31 Dec '05 12:11>
This is not meant to be a rhetorical question. What use is atheism/skepticism, if any? Not that is has to be useful: it could merely be empirically or logically warranted. But, crucially, utility is not reducible to, nor necessarily even positively related to, warrant. Indeed, the relation may be negative: for example, theism/credulity may be, on balance, fiarly useful but fairly unwarranted, whereas atheism/skepticism may be, on balance, fairly useless (or "anti-useful"😉 but fairly warranted.
Of course, the issue is made more complicated by the fact that there are different types of utility, if not warrant (and different types of theism/atheism--sheeh). But let's suppose that, on the whole, atheism/skepticism is less useful than theism/credulity, albeit more warranted. (For example, only theism cements social bonds, despite being intellectually problematic). Could an atheist/skeptic ever be under an obligation not to promulgate atheism/skepticism under such circumstances? Why should warrant always be a greater source of moral obligation than use?
Of course, the issue is made more complicated by the fact that there are different types of utility, if not warrant (and different types of theism/atheism--sheeh). But let's suppose that, on the whole, atheism/skepticism is less useful than theism/credulity, albeit more warranted. (For example, only theism cements social bonds, despite being intellectually problematic). Could an atheist/skeptic ever be under an obligation not to promulgate atheism/skepticism under such circumstances? Why should warrant always be a greater source of moral obligation than use?