in a rather friendly way, if you check out the tail end of "A History of Western Philosophy".
Logic is equally ineffective whether it argues for or against religion, for different reasons. The option exists, of course, to attribute the continuously poor track record of results when working the "against" side to an irrational opponent, but that's rather a cop out, isn't it? Is it any different in its spirit or purpose than judgments leveled at the unrepentant atheist by the zealous conversionist ? Certainly not enough for 100% application.
Attempting to mandate (or even strongly lobby for) atheism (especially within a discrete organization or community) makes someone every bit as irritating and pompous as a standard-issue religious conversionist. Generally, those on both sides of the fence stand around waiting for them to finish.
As far as "soft atheism" goes, by comparison it makes the agnostic position highly focused and decisive. I think it is less honest, though. It reminds me of the challenges that compatibilism faces now that it is positioned in the never-ending determinism/free will debate.
Objectivism is a viable, moral philosophy for living on the earth, with others. It did not address cosmology, for one, and there is something of a case to be said for it not needing to. Rand's treatment of religion was neolithic, and myopic, but for a very exacting job on its sundrier movements and characters. There was virtually no socio-anthropological component, as if she had never read work by her contemporaries.
If we flat out attack or attempt to expunge non-atheists that exist within the Objectivist community, what makes us different from any other ideological prosecutor that has existed over time? Who died and made someone Elvis?
And, if you go about the business of disproving the existence of God, you straightaway encounter definition problems. If you attempt a precise definition, where do you get it? Theologians? Sleeping with the enemy, no? Anti-theologians? That dog wouldn't hunt... If you have your definition of God, the one that fully satisfies your logical mind, you are confined to refuting that and that only. If that happens to be the nasty-ass, temperemental, Old-Testament smiting God, please, do your very best job- I'll be there for you.
(Edited by Rich Engle on 7/11, 1:49pm)
|
|
