Vorkosigan

I read <a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=50" target="_blank">randau's piece in the kiosk</a> but I think it went wrong in the opening discussion:

Theism assumes the former (alterable laws) while Atheism assumes the later (unalterable laws). You cannot have a rational discussion if you can't agree on a premise for the discussion

I do not think atheism assumes unalterable laws. Atheism simply disbelieves in gods. Certain atheist groups, such as skeptical Confucians, do not even believe in natural law. I think this is an example of the common error of confusing metaphysical naturalism with atheism. All metaphysical naturalists are atheists, but not all atheists are metaphysical naturalists.

This error propagates itself throughout the paper. Further down randau writes:

Choosing as a mutual premise "The Universe is Supernaturally Malleable" would deny the "strong" Atheist argument that God(s) "could not" exist and would render that debate moot.

I do not agree with this. It would certainly make hash of metaphysical naturalism, but atheism would be alive and well and kicking in the form of pantheism, Buddhism and other belief systems that see the universe as supernaturally malleable but do not accept entities like gods.

This misunderstanding of the breadth of atheism leads to further error:

The Atheist would prefer to relegate the question of what caused the universe to start (Big Bang) in the first place to one of the three categories alluded to earlier: 1) not yet scientifically determined, 2) beyond the three-dimensional limits of human understanding, or 3) the question itself may make no sense in a more comprehensive understanding of our universe.

The metaphysical naturalist might well go for 1, 2, or 3 above, but the atheist might go for (4), a universe created by supernatural powers that don't involve gods.

Atheists apparently lack those needs and therefore reject the existence of God on the objective basis of there being no scientific reason to do otherwise

But the Taiwanese Buddhist Master Hsing Yun has put out a number of writings to show why a god cannot exist based on Buddhist belief, without any reference to science. An atheist need not rely on science at all; indeed, there is no reason an atheist need accept scientific conclusions.

Finally, randau's conclusion is just plain wrong:

So, even with an agreed upon premise of a structured universe with immutable laws of nature, it appears that there can still be Godless Atheist and God worshiping Theist perceptions of the same universe neither of which contradicts the shared premise. Thus, demonstrating the futility of Theist versus Atheist debates.

The fact that one subset of atheism and one subset of theism can find agreement hardly constitutes grounds for concluding that atheist/theist debates are futile. The range of atheistic and theistic positions is so vast that the conclusion is unwarranted.

Further, even if we accept that ultimately the issue cannot be resolved within the framework of debate, such debates can still serve important social functions, such as signaling the existence of atheists (we're not going to go away!), converting fence-sitters, getting arguments out in the public domain where they can shape thinking, sharpening debating skills, stimulating learning, or simply getting laid, if one's opponent is a desirable sex partner.

Michael

hal9000

I read the piece you mention here and I agree with you turtonm. We find all manner of things to discuss and argue about with our theist friends. To say there is no way to debate them is in error I think. We may be <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> here but the debates are interesting anyway.

Automaton

Yeah, I noticed that as well.