Disputatio:Sponsio atheistae
Latest comment: abhinc 4 annos by Sigur in topic Excusatio?
Pagina huic coniuncta e conversione paginae “Atheist's Wager” sitūs en.wikipedia.org orta est.
Auctoribus illius paginae hic enumeratis gratias agimus.
Aquesta pàgina es basa en una traducció de „Atheist's Wager“ a en.wikipedia.org. Podeu trobar la llista d'editors aquí.
Die angegliederte Seite basiert ursprünglich auf einer Übersetzung von „Atheist's Wager“ aus en.wikipedia.org. Eine Liste der Autoren ist hier verfügbar.
The attached page originated as a translation from the page “Atheist's Wager” on the site en.wikipedia.org.
We are grateful to the authors of that page as listed here.
We are grateful to the authors of that page as listed here.
La apuda paĝo origine baziĝas sur traduko de “Atheist's Wager” el en.wikipedia.org. Listo de la ĝentilaj artikolverkintoj haveblas ĉi tie.
Excusatio? recensere
Sigur, titulum Atheism: A Philosophical Justification convertens, mutasti excusatio in argumentatio, dicens "I doubt that Martin merely wished to 'excuse' atheists"—sed Cassells nobis ait "justification, purgatio, excusatio" et Traupman nobis ait "justification s excusatio." Praeterea, excusing atheists—offering a defense of their position—seems to be exactly what the sponsio atheistae is trying to do. :/ IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:37, 28 Maii 2019 (UTC)
- Both your English and your Latin are quite obviously better than mine, so I won't argue if you fail to be convinced. But here is my thinking: First, what does "excusatio" mean? I double-checked, of course, because in Latin even more than in other languages, one needs to beware of false friends, but "excuso" really appears to mean "to excuse" (ex-cuso - to free from a charge (causa); to be compared to the opposite action: ac-cuso). The bottom line here is that the "causa" to be freed from is always implied to be something bad (why would one want to be freed from it otherwise?). As to "justification", it can of course mean exactly the same thing (as "justified" by its etymology: iustus+facio), but it seems to me that it can have a more neutral meaning in English, e.g. one could "justify" the theory of relativity (while there is nothing morally bad or good about that theory, it can only be right or wrong) - and of course, in my other use of the word, etymology can only be right or wrong as well. Therefore, "justification" can also simply be understood as giving reasons for a position.
- If you put yourself in the shoes of an atheist who sets out to play in Blaise Pascal's league for a second now, would you countenance the idea that atheism is something prima facie bad that needs an excuse? Obviously not. You would consider evident that atheists are the good guys, just as much as Pascal must have considered evident that Christians are the good guys. Granted, you are trying to convince people who are not yet convinced of that, but to do that you certainly would not give them an unfair advantage by conceding something that you consider erroneous.
- Thus, the only sense I can make of "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" is the one that corresponds to "Theory of Relativity: A Cosmological Justification". And I don't see that "excusatio" renders that (although there may be better than "argumentatio", I don't know that). Sigur (disputatio) 16:21, 28 Maii 2019 (UTC)
- No time for discourse today, but the other possibility that comes to mind here is apologia. (There's also defensio.) Maybe other English-speakers will offer suggestions. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:52, 28 Maii 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing against "apologia" from my side. Sigur (disputatio) 18:25, 28 Maii 2019 (UTC)
- No time for discourse today, but the other possibility that comes to mind here is apologia. (There's also defensio.) Maybe other English-speakers will offer suggestions. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:52, 28 Maii 2019 (UTC)