Ciaran, can you drop me an e-mail? Sorry to try to contact you via your blog!

Cheers,
Mark

Shame you missed the lecture. Do you have any objections to Sharia being used as a form of arbitration between muslims outside of British criminal law (as incidentally happens now anyway)? My impression was that he was suggesting something along those lines.

As usual the Daily Mails have misrepresented his comments, but then again that was quite predictable.

Tristan

I was fortunate enough to read your contribution to the New Statements “Faith Column” on 10 April 2007. It is the article entitled, “I believe in one less god than monotheists.” While I agree with you on some points, I have two points of contention. The first is the suggestion that atheism is “a simple statement of [one’s] lack of belief in God.” The second is atheists “just happen to believe in one less god.” I believe both of these statements to be oversimplified, and not accurately reflect the complexity of the issues surrounding the questions which they are attempting to answer. Let’s take them in order.

I agree one can make a simple etymological case for atheism to be defined as “without belief in God.” This raises the question of what it means to be without belief. In searching for an understanding, I notice many atheists link being without belief with being without a burden of proof. “Ah ha!” I thought. So, this means to be without belief means to make no truth claims. This means the atheists cannot claim, “God exists” or “God does not exist.” [I can expand on this if necessary.] So, this means the atheist is actually without a position. They do not claim anything with regards to God’s exist.

With an understanding of what it meant to be an atheist, I now turned my attention to the practical application of this definition. I again hit a wall. How could an atheist possibly take no position on the matter of God? They are constantly arguing against the idea. Do they truly have no position? Is it even possible to be completely without a position as atheism demands? I conclude it is possible. It is possible for the person who remains ignorant of the concept of God. They are what some like to call implicit atheists. Though, I feel this is an unnecessary and unfair designation intended only to bolster atheism. So, what about those who are familiar with the concept of God? Well, to date I have been able to find no evidence to support that an individual can remain entirely neutral on the concept of God. I have never had anyone supply evidence. Hence, I reasonably conclude it is not possible. When one comes to knowledge of the concept of God, one naturally chooses to accept or reject the notion even if only in minute degrees. Even those who claim to refrain from judgment still have biases which tell us about their dispositions. Hence, as we can see, atheism as a mere lack of belief isn’t practically applicable. And because of this, it really has no true meaning and does nothing to advance our conversations about God.

I would also appeal to the common usage of atheism amongst the general population. The general population appears to use atheism in a manner inconsistent with the way many atheists on the Internet define it. There are objections to this because the general population tends to be religious and hence are biased, but I find this argument lacking.

Additionally, I would contend atheism is not merely a lack of belief because more often than not a consistent set of other accepted beliefs seem to follow. These include the acceptance of naturalism, forms of secular ethics and/or politics, and so on. Now, obviously, it can be objected these do not necessarily follow a lack of belief in God. And I would agree. Yet, they are common enough that I belief it warrants some inclusion within the definition of atheism. Let me provide an alternate example to support my case.

There are many Christian fundamentalists who reject the Roman Catholic Church. They claim the Catholic Church isn’t truly Christian. Yet, both you and I would deem both groups to be part of Christianity. Though one group rejects the other, both are included under the term even to the dislike the fundamentalists. Likewise, I believe a definition of atheism should be. And with this, it’s my belief the issues surrounding atheism are much more complex than the simple etymology provided allows for. Hence, we need a better definition which incorporates these issues. Moving onto my second point of contention.

To declare the atheists “just believes in one less god than the monotheist,” is to oversimplify the issue. Such a statement neglects to take into consideration why the monotheist rejects belief in other possible gods, and it trivializes the differences between the various theistic stances. First, the monotheists typical reject belief in all other possible deities because the define of god which they have accepted necessarily negates belief in all other deities. Take the Judeo-Christian God for example. The Scriptures teach God is the only God, and any other claimed deity is a false god. So, it’s clear the Christian would reject belief in other possible deities for different reasons than the atheist. Secondly, there are fundamental differences between the various theistic stances (i.e., deism, monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, etc.). Each brand of theism makes different claims about the nature of its own gods or goddesses. Thus, if we view gods as a checklist to be marked off, to mark off gods 3-5 on our least may not necessarily mean anything for gods 7-10. Hence, the statement oversimplifies the issue.

This brings me back to my original point. I believe both statements oversimplify the issues. And to extend this further, I believe they create unnecessary confusion within the discussions surrounding the issues. Hence, I would recommend redefining atheism to something useful and abandoning the “one less god” statements.

Thanks for your time.

~ Christopher

I was at a performance at “The World is a Stage” last Saturday night - my cousin Miss Le Bomb was performing with some others for five hours. Pretty long, but amusing, especially in the context of a gallery.

I also found the miner’s strike exhibit the most interesting, although I liked the rotating mirror thing too - I like any sculputre you can get inside, and if it also rotates - well I’ll be quite in my element in there for a while.

The “News at Ten” thing is a piece by some artist that involves the staff in the gallery picking a headline at random each day and saying it to every visitor as they enter. I can’t remember what ours was.

We are joined in art.

Will you call yourself “Paul” or “Ringo” next?

The post is about how the long-overdue defeat of the tobacco companies on the issue of health appears to have resulted in the companies accepting that there’s a risk and marketing on that basis. I think it’s a little sick.

The post doesn’t imply that cigarettes are “not so bad for you”. Read it again.

If you need some pointers, I’ll quote them back at you:

- “A recent court ruling in the USA has ordered that they take out a full page advert apologising for misleading the public on the dangers of smoking…”

- “Are tobacco companies changing tack? Since they’ve now lost the struggle to keep the lethality of their product a secret…”

- “Will we see a new raft of smoking-led body modifications? Watch out for the avant-garde gangrenous foot or the sexy and neckline-enhancing Tracheotomy hole, complete with alluring robotic voice…”

Do you understand now?

Did you read the post?