San Diego, CAUSA 92104
April 12, 2013
My name is Stephen Kirby. I am a questing, curious person. I may be not entirely correct about that.
In the case of the atheist vs believer dispute. There is this asymmetry. Believers say things solely based on "faith". They are quite short of established facts. Unless you think that relying on experience as a guide to what is true is arbitrary, you cannot say the same thing of non-believers. By the way I am not too busy to think about these issues. I do all the time. It is different to commit time to engaging in endless messaging dialogue. that I ration.
The best way to settle intellectual disputes is first to assemble the alleged facts that each side claims to rely upon. Then one can assess the accuracy of those claims. Some things that one side or the other assert may turn out to be unsupportable, others verifiable. It may turn out that there are things of which both sides need to accept. But there doesn't have to be. That is why the synthesis model does not universally apply.
First of all, who put forward thesis, antithesis, synthesis before Hegel? Secondly it is interesting that you never read him. If you did, you might realize that synthesis is not a template to resolve all intellectual disputes. It would be illuminating to me to tell me what atheists and believers can agree on. Come on. Let's hear it. Frankly I am too busy earning a living to respond to all your postings. But this thread was too tempting to ignore.
There is no synthesis of pre-scientific religious fables with fact and evidence based critical thinking unless you think that basing what one believes on fact, evidence and critical thinking is just unsupportable in on its own.
Sometimes a stated thesis or opposition to one is simply wrong and does not contribute to any supposed synthesis. In regard to this I think of Aristotle's discussion of the mean and the extreme in his Metaphysics. When applied to moral issues, sometimes there is no middle ground. "Sometimes the mean is the extreme." The opposing side is simply wrong. T
Well, you've had two weeks to come up with ONE instance of one unsupportable and in fact even one unsupported assertions by atheists and have not done so. Your uncritical faith in Hegel's formulation thesis, antithesis and synthesis, that it applies in all cases does not work.
I like Heidegger better than Wittgenstein. I was enthralled with the Tractatus Logico-Philisophicus by Wittgenstein as a young man, but I have met a number of people who study his works and strangely seem easily confused.
There is no synthesis possible between religionists and non-believers. Either one believes in the supernatural of one sort of another or she or he doesn't. To me religions spout unsupported and in fact unsupportable ideas. What they purport is furthermore incoherent and inconsistent.
I Think that what you call "commonality" is as vague a concept as "soul". The word "spark" in in your phrase "spark of life" cannot be literally a "spark" as what for example comes off a fire. It must be a metaphor. but a metaphor for what? I suppose that consciousness itself is mysterious and wondrous as a phenomenon but I don't know that your spark business advances understanding any.