Reply to Stanley Fish (NYTimes Blog 10 June 2007)
(Times Select required to read the original,unfortunately)
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=50
The fact that the monothestic religions all purport to address 'doubt' (not atheism) in their dogma is not an argument which supports the treatise proposed (or implied) by Prof. Fish, which seems to be that atheism discounts the possible validity of religious writing by not crediting it with its own internal discussion. Perhaps a better analogy is that of the neurotic or schizoid personality who has to constantly argue with himself over whether to believe the voices in his head.
Man, if anything, is the only creature who assigns himself such self-importance in the universe so as to presume the ability to debate original causes.
Pure observation, as Lucretius wrote and Epicurus taught, dissolves the need or the desire for a single Author. The scientific method of reason and observation, although weakened by the often excessive egos of its apologists, is nonetheless that through which the most true expression of original cause may be eventually discerned.
All the rest is comfort against mortality... Pleasant enough, but fairy tales nonetheless. When these are magnified through the manipulations of alpha-male primate behavioral patterns into "Divine Writ", upon which all manner of evil may proceed unimpeded by love or reason -- THAT is the original sin.
