“The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel lonliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.”
~ Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Hello John,
Hope you & yours are well (esp Jake)
Just catching up since I have been away.
Just a minor point really, your commentator is self refuting, she claims atheism is “not a creed” then goes on to proclaim one.
“There is nothing more” No doubt she bases her initial notions on the principle of empirical verifiability but she actually declares both existential & metaphysical aspects of a belief system; which in itself is a creed.
I wish you well
Myrtle
Very nice to hear from you myrtle. Hope your time away was pleasurable. And hope you have a wonderful Good Friday.
I would suggest you are stretching it a bit to say that simply saying “there is nothing more” is a “creed”. I guess any observation could be a creed. If one were to believe there are no aliens on mars, no sea monsters, no santa claus and no Zeus, than according to your definition these would all be creeds. Seems to make the word creed meaningless. Kind of like calling atheism a “religion” or saying an atheist has “faith.”
If atheism is a religion than so is non-belief in the tooth fairy and if atheists have faith than so to do those who don’t believe in Poseidon and all the other gods of history.
A one paragraph creed it may be nevertheless it makes claims to truth and delineates life experiences to support it.
So, is this an acceptance of my argument that she is self refuting?
In regard to the other "Hitchens speak" these are poor arguments indeed. And perhaps soon we will deconstruct the viewpoint.
thought you might like to read these, one from an atheist the other a christian how Craig gave Hitchens a bruising.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230
http://douggeivett.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/william-lane-craig-vs-christopher-hitchens-first-report/
She said atheism is not a creed. That is a fact. It is in no way self-refuting.
I saw the Hitchens debate as a live podcast. I was not terribly impressed with Hitchens either. He seems to have mailed in the last few debates I have seen him do. Spending too much in time in the bar beforehand I think.
But will check out the links--thanks!
1)
A creed is a statement of belief; therefore to say “there is nothing more” is a statement of belief, is it not?
2)
Furthermore this no mere statement of belief but when she says “Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely” she is making the claim it’s a creed to live life by.
3)
Just as theism is the philosophical position that deities do exist, atheism philosophical position that deities do not exist. Each is a faith statement.
Religion defined by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
(1) “we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of ultimate concern that for her occupy a place parallel to that filled by God in traditionally religious persons, these beliefs represent her religion”.
(2) “Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such we are satisfied it qualifies as Kaufman’s religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise”.
Conclusion
Now if the statement “there is nothing more” is a statement of belief then it is a creed & consequently she refutes her own position.
myrtle, This conversation is beyond silly. I think you are losing sight of the big picture. That being that there is no evidence for a heaven or hell or Paradise or Island for misfit toys; no evidence for an Allah or Yahweh or Zeus or Easter Bunny.
Ms Ali is simply stating the obvious. I would recommend reading her books, Infidel and The Caged Virgin. She is a remarkable woman.
http://www.slate.com/id/2141276/
John,
I take it since you resort to ad hominem comment you cannot logically refute my contention.
“Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion” (Wikipedia)
Ms Ali makes the assertion that “there is nothing more” you claim there is no evidence for more. Now since you raised the subject do you want to tackle the following which are regarded as evidences?
1) The cosmological argument
2) The contingency argument
3) The fine tuning argument
4) The irreducible complexity argument
5) The moral argument
6) The ontological argument
7) The anthropological argument (home religiosum) etc...
Take your pick.
Incoming correction
Homo religiosum
myrtle, my sincere apologies for getting snippy! Let me approach it this way. I think we both agree that Atheism is not a creed so her statement that it is not is factual. She then went on to state her beliefs about reality which you describe as a creed. How could she have stated her beliefs in a way that would not be a creed in your opinion?
As far as all the “evidences” you list... These of course have been found quite lacking as proof for an invisible all powerful sky god and certainly don’t remotely prove the existence of a particular god —is it Odin, Jupiter, Allah? If these were really persuasive evidences we would no longer need faith, eh? Time magazine would declare that atheism is false and God must exist.
You mind sharing your religious background?
John
No need to apologise, I sulked for a while but I am over it now!
• “I think we both agree that Atheism is not a creed”
I disagree atheism is a “faith” position just as theism is.
• “How could she have stated her beliefs in a way that would not be a creed in your opinion?”
The point is that all such statements are part of a creed i.e. a statement of belief. This is fine as long as we realise that it is what it is a Worldview / ideology / paradigm / cosmology / creed. (these word are all nuanced of course)
• “As far as all the “evidences” you list... These of course have been found quite lacking as proof for an invisible all powerful sky god and certainly don’t remotely prove the existence of a particular god”
Since you find them quite lacking then I suggest that you post the kalam syllogism (I’ll formulate it for you below) as one of your daily thoughts and then give your reasons for dismissing it. Then I will respond accordingly.
• “If these were really persuasive evidences we would no longer need faith, eh?”
This way of thinking is known as fideism. This view was a reaction to rationalism & was developed by Barth, Bultmann & later Kierkegaard (all with slightly differing emphases) & it holds that there are no rational “proofs” & the only way we can know anything about God is by “faith”. However, this was an unwarranted view and is no longer accepted since it did not fully express the notion of “faith” itself in its relationship to rational and natural theology. However, its effects live on in many peoples notions regarding “faith” and expressions such “you ask me how I know he lives He lives within my heart” etc…
For further discussion on rationalism and fideism I could point you to some good reading but somehow I don’t think you would feel the time usefully spent.
Please don’t misunderstand the following; I merely want to make our discourse as profitable as possible
Debating:
1) The argument must be logically valid
2) The conclusion must follow from the premises according to the rules of logic, the following syllogism will illustrate.
• Premise 1 all men are mortal
• Premise 2 Socrates is a man
• Conclusion Socrates is mortal
Ergo Sum Socrates’ mortality is a deduced and is logically valid
The argument must have true premises; the logic might be valid but the premises’ may be false. In the above syllogism we note that the premises are both true therefore the conclusion is strengthened in its validity
The premises’ must be more plausible than their negations
The premises must not only be true but plausibly true; that is to say it is not enough to say we have some reason for thinking these premises’ are true they are credible. This is achieved by presenting some evidence or it is “obvious” or “properly basic” that is axiomatic
Since you don’t find the "proofs" convincing then I am sure you will be able to fare better than Hitchens.
So let have a go at the following.
The kalam cosmological syllogism
a. Everything that has a beginning has a cause
b. The universe has a beginning
c. Therefore the universe has a cause
I wish you well
M
myrtle, my apologies again for being presumtuous and thinking we agreed that atheism was not a 'creed'. Your god is no different to me than Santa so with your definition all of us that don't believe Santa exists must have a creed that corresponds to our lack of belief. Ridiculous, no?
I am excited to post the Kalam argument tomorrow and discuss it. Thanks very much for the suggestion.
have a great day!
John
Just one reservation, I will be in Israel for two weeks from Saturday; if you think we can adequately discuss the kalam syllogism in such a short time ok but I suspect it will take a day or two more. I leave it to your discretion, we can pick it up again when I return or begin then.
M
Israel? How exciting! Hope you have a wonderful trip. Would love to go there someday. I will do a bonus thought of the day today!! Will post it shortly-
Post a Comment