I find it interesting that this article is in the issue that reports the consideration of new student fee increases. Professor McCormick has every right to teach students these ideas but its of my opinion that these ideas should be taught to an on-campus club and not through a publicly funded class.

I disagree completely with the previous comment. McCormick is teaching a philosophy class and atheism is a philosophy, just one Nick doesn't seem to like. Think for a moment. Don't most philosophy programs delve into the works of writers like Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin, Hobbes, Pascal and the like? All of them are writers who talk about the nature of "god." If we're going to allow religious thought to be addressed in a publicly-funded philosophy program, then in all fairness, atheism should rightfully be part of it as well. Otherwise, the program simply would deny students access to a key aspect of philosophy's most heated debate. Sure, they might go to a campus club, but keeping it out of the mainstream classrooms would amount censorship in a place where ideas are supposed to be exchanged and discussed openly. And, it would imply that the university takes a specific position on religion, a move that would probably alienate a lot of students whether theist, atheist or agnostic.
Look, there are strains of philosophy that I find offensive too. Take Marxism, for example. But I wouldn't for a second think to restrict the teaching of communist philosophy just because I happen to think Marx was an idiot. And atheism, for better or worse, won't just go away by placing limits on education.

NOTE: Preface every statement made below with "as far as I understand." It's hard to be conclusive on these types of things, and in the end, it's anybody's (and everybody's) game.

I inferred from the article that the class studied the philosophical arguments behind atheism, not why it's right or wrong. If my inference is correct, than the claim that the philosophy of Atheism shouldn't be taught would mean that no philosophy course based in metaphysics should be taught. Any philosophical statement that centered around a self-contained whole would not be worthy of academic discussion. This includes both religion and atheism, as well as a great deal of other terms and ideas.

What I mean by "self-contained whole," starting with the example the judeo-christian God:

Yahweh, Jehovah, God, whatever His name, it is mostly agreed that the Creator lives outside of our plane of existence, is not restricted by the laws of our world (in fact is independent of it,) and will provide an afterlife for humanity in a Kingdom also removed from our plane of existence.

Humanity has created a process that can successfully interpret and predict interactions in our world. Some people call it common sense, and at its most intuitive, the process can be deemed such, but I prefer the more general term, logic.

Logic is possible because of the cause-effect relationships within our world, mainly determined by how objects move through the two great distinctive properties in the universe, space and time.

The claim is that there is a God whom exists outside of space and time, outside of our reality, and therefore, outside of the realm where logic is useful. What data can we extrapolate to prove the existence of a being who leaves no footprints, casts no shadow, voices no echo? Do we just lack the technology to see God as we lack the technology to see dark matter?

It is funny, because most people see God the same way we see dark matter: we know how light interacts in space, and against the surface of planets and under the force of high-intensity gravitational pulls, and wherever light doesn't interact as predicted, there is dark matter.

God often receives credit for holes in our logical constructs, the unexplainable. In microbiology, what causes a quark to be up or down? What are the building blocks of quarks? What is the nuclear force? Or, in the case of the House rerun that aired on TV last night, what was it that stopped the Cuban refugee's heart, that also later allowed her to survive when she was taken off the machine that kept her alive?

The way dark matter interacts with the universe, however, is quantifiable. How do you quantify God? Why not call God "chance" or "destiny?" Make a word; any could fill the hole where God finds sanctuary in our world, from a rainbow serpent to a Mother Goddess to a Flying Spaghetti Monster. How could you disprove any of these possible creator Gods if they live outside of our realm and offer the promise of an afterlife (which, by definition, exists outside of our current life and reality?)

God is a self-contained whole. For those familiar with Northrop Frye, God is a motif, or a centripetal text (depending on the context.) God focuses inwards on itself, and it cannot point, with a sense of causality, anything outside of itself.

So too with atheism. How COULD someone prove the negative of statement that reflects an existence beyond our perception? Unless some scientist makes the claim that, there is a constant ForceG reflecting the Divine Power within any given parameters, or even that God granted humans the ability to produce language, or even that he affects us directly at all.

The statement that there is no God may not be centripetal, but it is futile. The philosopher trying to prove that God doesn't exist and the one who is out to prove He does exist face the same conundrum: neither have the tools, the technology, nor the process to make proof possible.

But Professor McCormick is writing a book on how it is, and I'm curious as to how. And everytime I hear a discussion about whether God exists or not, despite the fact that I've decided the question itself is futile, I find myself getting involved.

Because even if God, or the non-existence of God, or whether there is such a thing as pure "truth" or pure "justice" exists, these metaphysical, unprovable questions, are the theoreticals that drive the psyche of woman and man alike to improve themselves, to want to do better. Sure, most of us DON'T struggle with the existence of God, or Truth everyday, but all of us have used idealizations and ideals as a crutch for decisive action.

"I am doing this because it is Good."

Well, what the Hell is good? Can you prove it? Prove it. You can't. The closest we've gotten to defining good is that there _may_ be applications of good that seem to comply with the standards of all existing human societies, though none to my knowledge have been defined nor agreed upon. Even if they were agreed upon, it's still a concession; logically, every society could be wrong. But it's all we got to guide ourselves, because logic, though a basis for action, is not the end goal of action.

The ethical person has to question the abstract, and, hopefully, logic, our best weapon against our own biases, can be turned against us to make us a "better" person. Whatever better is, and whether it can exist within a person unto oneself or can only be measured within the realm of social norms, I leave to the reader.

I am a Sac State Alumni and I certainly wish this class had been available during my time at CSUS. Though I am an atheist, the interesting thing about the possibilities of a class like this would be in-class discussions as to the opinions of why some people believe and some don't. Obviously god is not going to appear in the class to prove he does exist, but that doesn't prove he DOESN'T exist. We all have the same information and some have interpreted it as fact and others have interpreted it as myth. Is it the survival instinct to believe that one can continue life even after death? Is it the social or cultural environment in which a child grows up in during the early influential years? Is it a tool to be used to help give one strength to change from a life a crime or drug or alcohol addiction (98% of prisoners in US believe, high number of recovering addicts cite faith in "higher power" helped them to recover). Is it just the last hope for a soldier in a foxhole? It would be a very interesting class. Wish I was still there to take it.

I would love to take such a course, or teach one. One of the questions that has haunted me is this: If religion could be ended today, would the order that it gives to society throw people into existential insecurity which they've never been prepared for? Would society begin to unravel without the non-questioning tribalism many seem to need to cope with the fears inherent in living and dying?
Scotty

Personally, I think it is great that Sac State is teaching people about Atheistic philosophy. However,I would like people to know how Atheism as a general world view cannot account for freewill, the uniformity of nature, the laws of logic, categories, human dignity, and morality.