Interesting read here to share, discuss and debate.
http://ionsg.blogspot.sg/2013/09/president-of-humanist-society-makes.html
http://ionsg.blogspot.sg/2013/09/president-of-humanist-society-makes.html
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Humanist Gets Meaning of Atheism Wrong
- Thread starter Frodo
- Start date
Defining atheism as lacking belief in God is intellectually dishonest.
Straits Times Online Forum has two letters about Paul Tobin's definition of atheism.
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/deeper-look-theism-and-atheism-20130919
MR PAUL Tobin is right in saying that atheism is the absence of theism or the "absence of belief in god(s)" ("What atheism really means"; last Friday).
However, this is merely an argument about dictionary definitions that brushes the surface of what theism and atheism are.
Both theism and atheism are world-views, ways by which some of us view and come to terms with the world.
These world views come with certain presuppositions or truth claims that undergird them.
Let us assume that Mr Tobin's "atheism" refers to "religion-less" atheism. This form of atheism regards nature and the phenomena in nature as all that there is; empiricism is the only way of gaining knowledge about the world.
Hence, its rejection of god(s) and metaphysical laws that cannot be proven true by empiricism.
This presupposition that nothing exists beyond the natural world is itself a truth claim that cannot be tested empirically. Pastor Lawrence Khong probably construed this unverifiable truth claim as a "belief system" ("'I told the minister to send me to jail'"; Sept 7).
Likewise, the presupposition that undergirds theism is that god(s) exists and is central to universal existence; there is more to the world than merely observable natural phenomena.
It is also a presupposition that cannot be tested empirically.
As much as atheism tries to distance itself from beliefs and look at theism as irrational, it cannot escape from its own truth claims that, loosely interpreted, are "beliefs".
Png Eng Keat
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/no-conclusive-definition-atheism-20130919
IN HIS letter ("What atheism really means"; last Friday), Mr Paul Tobin claimed that "atheism is not a belief system; it merely describes the absence of belief in god(s)".
Despite what he suggests, there is no conclusive definition of atheism.
Some, like neuroscientist Sam Harris, would agree with him. Others, however, define atheism as a belief, as philosopher Michael Martin has done in his book The Cambridge Companion To Atheism.
Despite the lack of a conclusive definition, the more commonly accepted definition is the one used by Pastor Lawrence Khong ("'I told the minister to send me to jail'"; Sept 7), namely, that atheism is a belief system.
There are cogent reasons why atheism should be treated as such.
First, as a society, we need to be open about what we believe in and why we believe it, rather than hide behind labels.
It is not enough to describe. A person who describes himself as an atheist should be expected to give a rational defence of his belief. An absence of belief is still a belief.
Just as we expect religious believers to substantiate their claims, we should expect the same standards of proof from atheists.
This leads to the second point - atheism as a belief system allows for discourse with other belief systems and permits a meaningful exchange in world views, something especially important in a pluralistic society like Singapore.
If we are to mature as a society, then no assertions ought to be immune from scrutiny in the public sphere. Everyone should be mutually obligated to explain their belief systems from which they challenge other belief systems.
Ultimately, the definition of atheism is contextual and dependent on how the person is using that term.
Mr Tobin's letter should not be construed as defining what atheism really means, especially when even atheists themselves cannot agree on a single definition of atheism.
Daniel Lee
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/deeper-look-theism-and-atheism-20130919
MR PAUL Tobin is right in saying that atheism is the absence of theism or the "absence of belief in god(s)" ("What atheism really means"; last Friday).
However, this is merely an argument about dictionary definitions that brushes the surface of what theism and atheism are.
Both theism and atheism are world-views, ways by which some of us view and come to terms with the world.
These world views come with certain presuppositions or truth claims that undergird them.
Let us assume that Mr Tobin's "atheism" refers to "religion-less" atheism. This form of atheism regards nature and the phenomena in nature as all that there is; empiricism is the only way of gaining knowledge about the world.
Hence, its rejection of god(s) and metaphysical laws that cannot be proven true by empiricism.
This presupposition that nothing exists beyond the natural world is itself a truth claim that cannot be tested empirically. Pastor Lawrence Khong probably construed this unverifiable truth claim as a "belief system" ("'I told the minister to send me to jail'"; Sept 7).
Likewise, the presupposition that undergirds theism is that god(s) exists and is central to universal existence; there is more to the world than merely observable natural phenomena.
It is also a presupposition that cannot be tested empirically.
As much as atheism tries to distance itself from beliefs and look at theism as irrational, it cannot escape from its own truth claims that, loosely interpreted, are "beliefs".
Png Eng Keat
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/no-conclusive-definition-atheism-20130919
IN HIS letter ("What atheism really means"; last Friday), Mr Paul Tobin claimed that "atheism is not a belief system; it merely describes the absence of belief in god(s)".
Despite what he suggests, there is no conclusive definition of atheism.
Some, like neuroscientist Sam Harris, would agree with him. Others, however, define atheism as a belief, as philosopher Michael Martin has done in his book The Cambridge Companion To Atheism.
Despite the lack of a conclusive definition, the more commonly accepted definition is the one used by Pastor Lawrence Khong ("'I told the minister to send me to jail'"; Sept 7), namely, that atheism is a belief system.
There are cogent reasons why atheism should be treated as such.
First, as a society, we need to be open about what we believe in and why we believe it, rather than hide behind labels.
It is not enough to describe. A person who describes himself as an atheist should be expected to give a rational defence of his belief. An absence of belief is still a belief.
Just as we expect religious believers to substantiate their claims, we should expect the same standards of proof from atheists.
This leads to the second point - atheism as a belief system allows for discourse with other belief systems and permits a meaningful exchange in world views, something especially important in a pluralistic society like Singapore.
If we are to mature as a society, then no assertions ought to be immune from scrutiny in the public sphere. Everyone should be mutually obligated to explain their belief systems from which they challenge other belief systems.
Ultimately, the definition of atheism is contextual and dependent on how the person is using that term.
Mr Tobin's letter should not be construed as defining what atheism really means, especially when even atheists themselves cannot agree on a single definition of atheism.
Daniel Lee
