Threaded with Austin Cline--Pop Culture vs. Ontology; and Saturday Quotes

A Threaded Conversation with the Deity of Atheism, Austin Cline

I am publishing this thread because Mr. Cline has either refused, or merely neglected, to publish the last comment I made to him [9.13.08; see below] in which I was able to refute his criticism of me as "fail[ing] to support your arguments," and of having written on the "basis of appalling misrepresentations." He said I was "long on unsupported claims, but short on credible arguments and facts."

If Mr. Cline refuses to admit my credibility as it comes to me from other sources better known and respected than he is, then I am forced to publish it myself.

As Mr. Cline himself alludes to, he is a writer of pop culture and must satisfy his readers and his employer. I must do neither, and if my readers find my credibility strained, they have only to refuse to read my blog.

Cline's column: 9.12.08

"Atheism is only the absence of belief in gods, so there is nothing self-contradictory if atheists believe in astrology, alien abductions, Bigfoot, psychic powers, and a host of other mystical, supernatural, and paranormal things. Being an atheist doesn't mean being a skeptic, and vice-versa. However, paranormal claims aren't very different from religious ones and a relevant atheism is one based upon a consistently and broadly applied skepticism, not one focused solely on religion or theism. Austin Cline http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/09/12/why-should-atheists-be-more-skeptical-why-is-skepticism-relevant-to-atheism.htm

Me: 9.12.08
"Atheism is NOT “only the absence of belief in gods.” As an atheist blogger, I can tell you it’s about “faith” versus “reason.” Atheists do not have faith, and rely on reason. An atheist who has supernatural beliefs like astrology is a contradiction in terms. My blog today http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2008/09/non-reductive-monism.html is about “reductive monism” vs. “non-reductive” monism, and why “reductive monism” cannot win arguments with theists.

"If you go back in your archives beginning August 7, thread #41223 re: “strong” atheism vs. “weak” atheism, you will see the silly arguments made by atheists against my black-and-white statement that gods don’t exist. One person asked me if, since I didn’t believe gods exist, did I believe Alexander the Great had been real, since he had been deified?

OMG! The reductionists even argue with other atheists!
Curtis Edward Clark

Cline: 9.12.08
"'Atheism is NOT “only the absence of belief in gods.'”

"Yes, it is. That’s the definition.

"'As an atheist blogger, I can tell you it’s about “faith” versus “reason.'”

"You’re mistaken. There is nothing about atheism that prevents a person from having “faith” or believing in any manner of nonsense. Being an atheist doesn’t mean a person is necessarily rational, reasonable, intelligent, moral, civil, or anything else.

"'An atheist who has supernatural beliefs like astrology is a contradiction in terms.'"

"That would only be true if the definition of atheism were “absence of belief in the supernatural.” That, however, is not the definition of atheism. The definition of atheism is “absence of belief in gods.”

"It’s true that most atheist in the West today don’t believe in the supernatural and don’t have “faith” in things in a manner analogous to how theists have “faith” in gods, but that is simply a function of contemporary culture and environment. Not all atheists even in the West are like that, and not all atheists in all other places and at all other times are like that.

"You should be careful not to assume that every position you happen to hold is one that all atheists must therefore also hold. That would be arrogant.

"The definition of atheism is as simple and broad as theism. Defining atheism as you have is a bit like trying to define mere theism as the same as Christianity.

"'If you go back in your archives beginning August 7, thread #41223 re: “strong” atheism vs. “weak” atheism

"First, you’re talking about a forum thread.
"Second, I am quite familiar with that forum thread and I noticed that you fail to support your arguments. I’ve linked to that thread above so others can see. You have commented on things I have written here, but only on the basis of appalling misrepresentations. You are long on unsupported claims, but short on credible arguments and facts." [italics added by me, Clark, because they become relevant below.]

Me: 9/12/08
"I wrote a long reply, using “facts” garnered from Dr. Quentin Smith, Tom Clark, and Tibor Machan. I’ve met Smith, argued with Clark, and was informed by Machan about Clark’s reductionism, which led me to the subject of monism, which you did not address.
Then when I sent it, I was told my email address was incorrect, go back. In going back, I lost the entire reply. I hope it got through. If it did get through, I hope the “facts” I presented, including why theists ought to be made the skeptics to the naturalist position, rather than making us their skeptics, were acceptable to you.
If it didn’t get through, please fix your system so that in the future, such losses do not occur.
Sincerely,
Curtis Edward Clark

Cline: 9.13.08
"'the subject of monism, which you did not address. '"

"When it comes to the definition of atheism, it’s irrelevant. The subject of “consulting a dictionary” is usually quite sufficient. [italics added]

"If it didn’t get through, please fix your system so that in the future, such losses do not occur.'
"I’m not responsible for the software on this site any more than you are responsible for the blogging software you use."

Me: 9.13.08 [Cline has so far neglected to publish this last comment in his own blog.]

"Ok. So reductionism has nothing to do with the subject. I'll bite.

"But when you say I fail to support my arguments, and that I write on the 'basis of appalling misrepresentations [ ] long on unsupported claims, but short on credible arguments and facts,' did you notice that in each of my blogs I use other, more accomplished thinkers than myself and I attribute them all?

"No, of course not. You didn't bother looking. Are all my authorities incorrect, or are they merely authorities you find 'short on credible arguments and facts?'

"For example, in my piece about reductionism, http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/ I quoted Tom Clark (Naturalism.Org), Raul Corazzon, Ayn Rand, Boethius, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, B.A.G. Fuller, and Wikipedia.

"Please don't say I'm short on facts. I never write a word without excessively, compulsively, doing background on it. I rarely see you attribute anyone but yourself.

"And as I stated in the previous comment, I've argued with Tom Clark, who, frankly, was close-mouthed with any answer to my questions at all, let alone with a credible answer. I've discussed that discussion with Tibor Machan who agreed with me. (Talk about using authorities!)

"And Dr. Quentin Smith, whom I've met, wrote: "Naturalist philosophers need to rethink their goals. In part this involves clearly distinguishing between philosophical goals and cultural consequences of the attainment or pursuit of these goals.

"'One of the four goals of informed naturalists,' Smith writes, is to, 'Reclassify the philosophy of religion as a sub field of naturalism, viz. skepticism about naturalism, so that the position in the various fields of philosophy formerly occupied by 'the philosophy of religion' is replaced by the field 'the philosophy of naturalism.'

"'The fourth goal is to justifiably reformulate, and answer, the two basic ontological why-questions that medieval philosophers took over from the Greco-Roman naturalists, and which have (for the most part) remained ever since 'questions asked in the field of the philosophy of religion.' The successful accomplishments of these four tasks will restore academia to the mainstream secularization it possessed before the post-1967 breakdown in the field of philosophy.' http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm

"This means overcoming theism with non-reductionism. This means not playing the skeptic, as opposed to 'a relevant atheism [ ] based upon a consistently and broadly applied skepticism.' We need to make the theists the skeptics, according to Smith.

"It would seem that in 'distinguishing between philosophical goals and cultural consequences,' you are the cultural expert, whereas I focus on the philosophy, backed by world renowned experts. [I should have stated "even if they back my argument against their position."]

"I was interested in your blog because I thought I could use it philosophically. [But] I seem to be arguing against you. We seem we have different goals, so please lets keep this civil between us:

"You say I wrote you on the 'basis of appalling misrepresentations. You are long on unsupported claims, but short on credible arguments and facts.'

"I think you cannot now claim I misrepresent all the people I attribute in my blog; nor can you say I am short on credibility, unless you wish to claim all of my attributions have no credibility.

"Let me apologize for making it sound as if the posting snafu was your fault. I meant for it to be applied to About.Com, and I can see how you would have taken my words. I am sorry. It was frustrating to click my email address from the drop-down, only to have About.Com claim it was not a valid email, and then to destroy my comment.

"You stick with your 'culture.' I'll stick with my ontology, metaphysics, and epistemic principles. You continue to write as the Deity of atheist culture your fans take you to be; I will continue to write like the expert I someday hope to be credibly accepted as.

"As I said in one of those older threads, this is why I hate getting into threads. I did not attack you personally in my first comment, only commenting on what you said.

"You on the other hand, attacked my credibility and facts, which I have now proven are not all my own opinion; and I've proved that I have authorities upon whom I can rely for straight answers and help when I need it. I guess you are not one of them.

"This is the last time I will reply. I hate threads.
Sincerely,
Curtis Edward Clark

Closing comments to this thread, not sent to Cline: In an attempt not to be "arrogant," which Cline alluded to, I referenced a dictionary, as he suggested I do:

"Atheism: (Gr. a, no; theos, god) Two uses of the term:

1. The belief that there is no God.
2. Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic." [italics added, to prove that this particular dictionary proves Mr. Cline to be incorrect, not me.]
"The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term although widely current in the history of thought." "Dictionary of Philosophy"; Runes

Now, Mr. Cline, I interpret the belief that there is no god to be different from "the absence of belief in gods," because as you yourself stated, people who merely have an absence of belief in gods can still find themselves involved in all sorts of supernatural enterprises, like astrology, hand reading, tea reading, ghost hunting, etc. As the dictionary above states, these people are not atheist; they are "not-theist." You use a "less rigorous" definition that is "widely current"; but "widely current" does not mean "correct." It means "culturally popular," and you have already identified your definition as "cultural."

Someone with a belief that there is no god may be presumed to also believe there is nothing supernatural; or I would hope it could be presumed, otherwise there is not an iota of distinction in the definitions:

"[M]an's ethical values, compulsions, activities, and restraints can be justified by non-reductive monism, http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2008/09/non-reductive-monism.html without recourse to supernatural sanctions, and his highest good pursued and attained under natural conditions, without expectation of a supernatural destiny."(amended from B.A.G.Fuller http://www.ditext.com/runes/n.html see Naturalism)

That, Mr. Cline, is my definition of "atheism," taken from two, not one, source. Have a good day, sir!

Quotes for Saturday

He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle. Edward R. Murrow; "I Can Hear It Now"; (said of Churchill)

"Every day you may make progress. Every step may be fruitful. Yet there will stretch out before you an ever-lengthening, ever-ascending, ever-improving path. You know you will never get to the end of the journey. But this, far from discouraging, only adds to the joy and glory of the climb." Sir Winston Churchill, from the essay 'Painting as a Pastime', published at the end of Thoughts and Adventures.

When they start the game, they don't yell, "Work ball." They say, "Play ball." Willie Stargell

"Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils." General Stark sent this toast to be read at the reunion he was too ill to attend; "Live Free or Die" became the New Hampshire State Motto in 1945 General John Stark, a toast for the 32nd anniversary reunion of the 1777 Battle of Bennington in Vermont, July 31, 1809

Please send all comments to

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm of the

Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, the educational arm of the Assemblage.

This publication © 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

Natural Capitalism; Determinism, Compatibalism, Free Will; Wm.Penn

Naturalism and Capitalism are Like a Hand-in-Glove
In the Export of Individual Liberty
"Ever since [Bush speechwriter Michael] Gerson wrote for Bush the words “There is another destructive mindset: the idea that if government would only get out of the way, all our problems would be solved. An approach with no higher goal, no nobler purpose than ‘Leave us alone,’” the Republican party has been eagerly embracing openhanded government." http://us.mc590.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage;_ylt=Am9Gzb3X1ZB_SKxLI.suGENjk70X?mid=1_4359_AP5kxEIAAMyJSMFMLAlD4WQJs48&fid=Inbox&sort=date&order=down&startMid=0&.rand=1553591601&da=0

Naturalism in economics requires capitalism. "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights..." wrote Ayn Rand. "The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force." from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Now, coming from Rand, there are people who will automatically discount this idea of equating "freedom" with "capitalism," especially those who don't see the connection Rand or not. But, the initiation of force, as opposed to its use in self-defence, can never be justified, and thus is never moral. Man lives by reason alone, or he has no justification for anything, objectively speaking.

Then, too, there are those who claim that morals are relative, whatever that means. Actually, it means whatever its proponent wants it to mean; whereas objective morals are based in the nature of Man as the "rational animal," with the objective standards for his existence being those of "qua Man." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/qua

"Capitalism and Freedom is a book by Milton Friedman originally published in 1962 which discusses the role of economic capitalism in liberal society. [ ] Friedman makes the case for economic freedom as a precondition for political freedom. He defines liberal in European Enlightenment terms, contrasting with an American usage that he believes has been corrupted since the Great Depression. " [italics added] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Freedom

"[Adam] Smith's great revelation was that political freedom would most likely emerge and persist under conditions of economic freedom, what we now call capitalism. Our democratic system as defined in our Constitution incorporated respect for this economic system.

"More than the export of democracy, it is the export of entrepreneurial
capitalism that can produce a new birth of peace and freedom around our globe.
Entrepreneurial capitalism is based on individual invention, and because wealth
comes from one's own initiative, it advances human dignity.

"And here is the good news. Virtually every country, whatever its political system, wants to embrace it. They have seen the success of the American economy.

"It has been said that when goods cross borders, armies don't. Today, China and India are the world's two largest countries racing toward entrepreneurial capitalism. They are the example and test of that thesis. Several decades ago, their armies clashed. Now no one talks of war, only of their economic emergence. Capitalism has promoted peace and, in China, better — though still inadequate — respect for rights." Carl J. Schramm; USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-06-27-capitalism_x.htm

"Capitalism is defined as, 1: An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decisions, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in the free market." Mike Wasdin http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/wasdin/wasdin28.html

In the Academy of MN's blog's description of The Nature of Human Nature,
http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2008/08/nature-of-human-nature.html , it is made clear that "man's ethical values, compulsions, activities, and restraints can be justified on natural grounds," and that "his highest good [is] pursued and attained under natural conditions." "Qua Man" includes anything that was known true of man qua man when Aristotle coined the phrase, to what rational, ontological, metaphysical naturalism (or Objectivism, which are not the same) determine it to be. Why? Because those two philosophies do not degrade Man, they raise him up from the mud that other philosophies squash him into.

Anything less than capitalism, whereby economic goals are neither restricted nor determined by the coercive forces of government, is not an economy of freedom.

Semantics; Determinism and Free Will as Necessary Concomitants
At the top of this blog page, in what is called the "site description" right underneath the site "title" which are both in the orange areas, the "description" is this: "Ontological rationality in secular Naturalism. "Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification." Ayn Rand"

This was not the first description I used, and I can't now remember what it was. It doesn't matter; it was lame. It was lame because the more I came to know about Naturalism, the more I realized how divided it was, how semantic could be the users of the terms. I change that description to be more denotational according my concept of it; but concepts of this nature are not easy to integrate without contradiction.

Some Naturalists claim ontology is not compatible with Naturalism; but the world "compatibalism" has nothing to do with that, yet "compatibalism" is one of those semantic divisions within the field. Compatibalism concerns the issue of "free will."

An "ontological object" is defined in this context as, "The real or existing object of an act of knowledge as distinguished from the epistemological object." Dict. of Phil; Runes; http://www.ditext.com/runes/o.html And so what I mean by placing that statement in the description of the purpose of the Academy of MN, is to say that not only metaphysics but naturalism are objects of an act of knowledge, not acts of brain physiology acting in accord with genetics, environment, and the laws of nature.

When the semantics become overwhelming (see the AofMN blog 9.5.08 "Variations on a Theme of Naturalism) they destroy the nature of knowledge by splitting it into incompatible and almost irreconcilable fragments, over which men argue and refuse to find compromise (where that compromise is not compromise of principles, of course.)

Hopefully, by pointing out how "compatibalism" on the subject of free will, and free will in context of "determinism" can explain free will and compatibalism at the same time as necessary concomitants, is a compromise the two sides can accept.
"The problem of free choice can stand at the same place, it is changing. There were proposed two main conceptions which have the powers to produce some kind of solution the problem. So, there are the conception of determinism and the conception of compatibalism. Let’s see the essence of these two conceptions. But before we start the descriptive talking it is very important to be sure that we have a certain question concerning a free choice. The notion of a free choice and just a choice can be regarded as synonyms. The meaning of choice is rather general; it means the decision that could be done by the person. So, such under the necessary interpretation of choice we see action of the person and it turned to be a kind of guide line for us. Well, the problem of free choice lies on the next statement: whether we are able to choose or not. If we remember that choice is a kind of decision, we should redo the question and ask whether we are able to make a decision at a certain period of time without using different alternative prepositions which could be limited." ANDREW SCHWARTZ http://www.amazines.com/Art_and_Culture/article_detail.cfm/327934?articleid=327934 [Note: It would seem English is not Mr. Schwartz's first language. All grammatical errors are his. This quote is a literal cut/paste.]

"The compatibalistic point of view has some similarities with the deterministic point of view; they also suppose that the idea of free choice is not real as all our decisions are determined by the causes. But the fact is that compatibalists think that it is possible to connect the notion of free choice and the notion of caused choice. According to their name they try to prove that free choice and determination could be compatible, in other word they have the opportunity to co-operate in one field." Andrew Schwartz http://www.amazines.com/Art_and_Culture/article_detail.cfm/327973?articleid=327973

But this next author equates it with God being in control.

"I cannot count the number of times that I have heard or read the phrase.."God is in control..." This phrase can be recited in connection with everything from death and disease to happiness and health and everything else in between. Do we really believe, as Christians, that God IS in control..or is it just "lip service"? Is it just religious lingo or is it a firmly held and scripturally understood belief? Compatibalism attempts to explain how it is that "God IS in control AND that human responsibility and accountability is also in full effect. We see this supposed dichotomy in full view in the following scripture: (Jesus) "..being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken , and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." Dave Van http://areformedlaymansperspective.blogspot.com/2008/06/compatibalism.html

Ok, so most of the semantics discern "compatibalism" against "determinism." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) says, "Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

Roughly speaking this means that we are not free to make choices of free will, because every choice open to us is "determined" by the events of the world around us.

Well, that is absolutely true--the part about what our choices are. We can't decide to order a T-bone steak at McDonald's; we can't decide to take aspirin for depression; we can't decide to refuse to pay child support when the court ordered its payment unless we are willing to go to jail. And if we are willing to go to jail for it, we are not free in our will to avoid jail; the choices are laid out by the circumstances around us.

In spite of these "deterministic" machinations of the universe upon our desire to be free of them, it is precisely the world around us that give us choices in the first place! No world; no choices. No choices; no consciousness. Consciousness itself consists of choices that are put before us at birth, namely to start identifying the objects of cognition (which are technically called cognoscenti); which means that in the semantics of "determinism" we have no "free choice" because the choices are the cognoscenti placed before us. A newborn cannot decide to identify a basketball because its not his choice.

"Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."

On the other hand, "When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality." [italics added]
Ayn Rand; “Who Is the Final Authority in Ethics?”; The Objectivist Newsletter

The facts of reality are those placed before us by the existence of existents, be it a thing, an attribute or an action; i.e., by those things in life which cause men the need to make choices in the first place. If you were the only existent in existence, you would have no choices. But you are not. Everything in your environment is an existent, and as concepts so are the things in your mind upon which you may make choices.

Free will is the freedom to think or not to think, Rand said.

Another word with semantic distinctions is "selfish." OMG! What exactly does "selfish" mean? The Tibetans are said to have two words for it, whereas in English we have two complicated definitions, not two words with their own simple definition. The Tibetans have these:

1. Selfishness is taking advantage of others and not caring, (or something to that effect. Feel free to put it in your own vocabulary, because everyone knows precisely their own opinion about this subject.

2. Rational self-interest.

Rational self-interest as a definition of selfishness; who these days would have thought, had it already not been thought of and much discussed over the many decades, if not longer. Such self-interest is "the promotion of one’s own interests [as] always in accordance with reason." http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/egoism.htm But "in accordance" itself has implications as a semantic division.

"Epistemologically, [objectivity] is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic)." [italics added] Ayn Rand; “Who Is the Final Authority in Ethics?”; The Objectivist Newsletter

Yet, in another place Rand wrote, "[The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: 'A rational animal.'
(Rational,” in this context, does not mean 'acting invariably in accordance with reason'; it means 'possessing the faculty of reason.' [italics added] Rand Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology These distinctions are vitally important to understanding the place of reason in the life of man, and how it is to be applied, and in what contexts.

"The idea of determinism is ancient, but first became subject to clarification and mathematical analysis in the eighteenth century. Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions, on the one hand, and with our views about human free action on the other. In both of these general areas there is no agreement over whether determinism is true (or even whether it can be known true or false), and what the import for human agency would be in either case." [SEP ibid]

No, there can be no agreement so long as the two sides argue over semantics. It was my attempt to dispel the dichotomy when I said, above, "it is precisely the world around us that give us choices in the first place! No world; no choices. No choices; no consciousness." A consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms, Rand famously said. (Aside from "Who is John Galt?" it might be the second most famous thing she ever said.)

Determinism is true only in the sense that we have no choices but those given us by the circumstances of existence itself; and equally true that without such choices arbitrarily given to us by life, without any bias on its part, we would not exist.

It is the amoeba and other simple forms of life, forms that have no "conscious" sense of choices, that are ruled by determinism. Man must accept that his choices are determined, but at the same time, he has the choice to think or not to think.

William Penn* on Learning
-338-
5. The first Thing obvious to Children is what is sensible; and that we make no Part of their rudiments.
6. We press their Memory too soon, and puzzle, strain, and load them with Words and Rules; to know Grammer and Rhetorick, and a strange Tongue or two, that it is ten to one may never be useful to them; Leaving their natural Genius to Mechanical and Physical, or natural Knowledge uncultivated and neglected; which would be of exceeding Use and Pleasure to them through the whole Course of their Life.
7. To be sure, Languages are not to be despised or neglected. But Things are still to be preferred. 9. It were Happy if we studied Nature more in natural Things; and acted according to Nature; whose rules are few, plain and most reasonable.
10. Let us begin where she begins, go her Pace, and close always where she ends, and we cannot miss of being good Naturalists.

-339-
15. It is pity therefore that Books have not been composed for Youth, by some curious and careful Naturalists, and also Mechanicks, in the Latin Tongue, to be used in Schools, that they might learn Things with Words: Things obvious and familiar to them, and which would make the Tongue easier to be obtained by them.
16. Many able Gardiners and Husbandmen are yet Ignorant of the Reason of their Calling as most Artificers are of the Reason of their own Rules that govern their excellent Workmanship. But a Naturalist and Mechanick of this sort is Master of the Reason of both, and might be of the Practice too, if his Industry kept pace with his Speculation; which were very commendable; and without which he cannot be said to be a complete Naturalist or Mechanick.
17. Finally, if Man be the Index or Epitomy of the World, as Philosophers tell us, we have only to read our selves well to be learned in it.
* William Penn (October 14, 1644 – July 30, 1718) was founder and "Absolute Proprietor" of the Province of Pennsylvania, the English North American colony and the future U.S. state of Pennsylvania. He was known as an early champion of democracy and religious freedom and famous for his good relations and his treaties with the Lenape Indians. Under his direction, Philadelphia was planned and developed.
As one of the earlier supporters of colonial unification, Penn wrote and urged for a Union of all the English colonies in what was to become the United States of America. The democratic principles that he set forth in the Pennsylvania Frame(s) of Government served as an inspiration for the United States Constitution. As a pacifist Quaker, Penn considered the problems of war and peace deeply, and included a plan for a United States of Europe, "European Dyet, Parliament or Estates," in his voluminous writings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Penn

Please send all comments to

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm of the
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, the educational arm of the Assemblage.
This publication © 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

"Strong" vs. "Weak" Atheism; The Debacle of Categorization

I used to think I knew what "atheism" was. I was an atheist, someone who had no belief in god's existence, and no faith that he/it did exist and was the cause of "all things that are."

Then I discovered, through an article written by Austin Cline, in "About.Com" http://www.about.com/ (which is printed below,) that there were those in the atheist community who either thought I was a "weak" atheist, or perhaps not a "strong" atheist. This amazing judgment of my beliefs/disbeliefs was made even more evident by comments in a thread in About.Com. It was hinted that I might not be atheist at all!

I was questioned as to whether or not I believed in a god called "Ahura Mazda," whether I put him in the same "creator gods bucket" as "Jehovah, which I presume is the god you are most familiar with," and I wondered, what sort of idiot did it take to ask me that after I had stated there were no gods.

Then, I was questioned as to whether or not I believed Alexander the Great had actually lived, because he had been "deified," and there is no "requirement" that god's be supernatural, which of course Alexander was not, and if I didn't believe in "gods," how could I believe Alexander was real?

In the name of all that is Naturalistic, where does this crap come from? This bothers me.

It bothers me for several reasons. If I had not happened upon this article dealing with this subject, I could have remained ignorant of the debate, for who knows how long? It seems to be a recent--within the last decade--division. I'm not certain yet whether it is primarily an epistemological division, or one of metaphysics. I suspect there are advocates of boths sides of the division some of whom are dividing the atheists by metaphysics, and some on both sides dividing us with epistemics.

It bothers me that there are two sides in each "camp." "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." [Occam's Razor] http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/occamraz.html

It bothers me because a rose by any other name is still a rose. The difference between a rose and "atheism" is that a rose is merely empirical, while "atheism" is not empirical at all. So as far as the denotational divisions go, it is perfectly understandable. We are, sometimes, in differing "camps of particularities." There are so many divisions of "naturalist" and "naturalism" that I can't keep them straight.

Here is Cline's original article, with my [commentary,] with a live link at the bottom to the original:

"Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. [Commonly by whom? Attribution would be nice.] Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods. [Only two categories, now, folks, but wait until he gets finished with his propositions. He will have us so divided--but then, he is no different than those among you who believe what he believes--that, a division of a division of a division, is more descriptive of "individualism," or of "diversity."

[I had always believed our "position" on the existence of god's existence was one of nullity, either that we said they don't exist and gave our reasons; or that we gave to the gods no heed, thus nullifying their influence over our thoughts and morals. Gods represent the reification of dogma.]

"Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism [attribution?], is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons."

[But according to the Law of Existence and the Law of Identity, "agnostic atheism" against the Law of Non-Contradiction, or the Law of Contradiction, which means: is a contradiction in terms.

[Weak atheism is also sometimes called the natural state of the newborn. Is a newborn to be considered a "weak atheist" if he grows up maintaining his nature-given natural metaphysics, i.e., metaphysics developed without the Primacy of Deity over-riding the Primacy of Sovereignty, whereby each unique human has sovereignty only over him/herself, an no sovereignty over others except of children, and legally with some others. And does it without ever giving it further consideration? We often make the claim that religion is taught or imposed by the society which adopts it; if an entire society failed to consider god's existence, would it be a "weak atheist" society?]
"Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all.

[Wait--a "strong" atheist may be one who denies the "possibility" of gods--as opposed to only denying the existence of particular gods?

[If that is to be the definition of "strong," then we must also cordon off those who deny only particualar gods, from those deny the possibility of any gods. Denying the possibility is what I thought every atheistic proposition consisted of. Now I am told that an atheist can deny specific gods, without denying the possibility that "some" god may exist. That is agnosticism.

[Cline is About.Com's resident expert and blogger in the category of "Agnosticism/Atheism." His academic credentials are excellent, having studied here and in Europe and gaining several degrees; he is a Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism. So I would give Cline the benefit of the doubt and hope he simply "wasn't thinking" when he wrote that. I have made similar huried or unthought-out mistakes myself. There are several typos and other editorial mistakes in this piece because I formatted incorrectly then could not back out of it.

[But it is a major gaffe, because if someone uses it later to back up a debatable question, the answer is going to be wrong. You cannot fail to deny the possibility of all supernatural gods, and still be labeled "atheist."]

"Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.
"Because knowledge claims are involved, strong atheism carries an initial burden of proof which does not exist for weak atheism. Any time a person asserts that some god or any gods do not or cannot exist, they obligate themselves to support their claims."

[Oh! Now that you have decided to be a "strong" atheist who also claims to have epistemic proof that gods do not or that gods cannot exist--wait: either-or is one more division. Why didn't Cline think of it?--now that you have decided, then your atheism is to be more questionable i.e., defeatable,* than that of a weak atheist, because you now bear the burden of your proof, and if the subjectivism of the listener disagrees with you, your entire justification for being atheist goes out the window in his opinion, along with your supposed atheism. If your justification doesn't hold up one way or the other, must you not be required by epistemic ethics to reconsider your atheistic position?

[That is precisely the challenge laid upon us by theists who attempt to debunk your justification; but you are probably going to disagree with him as he disagrees with you, even thought you may not be able to defeat his justification.]

*Dr. Quentin Smith of Western Michigan University, wrote about "defeated
justifiers," and more inportantly about the one syllogism that must remain
undefeated by theists if the naturalist is to have a justified argument. We
cannot let thests have ground, except as is found in their historical
pre-Augustinian role as the skeptical position of naturalism.

"Where N means "naturalism":

"When contemporary science and naturalist philosophy,
conjoined with an evaluation of contemporary theist arguments for "not-N," can be said to justify N;
"and where in fact this conjoining does justify N;
"then N is justified."
[See 13., 14., 15., under "Justifications," in
"The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism" by Quentin Smith http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm

[This is where the formatting mistakes begin.]

"This [gnostic] narrower conception of atheism is often thought by many (erroneously) to represent the entirety of atheism itself. Because strong and weak atheism are often called 'types' of atheism, some people develop the mistaken idea that these are somehow akin to 'denominations' of atheism, not unlike denominations of Christianity. This serves the bolster the myth that atheism is a religion or a belief system. This is unfortunate, in particular because the label of “types” is not entirely accurate; rather, it is simply used due to a lack of better terminology."

[I have thought all along that "strong" and"weak," and the actual epistemic propositions supporting them, were due to a lack of better terminology and denotational accuracy. That means: get the definitions in taxonomic order.]

"To call them different types is to imply on some level that they are separate — a person is either a strong atheist or a weak atheist."

[Is that not what Cline has been trying to tell us all the time???? Duh. It was right there in front of us all the time, because he said it. Then he denied it. If that is not what he means, what does he mean? Well...]

"If we look more closely, however, we will note that almost all atheists are both on various levels." [italics added]

[OMG, now you divide more? How many times can atheism be divided? You are not an Atomist--not that you ought to be--if you believe they are indivisible infinitely. Every "genus" must have at least two "differentia." (Ayn Rand) So every time you make a division of two into two more divisions, you create a new genus with two new differentia. (There comes a point when there is no point to the next genus; or, to one of the new differentia, which then would automatically disqualify that genus.)

[Since "almost all atheists are both on various levels," this proposition recombines two genuses, making them as indistinguishable as are the many combinations of Empiricists with Rationalists. That, then, eliminates one genus of "atheist."

[Rand herself, I suspect, would eliminate them to one genus with two differentia. I quote Rand (cut and paste):"concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity—the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity." “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy,”Introduction to ObjectivistEpistemology. That is called "Rand's Razor." Yes, she had her own, similar to Occam's. What they also had in common was that each had justified true belief in the metaphysics of essences as concepts, vs. Aristotle's/Aquinas' essences as "things in themselves."

[But by the same token, they are to be integrated only by necesssity. This is because we sometimes make errors of judgment caused by lack of data; or by any means of misjudging the truth. We can multiply as often as is necessary, but we should not re-integrate in haste. We are not saints. Men do not claim to be infallible. Infallibility is for the gods. We are not gods; "We wake to the world of Men." (MarcusAurelius)]

"The primary indication of [all atheists being both on some issues] can be seen in that the definition of weak atheism, lacking belief in the existence of any gods, is in fact that basic definition of atheism itself. What this means is that all atheists are weak atheists. The difference, then, between weak and strong atheism is not that some people belong to one instead of the other, but rather that some people belong to one in addition to the other. All atheists are weak atheists because all atheists, by definition, lack belief in the existence of gods. Some atheists, however, are also strong atheists because they take the extra step of denying the existence of at least some gods."

[This is an "unnecessary" division with no justification. Such people who are in denial of at least some gods, allow therefore the possibility that some gods do exist. This is not a division of atheism; it is agnosticism.]

"Technically, saying that “some” atheists do this isn’t entirely accurate. Most, if not all, atheists are willing to deny the existence of some gods if asked — few only “lack belief” in the existence of Zeus or Apollo, for example."

[And those who are not willing to deny the existence of all gods are agnostic.]

"Thus, while all atheists are weak atheists, pretty much all atheists are also strong atheists with respect to at least some gods. So is there any value at all in the terms? Yes — which label a person uses will tell you something about their general inclination when it comes to debates about gods. A person who uses the label “weak atheist” may deny the existence of some gods, but as a general rule isn’t going to take the step of asserting the nonexistence of a particular god. [!] Instead, they are more likely to wait for the theist to make their case and then examine whether that case is credible or not."

[But because of the divisions of "weak" atheists, we are still in the position of having to ask this "weak atheist" to determine for us which position he takes on this or on that.]

"A strong atheist, on the other hand, may be a weak atheist by definition, but by adopting that label the person is in effect communicating a willingness and interest to take a much more proactive role in theological debates. They are more likely to assert right up front that a particular god does not or cannot exist and then make a case for that, even if the theist doesn’t do much to defend the position of belief."

AustinCline, About.com http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

Why I am An Atheist by Curtis Edward Clark

I am an atheist, not primarily because a of disbelief,whether positive or negative; nor from a belief, whether positive or negative. Rather, I am atheist because I do not sacrifice my reason to religious faith.

Religious reason is something else altogether. For one thing, it is the "religion" of Deism, the "religion" of the Founding Fathers of America. Do you know why it is not a "religion" in the dogmatic sense? Because each man or woman was allowed, under Deism, the absolute religious freedom to believe what he/she wanted in the pursuit of Reason. http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

If that individualistic belief was anything other than in search of reason, then it was tinged with faith, and therefore suspect until the character of the individual had been assessed. Atheism as a religion is the merely the same religious freedom when granted to atheists, no more, no less. It is the belief, whether Deist or atheist, that is within the bounds of epistemic reason, of the individual sovereignty of each to believe in his own ideas.

It is within the bounds of "organized religions" that each person is advised to believe, not in his/her reason, but in the dogma. Witness the political candidates who are forced to choose between politics and their church, and choosing politics are told not to come to Communion.

Those in the eighteenth century who could not bring themselves to sever their beliefs from their church were theists, yet were trusted as much by Deists as the Deists trusted themsleves. They went to church with those theists, had discourse with them, voted for some of them in politics and in church affairs, and married together; but those who could and did sever themselves from the politic of the church they attended were called Deists.

Atheism can be religion when "religion is a frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, [such as during the time] before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very—how should I say it?—dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith. “Playboy’sInterview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964.

That was Rand's opinion, with which I agree. Deists, however, did not have belief in God, as supernatural religions have. Deists had justified true beliefs (undefeated justifiers) and were not dangerous or malevolent in their overall beliefs. Not, at least, on the grounds of faith, because they had no faith, as do no atheists. But a Deist has justified true belief in God, instead. Atheists have justified true beliefs that the existence of a creator is a contradiction to the Primacy of Existence, even if they have no idea what that amounts to and even if they have never heard it. State it to an atheist, and he will say, "That is what I've always felt."

The atheist has no reason to justify the existence of a God that to him is neither an epistemic truth, nor an object of metaphysical knowledge. So they each have a "sound" syllogism, the Deist and the atheist, a soundness which comes from having chosen one of the fifteen "valid" syllogisms of post-Aristotelean logic. (Aristotle allowed 24.) And each of their undefeated justifiers can and will always defeat the evangelicals, when the defeat of theistic propositions is accomplished with formal syllogistic logic that meets the criteria for "valid" and for "sound."

But when the evangelical has as valid and as sound an argument, then, like atheists and Deists on one side of the opposed-to-religion coin, then the evangelical joins the Deist on the same side of the opposed-to-atheist coin.

Rand also had something to say about her own use of the word religion, which I agree with and which I use in the definition of the Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists. (See the first Academy of Metaphysical Naturalists' weblog, under "Archive." )

"[There is one] possibly misleading sentence . . . " Rand wrote, "in Roark’s speech:

“From this simplest necessity to the highest religious
abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man—the function of his reasoning mind.”

"This could be misinterpreted to mean an endorsement of religion or
religious ideas. I remember hesitating over that sentence, when I wrote it, and deciding that Roark’s and my atheism, as well as the overall spirit of the book, were so clearly established that no one would misunderstand it, particularly since I said that religious abstractions are the product of man’s mind, not of supernatural revelation."

Amen, as she herself said a few times. Since an atheist by definition says "religious abstractions are the product of man’s mind, not of supernatural revelation," then I say an atheist by any other name smells as sweet. And I affirm that atheists can have religious convictions, if those convictions do not attend the existence of a god of any nature, supernatural or "natural," as with Alexander the Great.

*Free will is here used as in "free will," both the kind attributed to man's ego; and the kind attributed to legal papers such as "free wills," or generically called "free will forms." http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGQD_enUS290US290&q=free+will+form

Please send all comments to

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm of the
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, the educational arm of the Assemblage.
This publication © 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

On the Nature of Things, by Lucretius: A World View

Atomism is incompatible with Judeo-Christian principles. It is because atomism views matter as independent of God that atomism was demoted by St. Augustine from the predominating world view, a view that held sway for nearly 1000 years. St. Augustine turned it into the skeptical position against theism
1) because atomism declares existence exists from eternity, and denies creation by a God; or
2) because atomism's justification for the cause-and-effect laws of nature are independent of control by a God. (Quentin Smith; " The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism"; http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm

All men have a world view that for each, in some way, is his explanation of the meaning of existence, of the world. For those who have not "examined" his or her own world view, Ayn Rand defined that view as "sense of life, a pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence." “Philosophy and Sense of Life,” The Romantic Manifesto, 25 Whether a person has a world view, a sense of life, or a fully examined cosmology, it sets up the psychology of a his/her emotional responses and the nature of his/her character.

"He who does not know what the world is," wrote Marcus Aurelius, in "Meditations", "does not know where he is. And he who does not know for what purpose the world exists, does not know who he is, nor what the world is. But he who has failed in any one of these things could not even say for what purpose he exists himself." So it is true that some people--perhaps many people in the twenty-first century where the major metaphysical question seems to be, "How can I be sure?"--do not know "for what purpose he himself exists."

But having a world view is something that almost every man, woman, and child have described, only a few hundred years ago, when certainty was required for staying alive.

This concept of a world view is called "metaphysical cosmology," vs. a purely science-related cosmology that explains a physics-oriented world view. World views have been described as: "A [ ] set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously) about the basic makeup of our world." (James Sire.) As: "A person's fundamental 'world outlook,' or life perspective." (borrowed from the German word "weltanschauung." http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldview.htm

You can even take a test to determine what your world view is. http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=23320

"In the 5th century B.C., some Greeks reasoned that matter cannot be infinitely divisible, and they called the smallest particles in nature 'atoms.'' [ ] Many Greeks believed that atoms 'existed from eternity, for they had not been created.' Lucretius supposed, in like manner, that nothing is ever annihilated and that matter exists in the form of invisible atoms.

"The [atomists] supposed that life had developed out of a primeval slime, man as well as animals and plants. Man was a microcosm of the universe, for he contained every kind of atom. As this is the viewpoint of modern evolutionists, the reader may appreciate that Lucretius, not Darwin, has been the principal spokesman for evolution during the last two millennia.

"Lucretius (c.100-c.55BC), chief proponent of atomism, still offers the prevailing world view of reality. No less than twelve English translations of his poem "On the Nature of Things" are readily available in print, the most recent being published in 1995." http://www.commonsensescience.org/atomism.html

"On the Nature of Things," is a description of what Thomas Paine in 1794 in "The Age of Reason" referred to as "the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness" of religion.

"It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind;" Paine wrote, "and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."

So did Lucretius, and this is his telling of his world view, of Man's place in it, and of the evil influence of religion against the better judgments of men. This is only a very small part of it. Go to the link below the title information to see all of it, or search for other sources.

"Lucretius' scientific epic "De rerum natura" is considered a masterpiece of Epicurean philosophy. Epicurus taught that the world could be understood by reason and that religion only arouses unnecessary fear. Lucretius denounced popular beliefs in deities and supernatural creatures.

"As a poem, "De rerum natura" is remarkable [as] a lyrical presentation of what would otherwise be tedious information." "De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things): Introduction." Epics for Students. Ed. Marie Rose Napierkowski. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 1998. eNotes.com. January 2006. 1 September 2008. http://www.enotes.com/de-rerum/

On the Nature of Things

By Titus Lucretius Carus (c.99-55 BCE)

Written 50 B.C.E Translated by William Ellery Leonard

http://classics.mit.edu/Carus/nature_things.html

pro·em noun
1 : preliminary comment : preface 2 : prelude

Mirriam-Webster Online

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Part I
by Lucretitius
Proem

Mother of Rome, delight of Gods and men,
Dear Venus that beneath the gliding stars

Makest to teem the many-voyaged main
And fruitful lands- for all of living things
Through thee alone are evermore conceived,
Through thee are risen to visit the great sun-
Before thee, Goddess, and thy coming on,
Flee stormy wind and massy cloud away,
For thee the daedal Earth bears scented flowers,
For thee waters of the unvexed deep
Smile, and the hollows of the serene sky
Glow with diffused radiance for thee!
For soon as comes the springtime face of day,
And procreant gales blow from the West unbarred,
First fowls of air, smit to the heart by thee,
Foretoken thy approach, O thou Divine,
And leap the wild herds round the happy fields
Or swim the bounding torrents.
Thus amain, Seized with the spell, all creatures follow thee
Whithersoever thou walkest forth to lead,
And thence through seas and mountains and swift streams,
Through leafy homes of birds and greening plains,
Kindling the lure of love in every breast,
Thou bringest the eternal generations forth,
Kind after kind.
And since 'tis thou alone
Guidest the Cosmos,
and without thee naught
Is risen to reach the shining shores of light,
Nor aught of joyful or of lovely born,
Thee do I crave co-partner in that verse
Which I presume on Nature to compose
For Memmius mine, whom thou hast willed to be
Peerless in every grace at every hour-
Wherefore indeed, Divine one, give my words
Immortal charm. Lull to a timely rest
O'er sea and land the savage works of war,
For thou alone hast power with public peace
To aid mortality; since he who rules
The savage works of battle, puissant Mars,
How often to thy bosom flings his strength
O'ermastered by the eternal wound of love-
And there, with eyes and full throat backward thrown,
Gazing, my Goddess, open-mouthed at thee,
Pastures on love his greedy sight, his breath
Hanging upon thy lips. Him thus reclined
Fill with thy holy body, round, above!
Pour from those lips soft syllables to win
Peace for the Romans, glorious Lady, peace!
For in a season troublous to the state
Neither may I attend this task of mine
With thought untroubled, nor mid such events
The illustrious scion of the Memmian house
Neglect the civic cause.
Whilst human kind
Throughout the lands lay miserably crushed
Before all eyes beneath Religion- who
Would show her head along the region skies,
Glowering on mortals with her hideous face-
A Greek it was who first opposing dared
Raise mortal eyes that terror to withstand,
Whom nor the fame of Gods nor lightning's stroke
Nor threatening thunder of the ominous sky
Abashed; but rather chafed to angry zest
His dauntless heart to be the first to rend
The crossbars at the gates of Nature old.
And thus his will and hardy wisdom won;
And forward thus he fared afar, beyond
The flaming ramparts of the world, until
He wandered the unmeasurable All.
Whence he to us, a conqueror, reports
What things can rise to being, what cannot,
And by what law to each its scope prescribed,
Its boundary stone that clings so deep in Time.
Wherefore Religion now is under foot,
And us his victory now exalts to heaven.
I know how hard it is in Latian verse
To tell the dark discoveries of the Greeks,
Chiefly because our pauper-speech must find
Strange terms to fit the strangeness of the thing;
Yet worth of thine and the expected joy
Of thy sweet friendship do persuade me on
To bear all toil and wake the clear nights through,
Seeking with what of words and what of song
I may at last most gloriously uncloud
For thee the light beyond, wherewith to view
The core of being at the centre hid.
And for the rest, summon to judgments true,
Unbusied ears and singleness of mind
Withdrawn from cares; lest these my gifts, arranged
For thee with eager service, thou disdain
Before thou comprehendest:
since for thee I prove the supreme law of Gods and sky,
And the primordial germs of things unfold,
Whence Nature all creates, and multiplies
And fosters all, and whither she resolves
Each in the end when each is overthrown.
This ultimate stock we have devised to name
Procreant atoms, matter, seeds of things,
Or primal bodies, as primal to the world.
I fear perhaps thou deemest that we fare
An impious road to realms of thought profane;
But 'tis that same religion oftener far
Hath bred the foul impieties of men:
As once at Aulis, the elected chiefs,
Foremost of heroes, Danaan counsellors,
Defiled Diana's altar, virgin queen,
With Agamemnon's daughter, foully slain.
She felt the chaplet round her maiden locks
And fillets, fluttering down on either cheek,
And at the altar marked her grieving sire,
The priests beside him who concealed the knife,
And all the folk in tears at sight of her.
With a dumb terror and a sinking knee
She dropped; nor might avail her now that first
'Twas she who gave the king a father's name.
They raised her up, they bore the trembling girl
On to the altar- hither led not now
With solemn rites and hymeneal choir,
But sinless woman, sinfully foredone,
A parent felled her on her bridal day,
Making his child a sacrificial beast
To give the ships auspicious winds for Troy:
Such are the crimes to which Religion leads.
And there shall come the time when even thou,
Forced by the soothsayer's terror-tales, shalt seek
To break from us.
Ah, many a dream even now
Can they concoct to rout thy plans of life,
And trouble all thy fortunes with base fears.
I own with reason: for, if men but knew
Some fixed end to ills, they would be strong
By some device unconquered to withstand
Religions and the menacings of seers.
But now nor skill nor instrument is theirs,
Since men must dread eternal pains in death.
For what the soul may be they do not know,
Whether 'tis born, or enter in at birth,
And whether, snatched by death, it die with us,
Or visit the shadows and the vasty caves
Of Orcus, or by some divine decree
Enter the brute herds, as our Ennius sang,
Who first from lovely Helicon brought down
A laurel wreath of bright perennial leaves,
Renowned forever among the Italian clans.
Yet Ennius too in everlasting verse
Proclaims those vaults of Acheron to be,
Though thence, he said, nor souls nor bodies fare,
But only phantom figures, strangely wan,
And tells how once from out those regions rose
Old Homer's ghost to him and shed salt tears
And with his words unfolded Nature's source.
Then be it ours with steady mind to clasp
The purport of the skies- the law behind
The wandering courses of the sun and moon;
To scan the powers that speed all life below;
But most to see with reasonable eyes
Of what the mind, of what the soul is made,
And what it is so terrible that breaks
On us asleep, or waking in disease,
Until we seem to mark and hear at hand
Dead men whose bones earth bosomed long ago.

Any variation in this publication of "On the Nature of Things" that varies from Latin hexameter verse, in which each line has six "feet," or units of rhythm, is purely accidental, and the fault of the copy/paste procedure allowed by the copyright from the website listed above.

Naturalist Resources--A Short List Part 2

Last week on Thursday I published Part 1 of a list of resources for naturalists who are getting their feet wet in the subject, or who need further explanation. This is not going to be a "regular" Thursday feature. You won't see it again for several weeks, if ever. But tomorrow's blog, like yesterday's is about "free will vs. naturalism." That is a subject laden with pitfalls and dark corners and hidden doors. It won't be ready until tomorrow. Today, the list, Part 2.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is always a good place for good information. Its first two paragraphys under the heading "Naturalism" make clear the nature of the beast:

"The term ‘naturalism’ has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed ‘naturalists’ from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the ‘human spirit’ (Krikorian 1944, Kim 2003).
"So understood, ‘naturalism’ is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject ‘supernatural’ entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the ‘human spirit’." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/

The Secular Web is owned and operated by the Internet Infidels, Inc., a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet.

An apparent sister site, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/ begins with its own short comparison between "metaphysical" and "methodological" naturalism, then lists a number of articles, all very much worth reading, under each heading.

(You will notice that where many "metaphysical" naturalists deny the existence of a "soul," and of "free will," this website takes the opposite view. See The Academy's Definition of "Strong" Naturalism in the left column.)

In addition, The Secular Web has one page devoted simply to listing all the names of the authors who have contributed to their site. The list is long, and impressive. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/author.html They also have a Subject Index http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/index.html , and their own Library, which is another list http://www.infidels.org/library/

Freedom From Religion Foundation, http://www.ffrf.org/ , while not strictly a "naturalist" organization, has "more than 12,000 members, is the nation's largest association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics). FFRF has been working since 1978 to promote freethought and to keep state and church separate.
"The Foundation promotes freedom from religion with a weekly national radio show, its newspaper Freethought Today, a freethought billboard campaign and other educational endeavors, including scholarships for freethinking students. In addition, the Foundation acts on countless violations of the separation of state and church, and has taken and won many significant complaints and important lawsuits to end state/church entanglements. No one has fought harder than FFRF to legally challenge the "faith-based initiative."

They have a billboard reading: "Keep Religion OUT of Politics." It is currently displayed in Denver and will remain there throughout the Democratic National Convention.

The Skeptics Dictionary http://www.skepdic.com/naturalism.html is like most other sites, attempting to explain the differences in the naturalistic points of view. It has a great number of live links to the various aspects of naturalism, then concludes that short section with this:

"The difference between mechanistic and teleological views may best be understood by considering a few examples," after which it lists the sex drive, bee pollination, pedophilia, What is the purpose of evil? teleology according to Spinoza, naturalistic worldview, and further reading.

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10713a.htm is a frequently used resource of mine. It is as objective as any reference, at least above the "blue line," where it merely defines the subject. Below the "blue line" is definitely the dogmatic version of the subject. But even having the dogma defined is often useful, and as dogma-defined goes, this Catholic reference is still objective, never preachy, merely saying what the Church says.

ALL ABOUT PHILOSOPHY.Org is obviously a theist organization, given that their only subtitle to "Naturalism" is "Improbable." http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/naturalism.htm But they do a good job of explaining the "defeator" arguments against naturalism (see this Academy's blog 8.11-8.16.08.)

It is definately good to understand the defeator arguments. As this blog explained in that week, you are an "uninformed" naturalist, according to Dr. Quentin Smith, if you don't know how to defeat the defeators. In a sidebar, All About lists other "world views" like atheism, secular humanism, and existentialism, among many. Interesting reading for anyone wanting to understand "the other side."

"Defense of Naturalism" by Keith Augustine, is his "Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of theUniversity of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofMaster of Arts 2001." http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/thesis.html So if you are up to a long academic paper, this one is for you. It is also available at The Secular Web, listed above.


"An Atheist Fairy Tale" http://bevets.com/evolution.htm is a well-put-together and interesting commentary on the connection between atheism and evolution, with many attributions, but it seems to have no author. But for the sake of the good tale, here are the links to it:
Contents:
Evolutionism and Atheism
Common Objections
What is the evidence?
Intelligent Design
Theory or Fact?
Scientists and Bias
Evolutionism and Scripture
Consequences
Are Creationists Honest?
Audio Video
Links
Works Cited
It ends with this quote: "Evolutionism needs atheism needs evolutionism needs atheism needs evolutionism.Garbage in: Garbage out."


Another good argument for the "other side" is the PDF The Logical Underpinnings of Intelligent Design.

The Center for Naturalism and Naturalism.Org have a Yahoo group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/appliednaturalism/ If you feel like discussing the subject with an organization that has some of the best scientific minds behind it, this one is for you. There is no guarantee you will get answers from any of those scientific minds, but you could always address your questions to one of those parent websites. Or you could get into arguments with their members about whether or not humans have souls and free will.

"NATURALISM IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OFSCIENCE AND CRITICAL INQUIRY" by Steven D. Schafersman http://www.freeinquiry.com/naturalism.html was a "paper originally presented at the Conference on Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise, sponsored by the Department of Philosophy, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas, February 20-23, 1997."

So, by clicking on that blue link to the conference, you automatically get ANOTHER resource. Don't you just love how the internet actually works?

"A Philosophical Premise of 'Naturalism'?" by Mark Isaak (another blue link) http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/naturalism.html is published by Talkdesign.Org, http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/ which "is a response to the "Intelligent Design" movement of creationism. It is dedicated to: Assessing the claims of the Intelligent Design movement from the perspective of mainstream science. Addressing the wider political, cultural, philosophical, moral, religious, and educational issues that have inspired the ID movement. Providing an archive of materials that critically examine the scientific claims of the ID movement. We feel that the "Intelligent Design" arguments require this kind of focused attention due to their widespread use in antievolutionary activity."

Isaak's paper says, "we will see that the complaint about naturalism is applied unfairly to discredit only those parts of science that naturalism's critics oppose on ideological grounds."

Another of my favorite references for many things aside from naturalism is The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/naturali.htm . I'm not certain, but I think there is an Objectivist or a neo-objectivist behind this resource.

Apex Naturalism http://apexnaturalism.org/ is an online magazine. On its About Page it says: "An apex is the top, peak or summit. Naturalism is a system of belief that proposes that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. Thus Apex Naturalism means being dedicated to becoming the best Naturalist that we can be.
This inevitably means learning about ourselves, our naturalism and the world around us. This magazine is dedicated to that unending quest for wisdom and knowledge."

I just bookmarked that one for myself. It looks good.

Please send all comments to

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm of the
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, the educational arm of the Assemblage.
This publication © 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®