tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post476590375010331658..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: The Paradox of Secular HolinessBenjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-73453911716015811342019-09-22T08:41:43.751-04:002019-09-22T08:41:43.751-04:00It looks like Pascal Boyer's view of the origi...It looks like Pascal Boyer's view of the origin of religion is similar to Dennett's. I'm not sure why you'd think an evolutionary explanation of the existence of religion (religion as a byproduct of our innate Theory of Mind or capacity to project mental states onto things) makes for a more flattering picture of religious people than my similarly naturalistic explanation of belief in the sacred as a form of being humbled by fame. In both cases, theistic religion is being largely explained away, not wholly respected. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-42147907165712445882019-09-22T04:58:29.705-04:002019-09-22T04:58:29.705-04:00There are countless extremely intelligent religiou...There are countless extremely intelligent religious people who simply wouldnt exist in your model, it is that naive and shallow. But they did, do and will exist. You take the really really low hanging fruit of celebrity madness and blow it out of proportion, constructing an oddity...<br />You could always read Pascal Boyer's books on religion if you have time for a solid argument about religion... zombiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16170901618171176202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-45204875788541462932019-09-14T14:35:35.936-04:002019-09-14T14:35:35.936-04:00Regarding the Gnostics, I think they were only mor...Regarding the Gnostics, I think they were only more consistent in dealing with what Nietzsche would call an implication of the monotheistic dogma that eternal paradise awaits us in a supernatural afterlife. I believe Nietzsche says somewhere that these monotheists are nihilistic since they ground their values on nothing rather than on natural reality. So the Gnostics were against natural life, because they believed there’s a higher kind of life, just as they thought there was a higher god than the one responsible for the material universe. But yes, the Gnostics (along with Plato, Eastern religions, and the perennial spiritualists) were harsh judges of the apparent, sensible world. They’d differ, though, with antinatalists, since the latter are against all forms of life, whereas again, the Gnostics devoted themselves to an allegedly higher, spiritual life. This was a Western form of moksha.<br /><br />By the way, if you’re interested in the social consequences of religion, you might be interested in a discussion which just came out on YouTube, between Alister McGrath and Brett Weinstein (two-part links below). Weinstein’s pretty impressive there, I think.<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2018/02/cosmicism-tragedy-and-greek-mythos.html<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2018/10/theistic-proofs-in-echo-chamber.html<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRx2uNMJFnU<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbw1xjxfL38<br />Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-25858104565798730052019-09-14T14:33:54.649-04:002019-09-14T14:33:54.649-04:00I’ve seen that Dawkins debate a few times and I do...I’ve seen that Dawkins debate a few times and I don’t think Dawkins was confused on that point you raised. Dawkins was saying that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, so the opponents must have a hidden, emotional agenda. Then Dawkins would be ready to pounce with the argument that just because evolution is unpleasant doesn’t mean it’s false. The creationist does question the evidence for evolution and she says repeatedly she’s worried about the social implications of evolution, since she believes we’re not just material and useful but have spiritual dignity. Dawkins agrees a Darwinian society would be horrendous (and indeed that it would be a right-wing society; she responds to that devastating charge by confusing atheism with evolutionism, saying that the Soviet Union was atheistic and horrendous; alas, communism doesn’t rest on evolutionary principles, the progressive, Marxist view of history notwithstanding). Dawkins says we should concede to the facts of evolution and use that knowledge for liberal, social democratic purposes, to improve society and avoid a relapse into a Darwinian state of nature.<br /><br />They go back and forth in that manner and it’s a frustrating debate for a different reason, I think. The problem is that neither of them was thinking philosophically; neither has that temperament. They were talking past each other for a whole hour, which shows that the echo chambers I talk about in another article (second link below) were constraining the discussion. Dawkins almost got to the bottom of it when he summarized the theory of natural selection and later asked whether she understood the theory in question. She said that of course she did, but Dawkins evidently suspected she didn’t and he was right to do so. There’s zero chance she’d be capable of demonstrating that she understands the theory she supposedly rejects, by layout out in her own words the essence of the theory of natural selection, without just repeating some memorized outline. Once you know enough to be able to put the theory in your own words, you’re in Dennett’s position of realizing that the theory is about an algorithm that couldn’t fail to produce the appearance of intelligently designed organisms. Genes and the environment replace God as the “designer.” <br /><br />What that creationist really rejects isn’t biology, since there’s an awful lot of biology to know and she obviously doesn’t know the half of it, whereas Dawkins could easily show he understands the essence of Christianity. (Something similar came up in my exchange with the “Thinking Christian.”) Instead, she rejects the philosophy of materialism, utilitarianism, and totalitarianism which she presumes is the demonic root cause of “belief in” the theory of natural selection. If Dawkins had been philosophical, he’d have eagerly gotten to the bottom of those deeper disagreements and confusions. Moreover, a philosopher would be humble and objective in questioning the implications of his or her deepest assumptions. But he’s a new atheist, not a Nietzschean one, so he doesn’t concede the creationist’s (badly formulated) point that atheistic biology does have unsettling implications, such as that Dawkins’ cherished liberalism is a noble lie. Dawkins thinks he can help himself to liberal morality even though that morality is based on Christianity and theism (as Nietzsche and John Gray point out). Dawkins would say his morality is based on the biological instinct for cooperation, but that would contradict his admission that a Darwinian society would be brutal. <br />Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-40231525366461273142019-09-14T14:30:02.150-04:002019-09-14T14:30:02.150-04:00Your paraphrase of Nietzsche sounds more like the ...Your paraphrase of Nietzsche sounds more like the essence of the scientific temperament, not the philosophical one. I think Plato got at the essence of philosophy in “Symposium,” where he explains what came to be called “Platonic love,” which has to do with spiritual birth or brainchildren, and with philosophy as the love of wisdom where that requires sacrifice in poverty. Whereas science is more practical and conducive to happiness, since the technological applications of science benefit society, philosophy is subversive because the love of wisdom over opinion knows no bounds. <br /><br />As I explained in my article on cosmicism and Greek tragedy, the ancient Greek concept of wisdom was teleological and anthropocentric, so ancient philosophy was meant to be practical, at least on the surface. The trial and execution of Socrates proved the opposite was true. When we transition from premodern anthropocentrism to late-modern cosmicism, the “wisdom” which philosophers love ends up being anti-human, meaning that this is the knowledge that destroys the soul and makes us profoundly unhappy—awestruck, yes, but also party poopers and social outcasts. As you say, the fruit of knowledge is death.<br /><br />The true philosopher is the bore who takes the slightest opportunity to “dig deeper” and question everyone’s assumptions, to speculate endlessly and follow logic and science to the bitterest conclusions. I’ve done that at parties and have learned the hard way to keep my philosophical musings to myself or to broadcast them (on this blog or on YouTube, etc.) only to those who are searching for philosophy.<br />Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-37065149959313128662019-09-13T06:16:22.841-04:002019-09-13T06:16:22.841-04:00I think Nietzsche summed up the essence of the phi...I think Nietzsche summed up the essence of the philosophical temperment when he said (paraphrasing) that the philosopher doesn't jump to conclusions, but takes his time and is always open to new information; anything else isn't philosophy, but sophistry and apologetics. But the philosophers who were most well received in their time have never been afraid to pander to the zeitgeist. Some of them, like Descartes and Leibniz, can be excused on account of the power the church exercised during their time; but the very best, like Socrates, never censored themselves for any reason.<br /><br />Coincidentally, I just came across Durkheim's thoughts on religion yesterday when I started reading a book I had gotten from the library; I had never heard of him before then. Durkheim's definition of religion is completely different from Tillich's, though I think a lot of atheists confuse the two. A particularly amusing case of this can be found on Youtube in an outtake from one of Dawkin' movies. He's debating evolution with this lady from the Creation Institute and, despite pretty clear signals from her, never seems to grasp the fact that she is more concerned with the deliterious effects of Darwin's theory on Christian civilization (a Durkheimian social religion) than the (to her) trivial matter of whether or not the theory can be justified empirically. I guess we philosophers and scientists have made an idol of the truth, which is why we get kicked off of discussion forums or simply ignored by those who care more about either preserving or advancing human civilization.<br /><br />Speaking of nihilism, I'm betting you're familiar with Nietzsche's conclusions about what the will to truth really disguises. In the fable of Eden, the fruit of the tree of life granted immortality; but the fruit of the tree of knowledge was death. The gnostics seemed to have taken this allegory to its logical conclusion inasmuch as they saw life (bios) as a kind of abberant miscarriage that should never have come into being; gnosis (knowledge) meant salvation from life, or death.<br /><br />https://youtu.be/-AS6rQtiEh8Syboknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-37019357069332942362019-09-12T09:09:45.848-04:002019-09-12T09:09:45.848-04:00I agree that philosophers are less cultish than th...I agree that philosophers are less cultish than theists and care more about the message than the messenger. There are some other examples of philosophical superstars and fan worship. Zyzek and now Jordan Peterson come to mind, as do the “four horsemen” of the new atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens). The dynamics of fame and tribalism quickly come into play whenever you have great public success. You see that in the comment section of popular YouTube channels and blogs. Fanbases emerge all over the place and are very protective of their idol. <br /><br />Some years ago, when Jerry Coyne's blog was mostly still about atheism, I got banned from commenting there because I harshly criticized Coyne's scientism. His fans ganged up on me, so I saw these (ironic) religious dynamics firsthand. The same thing happened to me on Inmendham's YouTube channel. That guy's as thin-skinned and silly as Trump. Now are those guys enlightened and philosophical? Well, they do argue against organized religion and yet you see the same tribalism rise up around them.<br /><br />I explored the sociology of religion in my earlier writings on this blog, and what I did mostly was combine Durkheim and Paul Tillich. So look at Durkheim's definition of “religion”: “A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.” Notice the social importance there of sacredness/holiness. <br /><br />Add to that Tillich’s existential definition of “faith” as a centered act of being “ultimately concerned” about whatever arouses the total personality. For Tillich, the proper object of faith is ultimate reality, but we can see how idolatry becomes possible, given the subjective, existential aspect of religious faith. We can be ultimately concerned about money, sex, popularity, or whatever else we find ourselves treating as sacred. In that case, the dynamics of group formation will cause us to behave religiously towards that sacred thing—unless we’re extremely self-aware and we renounce society, preferring an ascetic response to the sacred. <br /><br />If we think nothing at all is sacred or all-important, we’re likely not long for this world, since that’s almost the definition of depression.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-83493022575877383312019-09-11T20:50:13.328-04:002019-09-11T20:50:13.328-04:00I think that the reason there will never be anythi...I think that the reason there will never be anything equivalent to a religion for the enlightened is that enlightened ones tend to care more about the message than the messenger. You don't see philosophers making pilgrimages to Athens or vying with each other to try on Friedrich Nietzsche's eyeglasses. I'm not certain I would even want to meet Nietzsche if I could; I'd probably find him to be 'all too human'. The only philosopher who seems to possess anything approaching a cult following is Ayn Rand and that really says it all, doesn't it?<br /><br />There are philosphical religions like Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, but the fact that they've fossilized into full-blown religions should send any rational person running in the other direction no matter how much she might admire Buddha and company as sincere seekers rather than demigods.<br /><br />Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your use of religion, but to me the idea of an enlightened being bowing before anyone - fictional or historical - is absurd. There is something to be said for the feeling of the sublime and the numinous, but this is something even hardline atheists will gladly admit to enjoying; it doesn't require any religious or quasi-religious context.Syboknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-24567914639814023932019-09-11T10:08:50.371-04:002019-09-11T10:08:50.371-04:00Celebrity culture is a nontheistic religion in Dur...Celebrity culture is a nontheistic religion in Durkheim’s sense, or at least the worship of celebrities is part of the larger substitute religion of consumerism, the ideology of late-modern capitalism. That’s not quite the point I wanted to make in this article, but it is relevant. <br /><br />There’s almost a tightrope you have to walk between condemning the modern substitutes for God, because of their shallowness, hypocrisy, and short-sighted destructiveness, and recognizing the potential for an uplifting spiritual/existential alternative. I try to do both on this blog. The positive potential here is to see that if holiness has always been only natural and fame-based, we don’t need theistic delusions to have the religious, ecstatic experience. <br /><br />The problem, though, is that the nontheistic religious experience is undermined if the idols are unworthy, as they tend to be since their luxuries and power over others are liable to corrupt them so that they lose sight of their humility and their hunger to advance in artistic terms. The theistic religion’s gods are also unworthy, mind you, because they don’t exist and were modeled on human celebrities and power elites. <br /><br />This was just Nietzsche’s problem: Where are the adequate gods or objects of worship, after the cultural death of the old gods? Nietzsche longed for the arrival of the transhuman. In any case, there will likely always be two classes of idols, one for the enlightened and one for the unenlightened. The latter have their celebrities and their National Enquirers, and the former have their…?Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-47222129696381709282019-09-11T08:29:45.452-04:002019-09-11T08:29:45.452-04:00If celebrity culture is a secular religion, then i...If celebrity culture is a secular religion, then it just shows how decadent western civilization has become even by medieval standards. Putting aside the fundamental evil of the Roman Catholic Church, it can at least be said in the church's favor that most of her saints were worthy of the veneration they received; even if their alleged virtues were as fictional as their miracles. I would rather see women get hysterical over the relics of St. Brigid than the latest antics of Kim Kardashian.Syboknoreply@blogger.com