Philosophy

I opted not to deal with Andrew Brown's recent incoherent diatribe against the New Atheists on the Guardian's website, mainly for its messy impenetrability and my own sense that life is just too short.

Today, though, Brown posts again to respond to criticisms of the first posting, particularly the charge that he intentionally leaves out the philosophers of the bunch, namely Daniel Dennett (whom he admits he loathes and therefore can't write about objectively) and Sam Harris.

The crime? See for yourself:

Bloc Raisonneur reader StanB directed my attention to two pieces from the Ottawa Citizen that I think are very important. One is a full-length article, another a short response.

The main article is by Robert Sibley who inspired another post by me only a couple of days ago. I did not realize the degree of revulsion Sibley feels for the New Atheists and atheism in general, but his December 26 essay is brimming with resentment that reveals itself in absurd acts of psychological speculation and rhetorical foul play. What follows are just a few examples. First, my jaw dropped when I read this (my own emphasis added):

Modern philosophy, natural science and psychology are, more often than not, atheistic in outlook. So, too, are many of our social and political institutions. It is a virtual taboo for a Canadian politician to refer to his or her religious faith in public life. The school system teaches students about sex and drugs, but classroom prayers have largely been cancelled.

[continued after the flip...]

A good friend passed along this Quote of the Day from Eric Hoffer:

The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not.

Longer ago than I really care to admit I read a number of Hoffer's works, and in a very large part they helped to crystallize some of my own thoughts and inclinations about people and religion (I'm using religion here in a broad sense - meaning both god-belief as well as secular adherence to a movement). Hoffer's perceptions were much like Heinlein's; unorthodox, cynical, deeply insightful. Like Heinlein, he was a non-intellectual, a working-class guy who appreciated intelligence and common sense but disdained pretension. And yes, like Heinlein, he was human with more than a little touch of hypocrisy. We all fail in these ways.

Dave and Pat are clients of mine. I started working on their computers two years ago when Dave was still on the winning side of his battle with Leukemia. Lately, things have turned for the worse for him; I received the following email, and though I don't think he's died yet, I believe that may be in name only.

Dear Family and Friends,

By now most of you are aware of what my situation and circumstances are. Those who are not can ask Pat and she will fill you in. Originally, I had wanted to send a personalized message to each one of you, but I quickly recognized what an impossible and enormous task that would be.

I have come to realize that every person who has passed through my life, every person that I have had contact with, has had something to teach me, some gift to give. This includes people who have had harsh lessons to bring as well as those that have been more pleasant.

(I wasn't planning on cross-posting this from my blog, but it took a rather philosophical turn, and upon reflection what I have to say has a lot to do with why I am an atheist. So, I thought I'd share. -Jim )

There is one thing, absolutely, that you know - but most people don't really believe it. That you are alive, and that you are going to die.

"Wait!" you say, "That's two things!"

No, it's not. Life and death are two aspects of the same thing. It is the fundamental duality of our nature. Now, the first part of that equation is generally accepted, but the second part is widely denied - hence the desire to split it into two separate items.

But it hasn't always been like this. Most of human history, people have understood the connection - they were familiar and comfortable with death (even if it wasn't to be desired). I'd even go so far as to say that much of the world today is still this way. It is really only in the last couple-three generations that those in the richer countries have lost a day-to-day connection with death.

Graham Preston at Online Opinion plays devil's advocate:

[link] Let’s take it as given that Richard Dawkins is correct: God does not, and never has, existed.

With that being so, what necessarily follows about life, the universe and everything?

He then proceeds to barrel wildly into wrong-headed, opinionated oblivion by treating "atheism" and the philosophy "nihilism" as synonyms.

More below the fold...