From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 7:43 PM
To: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Part II: Re: evidence of god? for Holtz [G Riggs]

"Elizabeth Hubbell" <elizabeth.hubbell@verizon.net> wrote:

> > Single-minded pursuit of sensual pleasure inevitably 
> > conflicts with other values.
> 
> that means you are in disagreement with the earliest
> atheist known by name, the ancient Indian thinker Brihaspati

So what? He should instead be worried that *he* disagreed with *me*,
because I'm right and he's wrong. :-)

> Fairness, Charity (in the usual sense applied here), Justice,
> Knowledge--the imperatives for all four seem roughly balanced

The virtues I identified were Wisdom, Fortitude, Temperance,
Fairness, and Kindness. Each is indispensible, but only Wisdom
and Fairness are maximal (in my sense that you cannot have too
much of them).

> > Many humans consider the authenticity of an artifact, and
> > the intentions of its creator, to be important aspects of 
> > the object's beauty
> 
> Does [inauthenticity or personal failings] negate
> the beauty of their music?

As I said in the next paragraph: no.

> I still wonder if one ought to necessarily equate deconstructionism, 
> Critical Theory, any form of relativism, etc., as all bad.

I didn't say they were "all bad".

> how polarized ought the reader [..] take this? 

Pretty "polarized". Such extremes of relativism are flatly wrong
in their choice of emphasis, and are dangerously misleading.

> "Sublimity is the quality of evoking feelings of awe, transcendence,
> reverence, and humility."
> 
> I'm interested in how you, personally, regard such feelings 
> [..] as a staunch atheist?

I think my feelings toward the universe are
likely to be even more sublime than those of a theist 
toward God, if only because God is so anthropomorphized 
and paternalized.

> the restrictive notion that Tragedy is essentially
> focused on one individual

I didn't intend to mandate that that tragedy can never be plural,
and have clarified that in the text.

> > Disappointment [that early ancient atheists were greedy]
> > is hardly a basis [for asserting theism].
> 
> In my case, considering the high hopes with which I started out
> inquiring into the ethics of trend-setting atheists, disappointment
> simply *was* a sufficient enough basis.  Whether that qualifies me 
> as an idiot or not, I cannot say.

It qualifies you as having reached an utterly unjustified conclusion.

> I have the right to feel badly disillusioned as to the
> originality/integrity of the ethics of the trend-setting atheists.

It makes no sense to feel "disillusioned" over something one
should never have had an illusion about in the first place.

> > > how come [early atheists were non-altruistic and early theists
> > > weren't]?
> > 
> > By your account, the answer is obviously "self-interest", and not
> > "god(s) probably inspired the latter".
> 
> I'm beginning to think it may have been both.

That conclusion is simply not justified by the available facts.

> A greater sense of fellow feeling on the part of the beleaguered 
> majority made them more alert to the oneness of everything and 
> hence the possible presence of deity

By showing how altruists might naturally self-generate a feeling
of godly presence (even in the absence of deities), you're
in fact undermining your argument that altruistic theists are 
evidence for theism.
--
brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net