Parasitism
May 21, 2004 | 5 Comments
From the amount of religion-bashing some atheists do, you’d think it was an entirely negative philosophy. Julian Baggini seeks to counter this perception in Atheism: A Very Short Introduction:
My main aim in this book is to provide a positive case for atheism, one that is not simply about rubbishing religious belief. In other words, I hope it will be as much about why one should be an atheist as why one should not be a theist. Many critics of atheism will say that this is not possible, since atheism is parasitic on religion. This evident in its very name — atheism is a-theism: the negation of theistic belief. Hence atheism is by its very nature negative and relies for its existence on the religious beliefs it rejects.
I think this view is profoundly mistaken.
Baggini first notes that origin of the word “atheism” is not conclusive of its meaning
May 21st, 2004 @ 9:57 am
And nobody held a belief the planet Pluto existed in 5,000 B.C., but that hardly made them aplutonians.
Well, it does, but the epistemic claim never existed to create the artificial delineation between “Plutonians” and “A-Plutonians”. The Fermat scenario is also flawed because a passive unawareness has no effect on any form of universal negation (disproof) or universal affirmation (proof), which are, by their nature, active terms, just as infant noncognitivism has no effect on their passive atheism.
May 21st, 2004 @ 2:23 pm
Erm, Fermat’s Last Theorum has been proven.
May 21st, 2004 @ 6:30 pm
polytix – exactly.
Read the article again. RA isn’t claiming Fermat’s Last Theorem hasn’t been proven.
Good reading at your link, though…thanks!
May 22nd, 2004 @ 9:15 am
As a kid, I thought a monster lived in my stomach — I could hear it growling and it was biting me when it was hungry. Now I know that the monster IS my stomach. Same with God – now I know that God IS my brain.
May 26th, 2004 @ 2:50 pm
Raver >> I reckon this guy is a bit confused as well!
I do like his expression of solidarity with the people way back before this “God” anti-sanity started. I totally agree with that!
Raver >> What is your definition of Atheism? Please share!
I am not happy with a definition based on just disbelief, as of course, we actually know that all “God”-thought is insanity, and that theistic “belief” is for the large part “as if” it were real.
If “theism” shall mean “that ‘God’ and ‘gods’ insanity”, I can accept “atheism” as a “lack of” that, and indeed “a readiness and/or pro-activity against that”.
I see the “lack of” aspect, and the “pro-active anti-” aspect as pretty much the same thing – it is just that surrounded by theism, the “pro-active anti-” aspect comes out.
Raver >> What do you think?