Let me try it another way. One has to be taught about a god--it's not
simply apparent from the phenomena around us. Like most folks my age I had
to go through a process to free myself of the concept, the sticking point
being acceptance of the irrevocableness of death. I didn't, thyru that
process, will myself to believe in no-god, I simply relinquished the belief
in a god. My kid, on the other hand, grew up in a household in which a god
wasn't a factor. It simply never occurred to him to believe.
Something like: a belief in god is taught, but must be willed to be
maintained. Atheism need not be taught or willed.
One could of course argue from the universality of belief in earlier
cultures that beliefr in a god is similarly a given. But if, instead of
lightning being explained as Thor's thunderbolt, it had been explained as
electricity produced in a knowable way, those earlier cultures would have
been less likely to be universally theistic. While a god may once have been
necessary to explain phenomena it is so decreasingly.
If one is an atheist the idea that every poem is a prayer becomes
meaningless unless one redefines prayer.
But to pursue this for a moment, are poems privileged, or are all human
thoughts and actions prayers in whatever sense you mean the word?
Mark
At 10:39 AM 3/9/2004 +1100, you wrote:
On 9/3/04 10:38 AM, "Mark Weiss" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think these are different categories. Belief in a diety unsupported by
> evidence is rather like belief in mermaids--unnecessary to explain
> phenomena and unexplained by them. Atheism is simply an application of
> Occam's razor.
I'd say they are equally matters of belief! But there we differ I think
beyond argument -
Best
A
Alison Croggon
Editor, Masthead
http://www.masthead.net.au
Home page
http://www.alisoncroggon.com
Blog
http://alisoncroggon.blogspot.com
|