Part 3 of my interview with Bret at "Anything But Theist"

The first part of my four part interview with Anything But Theist was about Nietzsche’s role in my deconversion and about my views on the various kinds of atheists and Christians I observe. The second part of the interview focused on whether or how to prioritize truth against other competing values. (I’ll have more to say about those themes in a post I’ll put up this afternoon.)

Part three of the interview is harder to sum up simply. It is a free flowing and constantly changing discussion about the nature of atheism, New Atheism, my atheism, and my atheist blogging. You can read it here.

Your Thoughts?

Drunken Mall Santa
Comparing Humanism and Religion and Exploring Their Relationships to Each Other
Before I Deconverted: I Saw My First “Secular Humanist” On TV
ISIS’s Iconoclasm, The Bible, and The Problem With Taking Literalism Literally
About Daniel Fincke

Dr. Daniel Fincke  has his PhD in philosophy from Fordham University and spent 11 years teaching in college classrooms. He wrote his dissertation on Ethics and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. On Camels With Hammers, the careful philosophy blog he writes for a popular audience, Dan argues for atheism and develops a humanistic ethical theory he calls “Empowerment Ethics”. Dan also teaches affordable, non-matriculated, video-conferencing philosophy classes on ethics, Nietzsche, historical philosophy, and philosophy for atheists that anyone around the world can sign up for. (You can learn more about Dan’s online classes here.) Dan is an APPA  (American Philosophical Practitioners Association) certified philosophical counselor who offers philosophical advice services to help people work through the philosophical aspects of their practical problems or to work out their views on philosophical issues. (You can read examples of Dan’s advice here.) Through his blogging, his online teaching, and his philosophical advice services each, Dan specializes in helping people who have recently left a religious tradition work out their constructive answers to questions of ethics, metaphysics, the meaning of life, etc. as part of their process of radical worldview change.

  • bv

    I think this post’s title has an extra ‘A’ in it :)

  • bv

    Sorry, I posted this on Bret’s site earlier, but copied it over here, since the response is being requested from you:

    Considering your philosophical background, what is your take on Gordon Clark?
    I haven’t read a single thing he’s published, but just saw an article ‘challenging’ me to read some of his work, and surely I’ll come to doubt my atheism…I doubt that.
    From what I can tell at a brief glance, theists believe Dr Clark ‘proves’ that we can’t ever conclude the truth.
    Sorry if too far off-topic.

    • Daniel Fincke

      Sorry I missed this earlier. I read Gordon Clark a very long time ago (1997 as a college freshman in a Philosophical Theology class devoted to defending presuppositionalism). In a nutshell, I remember his position as being that we need God in order for there to be logic. But Yahweh is in many ways an illogical being and Christian concepts from the personal god to the trinity are flat out irrational and illogical. The logical principle of being cannot be equated in any rational way whatsoever with the deity (deities, even) of the Hebrew Scriptures of the Christian ones.