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

January 22, 2012 By 3 Comments

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?

Filed Under: Atheism, Personal 3 Comments
  • 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.

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers 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.