Reflectorites
Subject: Re: on atheistic principles? (was macroevolution or macromutations? (was ID) 1/2)
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 14:18:45 -0700, Tedd Hadley wrote:
First, a correction. On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 Re: macroevolution or macromutations?
(was ID) 1/2, I sent an extract from:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF JOSEPH STALIN, by Richard Lourie, pp.
34-37 (Counterpoint, 1999)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assumed that this was a translation by Lourie of Stalin's own
autobiography. But on trying to obtain this from my local library, I
found that this is the hardback edition and the later paperback edition
is called:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Autobiography of Joseph Stalin: A Novel
by Richard Lourie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Lourie's novel received praise from reviewers on Amazon.com,
e.g.:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer: Ivo Steijn (see more about me) from Pleasanton, USA
Yes, I know it's fiction, but a piece of fiction like this has to navigate
all the cliffs of historical truth (or what we think is historical truth)
to get us to suspend our disbelief, and it succeeds brilliantly. I've read
a LOT of biographies of Stalin (Ulam, Deutscher, De Jonge, Volkogonov,
Tucker, Conquest and a few others. I much prefer Tucker) and this book
just doesn't put a foot wrong. ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
and I presume that Lourie has evidence for his portrayal of Stalin as
deliberately chosing his career of evil after he concluded there was no
God and after reading Darwin, I cannot claim it is the same as if Stalin
actually wrote it.
[...]
>SJ>An atheist, especially one brought up in a Christian home (as many were),
>>might already be aware (as I wasn't) that some things are immoral and
>>avoid doing them by virtue of his/her upbringing. But the atheist would
>>have no reason *within his/her atheism*, for not being immoral.
>>Any reasons he/she had for not being immoral would be found
>>*outside* his/her atheism.
TH>That's vacously true because atheism doesn't claim to address
>questions of morality. By analogy, you might as well argue that
>the scientist would have no reason *within his/her science*,
>for not being immoral.
If Ted is an atheist, then this is a damaging admission which his fellow
atheists might not agree with?
Because it would mean that atheism is not a complete worldview, like
Christian theism is, and indeed atheism would be parasitic on other
worldviews, like Christianity:
"Worldviews should be tested not only in the philosophy classroom but
also in the laboratory of life. It is one thing for a worldview to pass certain
theoretical tests (reason and experience); it is another for the worldview
also to pass an important practical test, namely, can the person who
professes that worldview live consistently in harmony with the system he
professes? Or do we find that he is forced to live according to beliefs
borrowed from a competing system? Such a discovery, I suggest, should
produce more than embarrassment." (Nash R.H., "Worldviews in Conflict,"
1999, p.62)
So an atheist, in criticising Christianity, could be actually *using*
Christianity as the basis fot his/her moral/ethical standards. This could
especially be the case if the atheist came from a Christian home.
TH>Since atheism can only be one small part of a person's beliefs,
What then is the major part of an atheists "beliefs"?
TH>morals come from other areas -- enlightened self-interest mostly
>I find.
If "enlightened self-interest" is the only basis for atheist's ethical/moral
standards, then it would show atheism's bankruptcy. *Everyone*
could claim to be acting out of of *their* "enlightened self-interest"-
even Joseph Stalin!
Ted appears to have answered my question:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 06:05:56 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>Why shouldn't an atheist, *on atheistic principles*, simply look after
>Number 1, as far as possible without provoking a counter reaction?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
with `no reason at all why not', or even `he should'?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"HUMAN EARS are not much to look at. Some seashells, which they
vaguely resemble, are more delicately shaped and more appealingly
colored. Most animals can swivel their outer ears to locate the source of a
sound the few humans who can move their outer ears at all use their skill
mainly to amuse children. Yet behind these unprepossessing flaps of skin
and cartilage lie structures of such delicacy that they shame the most
skillful craftsman, of such reliable automatic operation that they inspire awe
in the most ingenious engineer. The outer ear extends only as far as the
eardrum, a pressure-sensitive membrane. Beyond this point lies the middle
ear, in which three tiny bones transmit and amplify the vibrations of the
eardrum. And beyond the middle ear lies the inner ear, filled with liquid and
containing the most intricate structures of all: the spiral-shaped cochlea,
where sound is converted to nerve impulses, and the semicircular canals,
the organs of our sense of balance. Working together the structures of the
outer, middle and inner ears perform acts of amazing range and virtuosity.
A sound so weak that it causes the eardrum to vibrate less than the
diameter of a hydrogen molecule can be heard; a sound 10 million million
times stronger will not damage the hearing mechanism." (Stevens S.S. &
Warshofsky F., "Sound and Hearing," Life Science Library, Time-Life
Books: Alexandria VA, Revised Edition, p.31)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 09 2000 - 18:04:53 EDT