An atheist I Like

Eolas Pellor · #1 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 12:09 PM

An interesting quote from Theodore Dalrymple, an atheist who I rather like:

Quote:

For Dennett, to prove the biological origin of belief in God is to show its irrationality, to break its spell. But of course it is a necessary part of the argument that all possible human beliefs, including belief in evolution, must be explicable in precisely the same way; or else why single out religion for this treatment? Either we test ideas according to arguments in their favor, independent of their origins, thus making the argument from evolution irrelevant, or all possible beliefs come under the same suspicion of being only evolutionary adaptations—and thus biologically contingent rather than true or false. We find ourselves facing a version of the paradox of the Cretan liar: all beliefs, including this one, are the products of evolution, and all beliefs that are products of evolution cannot be known to be true

The whole article is here http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html It's well worth a read.

I think Dalrylmple makes a very valid point, but I wonder where it leaves us? Anyone care to share their thoughts??

**metis** · #2 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eolas Pellor

I think Dalrylmple makes a very valid point, but I wonder where it leaves us? Anyone care to share their thoughts??

I tend to think that there's a need to qualify the word "belief". Certainly we all "believe" in something, but the process may be very different from one person to another or even within a single person's m.o.

Scientists generally operate out of "beliefs" based on evidence, but that is not as likely to be the exact same course followed by the "beliefs" one may find in religion, which by its nature, is faith-based and not evidence-based.

So we find one word-- "faith"-- that covers two different approaches. Maybe we should separate the two and come up with different terms.

Shalom,
Vern

Nick_A · #3 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 08:55 PM

E_P

Quote:

We find ourselves facing a version of the paradox of the Cretan liar: all beliefs, including this one, are the products of evolution, and all beliefs that are products of evolution cannot be known to be true

Unfortunately societal religious beliefs are IMO the products of devolution rather than evolution. If this were understood, things could be different but since it is not, we just turn in circles.

Quote:

"The most important part of teaching; to teach what it is to know." Simone Weil

The results of devolution have been such that we don't even know anymore what this means in relation to religious thought and seek compensation by people telling others what they should know.

**angeleyes** · #4 (**permalink**) 2nd November 2007, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eolas Pellor

I think Dalrylmple makes a very valid point, but I wonder where it leaves us? Anyone care to share their thoughts??

I haven't read the whole thing, but intend to. I really liked the quote and have often wondered the same thing. If all thoughts/reactions/beliefs are nothing but a product of biology/chemistry, how can there be any real choice? Furthermore, how can someone be held responsible for anything they do, say or think?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode