I can't imagine wanting to be a "good" atheist, or a "good" anything else for that matter.

I have no problem with who or what I am.

I have no need for a crutch to lean on in this life.

I have no problem deciding right from wrong, & I need no moral guidance.

I will decide my future & my mode of life.

I will help anyone, who asks for help, nicely. I will not respond to anyone's demands.

I will fit in with society, provided society makes no unacceptable demands.

When I think of people who belong to a creed I have no objection, & believe it must be the best way for most, but I can't help thinking of that add for Carnation tinned milk, as the add said, "the milk from MMMOOO contented cows". Probably as good a way to go as any other.

Dear Banjo,

Please note that I just suggested an explanation of a terminology in (classical, pre-symbolic) logic as I - or anybody - could google it out. I personally would not use it, neither is this terminology being used explicitly in mathematics (implicitly of course, as in any rational discourse). It is up to AJ Philips to tell you whether this is what he had in mind. As it stands, it certainly has nothing to do with theism or atheism as AJ Philips will confirm.

You might object to the noun “absolutes” when used in a philosophical context, as many do. However, the adjective “absolute” is being used in many contexts - e.g. you could not get far in high school mathematics without the concept of the absolute value of a real or complex number - and again it has nothing to do with philosophical absolutes. The same with “true” and “false” when used in symbolic logic (c.f. “truth tables”) that also your computer understands, and essentially no computer programme could do without.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« You might object to the noun “absolutes” ... the adjective “absolute” is being used in many contexts - e.g. you could not get far in high school mathematics without the concept of the absolute value of a real or complex number … same with “true” and “false” when used in symbolic logic (c.f. “truth tables”) that also your computer understands, and essentially no computer programme could do without. »

As the English physicist, James Hopwood Jeans, observed :

« All the pictures which science now draws of nature and which alone seem capable of according with observational fact are mathematical pictures…From the intrinsic evidence of his creation, the Great Architect of the Universe now begins to appear as a pure mathematician. »

Unfortunately, the terms “absolute”, “true” and “false” are not “neutral” in essence but tainted by ecclesiastical overtones. The emancipation of science from the authority of religion has been a long and tedious struggle, perhaps not yet fully completed. There are still traces of religion in many of the terms employed by mathematics and science.

The term “absolute”, for example, finds its origin in the Latin “absolvere” to absolve, meaning “to free from guilt or blame, to grant or pronounce remission of sins”. The term “true” derives from “trow” (before 900) Middle English “trowen”, Old English “treow” to believe, derivative of treow belief; akin to Old Norse “trua”, German “trauen”, Gothic “trauan”, to trust, believe. The term “false” derives from the Latin “fallere” to deceive.

As indicated previously, instead of “absolute” I suggest “consistent”, instead of “true”, I prefer the terms exact, correct or accurate, and inexact, incorrect or inaccurate instead of “false”.

In an interview in City Limits in London in 1988, the American author, Harry Mathews is quoted as having declared on the subject of language :

« Syntax and vocabulary are overwhelming constraints—the rules that run us. Language is using us to talk—we think we're using the language, but language is doing the thinking, we're its slavish agents »

.

Dear Banjo,

I do not think it would be very helpful if we tried to rename concepts in general use just because for somebody the syntax of the original name reminds him of something he doesn’t like. When I first came to Paris half a century ago I thought Hôtel de Ville was the hotel where the devil stayed when he visited Paris (:-)). Should I have therefore suggested the French change their name for the Paris “Town Hall”?

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

" When I first came to Paris half a century ago I thought Hôtel de Ville was the hotel where the devil stayed when he visited Paris "

I do not see that as a problem of language in the sense of my previous post. The french word "ville" derives from the Latin "villa" which designates an agricultural property, a farm or a country village. It has no religious overtones relating to the devil.

Would you kindly explain the connection you see ?

I agree thet it is unrealistic to imagine that maths and science will, one day, be totally purged of terms originating from and alluding to religious dogma. But as it is, perhaps, impossible to think without words, we should be aware of the fact that our scientiste and, perhaps to a lesser extent, our mathematicians, are thinking at least in part, "under religious influence".

.

Dear Banjo,
>>Would you kindly explain the connection you see ?<<

Hôtel de Ville has as much to do with the devil as do e.g. absolute values (in mathematics) and truth tables (in symbolic logic) with “ecclesiastical overtones” or “religious dogma”. That was all. The devil came into it because of its phonetic closeness to de Ville.

If you mean that our Western culture is unthinkable without its Christian (and Hebrew and Greek) roots, which is reflected also in the etymology of many words used to describe abstract concepts intrinsic to our culture, I agree.

Also, atheist (as well as theist) scientists or mathematicians who use such standard in their field terminology would not be happy with the accusation that they are doing their profession "under religious influence". Neither is, I presume, AJ Philips.