1) In your words, what is a militant atheist, and why is it hard being one?
The terms a bit of hyperbole. I guess the militancy bit comes from frustration with the attitude (at least in the circles I often run in) that agnosticism is the only respectable position. I don't there's good evidence for the existence of G-d, I don't think it's a beneficial posit, and I don't see why I should hedge my bets.
The reference to Camus is to "The Myth of Sisyphus." What Camus realizes is that taking the position that there's not some intelligence making the universe all hang together raises some serious questions that many folks who reject religion don't really answer. Now, part of my problem with religion is that I don't think positing G-d really answers them either, but just gives the appearance of it - but that's another story. But taking atheism seriously means - to put it in a cariacature - that no, not everything will work out fine in the end on its own and that hence we have a heavy responsibility to do something about it. And well, there's a good chance that evil will win and nothing will get resolved. Cheery, eh?
2) As a Philosophy Doctor, what is your favored philosophical system, and why?
I'm a Pragmatist, basically. More in the Deweyan mold than anything else (but I keep meaning to write a paper boosting for James' definition of truth). More specifically, in the fields I focus on: a fairly radical particularist, and more or less a consequentialist about morality; a deliberative democrat in my political theory; and a Realist (though a weirdish one) in the philosophy of law.
Have to do this in 2 parts again...
The terms a bit of hyperbole. I guess the militancy bit comes from frustration with the attitude (at least in the circles I often run in) that agnosticism is the only respectable position. I don't there's good evidence for the existence of G-d, I don't think it's a beneficial posit, and I don't see why I should hedge my bets.
The reference to Camus is to "The Myth of Sisyphus." What Camus realizes is that taking the position that there's not some intelligence making the universe all hang together raises some serious questions that many folks who reject religion don't really answer. Now, part of my problem with religion is that I don't think positing G-d really answers them either, but just gives the appearance of it - but that's another story. But taking atheism seriously means - to put it in a cariacature - that no, not everything will work out fine in the end on its own and that hence we have a heavy responsibility to do something about it. And well, there's a good chance that evil will win and nothing will get resolved. Cheery, eh?
2) As a Philosophy Doctor, what is your favored philosophical system, and why?
I'm a Pragmatist, basically. More in the Deweyan mold than anything else (but I keep meaning to write a paper boosting for James' definition of truth). More specifically, in the fields I focus on: a fairly radical particularist, and more or less a consequentialist about morality; a deliberative democrat in my political theory; and a Realist (though a weirdish one) in the philosophy of law.