J
JonW
Guest
PART I
Hello again friend,
In saying that the atheist cannot base his position on anything the natural sciences have to say, I agree, although I didn’t quite think so when I was an atheist. I was very much enamored of the idea that good philosophy was actually continuous with, and a real part of, modern science. Thus there was no prior philosophy above or before any of the physical sciences, and so philosophy could not proscribe scientific prinicples, but only use them, etc. As such, philosophy was also held up to the standard of rigor required of the sciences as well. It’s an idea of Quine’s, which he calls “naturalism”. Incidentally, he viewed any “metaphysics” which sought to proscribe guidelines to science, or , heaven forbid, strayed into such murky areas as philosophy of religion, etc., as simply “irresponsible metaphysics.” I still love Quine, and consider much of his stuff to be the best philosophy of the 20th century.
Anyway, even if I still felt enamored of Quine’s naturalism, your claim that the atheist cannot base his position on natural science would be true, since considerations of theism or atheism would be out of bounds of responsible metaphysics anyway. This is not my view, but something like it was at the time. It seems I’ve strayed from my own thread before I even got it started. My apologies. All this in the way of saying, “yes, we agree here.”
Next, I will of course always bow to the authority of St. Paul and St. Augustine on matters of Faith, construed as religious faith. I am not sure how you think those quotes and the subsequent discussion of natural law relate to the topic of weak atheism or atheism as a default position. Paul is saying that the “attributes” of God are evident to all, and that the Law, what we would now call natural law, is written in the hearts of everyone. Next, you say that on the basis of the quotes you have provided, I should be accusing Paul and possibly Augustine of doing a similar disservice to the faithful as the one of which I am accusing you. My “accusation” was in reference to your theory about the supposed “inverted faith” of atheists, not whether or not God is known by natural reaon or natural law to all. Perhaps this is a danger in taking the last first.
I apologize if I came off as hostile. I simply don’t want to confuse Catholic charity with pusilanimity.
Where you are using the word “faith” in the wider sense, I would simply use “belief”, “justified belief”, and in many instances in which you might actually mean just “belief”, I would go so far as to say “true justified belief” as in the case of Marathon. These are quibbles which don’t address the substance of our disagreement though, and if they do contain the substance of our quibbles, then I truly am sorry. OK, so aside from what I would call “belief” there are the various instantiations, not meanings, of religious faith, as you have pointed out. We agree on that. My comments about your use of the word faith in your original posts were in reference to your “inverted faith” theory, which you have not addressed at all in your response, so I can say nothing new on the subject here. I will, however, address your final comments in your last post.
Hello again friend,
In saying that the atheist cannot base his position on anything the natural sciences have to say, I agree, although I didn’t quite think so when I was an atheist. I was very much enamored of the idea that good philosophy was actually continuous with, and a real part of, modern science. Thus there was no prior philosophy above or before any of the physical sciences, and so philosophy could not proscribe scientific prinicples, but only use them, etc. As such, philosophy was also held up to the standard of rigor required of the sciences as well. It’s an idea of Quine’s, which he calls “naturalism”. Incidentally, he viewed any “metaphysics” which sought to proscribe guidelines to science, or , heaven forbid, strayed into such murky areas as philosophy of religion, etc., as simply “irresponsible metaphysics.” I still love Quine, and consider much of his stuff to be the best philosophy of the 20th century.
Anyway, even if I still felt enamored of Quine’s naturalism, your claim that the atheist cannot base his position on natural science would be true, since considerations of theism or atheism would be out of bounds of responsible metaphysics anyway. This is not my view, but something like it was at the time. It seems I’ve strayed from my own thread before I even got it started. My apologies. All this in the way of saying, “yes, we agree here.”
Next, I will of course always bow to the authority of St. Paul and St. Augustine on matters of Faith, construed as religious faith. I am not sure how you think those quotes and the subsequent discussion of natural law relate to the topic of weak atheism or atheism as a default position. Paul is saying that the “attributes” of God are evident to all, and that the Law, what we would now call natural law, is written in the hearts of everyone. Next, you say that on the basis of the quotes you have provided, I should be accusing Paul and possibly Augustine of doing a similar disservice to the faithful as the one of which I am accusing you. My “accusation” was in reference to your theory about the supposed “inverted faith” of atheists, not whether or not God is known by natural reaon or natural law to all. Perhaps this is a danger in taking the last first.
I apologize if I came off as hostile. I simply don’t want to confuse Catholic charity with pusilanimity.
Where you are using the word “faith” in the wider sense, I would simply use “belief”, “justified belief”, and in many instances in which you might actually mean just “belief”, I would go so far as to say “true justified belief” as in the case of Marathon. These are quibbles which don’t address the substance of our disagreement though, and if they do contain the substance of our quibbles, then I truly am sorry. OK, so aside from what I would call “belief” there are the various instantiations, not meanings, of religious faith, as you have pointed out. We agree on that. My comments about your use of the word faith in your original posts were in reference to your “inverted faith” theory, which you have not addressed at all in your response, so I can say nothing new on the subject here. I will, however, address your final comments in your last post.