tch (02/03/83)
I have just a few things to say about the discussion of 'religion' which is in progress on the net. I hope that my opinions (I stress that they are *my* opinions only, regardless of what I consider to be factual) don't bore or upset anyone. In fact, it would be very nice if my opinions helped someone else come to his own rational conclusion, whether it coincides with mine or not. Being both an aspiring mathematician and philosopher, I try to apply established rules and tests of fact and logic to situations. This includes problems of mathematics as well as questions of a larger life-size scope. To determine the convergence of an infinite series to some measureable limit in calculus, I would make use of the Integral Test, the Ratio Test, or some other appropriate rule. To gauge the convergence of a philosophical idea to reality, I apply what I have come to call "Aristotle's Test". You see, in determining the nature of virtue (in its vaguest form) Aristotle explored a number of analogies. His ultimate conclusion was essentially that true virtue is a 'mean' which lies between the extremes of 'excess' and 'deficiency'. This is not terribly startling, in consideration of the simple analogies that Aristotle offerred: courage (the virtue) is the mean between the excess of foolhardy recklessness and the deficiency of cowardliness; temperance of mind (the virtue) is the mean between the excess of licentiousness and the deficiency of insensibility. Applying Aristotle's Test to the topic of discussion here (theism/ atheism/agnosticism) leads me to a clear decision. But I must introduce another class of individuals into the analysis. This class I shall call the "fanatics"; it consists of the overzealous, hellfire and brimstone, quasi-religious nuts (bible-thumpers, if you will). Obviously, the fanatics represent the extreme of excess; equally obvious is the conclusion that the atheists represent the extreme of deficiency. Hopefully, I am not offending anyone by dismissing these groups so lightly, for that is not my intention; I'm simply applying the logic to the conceptual framework of each group. The middle 'mean' ground is then left to either the theists or the agnostics. For those who are still confused, I will clarify the definition of "agnostic" (didn't anyone else study Latin? doesn't anyone else have a Webster's?). To begin with, a gnostic (no 'a') is one who believes that a thing (e.g., the existence of God) is known by intuitive or mystical revelation. Conversely, an agnostic is one who believes that the same thing (existence of God) *cannot* be known by intuitive or mystical revelation. The gnostic offers no proof besides his intuitive and mystical "knowledge"; the agnostic rejects absolutely only that "proof" which is intuitive or mystical in nature, but does not reject the possibility that the subject exists ultimately. A nested application of "Aristotle's Test" (thanks, D.R. Hofstadter) reveals that the theist occupies the mean ground between the gnostic and the agnostic, because he acknowledges that a rational interpretation of life involves both fact and faith. The theist is continually in search of evidence to either support or refute his hypotheses, and weighs both factual analyses and intuitive insights in the process. Indeed, the theist is a real scientist. For those who doubt this statement, read the appropriate book from my reference bibliography. I have an aphorism posted prominently on my office wall at work and on my study wall at home. After fairly extensive study, I have accepted it as the guiding charter for my own exploration into the ontological alternatives. It reads: Reason establishes the foundation of faith... Faith compensates the error of reason... Neither reason nor faith is fully sound without the other - think about it. A Comparative Bibliography -------------------------- fanatics: any book by Oral Roberts, evangelist gnostics: The Gnostic Gospels, by Elain Pagels, historian theists: Does God Exist ? - An Answer For Today by Hans Kung, theologian agnostics: Religion Without Revelation, by Julian Huxley, scientist atheists: Being And Nothingness, by Jean-Paul Sartre, philosopher/atheist
simon (02/03/83)
Regarding the application of Aristotle's 'golden mean' to testing between atheism/agnosticism/theism, would this also apply to capitalism/socialism/communism or do we tend to be just as fanatic about twentieth century religions as our predecessors were intolerant of the religious differences of their day.
wagar (02/03/83)
Tom Hicks' logically determined that the virtuous "middle ground" consists of fact and faith, but then jumped off on a tangent by saying this implied theism. Theism implies a belief in god(s), and while god(s) are all very well to believe in, I fail to see why this particular brand of belief deserves any more attention than belief in everything else (except that it is a focal point of Western religions). The term Tom Hicks should have used is religious, which (at least according to the dictionary) means faithful, devout, believing. Any number of organized religions are not theistic. I didn't submit this article in defense of obscure Eastern religions, however. I happen to hold a religious viewpoint in which god(s) play no larger role than Greek mythology does in Christianity. -Steve Wagar decvax!yale-comix!wagar