From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A few points to raise . . .
Date: 1 Oct 92 02:08:23 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Sep29.192257.12671@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>>Rather, my
>>working hypothesis is that God is a projection of human
>>intentionality on perceived order in the universe, and a
>>rack on which to hang people's hopes and ideals; in other
>>words, a construct, both psychological and cultural. There is
>>little question in my mind that this projective construct
>>exists; indeed, it seems clear that there is more than one.
>>They also clearly seem to have nontrivial effects on the
>>society in which we live. One might even propose that, acting
>>in the human consciousness that forms their substrate, these
>>metaphorical beings exhibit intentionality of a kind.
>>
>
>This is true, but IMO sounds like apologetic rationalizing in an attempt
>to not offend the "true believers". By harboring these two definitions,
>and not pointing out which you are referring to at any given time, you 
>can avoid conflict with atheist and fundamentalist alike. To the vast 
>majority of "believers" god is described in your first definition. Non-
>believers are more likely to subscribe to the second. 

Regardless of what it sounds like, the above is not an apologetic,
and is not a rationalization for anything. It represents my best
first effort at an accurate description of what I think. I couldn't
care less whether what I think offends a true believer (or an
atheist for that matter).

>>So what do you think? Am I atheist or not? (I don't really
>>mind if you classify me differently from the way others
>>have classified me, nor if you classify me differently from
>>my own presumptive working classification).
>>
>
>IMO you are definitely atheist. Also, IMO, you do yourself an injustice
>by the use and (implied) acceptance of the second definition. A mythical
>figurehead is hardly necessary to the having of hopes and ideals. Why 
>allow that which is (hopes, ideals, etc) to be usurped by that which 
>isn't (mythical, anthropomorphic deity)?  

I do not advance mythic figures as justifications for anything,
including hopes and ideals. I report what seems to appear before
me: reports of mythic beings that seem to embody people's hopes
and dreams. Do laws exist? Their existence, if any, is by
convention; a social and linguistic matter of agreement. If
people claimed that there was a specific psuedo-physical
object or being that somehow was a law, or The Law, then I
would have to say I was an atheist with respect to that
object or being; but it wouldn't mean that I thought laws
didn't exist; only that they weren't what people said they were.

Do dreams exist? If so, then surely gods do, as some of my
dreams (and other dream-like experiences) have been of gods.
The content of a reverie or a daydream has some kind of existence.
And I do not claim that such things are indistinguishable from
rocks or conversations or employment histories or money, so
let's not get diverted down that time-wasting tangent.

>>It seems to me that the phrase 'God does not exist' is
>>idiomatic for a class of claims about what sort of existence
>>God is supposed to have. I very much doubt that many people,
>>if any, assert that there is actually no phenomenon, psychological,
>>cultural, social, or metaphorical, to which the label 'God'
>>can be legitimately applied.
>>
>
>The last phrase, legitimately applied, is where I disagree. Your second 
>definition is not what is meant by the majority of religionists when they
>refer to god. Words with more than one meaning are not conducive to clear
>communication. The word god has been around, and understood, for long enough
>that for you to chose to define it differently is a copout. Find another 
>word for definition 2.

I don't know of any words with only one meaning, though I can think
of some with narrower scope than others. The fact that my second 
usage is idiosyncratic is why I don't usually use it unless I
am in company of people (poets, anthropologists, mythographers,
psychologists) who are likely to understand it; if I do use
it outside such contexts then I try to take some pains to explain
what I mean. (It is, after all, just such an explanation for
which you are taking me to task).