In Quebec, the unbelievers, atheists, agnostics, and now the brights (1), can thank Normand Baillargeon enable them to finally cabinet. The director of this "anthology of unbelief and free thinking" is in his second book, after Happy without God , published last year in VLB, to give voice to those who too long, were stigmatized by their unbelief, their agnosticism or atheism them. As he had done to anarchist thought as well as Noam Chomsky, Bailey gives himself to this mission to spread the Good News: " say loudly that we can be happy without God " by discovering a great tradition of militant anti- marking out religious history of Western thought. Some will rejoice at this company looks like a gospel announcing the Beatitudes for those excluded from yesterday and today. The moment, at least, appears synchronous with the establishment in Quebec new course for U.S. t hique and religious culture where the study of atheism is the poor relation of the program. It is clear that the author's intention in publishing these two books is to remind loud and the injustice is still victim of this part of human thought.
want to scream too loudly, however, so dazed that may move too quickly on the examination of theories and doctrines, even if everything seems to share this beautiful world which should be called the "disbelief." This word displease some. In reality, there are important differences among them, sometimes subtle. So is atheism as sexual orientation: the kaleidoscopic changes in the extreme.
In this regard, David Hume, who returns with the pen because of Baillargeon, is a scenario that is puzzling. Was he an atheist, agnostic, believer or unbeliever? Hard to say. Baillargeon, believes that "... perhaps Hume was an atheist ..." (p. 2). Yet, after shattering, piece by piece, all arguments Cleanthes in favor of the existence of God, Hume told to Philo in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion " Being a skeptic philosopher is a man of letters, the first step and not the more essential to the state of true believer and true Christian. Dan Dennett, in Darwin is it dangerous? , thinks, for his part, Hume certainly was agnostic and that had he known the theory of Darwinian evolution, it would surely have abandoned agnosticism and atheism married. In fact, on this point we know nothing and nothing can be said. The contrary argument is equally plausible, as Hume was not a skeptic of Sunday merely to be skeptical for the sake of it.
The foregoing points to the main defect of the report: it is clearly oriented and activist, therefore, partial and biased. It obviates retort since it is a defense of disbelief, atheism and free thought. Beware, however: although the book takes a bias reporting, we would have liked a neutral study, less oriented, objective. As proof, the very terms by which militants to designate themselves are numerous, covering various realities. They are "atheists" and "unbelievers", the "agnostic", the "humanist" and "secular", the "secular" and "skeptical" of the "naturalists" of "free thinkers", etc. . A slew of names for all concepts, or one concept denoted by different names? On this crucial point, no answer is given. Perhaps it would be best to speak of "family resemblances" as in Wittgenstein. Already there appear less dense forest.
The Romans rated the early Christians as "atheists" because they ADHERED their polytheism, of course, the latter returned the charge by describing in turn the Romans as "atheists". It is clear that for a Christian at the time, an unbeliever today would be something unbelievable, "sub-human" What! We, the world we live in "modern" - or "postmodern" by some - so that the debate of ours between theism and atheism is inherently modern. As written by Robert B. Stewart, in a remarkable introduction to The Future of Atheism :
It was not until René Descartes in the seventeenth century that rational arguments for God’s existence became the basis by which one would try to prove to skeptics that God certainly exist. The upshot, whether or not Descartes himself held to such a view, was that Western intellectuals began to think that religious conviction is based primarily upon rational beliefs. (2)
L’«athéisme», «l’incroyance» ou la «libre-pensée», peu importe le vocable employé, a donc une histoire; il n’a rien d’une doctrine monolithique qui surplomberait le temps and times. The anthology of Baillargeon does not her cup of tea. It is convenient for the militant atheist to represent atheism as a doctrine unique, timeless, respectable under the prerogative of a long tradition of "faith" than "non-faith." It should indeed never lose sight of that one objective of this publication is the struggle of atheism and secularism in Quebec against, among other things, the course Ethics and Religious Culture .
Other irritating: the fact that Bailey tendentious use in the introduction to the study by Phil Zuckerman (see p. 9 et seq.). Bailey maintains that the study of Zuckerman (3) shows " that atheism and unbelief are increasing in many countries ..." In fact, Zuckerman writes:
Is Growing worldwide atheism or Declining? This is a difficulty to answer questions simply. On the one hand, There Are Atheists more in The World Today Than Before. On the Other hand, worldwide atheism Overall May Be in decline due to Demographic Fact Highly Religious Nation That Have the Highest Birth Rates in the world, and highly irreligious nations have lowest birth rates in the world. As Norris and Inglehart observe, «the world as a whole now has more people with traditional religious views than ever before – and they constitute a growing proportion of the world’s population.» Thus, the picture is complicated, making predictions of the future growth or decline of atheism difficult .(p. 59)
La difficulté à laquelle est confrontée Zuckerman provient précisément de la définition donnée à «athéisme». Certains, par exemple, n’osant pas causer d’esclandre chez leurs proches, n’osent pas s’affubler tel; ils préféreront shut up and remain anonymous, or proclaim themselves free-thinker, or even non-religious, which is less powerful atheist. Moreover, the study of Zuckerman presupposes that religious belief is already foreshadowed by the family and social environment where one is born and lives. This is a sociological conception of questionable adherence to a religious belief qu'endosse implicitly Zuckerman and, consequently, Baillargeon.
Certainly, in the rich industrialized countries, the number of "atheists" is greater than in the Third World. However, the suicide rate is higher. One might ask: are we really happy being an atheist?, If one wants to play on the statistics as Baillargeon prompted. One can not also infer that the wealth and comfort of life in rich countries have reason atheism. Finally, says Zuckerman, " societal santé Seems to cause Widespread atheism, and societal Insecurity Seems To Widespread Belief in God because ." (Ibid.) This statement tends to confirm the gospel that keeps saying that wealth is a obstacle to faith: Talk to Haitians ... " Verily I say unto you, it will be difficult for a rich man to enter the United of Heaven. Yes, I repeat, it is harder for a camel to go through a hole of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven . "(Matthew 19 23-26). In fact, we do not accept the causal role of business in a way or the other on pain of committing the fallacy known as the Latin post hoc ergo propter hoc (after the thing, therefore because of it "). In fact, many rich people believe or disbelieve in God, regardless of their social level.
The militant approach, and therefore biased, so shadowing is at work. I do not recommend to my friends atheists.
I want to finish up another disturbing aspect of the book, whose title could be: UP, THERE IS NOTHING. BOTTOM, THERE IS THE BRIGHTS . I feel a violent dislike about the term "bright " stamped by Dawkins. I confess also feel an aversion to this author equally unspeakable. This British professor of biology, which combines philosophy and who do not belong, is a true pyromaniac. Everything he wrote stirs resentment rather than harmony. In the expression " bright - bright, intelligent - there is such condescension, such contempt for believers, even those who do not share the radical views of Dawkins, reject it.
As an epigraph to Happy without God , Baillargeon with Daniel Baril quote from For God Delusion where Dawkins wrote:
It is realistic, courageous and wonderful want to be an atheist. (...) Atheism is almost always the mark of a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind. (4)
This statement is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, there is no harm in telling someone that appears atheist that is a courageous and dignified. That, on the other hand, another matter to say that atheism is the mark of a healthy mind, because it then implies that one has nothing but contempt for those who are not atheists.
Dawkins never goes dead hand in his inflammatory statements. Thus, the he was in the New York Times (April 9, 1989, Section 7, p. 34.) " When you meet someone who does not believe in evolution, you run no risk by arguing that this person is ignorant, stupid or deranged (or malicious, but I do not want to get in these considerations) ". Dan Dennett is also not kind to those who doubt the theory of Darwinian evolution: "To put it bluntly , but without risk of being wrong, anyone today doubt that the variety of life on this planet is the product of evolutionary processes is simply ignorant - and no excuse in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write. " (5)
Dawkins is the leader of the movement the "New Atheism" ( New Atheism ). The New Atheism is particularly virulent. He describes the religious belief not only false or erroneous, but dangerous . This side is attacking militant repugnant and undermines any attempt at dialogue between believers and unbelievers.
studies that meet the harsh criticism of Dawkins are innumerable. In another post, I gave an account of one of these books, that of Edward Feser, The Last Superstition ( http://enquetedesensjl.blogspot.com/2010/01/la- new-feud-of-old-and-des.html ) which seems to be the most virulent of these attacks-cons. Feser mean debunking the secular vision of the world that has emerged in modern times, showing that the proposed "naturalism" in science and philosophy nullifies the exercise of reason and morality, so that it does is more religion (Christianity) must now be accused of irrationality and immorality, but the secular vision of the world. And like any religion is faced with the superstition, "the last superstition", which would be the mother of all others, is precisely what this vision secular naturalism.
I am doing my part analysis Feser, so, basically, all forms of unbelief are reducible to naturalism. Yet here we open a Pandora's box and the problems start. What in fact the naturalism? There is a serious problem for atheism because no definition of naturalism that makes consensus. Le Petit Robert tells us that naturalism in philosophy is the " doctrine that nothing exists outside of nature, which excludes the supernatural ." Bravo ... What are we to understand by this definition? Take culture: song, writing, traditions, customs, etc.. What looks like a devotee of naturalism? Culture is she or is not part of nature or did it just a supernatural status? What is supernatural, and what is not? The human mind, for example, is it supernatural?
Maybe the following definition of naturalism, derived from a volume addressing the philosophy of science, will be more helpful: " Naturalism is the doctrine that all phenomena are governed by natural laws, and / or the methods of natural science applied in any field of research. "(6)
us consider the" phenomenon "as follows: someone is lying. From the above definition, a supporter of naturalism should believe that the phenomenon in question is governed by natural laws. Is this true? In fact, it seems clear that the individual in question lying does not violate any law of nature, but rather to a moral rule. As Hilary Putnam writes, " if all that is asked of a naturalist that he believes there is no phenomenon that does not violate natural law, then who is not 'naturalistic "?" (7)
As Putnam notes also the definition of naturalism is constituted by a disjunction (and / or) which means that a naturalist is a philosopher who believes that "science methods of nature applicable in any field of research . "What can it mean exactly? Using the example of lying. A naturalist is he bound to believe that the methods of natural science applied to the case of lying? Or what if he is excluded from the research field of natural sciences?
Many philosophers who call themselves "naturalists" will also say - not all! - Materialistic. Darwin Was materialistic? Hard to tell in the absence of a precise definition of "materialism" beyond the usual definition that does not mean much: the Materialism is the doctrine that everything that exists is material. What we should hear exactly is "material". What then is matter? The Water Thales? The atoms of Democritus that nobody has seen? For this reason, some materialists are satisfied with the definition proposed by Descartes: the material is the largest ( Extensia res); brief space. The problem with the Cartesian definition is that a thing can exist over time without being in space. The mind, for example. According to Descartes, Indeed, the thinking thing (res cogitans the ) can exist independently of the body. Hard times for materialistic ...
To circumvent these difficulties, the materials · avid naturalist, prefers to talk about the physical rather than hardware. Wrap himself when he called physicalist, his doctrine, physicalism. Darwin Was physicalist without realizing it too? Unable to answer this question in the absence of a precise definition of physicalism.
In short, naturalism is in the same situation as when trying to define pornography: there is only when it sees.
No wonder Bailey is so hard to define atheism as the naturalism seems to play any definition. Up there, there's nothing checks so the popular saying that goes a ill hugs. The least we can say is that atheists have not yet done with God, and they have every incentive to rebuild their duty and check again if there is not actually there top someone. To do this, instead of the book Baillargeon, I suggested rather the work of Cyril and Roger Michon Pouivet, Philosophy of Religion. Contemporary approaches (Vrin, 2010) which brings together key texts of analytic philosophers on the existence of God. As the English say: that's food for thought .
_______________
NOTES
NOTES
(1) word used by Richard Dawkins to describe "Those of us who adhere to no religion, those who view the world in terms natural and not supernatural, those of us that rejoices the truth and despise the false comfort of the unreal, to all those, it takes a word, a word to us, a word like 'gay'. You can say 'I am an atheist', but that's old fashioned at best and at worst perpetuates stigma (like: 'I'm gay'). (...) He needed a catchy word, we had the same catchy, as is 'gay'. And like him, it should be a positive word, warm, cheerful and bright. Brilliant? Bright ? Yes: bright. We are brights. The time is not it time to declare in the face of the world? "(quoted on page 52 of Baillargeon's book.
(2) Robert B. Stewart," Introduction: The Future of Atheism: An Introductory Appraisal ", publisher The Future of Atheism, A. McGrath and Daniel Dennett in Dialogue, Fortress Press, 2008, p. 4.
(3) Phil Zuckerman " Atheism. Contemporary Numbers and Patterns ", in Martin ed. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism , CUP, 2007, p. 65.
(4) On page 7 in the word Presentation director Daniel Baril and Normand Baillargeon.
(5) Daniel Dennett, Darwin is it dangerous? , Odile Jacob, 2000 52 .
(6) The Philosophy of Science , R. Boyd, P. Gasper and JD Trout Publishers, Cambridge Mass., The MIT Press, 1991, p. 778. my translation.
(7) I adapt the example of Hilary Putnam in "The Content and Appeal of 'Naturalism', in M. De Caro and D . Macarthur, publishers, Naturalism in Question , Cambridge Mass., Harvard University Press, p. 60.
0 comments:
Post a Comment