----- Original Message -----
From: "Bishnu Dey" <sankar_rabi@...>
To: <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 4:06 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Attn : Shabnam Nadiya - From Dr. Ajoy Roy


> >From: "Ajoy Kumer Roy" <kumer_ajoyroy@...>
> >Subject: [mukto-mona] Attn : Shabnam Nadiya - From Dr. Ajoy Roy
> >Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:53:16
>
> Dear Mr. Roy:
>
> Thank you for a nice essay on atheism. As you have yourself acknowledged,
I
> paraphrase here: "Like many other phenomenon in this universe, the
existence
> of god cannot be proved nor disapproved". In my opinion, this statement
> must be qualified with reference to our collective knowledge base as human
> beings, at the current time. Who knows what future holds, and what
> scientific breakthroughs will occur in the future to unfold the mysteries,
> which we call "undefined" or "undetermined".


Awesome post, Bishnu!
One thing I like to point out whenever the issue of "god cannot be
proved or disproved" comes up is *who* has the burden of proof. (It's
likely that you're already aware of this, but others who are reading may not
be, so please bear with me <g>)
"There is no god" is a negative assertion, and negative assertions are,
by nature, very difficult if not impossible to prove. "God exists", on the
other hand, is a positive assertion, and positive assertions are generally
easy to prove. It's because of this that the burden of proof always falls
to the person(s) making the positive assertion; hence the whole "innocent
until proven guilty" philosophy behind the American judicial system, among
others. The point being that it is *always* the theist who has the burden
of proof, not the atheist. This is why I consider atheism to be the
default position regarding the existence of god. This is also why I never
let theists try to put the burden of proof on me, and neither should anyone
else.
There is a flip side to this coin, however. You mention me towards the
end of your post as having "burned the bridge". I don't blame you for
thinking this considering some of my posts, but in the interest of accuracy
I ought to define my atheism a little more. The thing is, the fact that
negative assertions like "god doesn't exist" are improvable is also the
reason why I don't feel I can state the god doesn't exist in an absolute
sense. If I am to maintain my intellectual honestly, I *must* be open to
the idea that god may indeed exist. Being open to the idea isn't the same
as thinking it a likely thing, of course; based on the arguments for god's
existence that I've seen thus far, I'd say the likelihood of him actually
existing are very small indeed. Nonetheless, I have to accept that there
may yet be an argument I haven't heard or some piece of evidence I haven't
considered which will change my mind. Such is the nature of logic. So,
to amend your phraseology a bit - I haven't really burned the bridge, but I
don't expect I'll be backtracking over it either. Besides, given the rapid
advancement of science and of humanism in the world, that bridge may be
self-combusting in the not too distant future anyway =)


Javacrucian
------
Hey, you! Do something useful like visiting my homepage:
http://www.geocities.com/javacrucian1/JavaEnter.html

"Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue
against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish
the principle that they are laboring to dethrone; but if they argue without
reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they
are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational
argument." -- Ethan Allen

------