--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" buttsplicer@ wrote: snip > Stu, did you *read* what was in the post? The writer > is addressing people *who call themselves atheists*. > > And he doesn't appear to be a religionist himself, > so both parts of your formula fall apart.
Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens all make arguments about the absurdity of the label atheist. The only place I have seen the word used was by religious people as a pejorative. This writer was clearly reacting against these writers. Harris makes an effective argument saying that it is much like the term racist. Racist is a clear term to identify a KKK member, but there is no term to identify those who fight racism. Because not believing in racial superiority is not a characteristic of any one group. If you really want I can send you some links. I understand this article is not your view anyway. I just wanted to point out this fact. Incidentally, there are atheist organizations but the writers being discussed have criticized these organizations for the same misuse of terms. > > The interesting part of that piece to me was his > point that free will, at least in Western countries, > is a notion that originated with religion. Western > secularists (including some on this very forum) > tend to tout free will as if it were antithetical > to faith, when in fact it is the very *basis* of > faith. > Free will does not necessarily follow from faith. Augustine, Calvin, and Luther (and many others) all argued strongly for the doctrine of pre-determination. Their interpretation of the bible suggests that God has chosen who will receive salvation. We can not override god's will. In the eastern religions pre-determination is an integral part of the philosophy, with some schools arguing that enlightenment is the only case when a person exercises there freedom as they break the wheel of birth and rebirth. And even within these schools many times enlightenment is not a product of free will. Instead the Dharma fully overrides freewill. If I remember my philosophy history correctly it was Thomas Aquinas who proposed the terminology of free will. And it has become a dominant feature of the modern church. The concept did its part to help create the Magna Carta and other doctrines moving towards recognizing individual rights. Modern secularists on the other hand don't all agree on the question of free will as well. However, I am asserting that the modern approach to free will is better explained in the context of freedom of individual expression. This takes it out of the realm of metaphysics and puts it in the more practical realm of politics. Sartre best illustrated this in "Being and Nothingness" when he questioned why some Frenchmen would not resist the Nazi invasion during WWII. He felt that his neighbors who went along with the Nazis abandoned their authentic existentialist selves and the distinctively human gift of free will. In all cases, free will is adopted and rejected by people regardless of their proclivity towards faith. However, I am ever suspicious of anyone's arguments if they involve themselves with faith. If they are willing to accept one notion without adequate evidence what then of their other notions? Sounds to me like a lot of guesswork. s.
