Agnostics and Atheists

[bocablkr]

Open question for David sklansky,

I am a little confused on you views on God. After reading most of you posts I thought you were an Atheist (including this one). However, in another post it appears that you believe that a God created the Universe and then basically left it alone to evolve as it may. Do you believe that the Universe was created by some supernatural being or power?

"I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist."

That's fine that he feels that way, but you can't have reasoned debate on a subject if your source is just your emotions. So, in Asimov's case, it sounds as if he's choosing to just not engage in the debate. That's fine. Also, some confusion comes with the term "atheist". "Atheism" doesn't have to mean "there is no god", it can be interpreted as just an opposition to theists who proclaim "there is a god". I consider myself atheist in my opposition to theism, but not in my belief that there must be nothing beyond the universe. But I see no need to speculate on what is or isn't beyond the universe because I feel there is no possible way of finding anything out about it in my lifetime and there is no way it affects my life. However, theories about how the universe may exist (superstring, higher dimensional spaces, etc.) do interest me on just an intellectual level.

[kbfc]

"That's fine that he feels that way, but you can't have reasoned debate on a subject if your source is just your emotions."

That's not what he said. He said, "as well as." At a root level, you're being dishonest if you claim to use only reason. You have to choose some axioms as a foundation for rationality, otherwise you don't get very far. Asimov's 'emotional' choices are basically just a fulfillment of Hume's 'habit and custom.' He's honest enough to admit it, at least.

[ QUOTE ]
"That's fine that he feels that way, but you can't have reasoned debate on a subject if your source is just your emotions."

That's not what he said. He said, "as well as." At a root level, you're being dishonest if you claim to use only reason. You have to choose some axioms as a foundation for rationality, otherwise you don't get very far. Asimov's 'emotional' choices are basically just a fulfillment of Hume's 'habit and custom.' He's honest enough to admit it, at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't criticizing Asimov. I appreciate his honesty, and am confident that he is honest enough not to preach that there is no possible higher being because he himself admits there is no way to know this. Reading my post, you can infer that I feel similarly to him, although am not as emotionally attached to atheism as I am emotionally attached to avoiding statements that close doors where evidence does not necessitate the door being shut.