--- Paul Trejo <petrejo@...> wrote:

> Omar Lughod wrote:

> > You have yet to answer:
> > 1) why an atheist cannot get religion right?
> > 2) what this other side is to which you,
> undoubtedly,
> > have access, and the atheist inevitably lacks.
> >
> > Omar
>
> I answered these questions well and often, Omar,
> but I'll do so again.
>
> 1. An atheist cannot get religion right because
> of the *assumptions* that he brings to the debate.
>
> 1.1. The principle assumption is that *there is no
> God* (and the corrollaries: if there was a God, it
> would be impossible to prove; if there was a God,
> it would be impossible to experience)
>
> 1.2. These are assumptions. They are not proven,
> but the Atheist -- to be an Atheist -- cannot do
> without them.
>
> 1.3. Another assumption of the Atheist is
> materialism,
> and this reduces God to a psychological 'illusion.'
>
>
> 1.4. Like any materialist, or empiricist, the
> Atheist
> wishes to regard Religion only *objectively*. It is
> *other* people's Religion he will talk about
> (usually
> in derogatory terms, pace Nietzsche, Marx).
>
> 1.5. The idea of a *subjective* experience of God
> the Atheist presumes -- unquestionably -- is merely
> an illusion (refraction of Capital, refraction of
> the
> infant's Father, etc.)

Paul,

There is another informal fallacy called the
"straw-man argument". It puts forth an absurd
representation of an argument as an archetype for all
arguments.

To begin with, your exposition is ignoring arguments
that begin with the presumption of God's existence,
and lead us, by inference, to the falsity or absurdity
of that initial presumption. Such an argumentative
procedure is quite valid and well represented in the
philosophical literature, whatever the worth of the
particular arguments in question. To favor not merely
an adhominem (which your exposition above only
confirms) but a straw-man procedure over legitimate
forms of argument must be viewed with a certain
suspicion.

> 2. The other-side of the two-sided question that
> Hegel and Hegelians have access to that Atheists
> do not is simply this -- God.
>
> 2.1. The Atheist (especially the materialist) tends
> to
> regard God in dualist terms -- Either it is
> Idealist, Or it
> is Materialist, and No Middle Term. This is
> one-sided
> thinking (also it is a Marxist-Leninist dogma).
>
> 2.2. While non-dialectical theologians have been
> known
> to be one-sided, the Hegelian approach to God is not
> idealist, and surely not materialist. It is the
> MIDDLE
> TERM, so to speak; the Middle Path; the Golden Mean.
>
> There is nothing very new in any of this, Omar. It
> is just
> that the Atheist mind is solidly closed to these
> age-old
> truths.

I do not recognize in your exposition the atheism of
many of the left Hegelians i have read: eg., Robert
Pippin, McCumber, Kojeve, Rosen, Cutrofello, etc. All
these folks have achieved their atheism fully
cognizant of Hegel's dialectic. Perhaps they were
mistaken in their interpretation of Hegel, but that
must be demonstrated, not presupposed. Your exposition
above is merely a strawman given such possibilities.
and since i am certain you are aware of their
literature, your exposition above makes for a bit of
suspicion as to your "scientific" pretentions.

You mention "age old truths" above, -the "middle
path", the "Golden mean"? This counts for you as an
adequate answer to arguments for God's existence and
against atheism? this counts for you as Hegelian
dialectical thinking??!!!


Certainly, i must control my sarcasm, another form of
argumentative fallacy, since it adds nothing
substantive to an argument. For the point, the whole
point where rationality is concerned, is the argument.

=====
Omar

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com