| BookTalk.org News |
| • BookTalk.org News will soon go out via email in HTML format. The goal will be to keep people posted on our current book discussions and other relevant news items. |
| • Contest #2: "On The Importance of Reading" has started. Visit the Contests forum - the very top thread. |
| Donate & Support BookTalk.org |
Please support our free community by making a credit card donation through our secure PayPal account. We appreciate and depend on the generosity of our members. Thank you! •
See who supports us
|
| Show us where you live! |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Robert Tulip  Intern
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 199
Gender: 
Location: Canberra

|
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 9:26 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
DH has done us a good service in defining the method of fundamentalism as independent of its content. The irony is that scientists and atheists have a method which is non-fundamentalist in essence, in that it is based on enquiry and evidence. However, their views often become encrusted by political and cultural factors. For example, refutation of simple creationist arguments is invalidly assumed to also refute more complex and coherent spiritual perspectives. This encrusting - by which I mean that the worldview develops an impervious crust which even valid outside ideas cannot enter - is the path of fundamentalism.
DH's comments on nihilism present quite a challenge to atheism. The assumption central to much atheism, that there is no intrinsic meaning and purpose in life, leads to inability to formulate a coherent theory of values. Arguing that values are merely subjective is well down the slippery slope of nihilism, in my opinion. I can't see how you can have an atheism that is not nihilistic, except by giving ground to theism and equating the universe with God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
| Recent Topics |
|
|
|