Which Is Parasitic, Atheism Or Theism?

[Yozavan]

Metaphorically, which is parasitic, atheism or theism? Which side hosts an alien intruder, that eats away its hapless victim? What does the parasite gain? What does its host lose?


I suppose the sophisticated theologian would opine, that any view which lacks at its center: the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and the salvific obedience thereof, would be parasitic; with Satan as the parasite and the host his digestive prey, as an affront to the Divine image.


I suppose the sophisticated atheist would opine, that any view which lacks at its center: the independence from supernatural mechanisms, and the liberty thereof, to be parasitic, with humanity's propensity for imaginative thinking to be the parasite, with no digestive purpose.. ( Unless nature's defense be argued , which would presuppose de facto that nature is cognitive as a whole, which would be a pantheistic argument. )

Addendum: This is in the spirit of Daniel Dennett and Michael Shermer.

Michael Shermer mentions in his book: Why People Believe Weird Things, that " evolution gives us two types of thinking. Causal thinking and critical thinking. Casual thinking tends to lead to magical thinking, while critical thinking tends to lead to pattern seeking and problem solving. Humanity can never divorce itself from magical thinking."

Daniel Dennett frequently calls religious tendencies a parasite in his book, Breaking The Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon.

[The Tanager]

Conveniently not. Because if logic is real, in that contradictions cannot be true, living by that assumption is also correct.

But if there is no logic, there can be no reasoning or justification for anything so everything is equally valid, and picking reason over unreason is the same as picking blueberry over banana; just a flavour choice.

See, if all is chaos, you're not wrong to think all is not chaos, because the kind of truth that would make not-X false if X is true, does not even exist.

I'm not talking about the practicality of it, but their beliefs. If atheism can't ground rationality and they value rationality, then they should reject their atheism.

[Purple Knight]

I'm not talking about the practicality of it, but their beliefs. If atheism can't ground rationality and they value rationality, then they should reject their atheism.

But religion can't ground mouse fancy, so should all people who like mice give up their religion?

[The Tanager]

But religion can't ground mouse fancy, so should all people who like mice give up their religion?

First off, although I don't think you misunderstand me, technically I'm talking about theism and atheism, not religion. I think there are key distinctions that could cause confusion. Second, why can't theism ground liking mice?

[Purple Knight]

But religion can't ground mouse fancy, so should all people who like mice give up their religion?

First off, although I don't think you misunderstand me, technically I'm talking about theism and atheism, not religion. I think there are key distinctions that could cause confusion.

That's fair. But theism manifests, usually, as some sort of religion by the time it can ground anything.

Second, why can't theism ground liking mice?

I imagine it can. You could say God is a mouse, for example, and have keeping mice be something you do, to get closer to God. But if theism couldn't ground mouse fancy, that wouldn't mean people would have to give up either their theism or their mice. That's my point. You can like two things. You can believe two things. You can believe mice are cool and God exists. You could also believe Reason is valid, and God doesn't exist.

[The Tanager]

I imagine it can. You could say God is a mouse, for example, and have keeping mice be something you do, to get closer to God. But if theism couldn't ground mouse fancy, that wouldn't mean people would have to give up either their theism or their mice. That's my point. You can like two things. You can believe two things. You can believe mice are cool and God exists. You could also believe Reason is valid, and God doesn't exist.

This is the valid argument I'm offering:

A1. If atheism is true, then reason is invalid
A2. Reason is not invalid
A3. Therefore, atheism is not true

If yours is a true analogy, then your argument would be:

B1. If theism is true, then mouse fancy is non-existent
B2. Mouse fancy exists
B3. Therefore, theism is not true

I'd have to choose mouse fancy or theism to be rational. You seem to be disagreeing with B1. But that would make this a dis-analogy with what I was claiming.

[Purple Knight]

A1. If atheism is true, then reason is invalid

Why would this be the case?

[The Tanager]

A1. If atheism is true, then reason is invalid

Why would this be the case?

How does atheism ground the existence of reason?

[Purple Knight]

A1. If atheism is true, then reason is invalid

Why would this be the case?

How does atheism ground the existence of reason?

Why does atheism have to ground Reason? Why can't it be Reason at the bottom, grounding everything else? I detailed why, even if we live in a chaotic universe (and, we probably don't) Reason is a perfectly valid thing to believe in.

If we're just picking things to believe in, there can be two or more things on the bottom.

[The Tanager]

Why does atheism have to ground Reason? Why can't it be Reason at the bottom, grounding everything else? I detailed why, even if we live in a chaotic universe (and, we probably don't) Reason is a perfectly valid thing to believe in.

If we're just picking things to believe in, there can be two or more things on the bottom.

The theism/atheism question is logically prior to what kind of reality exists because theism asserts God is logically prior to the rest of reality and atheism disagrees.

[Purple Knight]

The theism/atheism question is logically prior to what kind of reality exists because theism asserts God is logically prior to the rest of reality and atheism disagrees.

What reality is/isn't doesn't depend on whether it was created or not, though. Do you really have to answer whether there is a God-creator before you answer whether or not you have a corn kernel on your plate, just because theism asserts that God is logically prior to the corn kernel?