Tuesday, December 22, 2020

On Medium: What is Godlessness?

An article on how godlessness is much more than atheism, namely the enlightenment that sees through not just theistic religions but secular idols, civil religions, and noble lies.


  1. Santo's//Greta Steiner Kahane Rabbinovitz Spectre Ocasio de Kamala von Thunberg und SorosDecember 24, 2020 at 4:49 PM

    There is a very common tendency for atheists to adopt nihilism, materialism or "earthly ideologies" as a way of thinking and living. But disbelief in fantasies implies the certainty of existential truths that inevitably unite us, for example, that we are all essentially equal and therefore that altruism and solidarity are of great value compared to their respective opposites.
    However, in addition to scientism, we also have the problem of philosophism, which is its opposite, in which science is neglected in favor of philosophical aesthetics. in both cases the result is the same: dysfunctionality in the noble and basic act of adding knowledge or understanding about reality. As I have already mentioned here, the true and only religion is the existential truths, the most important of all. Because it doesn't matter what we can know or understand specifically because everything will be engulfed by the breath of death or finitude. True religion is the core of philosophy and maximum sanity, of knowing that, in the end, we will go to the same "place". Mythology or false religion passes itself off as true religion because it places itself as the holder of the most important truths, saying that the box we carry is full, has paradise, purgatory, hell, angels, demons, while the main role of true philosophy is to point only to truths and that in this, the box is empty.

    1. That's quite the name you have now.

      But your comment is more or less what I've been saying also, about how the idea of the existential should replace that of the spiritual. As I understand it, this was Rudolph Bultmann's Heideggerian view of why the gospels should be demythologized.

      There used to be a lot written about the cold war between the two cultures in academia, between the sciences and the humanities, the point being that each ignored the other. It's also a question of specialization and the fragmentation of knowledge, since no one can master all current knowledge.

      There's also a difference between ignoring certain knowledge and actively proclaiming that the limited knowledge you have (either science or philosophy) is sufficient or complete. I don't know anyone in the humanities who denies that scientific knowledge exists. What there are are the self-refuting relativists and postmodernists who deny there's any such thing as objective knowledge.

    2. Santo's//Greta Steiner Kahane Rabbinovitz Spectre Ocasio de Kamala von Thunberg und SorosDecember 26, 2020 at 7:04 AM

      Thanks. it is because I am revisiting my aristocratic origins.

      Yes, basically because we have a majority of scientificists scientists and a majority of philosophist humanists. But science doesn't work ideally without philosophy and vice versa. That's why we live in such dysfunctional societies. I also realize that there has been an unbalanced process of knowledge specialization and bureaucratization. But the postmodernists are very influential there, and many refute the legitimacy of scientific objectivity, but only when it suits them.