PHOTO GALLERY: DELANY DEAN PHOTOGRAPHY

The images in the slideshow (just above) are a selection from my online gallery, Delany Dean Photography. If you'd like to see the images in full-screen mode, just roll your mouse over the slide show image, and click on the box on the lower-right corner.

I'd be delighted if you'd stop by my gallery, and look around.

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Ultimate Matters (or not)

Immanuel Kant rejected compatibilismImage via Wikipedia

This morning I had a great breakfast with an old friend, Dr. David Miller, clinical psychologist, neuropsychologist, and a good guy. We had not been in contact for a long time; he ran across my blog and sent me an email, partly because we share a lot of interests, including in cosmology, and in spirituality. He has gotten interested in the Intelligent Design debate (as distinguished from Creationism, although we discussed the somewhat lamentable fact that there is some inevitable overlap between the two); we had a good talk about many topics (including the workplace phenomenon known as the “Boss From Hell”). We are both interested in various psychological factors that appear to be actively involved in the formation of a radical, fundamentalist atheist (Dennett, Dawkins, etc.). Dogmatic atheism certainly seems to be a (fairly primitive) form of religion, in that (among other things): it is dogmatically held; it lacks any form of empirical verification; it asserts superiority over other beliefs; and it seems to provide the adherent a sense of security and certitude about ultimate matters.

My own thought on all that is that the only intellectually respectable position is an agnosticism about ultimate matters; the combined human sensory and cognitive apparatus is necessarily insufficient, I believe, to arrive at fully accurate and “true” account of our own nature, much less the nature of the whole of what is, and has, and will be; somewhat like beginning calculus students, we engage in successive approximations, each of which is intended to be closer to “the truth.” To believe otherwise is to elevate human phenomenal consciousness to a god-like state in which all is known, understood, and fully articulated in human language. Such amazing minds as Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant expressed doubts about such an idea; I vote with those guys.

Posted by Delany Dean at 10:16 AM
Labels: ,

3 comments:

  1. I came across your blog, and just wanted to respond to a few of your comments.

    "it is dogmatically held"

    Are you using the term 'dogmatic' literally, or metaphorically? If literally I have to disagree. From the free dictionary online: "dogmatic: Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles."

    How does atheism fit that definition? Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. There's no assertion that can be dogmatic.

    If you're using it metaphorically, I can somewhat understand, as there are many passionate atheists. But I don't think you could actually call them dogmatic, based on the definition.

    "it lacks any form of empirical verification"

    Again, this doesn't seem to apply. There's nothing to verify in atheism. Atheism is the response to a claim.

    Now, you may be confusing atheism with the claim that god does not exist. Someone who makes that claim would certainly be classified as an atheist, but that claim is not atheism.

    For those that make the positive claim that there is no god, I agree with you.

    "it asserts superiority over other beliefs"

    This, I believe, is a red herring. What belief is not viewed as superior by the believer? Don't you view your own beliefs as superior? If you don't, why are they your beliefs?

    Everyone asserts that their own beliefs are superior to those of other people. Maybe that means we all have a touch of arrogance, but it remains true.

    I also wanted to mention to you that atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. For there are two questions being asked.

    Question: Do you believe in god?
    Answer: No.
    Conclusion: Atheist

    Question: Is there a god?
    Answer: I don't know.
    Conclusion: Agnostic

    So you see, the labels aren't actually separate. I myself am an agnostic atheist, and I imagine most people who label themselves agnostic are the same. Although I wouldn't try and force my label on them.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, morsecode, you make some interesting points. My first quick impression is that there is some having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too in (at least some of) what you are saying.

    By way of response, for starters, it does seem clear that the term "atheist" is not used in the same way by everyone. I am using it in what I think is the typical usage, i.e. meaning a declaration that there is no "God" or "Creator" or anything sentient, shall we say, involved in the creation and sustaining of all that is. So, if the question "do you believe in god?" is answered in the negative, the response can indicate either atheism or agnosticism, in the way I am using the terms. The one who responds in the negative may be saying, "no I do not believe that, because I think such knowledge is beyond our human capacities," which is consistent with agnosticism. You, on the other hand, say that a negative response would necessarily indicate "atheism."

    But you raise some other points, and I will chew on them (instead of on that cake I mentioned above) and perhaps respond a bit more, later.

    thanks for chiming in.

    Delany
    ReplyDelete
  3. I love cake, but not trying to have it and eat it too.

    And you're correct, atheist isn't used the same way by everyone. I tend to use it literally, meaning the lack of a belief in god. As opposed to actively believing that there is no god.

    Anyway, I think my point is when dealing with labels we should generally embrace the definition of the people who take the label.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)