Uncle Scott vs. An Angry Atheist

Pointy-Haired Boss” border=

Copyright (C) Scott Adams, Inc.

Scott Adams has recently gotten himself into a blog-food-fight with an "angry atheist."

I’ve mentioned in this blog, when people associate with a point of
view, they begin to lose objectivity. For example, if you were
President of the Unicorn Association of America, and spent your days
explaining how wonderful unicorns are, you would become married to that
viewpoint. If 400 peer-reviewed scientific articles suddenly appeared
indicating that all unicorns are pedophiles, you would be unable to
accept that evidence. That’s how normal human brains work, i.e.,

"Check out an angry atheist’s response to my two
posts on Pascal’s Wager. I don’t think he appreciates the
philosotainment benefit of watching the Dilbert cartoonist whip people
like him into a frenzy."


Read more…

Knowing how Scott Adams wields his blog to stir the mainstream pot, I can’t help but be sorry for the angry atheist. Humor always trumps dry rebuttals, especially from atheists who are dead certain of their beliefs.

Having said that, allow me to reflect on my own belief at this point in
my life. Although I’m still technically a (non-practicing) Catholic, my
philosophy is mostly influenced by Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism. Per
Buddha’s advice, I subscribe to "The Middle Way."
I think it is very scientific and gives room for the unknowable (e.g.

Atheism is not like that. It is rooted in Aristotelian two-valued
logic, logic of "either, or." Buddhist logic (aka Tetralemma) is more sophisticated.
Here’s a quote from Russell Targ explaining the difference between these logic systems:

"I believe that we are neither a "self" nor "not a self," but that we
are awareness residing as a body. This is the sort of apparent paradox
about who we are that may not be solvable within the framework of what
we call "Aristotelian two-valued logic" — the logic system basic to
all of Western analytical thought. In the two-valued logic, we frame
our reality with questions like "Are we mortal or immortal?" "Is the
mind or soul part of the body?" or "Is light made of waves or
particles?" But none of these have "yes" or "no" answers. The exclusion
of a middle ground between the poles of Aristotelian logic is the
source of much confusion. Other logic systems have been suggested in
Buddhist writings; the great second-century dharma master and teacher
Nagarjuna introduced a four-valued logic system in which statements
about the world can be (1) true, (2) not true, (3) both true and not
true, (4) neither true nor not true — which Nagarjuna believed was the
usual case — thereby illumination what is known as the Buddhist Middle
Path. According to Nagarjuna, the Buddha first taught that the world is
real. He next taught that it is unreal. To the more astute students, he
taught that it is both real and not real. And to those who were
furthest along the path, he taught that the world is neither real nor
not real, which is what we would say today."

So you see, that’s why I’m more of an agnostic than an atheist. If
people want to call that "weak atheism," so be it. I think they’re the
ones who are making a fool of themselves.

But the real question I want to ask our angry atheist is: Which level of God do you *not* believe in?