By

Zeno was a philosopher in Ancient Greece, who was well known for proposing paradoxes. One involved shooting an arrow at a tree. Zeno observed that at any one moment in that arrows flight it has a certain position in space. Every succeeding moment can be thought of as a different position. This being the case, he reasoned that it made no sense to assign a speed to a moment, and if there is no speed in a moment, how does the arrow move? This may seem strange and irrelevant, but this particular paradox presented a serious problem for logic and physics.

The solution, is as marvelous as it is unsatisfying, at least to me. The solution is called Calculus. It doesn’t so much solve the logical conundrum as much as bypass it, to find useful solutions based on varying degrees of approximation. Good for physics, not so good for philosophy.

The crux of the paradox, as with other paradoxes lies in having two seemingly contradictory ideas about the same thing. In Zeno’s case it was about our conception of velocity vs position.

Another similar example is how we think of Time: does time actually flow, or is it just a series of consecutive moments? No answer so far.

Paradoxes exist because our minds can conceptualize the same thing, in different ways. This can lead to new discoveries, but it can also entail endless argument when one group decides one conceptualization is the correct one, and another group takes the opposite position.

When I have discussions with other atheists, quite often the latter becomes the case, in large part because atheism is such a thin commonality to base any kind of community on.

The communist vs objectivist aspect of the atheist community is a good example of this. The two sides simply value different things. So even when they appear to be talking about the same thing, they really aren’t. They are actually talking past each other, and therefore see each other as irrational.

I think this is also the case with the recent Islam discussions. Some take the view that freedom of religion equals freedom from religion, so its perfectly reasonable to defend the rights of Muslims. An opposing view, not the only one, is that any sort of faith-based decision-making is irrational, and therefore dangerous, and therefore should be opposed.

Both can be deduced logically, but they have distinct and opposing premises. Which is more important to you? Freedom or Reason?

As a relativist, my answer is, unsurprisingly, it depends. Others however, are more wedded to one or the other.

So if this sounds crazy to you, check your assumptions, I bet mine are different… either that, or it’s the other thing…. which reminds me…

Don’t Drink and Blog.