From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Atheist Resources
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 19:31:46 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Keywords: FAQ, atheism, faith, free will

In article <3047@ulysse.enst.fr> ciaran@ulysse.enst.fr (Ciaran O'Donnell) writes:
[deletions]
>Free choice
>-----------
>
>A distinction must be made between belief and knowledge. We do not need
>to believe in anything we know, because we know it. For example, a doctor
>does not need to belief that someone with appendicitis needs an operation,
>because he knows it from his education. A patient who has never heard about
>appendicitis is obliged to believe the doctor.
>
>If we do not know something, we can choose different opinions about the truth,
>but only one opinion is the true opinion. However it is not possible to
>choose one's opinion once we know the truth.
>
>Thus the ability to choose ones belief, in the existence of doubt, is
>a first instance of human liberty.

 This seems and odd way of looking at things. At the very least, it's
a form of liberty I daily try to rid myself of. I like to *know* and not
just *have opinions* about things. I would be willing to give up this
libery, especially in the case of knowledge about God.
 
>Now there is a difference between knowing the truth and accepting it. 
>For example, we all know that Bill Clinton is going to be president of the
>United States but not everybody accepts it. However, there is nothing that
>anyone can do about it.
>
>The second instance of human liberty is thus the possibility to reject
>something that is known to be true.

 "Reject" in what sense? I may 'reject' the notion of gravity, but I still
will fall if I trip. In the extreme, 'rejecting what you know to be true'
has been termed 'having delusions'.
 One may dislike the notion of a Clinton presidency, but 'rejection' is
a strange term for this. One could lobby for impeachment, call for recounts,
work for opposiiton campaigns, etc. but this is not the same as saying,
"Clinton is *not* president!"

>Now if we reject the truth...  we believe that there is a higher
>truth... to which this truth is subject.

 Only if we follow your idea of 'rejecting' truth. I think that one
does not 'reject' something one knows to be true so much as one
*dislikes* it and, if possible, works to change it. One 'rejects'
falsehood for truth, not one truth for another. (Yes, of course
one can be mistaken, but that's not the point of this argument.)

>Clearly, if God exists, there is no higher truth than this.

 As has been pointed out, this rests entirely on one's definition of God.

>                                                            If we have
>knowledge of his existence, we lose our first form of liberty, that is the
>liberty to believe.

 I may not be free to disbelieve in gravity, but I'm not particularly
troubled by this. I don't generally fear the truth; even if unpleasant,
I'd rather know than not know. Others may feel differently, I suppose.

>                    If we refuse to accept God despite this knowledge, our
>second form of liberty, that is our possibility to reject him nonetheless,
>is useless to us since there is no higher truth in which we can then believe.

 This point, by your own argument, is moot because we're not allowed to
get the knowledge to reject in the first place.

>The point I am making here is that the possibility to choose, and even
>reject God, is essential to human liberty.

 The ol' "If you *knew* God existed, you wouldn't have free will" ploy,
eh? Seems to rest entirely on a suspect definition of 'free will'.
--------
>Many atheists come from religious backgrounds, so their rejectal of a belief
>in God does not stop them from looking for justice, kindness, and so on
>in their lives. Some atheists have never believed neither in God nor in such
>things as these. I call these "stomach" atheists.

 Some atheists (like myself) came from non-rligious backgrounds but still
somehow look for justice, kindness, etc. You seem to be implying (as many
theists seem to) that religion is the only source of morality, which is
simply not the case.

>Ciaran O'Donnell/Telecom Paris - Dept INF/46 rue Barrault/75634 Paris-13 FRANCE
>Phone +33 1 4581 7600	  / Fax +33 1 4581 3119    / E-mail ciaran@inf.enst.fr


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.