tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post4653231701440389541..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: Are Atheists Religious?Benjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-2566580537703264372013-03-27T12:47:19.591-04:002013-03-27T12:47:19.591-04:00Well, whether someone has sacred ideals is a psych...Well, whether someone has sacred ideals is a psychological question, since as you suggest, these ideals can be presupposed or secret rather than overt. I'd like to ask a person who's said not to have any such deep philosophical convictions why she's "pretty decent." Why not cheat and steal if you get the chance? I can understand that some people are constitutionally better at unfairly exploiting situations than others. But I'd suspect that if you talked to a supposedly nonreligious person long enough, especially in the Socratic manner, you'd pull out some philosophical and even religious presuppositions. Just because someone isn't interested in philosophy or religion doesn't mean she has no ultimate concerns.<br /><br />So have you tested whether those people you know have no interest in the existential predicament? No fear of death or bitterness because of the lack of perfect justice in nature? No anxiety about the ultimate futility of all our endeavours, given that in time we'll all be gone and forgotten? Have you had those philosophical conversations with them and received only a response of "Who cares?"Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-3388681641697391122013-03-27T11:53:52.150-04:002013-03-27T11:53:52.150-04:00You ask how one could live with no ultimate concer...You ask how one could live with no ultimate concern or sacred ideals and then ask what would the mental solution to the universal predicament of existing as a person, accursed by sentience and reason would be. Interesting questions.<br /><br />There are people, maybe a whole lot of them and I personally know a few, who have no overt ultimate concern or sacred ideals as far as I can tell. They live their lives and are happy for the most part. Their kids are normal and happy, not perverted mutants of any type I can recognize. These people don't seem to need any solution to any universal predicament. The ones I know who are like this are mostly pretty decent, reasonable and fit smoothly into society. Maybe it is possible to live with no ultimate concern or sacred ideal, or if it is there, it doesn't raise to the level of anything obvious or overt. Maybe, for some people, there is no predicament of existing as a sentient person.<br /><br />Is this possible for at least some people? Seems like it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-86414672189404452922013-03-18T18:30:43.760-04:002013-03-18T18:30:43.760-04:00We can go further with the point about suppression...We can go further with the point about suppression. Many Christians (especially Catholics) have a persecution complex, as seen with the War On Christian fiasco in the US, which Jon Stewart likes to ridicule on the Daily Show. The complex works like this: Christians sold their souls centuries ago for earthly power, contrary to the ideals of their supposed founder. From that point on, most Christians had no business pretending that they followed Jesus in giving up the natural way of life (competing for earthly power and pleasures, etc). But Christians (especially Catholics) can't just come out and admit the obvious, so they take every chance they get to pretend that they're persecuted since then they can appear to be walking in Jesus's footsteps.<br /><br />Speaking of this, I think I'm going to have to write something soon on whether Pope Francis is humble, because the recent coverage is really starting to annoy me. My answer is that a pope can afford to be only superficially humble (and thus christlike).Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-85983782302506692922013-03-18T11:33:21.724-04:002013-03-18T11:33:21.724-04:00I am skeptical about the degree of "suppressi...I am skeptical about the degree of "suppression" going on...except that Orthodox (fundamentalist) Christians have such a sense of entitlement and privelege that when there is any pushback at all against proselytizing, they define that as "suppression". It isn't. <br /><br />I agree with Benjamin vis a vis bland civic religion. Given that their own Holy Book warns against lukewarm religion, why is protecting this rather tepid "religion" so important? Brian Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-29736506316757360812013-03-16T16:57:34.210-04:002013-03-16T16:57:34.210-04:00I read your article on polical correctness and I f...I read your article on polical correctness and I felt a little lost in the references you made concerning the US politics and philosophies, which have a lot of particularities that are not clear to an european. Anyway it was not exactly what I expected, but it is interesting, I will have to see better some references you mentioned.<br /><br />It appears to me that the philosophical and religious debates are more alive in the US than in Europe (even in the southern countries, where there is a strong religious tradition). But, in general I would say that Europe is more secularized (or profane).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05113406033301115509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-89792298450912994112013-03-16T09:58:22.254-04:002013-03-16T09:58:22.254-04:00Political correctness may work differently in the ...Political correctness may work differently in the West than elsewhere, but I think it's pretty universal since it's tied up with primitive taboos. I wrote an article on political correctness here:<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2011/09/political-correctness-spellbinding.html<br /><br />I agree that in the US, it's politically incorrect to try to impose one religion on everyone else, and so a bland civic religion becomes politically correct. Thus, there's a perceived war on Christmas, because Christians aren't allowed to speak specifically about their religion on public grounds (separation of Church and state). But even though the US is secular with regard to Americans' actual behaviour (few people care enough about their religion to practice it with much seriousness), the convention in the US is to protect that bland, civic religion, not atheism or agnosticism. That's why even a liberal president like Obama must still say things like "God bless America."Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-4224664713914540092013-03-16T08:55:55.805-04:002013-03-16T08:55:55.805-04:00It seems to me you have an optimist view of the wo...It seems to me you have an optimist view of the world. I realize that I can’t say I know very well the particular situation in every continent, but in respect to the political correctness of theism (or religion in general which seems to me to be similar) I would like to stress a few things:<br /><br />First is the definition of political correctness. This is a term produced by western culture and it appears to me that bears little or no meaning out of context. I prefer to identify this concept to a so called sense of an orthodox decency (which is supposed to be the “correct way of educated people” opposing thus to the “ways of uneducated people”), however I do not think it may apply to countries or regions with limited freedom (political or religious).<br />In this sense we can speak of a western culture, which includes most of the American continent, Europe, and Oceania (Australia and New Zeeland), and eventually particular regions of Asia and Africa. In most of these places we can find people that we can identify with this “western culture”.<br /><br />The western culture is characterized by people who share a multitude of religious cultural backgrounds (in a vast majority of Christian origin). However in these days these societies are secularized and any reference to religious beliefs (including atheism) is not welcome, the religious symbology is something that has being increasingly suppressed.<br /><br />It seems to me that values such as tolerance that highly valued in our societies, where replaced by a cultivation of polite indiference, which oposes to religious beliefs in general.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05113406033301115509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-15368771729387133552013-03-15T21:17:40.317-04:002013-03-15T21:17:40.317-04:00I'd say many parts of the US and much of South...I'd say many parts of the US and much of South America. Also, Alberta, Canada and most of India and Africa. Obviously, the Muslim world. Moreover, even in functionally secular places like New York City or LA, it's still much more taboo to speak explicitly of atheism than of Jesus or of God. Sure, secularists will be annoyed when they're pestered by religious folks who try to convert them when they're uninvited. But you'll still see "God" more in the Western mainstream media than "atheism." And of course, any US politician who says the word "atheism," let alone admits to being one can expect to be voted out of office forthwith. <br /><br />By contrast, the places where I think the use of "atheism" isn't just tolerated but publicly welcomed are in parts of Europe, China, and Japan. I stand to be corrected, though.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-81006261314969324952013-03-15T18:04:45.007-04:002013-03-15T18:04:45.007-04:00Is there a place where theism is politically corre...Is there a place where theism is politically correct?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05113406033301115509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-27251414795097165202013-03-15T15:25:37.644-04:002013-03-15T15:25:37.644-04:00Thanks for your interesting comment. I think Rand&...Thanks for your interesting comment. I think Rand's libertarianism is bastardized Nietzsche. And indeed, there was a full-fledged cult around Rand. For that matter, all dictators thrive on cults of personality (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-un). These are tribal phenomena and they're the social roots of religion.<br /><br />I agree that atheists aren't perfectly rational, but I'd expect that atheists would tend to be better educated than at least the exoteric, literalistic theists. It's interesting that you say religion is what you do when you think you're doing something else. I think that's especially true for nontheistic religious people, like Rand, who want to think they're ultrarational machines. But I wonder whether theists can be more upfront about their religions, at least in places where theism is politically correct.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-37940205812435972262013-03-15T13:33:28.148-04:002013-03-15T13:33:28.148-04:00Back in the day I believed atheists were more rati...Back in the day I believed atheists were more rational. Being a believer was some kind of character fault. Atheists were blessed with some kind of rational mind that made them immune to nonsense. Of course, I was an atheist myself; still I am, in most days. Then I was introduced to the works of Ayn Rand. <br />It was impossible for me to not see her works as a religion. Her ideology was full of the same irrational ideas one would find with the snake handlers. It was a shock to me that an actual atheist could cook up such a pile of useless rubbish. How was her nonsense any different than any other religious nonsense? It wasn’t. But it hurt because she was part of my tribe. So I started having doubts. How do I know that I am not vulnerable to some other nonsense? Well, I am not. Atheists have no monopoly of rationality. Usually religion is what you do when you think you are doing something else. <br />Religion is not about what you believe, but how you believe. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-75141796657065892492013-03-15T09:50:19.349-04:002013-03-15T09:50:19.349-04:00I really think this just depends on your definitio...I really think this just depends on your definitions. Those who react with hostility to the notion that atheists are religious probably associate all religions with theism or with some bit of unforgivable irrationality. But with a sociological and existential understanding of what's going on with religions, you see theistic faith as merely floating on the surface. <br /><br />What's important is that we settle for some myth, some nonscientific narrative that makes us feel better about our choice of ultimate concerns. And if you don't think secular folks have any myths, what's up with the huge industry of fictional story-telling, with the novels, movies, plays, operas, or even the rumours, ghost stories, and jokes we like to make up and tell each other? Those stories that mean the most to us, emotionally speaking, live as our myths. The narrative we're constantly telling ourselves with our inner voice is part rationalization and confabulation, and so the story of our life, told from our private perspective, would be more like a myth than an coldly rational record of our deeds, thoughts, and experiences.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-45210826473505641712013-03-15T07:58:48.719-04:002013-03-15T07:58:48.719-04:00Heh, this reminds me of Cornelius Castoriades, who...Heh, this reminds me of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Castoriadis" rel="nofollow">Cornelius Castoriades</a>, who refered to Communism as "Messianic Totalitarian Capitalism"EvanThttp://onthewaytoithaca.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-24869770462817626602013-03-15T07:12:29.104-04:002013-03-15T07:12:29.104-04:00Psychologically I don't see much of a differen...Psychologically I don't see much of a difference between a religious mind and a non religious one. We are all conditioned.Our thoughts are fragmented. Our knowledge is limited and we are all in the dark as far as truth goes. Man will always experience the world through symbols. To not be religious or to be an atheist,what does that mean? That the atheist is enlightened? That somehow being atheist is some kind of mental state were the mind is completely free? No way. As long as we think ourselves as independent from the rest we have already failed. Us humans have not figured it out and we are certainly not free from delusion. Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02654670323654473931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-14489357503135969652013-03-15T02:13:40.046-04:002013-03-15T02:13:40.046-04:00We are not all "sociologically religious.&quo...We are not all "sociologically religious." That's like arguing that we are all "non-transcendentally transcendental." It reads real clever, but you negate meaning when you suggest that everyone - especially people you have not and will never meet - exactly fulfills your narrow expectations, because your expectations are scribbled in gibberish. Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-34954795596685095712013-03-14T18:36:02.618-04:002013-03-14T18:36:02.618-04:00Maybe, but is their art inspired by Christian idea...Maybe, but is their art inspired by Christian ideas or did great artists who happened to live in a Christian empire have to pick Christian themes to find any kind of success? Now that the Catholic Church no longer has much political power, is its current art so great? I think, rather, that modern and postmodern artists have gone elsewhere for their inspiration.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-27379865795700103572013-03-14T18:04:26.118-04:002013-03-14T18:04:26.118-04:00“As for Catholicism, I'm on record as saying t...“As for Catholicism, I'm on record as saying that Christianity is--aesthetically speaking--the worst religion in the world.”<br /><br />Yes, but it also has the best music and architecture. If one thing I have to give credit to Catholicism is their sense of style. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-41774022942270504842013-03-14T16:24:31.846-04:002013-03-14T16:24:31.846-04:00Well, this looks like a point about consistency. O...Well, this looks like a point about consistency. Of course, if there were an all-powerful God, nothing could go against his will, including so-called free creatures. This is just the old paradox of omnipotence: Could God create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it? A free being that could truly violate God's plan would be as impossible as that rock. Mind you, as your quotation of Tillich points out, such a tyrannical God for whom everything is a perfectly-controlled object, would be a hideous monster, and to the extent that we could at least fake a rebellion against that deity, we'd have moral and aesthetic obligations to do so.<br /><br />I talk about this systematic aspect of Islam in the last section of my article, "Islam and the Secret of Monotheism."Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-42423070736127433702013-03-14T16:18:56.250-04:002013-03-14T16:18:56.250-04:00Mind you, the word is that Pope Francis will take ...Mind you, the word is that Pope Francis will take on at least a greater style of humility, because he's interested in helping the poor and he must be ashamed of the Catholic Church's riches and so forth. That's why he chose the name Francis, why he chose not to be driven around in limos, and so on. I saw an interview with Cardinal Dolan about this, and Dolan said explicitly that the pope won't modernize Church doctrines, but he will likely change the way they're presented. This is similar to the Republicans who say that there's nothing with their message or their principles, but only with their public relations, with the tricks they use to sell them.<br /><br />As for religion and technology, Erik Davis's book Techgnosis and David Noble's The Religion of Technology show in great detail how technology isn't the opposite of religion. Because we're all religious in the sociological sense, our ultimate concerns inform everything we do, including the design and use of machines.<br /><br />As for Catholicism, I'm on record as saying that Christianity is--aesthetically speaking--the worst religion in the world.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-27909938209398300662013-03-14T14:33:28.344-04:002013-03-14T14:33:28.344-04:00Here is an even more appalling antithesis to humil...Here is an even more appalling antithesis to humility, the epitome of totalism. This religion (Islam) is terrifying in its totalitarian nature:<br /><br />Maududi saw Muslims not who followed the religion of Islam, but as everything: "Everything in the universe is 'Muslim' for it obeys God by submission to His laws." The only exception to this universe of Muslims were human beings who failed to follow Islam. In regard to the non-Muslim:<br /><br />“His very tongue which, on account of his ignorance advocates the denial of God or professes multiple deities, is in its very nature 'Muslim' ... The man who denies God is called Kafir (concealer) because he conceals by his disbelief what is inherent in his nature and embalmed in his own soul. His whole body functions in obedience to that instinct… Reality becomes estranged from him and he in the dark".[11]<br /><br />Maududi believed that Islam was a "religion" in a broader sense of the term. He stated: "Islam is not a ‘religion’ in the sense this term is commonly understood. It is a system encompassing all fields of living. Islam means politics, economics, legislation, science, humanism, health, psychology and sociology. It is a system which makes no discrimination on the basis of race, color, language or other external categories. Its appeal is to all mankind. It wants to reach the heart of every human being."[12]-Wikipedia<br /><br />How can one even argue with this kind of thinking? It is chilling. <br /><br />Brian Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-59959183747339925582013-03-14T14:12:26.044-04:002013-03-14T14:12:26.044-04:00Humility is appropriate.
http://www.patheos.com...Humility is appropriate. <br /><br />http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2013/03/brought-to-you-by-the-21st-century/<br /><br />This, for example, is an example of the opposite. I found this annoying as hell, for some reason. I have no love for the Catholic Church or its recent run of reactionary obscurantists and politicians, but babbling about technology as if it somehow the opposite of said church? The same technology they worship also created the nuclear bomb, and, ultimately, global climate change. :) Brian Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-54663657418927749582013-03-14T12:10:56.489-04:002013-03-14T12:10:56.489-04:00I agree there's a lot of nonsense in theology,...I agree there's a lot of nonsense in theology, but the point is that Tillich's distinction was well-motivated. Mystics have always recognized the problem with using language to talk about something that might pass beyond the limits of our understanding. This led to the so-called philosopher's god, to what Tillich calls ontological theism, which is tantamount to atheism. The problem with Coyne's dismissal is that it's a blanket one. He doesn't understand the important distinctions at issue, and he goes after the easy target of fundamentalism, for the political reason I discuss above. That's fine as far as it goes. <br /><br />But Coyne goes further by reading the sophisticated theologians, and yet he doesn't read them all with an open mind. Now, I think our minds should be closed to some of these sophisticated theologians, like Alvin Plantinga or William Lane Craig. We've got to distinguish between theistic philosophers who use philosophy quite cynically to buttress the exoteric, literalistic notion of God, like the one in the Christian creed, and mystics who use philosophy to explore the mystical, esoteric, cosmicist idea that everything we can understand comes somehow from something we can't understand. The former is odious whereas the latter is ultimately just an expression of humility.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-35577332005155079322013-03-14T11:21:55.245-04:002013-03-14T11:21:55.245-04:00I might be more sympathetic to Mr. Coyne. The term...I might be more sympathetic to Mr. Coyne. The terms in question ARE vague and confusing and perhaps not even that useful in the real world in which religious leaders are demanding death to apostates or in which woo-masters are writing vague books and earning millions for their nostrums. It's not just tribalism, there IS a lot of nonsense in the name of "philsophy" and "sophisticated theology". <br /><br />On the other hand, I agree with you that the assumption that human understanding can encompass everything is presumptious. Heck, do physicists really "understand" in any real sense some of the mathematical models they are playing with today? Brian Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-47356605381565676842013-03-14T09:23:21.741-04:002013-03-14T09:23:21.741-04:00Yes, I think this is very interesting. It's ex...Yes, I think this is very interesting. It's exactly the point I make in numerous writings here, such as "From Theism to Cosmicism," about the difference between the mystical and esoteric understanding of God, on the one hand, and the literalistic, anthropomorphic, and exoteric conception, on the other. Tillich's saying that the latter, "theological" as opposed to "ontological" conception makes God out to be a tyrant, which morally justifies atheism. This is consistent with Mainlander's theology and with Gnosticism. Likewise, Plato distinguishes between the transcendent Good and the lesser god, or demiurge that created the universe.<br /><br />Another interesting point is that when New Atheists like Jerry Coyne here the so-called "sophisticated theological" talk about God as the ontological Ground of Being, they throw their hands up and say the talk is pompous, empty, and out-of-touch with mainstream theism. See for example:<br /><br />http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/huffpo-ted-nonsense/<br /><br />Coyne says here, quoting from a Huffington Post article about theodicy, ' "Power of being.” “Ground of being.” Those are the weasel words of theologians who don’t know what they’re saying, and so emit fancy phrases to cover their ignorance like a blanket of snow. What, exactly, is a “power of being”? Is it benevolent and omnipotent?' <br /><br />These scientific atheists are clueless and their reaction is purely a tribal reflex caused by their limited familiarity with philosophical matters. Likewise, those who haven't steeped themselves in biology or physics texts often won't have the foggiest notion what those scientists are talking about. More importantly, when we reject the mystical idea of something transcendent that we can't possibly understand, we imply that everything is potentially understandable by us. Is that supposed to be self-evident? What justifies the mere atheist's faith in that potential omniscience of human nature, given that the atheistic naturalist must regard us as mere accidental mammals? Why should we trust that everything there could be possibly be is comprehensible by such clever critters? No, the core of mysticism (i.e. cosmicism) is actually quite consistent with atheism.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-69840081189847857182013-03-13T17:23:05.324-04:002013-03-13T17:23:05.324-04:00Hey, Benjamin. Just dipped my toes into Paul Till...Hey, Benjamin. Just dipped my toes into Paul Tillich. Interesting stuff, even at the Wikipedia Excerpts level! <br /><br />Tillich argues that the God of theological theism is at the root of much revolt against theism and religious faith in the modern period. Tillich states, sympathetically, that the God of theological theism<br /><br />deprives me of my subjectivity because he is all-powerful and all-knowing. I revolt and make him into an object, but the revolt fails and becomes desperate. God appears as the invincible tyrant, the being in contrast with whom all other beings are without freedom and subjectivity. He is equated with the recent tyrants who with the help of terror try to transform everything into a mere object, a thing among things, a cog in a machine they control. He becomes the model of everything against which Existentialism revolted. This is the God Nietzsche said had to be killed because nobody can tolerate being made into a mere object of absolute knowledge and absolute control. This is the deepest root of atheism. It is an atheism which is justified as the reaction against theological theism and its disturbing implications.[38]<br /><br />Brian Mnoreply@blogger.com