Comments on: Let’s examine our assumptions, shall we?

By: James Laslavic

James Laslavic — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:07:34 +0000

Here's how I look at it, for what it's worth.

You can be a Christian and still be open to the possibility of other things being true. It just means that in your heart-of-hearts, you think that the Christian belief is true. Likewise, you can be an atheist and still admit possibility of a religion being true. It's just that in your heart-of-hearts, you believe that there is no god or anything.

In other words, you are defined by what you believe in your heart-of-hearts regardless of whether you can admit to the possibility of being mistaken.

By: A Screed on Atheists & Morality | anatheist.net

A Screed on Atheists & Morality | anatheist.net — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:23:17 +0000

[...] my last post I began responding to a piece by Frederick Meekins, titled “Have Yourself A Theistic (Not [...]

By: James Tracy

James Tracy — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 09:36:23 +0000

The assumption that God communicated to us through a book is not necessarily tied to biblical literalism or fundamentalism. The proper interpretation of that communication is a different matter that Christians themselves fairly often disagree over. A pure form of natural theology does not lead one to the central tenets of Christianity, namely, that Jesus died and was resurrected in order to ofter salvation to mankind. Therefore, this latter assumption, that the Bible represents some form of God's revelation, seems to me a necessary one for any Christian to make.

I also think that many of the most ardent atheists would agree that the natural world has the power to illicit feelings of divinity in oneself. They, like myself, just don't go so far as to conclude that that feeling is conclusive evidence that something like a divine being actually exists (not that your comment makes this suggestion).

As a side note, I find that the more I get to know the students during the course of the quarter, the harder it is to hand back papers with less than good grades. Just got to keep reminding myself that it is nothing personal!

By: John

John — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:56:27 +0000

I love the post and I totally agree with you overall. However, there's one small thing that I can't help but throw out there. I realize that you are commenting about "rabid fundamentalists" when you mention your second point, that God communicated to us through a book. However, literal biblical interpretation is a relatively new, resurgent phenomenon. So many theologians considered the natural world to be the purest form of God's communication to mankind.

While I'm mostly agnostic myself, I have to admit that the natural world is the one thing that truly inspires a feeling of "divinity" to me personally, so I understand the historical relationship between natural philosophy and theology: Newton thought he'd be best remembered for his theological work, Darwin was inspired mostly by Paley's book, Natural Theology.

While I agree that this is totally different than the assumption that God exists, I thought I'd add two-cents on this one section of your post. I don't think we share the same opinion about this particular assumption (excepting the fact that most Christian fundamentalists are also biblical literalists). Oh, and thanks for commenting on my blog entries. Nice to know someone else has felt like crap after handing back midterm papers!

By: James Tracy

James Tracy — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 07:15:40 +0000

"It only spurs me on even more to be even more vocal as a rational human being."

If I accomplish nothing more with this blog then it will be well worth it :)

BTW, I am about to post part 2 of my response to Meekins…

By: James Tracy

James Tracy — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 07:15:10 +0000

"It only spurs me on even more to be even more vocal as a rational human being."

If I accomplish nothing more with this blog then it will be well worth it :)

By: Neece

Neece — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 07:09:47 +0000

This guy is a rabid christian fundamentalist that only makes me dislike their ilk all the more. He simply fuels my fire to want to stand up for all of my fellow atheists.

Anyway, I have to say one thing about what you said. I'm a skeptical atheist. I don't assume much of anything. I rely on evidence and facts. Wonderful facts. :) So that's the only thing. Otherwise you're spot on.

I do not understand how supposed christians, following in the path of Christ, can wantonly be so hypocritical. It only spurs me on even more to be even more vocal as a rational human being.

By: asdf

asdf — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:38:43 +0000

When I say "You don't believe that there is no god", I'm talking about lack of belief, not a belief. Therefore, if you don't believe that there is no god, then that does not mean that you believe that there is a god.

However, I looked up the definition of atheism in a few more references, and I see that many of them include a lack of belief in god, as well as the belief that there is no god, so I will concede your point.

By: James Tracy

James Tracy — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:48:30 +0000

I don't have it wrong. If you don't believe that there is no god, then you believe that there is a god. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge, not belief. An agnostic does not know if god exists, but may or may not believe that god exists. The mistake is assuming that all atheists claim to know that god does not exist. Not so. Atheists can also be agnostic with regards to god's existence.

By: asdf

asdf — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 02:25:12 +0000

Yeah, you got it a little wrong there. Atheists do believe that there is no god. If you don't believe in god, and don't believe that there is no god, that would make you agnostic.