I happen to be an agnostic.Originally Posted by Half Nelson
You may call atheism a vacuum but one could also call religion the stuffing of delusion into a real world space.
A vacuum filled with logic and reason is preferable to one filled with delusion.
Amazing how you can agree with something someone did not actually say. A skill I clearly have not yet developed. However...
Instead of worrying about whether people are atheist or not you should instead concern yourself with what each individual person actually IS, not what they are NOT. I am NOT a lot of things, but if that is all you know about me then how can you expect me to, how did you put it, “justify their belief in non-belief with any sense of consistency”.
In short, if there is something you think I believe that you want me to justify, then instead of being snide and presuming to know me when you do not… merely ASK me what my basis for it is.
My point exactly - where is the logic and reason from the atheists, taken to its ultimate logical and reasonable conclusion? Nowhere!
The truth is that most atheists live by spiritually-inspired beliefs, ideas and concepts, without even realising it or stopping to think about it.
Simply saying 'I don't believe' is a fool's position. To deserve respect we must say 'I believe' and then justify our belief under the terms of that belief.
You are speaking too generally. Again if there is something you think someone on this thread believes that you want justification for then simply ask.
However if any old notion that pops into someone’s head is devoid of any evidence or arguments on which to lend it any credence, we merely dispose of that notion until such time as it does.
If for example the notion that a non-human creative intelligence exists that created the universe and now supervises and maintains it is one you hold, then so be it. However if you have nothing on which to lend any credence to that notion, I merely must proceed without it.
If however you DO have any such evidence or arguments, I would be agog to hear them. Quite simply: Agog.
Indeed.
A less tendentious version of the OP might ask how do self-consciously secular states construct a broad moral framework that commands wide respect, while allowing for a diversity of moral and cultural views.
I gather from some of the posters here that they do not believe this to be a problem. They may be right, and with a properly open and accountable democratic process we may find it best to muddle through contentious issues.
Indeed the very value of an open and accountable democratic process may itself become the fundamental value around which societal coherence takes place. I have heard French Muslims support the ban on the wearing of the veil in schools precisely because of their allegiance to the principles of the french notion of citizenship.
Both France and the USA have made a strong cultural and political investment in the notion of citizenship, albeit in different ways.
Do we need an Irish version of same? What would it look like?
When you wear your atheism as a badge, expect to be called on it.
If an atheistic perspective influences somebody's position on a particular subject, such as abortion, then it is perfectly reasonable to request a justification for that perspective, when discussing abortion.
This thread is about atheism so it would seem reasonable to request the contributing atheists to tell us what atheism is, not what it is not.
Again, the only thing I “wear” as a badge is that if a notion without any reason to lend it credence exists then I proceed without it. If you want to label that then so be it, but it appears labelling is what you do to avoid actually dealing with what I am saying directly.
If you want to talk about, say, abortion then do so. We can do it while dismissing any notions that are devoid of any reasons to think they are true. Such as the existence of a god.
Again however, if you are aware of any evidence or arguments that DOES lend credence to the existence of this entity, I am quite simply agog to hear it. You are incredibly far from the first person I have met who is entirely unable to do so however.
What about the idea that the exercise of power can only be justified if it is clearly in the interests of those over whom the power is being exercised?
How does a state banning the veil relate to this? How would this law 'protect' anyone?
It seems to me such a law can only be justified in terms of nationalism (ie promoting French nationalistic secularism / French citizenship). IMO this is not a justifiable use of state power as it is in no way clear how these concepts benefit real human beings trying to live their lives.
(sorry for the digression from the main discussion!)
One advantage of the awareness that one's own morality is not, in fact, an absolute truth, is a willingness to accommodate other people's moralities and to work within a jointly constructed moral system that is highly unlikely to match one's own at every point.
Mind you, that's exactly what moral absolutists would identify as being the problem with moral relativism...
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
Rather than being a digresion I think this actually relates to the OP.
My reference to the veil issue was simply to point out an example of an issue that needs an agreed framework to enable to command broad public support, and an aspect how one secular state is attempting to deal with it.
My wider point was to wonder what sort of framework would be workable here.
As an aside I think both the French and American models have strengths and weaknesses.
4Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote