StephenPG wrote: 
> Atheism is not a theory, it is simply a lack of belief.
> 
> Pity you forgot the dictionary reference when you posted your first
> comment regarding atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the O.E.D state that atheism is logically indefensible?
> 
> From Wikipedia, "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of
> belief in the existence of deities."


Hi Stephen!

The dictionary gives only definitions of words, rather than offering any
analysis of the consequence of their meaning.

It is my personal proposition that it is a logically indefensible
position, since I cannot envisage any rational means of investigating
its validity. Since we're all so keen on science here, perhaps you (or
someone else) would suggest a scientific means of investigating both
atheism & theism?

I should then be happy to withdraw my proposition. As regards my use of
the word "logical", before we are again delving in our dictionaries, may
I politely refer you to Proposition 7 of Ludwig Wittgenstein's
"Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" for which the accepted English
translation is "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".
This work was published in its original German in 1921, with an English
translation following in 1922 containing a foreword by Bertrand Russell
who declared (one might suspect somewhat reluctantly) that he could find
no fault with it. This was the moment I mentioned in an earlier post
that Logical Philosophy abandoned its attempts to find meaningful
answers to any question beginning with the word "why".

Only a theist would now advance any answer to a question beginning with
the word "why", although many people (myself included) would be likely
to find any such answer unconvincing, since it would of necessity rely
upon a claim of "special knowledge", analogous in many respects to the
claims of the "golden-eared" which many members of this forum take great
pleasure in deriding. At last I've got back to at least a passing
reference to audio.

It is strange how my background summary of the place of science in world
thought which seemed so irrelevant (& off-topic) to some when I
attempted it in an earlier post has suddenly sprung to my defence on a
matter of detail.

Perhaps I'm not talking out of my hat after all... 

Anyway, I do hope that I've clarified sufficiently now.

Dave :)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914

_______________________________________________
audiophiles mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Reply via email to