|
well, every once in a while in the context of debates about this matter, i post something on the order of: these debates are disputes over axioms. axioms cannot be demonstrated from within proofs that presuppose them.
the rules that shape a proof can be indentical for theists and atheists, but the divergent axioms would still lead to different results.
if the existence of a god is taken as axiomatic, its effects can and will be dragged through the whole of a proof without necessarily resulting in a violation of the rules.
so a theist could produce claims that are formally speaking "true"
and a parallel situation obtains for atheists.
the most likely outcome is what lyotard called a differend--a space where arguments concerning the same thing (say) simply talk past each other.
in hobbes you find the same problem--except there the scenario involves an assumption of scarcity of material goods and competing, internally valid (and therefore "true") claims on those goods. the result would be war--so an outside arbiter is required who can make arbitrary decisions that have the force of law. the idea is not that this arbiter would have any access to a higher form of insight and so be able to determine which internally consistent (thereby "true") claim is more true than the other--rather, the arbiter would simply find one or the other argument more persuasive and make a decision based on that and that would resolve the fight over scarce goods--and it would be legit because it offered something like a solution in a scenario where the alternative is war of all against all.
in a messageboard, the war of all against all is not an issue.
so the result of debates over axioms is usually a differend.
what is confusing is the tendency for folk on both sides of these debates to act as though they can, from within their own set of axioms, manage to falsify the proofs of others which operate with different axioms.
you could, i suppose, rig up a meta-game wherein everybody agrees to rules concerning the nature and meaning of higher-order proofs that take on axioms: but christians (in particular) routinely are not amenable to this game because, in the end, faith kicks in at around this point, and faith is not falsifiable on these grounds.
the counter argument from that side is generally that atheism is no different in that it too presupposes articles of faith--and that is a non-trivial objection in itself--but i havent seen a theist stop there--and the next move---which is to claim that because it relies on matters of faith at some levels that atheism is therefore a form of religion--is just stupid--because what this sets up is yet another badly framed inevitably pissy dispute about axioms. if this goes on long enough, the theist--particularly a christian--will simply opt out again by referencing faith.
round and round.
nothing happens.
round and round.
more nothing.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|