[extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition...

[Hal Finney]

In the interests of fairness, it is important to understand what Mike
is saying and not saying.  He is not saying God exists, and he is not
defending those who believe in God.  In fact, nothing he has said is
inconsistent with him being a militant atheist!

All Mike has claimed is that atheism is a matter of faith.

Now, there are arguments for and against this, but to a large extent
they seem to come down to semantics.  There are undoubtedly atheists who
do hold onto their beliefs as a matter of faith, rather than through
rational thought.  I remember once seeing James Watson, co-discoverer
of the structure of DNA, interviewed on TV.  He was straightforward
about not believing in God, and added that his father had had the same
position and he had never departed from his family's religious views.
Watson was being ironic but there are probably atheists for whom their
beliefs are just as much a matter of faith and "religion" as those of the
most devoutly religious.  Just as there are said to be no defenders of
religion so strong as the converted, probably some of the most vehemently
anti-religious are former believers.

I agree with the arguments that God is no different from other
hypothetical entities, and that it is not reasonable in practice to hold
to agnosticism regarding every imaginary being that might be conceived
by the mind of man.  The default position for such entities has to be
an assumption that they do not exist and have no influence on the world,
unless or until some evidence to the contrary appears.  So I don't agree
with Mike on this matter.

Nevertheless some people seem to be assuming that Mike is defending
religiosity, when he is actually attacking certain foundational arguments
for atheism.  Those are logically different positions and we should try
to keep them straight in discussing the issue.

Hal