So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
Jklint
Posts: 1719
Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Jklint »

Atheism is nothing more than the mental subtraction of any divinities having formed or maintaining a universe as previously conceived. There is simply no awareness of any reason of why there should be such. Existence no-longer requires the preconceptions of a Prime Mover for its cause making any such divinities useless except as metaphors.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Hereandnow »

-1-:

This what you said is absolutely off the mark. Sociology and psychology both deal heavily with what you deny science deals with. Those two are social sciences. They apply scientific methods in their investigation.

Also, psychiatry, which is part of the medical sciences.

This is old hat, that science is cold-hearted, calculating, machine-like. Not the least bit. Social sciences deal EXACTLY with what you deny they deal with.
Not sure which way to go with this, since there are many ways and so much has been said already.

I blame myself, really; for the ideas I put out are not standard. Atheism is not a well understood concept, but it is handled so confidently. Few are willing to ask about religion, its place in the world andif there is anything about it that is *in* the world, once the smoke of myth and legend dissipates, that is truly existential. the business takes inquiry to a new level, one where it is not the primitive myth that warrants examination, but what is behind the myth, the substantive matter that is behind, not just the images and stories, but the philosophers' concepts as well. Omniscience and the rest *make* for the need of a theodicy, and in the attempt to justify, apologists, failing miserably, end up confirming the opposition, thereby giving atheists the impression they have won; but essentially all they have done is defeat a wholly contrived positing of god: god the superman, god the person, the thinker, the cognizer, the willful agency and so on. These are what WE are and it is trivially true merely that such a thing has no justification. This makes atheism a trivial matter, and it has brought about a current perspective on god and religion to be entirely beneath the dignity of intelligent understanding.

This is why I said in the OP who cares! Who cares if you can argue such a proposition of god the omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent into the ground. It like arguing that my very decent and quite brilliant and capable uncle Charlie is not god. With atheists, it puts finality to a matter that has not even begun. For a denial of this kind of thing is frankly the very beginning of inquiry.
So you are wrong on both accounts: science does take emotion, intellect, and mood and social dynamics and studies them and even points at solutions and remedies in cases of mental or emotional illnesses, or in cases of social maladies. (Such as in couple therapy or family therapy.) And evolution and morals go hand-in-hand, but you're right, there is proportionality; not because we are higher or lower than other forms of life, but because we are NOT higher or lower than other forms of life, from evolutionary standpoint.
Science, as Wittgenstein points out, is like all of our thinking: it is about the how of things. It cannot deal with the what. Ask a scientist what a force is, and she will end up telling you *how* a force is. Most knowledge, thought and its propositions is like this, the how of things, that is. But since philosophy takes matters to their originary source (I borrow this and other terms from Husserl and others), that is, to issues that underlie the more familiar ones. Evolution, plate tectonics, spectral analysis of stars and the rest are fine theories, and I believe they are very well justified and credible. But this is not where philosophical inquiry has its place. We need to look beneath these. Philosophers ask questions empirical scientists cannot, questions like, what is consciousness' structure, what is reason, what is art, ethics, knowledge and so on. Science employs reason all the time, but never (though in quantum physics. I've read, there is interesting speculation) asks what reason is itself.

So what has this to do with atheism? You and others (all the others, really) treat the matter as a scientist would, and this is question begging to a philosopher who rather asks, say, what are the structures of consciousness that give rise to even the possibility of making assertions in time and space about the world. For the world of science is not independent of the human cognizing and experiencing agency. It is constructed out of this.

This goes on and there are libraries full of its theories. But for me the approach is Cartesian: start with immediacy for the most fundamental, foundational encounter with the world. This way things are not cloaked in theory (and all theory is defeasible. Just ask Thomas Kuhn), in presuppositions about the way the world is, and, as Husserl put it (he is a major influence for me) we have disclosed to us the "things themselves." you might even call this science of a sort (Husserl does) because you do indeed make observations about what is there and you are examining the features of the world. But it is not empirical, it is an apriori study of the structures of consciousness itself.

Here, you find the Real world, I say (though 'real' is very disputatious here). It is the world "prior" to, that is, assumed by but not taken up as a theme, empirical science. And it is here that the world reveals its most general features. So, in the context of this "reductive" perspective, god has a place. In the OP I stated that I am an objectivist, which means I believe the world is not stand alone justified; which means I think it is absurd that Being has within its possibilities that of bringing forth suffering, let's say of the worst kind imaginable to make the case clear, and for the meaning of this suffering to terminate at that point, where the entire breadth and depth of the matter has no metaphysical counterpart for its redemption (a dreadful word, but I am stuck with is since it makes the point better than its competitors).

I think the absurdity of this proposition has its justification in being called as such in the revealed intuition of its nature: just place a Bunsen burner under your forearm for five seconds. For me, god is reducible to the redemptive necessity built into suffering qua suffering. This is what religious conceptions of god boil down to. (This deserves to be read at least twice.)

There is a lot to say on this and I'll stop here. If you decide to respond, all I ask is that you read what I have said closely. I know you have ideas, but dialogue cannot be the mere talking past one another. (For me, there is joy is in the writing itself.)
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Ranvier »

General

I agree with Hereandnow, although I had read somewhere that Hereandnow doesn't care much for a consensus to his/her thoughts, which is understandable as similar points of view don't contribute to the intellectual growth. This is simply to reaffirm to others that the Atheist (non-theist) is not a sensible position to be taken, only to evoke the findings of science to support untenable claims. As Hereandnow eloquently points out, the philosophy of religion that should be taken as such, undertakes to engage the question of "why are we here?", where science is only charged with providing the answers of "how did we get here?". These are entirely two different realms of questions, where it's simply insufficient for Atheists to reject the proposition of "God", without any offer of an alternative theory. Especially!, since science can actually be used to argue on the contrary.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Ranvier wrote:General
I agree with Hereandnow, although I had read somewhere that Hereandnow doesn't care much for a consensus to his/her thoughts, which is understandable as similar points of view don't contribute to the intellectual growth. This is simply to reaffirm to others that the Atheist (non-theist) is not a sensible position to be taken, only to evoke the findings of science to support untenable claims. As Hereandnow eloquently points out, the philosophy of religion that should be taken as such, undertakes to engage the question of "why are we here?", where science is only charged with providing the answers of "how did we get here?". These are entirely two different realms of questions, where it's simply insufficient for Atheists to reject the proposition of "God", without any offer of an alternative theory. Especially!, since science can actually be used to argue on the contrary.
Note non-theism is a default status of all living things.
In the case of humans, babies are all born non-theists.
Humans only become theists on a serious intellectual & spiritual level generally during their teens and later when their awareness of their existential crisis is threatening [explicitly or subliminally].

One relevant perspective most theists ignore [or avoid at all costs] is to understand the fundamental root cause why they are theist from the psychological perspective and what is going on in their brain that make them theists.

In general the majority of human are psychologically desperate to incline towards theism to soothe the existential angst driven by an DNA based inherent zombie parasite in their mind.

Theism has it psychological pros and cons for the majority at present but the cons of theism are outweighing its pros and thus the need to excise [or suppress/inhibit] this zombie parasite from the brain in the future.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Ranvier »

Spectrum

Are these your own conjectures or are you repeating a script of random thoughts of other people?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Steve3007 »

Spectrum:
In general the majority of human are psychologically desperate to incline towards theism to soothe the existential angst driven by an DNA based inherent zombie parasite in their mind.
Religion is caused by a retrovirus in our DNA? Well I never.
User avatar
Scribbler60
Posts: 177
Joined: December 17th, 2015, 11:48 am

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Scribbler60 »

Hereandnow wrote:Atheism is not a well understood concept
Actually, it's extremely simple and easily understood: atheism is simply non-theism, just like asymmetrical means non-symmetrical and asymptomatic means without symptoms. It's really no more complicated than that.
Hereandnow wrote:...it is not the primitive myth that warrants examination, but what is behind the myth, the substantive matter that is behind, not just the images and stories, but the philosophers' concepts as well. Omniscience and the rest *make* for the need of a theodicy, and in the attempt to justify, apologists, failing miserably, end up confirming the opposition, thereby giving atheists the impression they have won; but essentially all they have done is defeat a wholly contrived positing of god: god the superman, god the person, the thinker, the cognizer, the willful agency and so on. These are what WE are and it is trivially true merely that such a thing has no justification. This makes atheism a trivial matter, and it has brought about a current perspective on god and religion to be entirely beneath the dignity of intelligent understanding.
I'm not exactly sure if I understand this, though it seems to point to the utility of a religious thought and observance rather than the actual truthfulness of it. That said, I'm willing to be wrong on that because I'm not sure if I'm clear on the intent here.
Hereandnow wrote:With atheists, it puts finality to a matter that has not even begun.
On the contrary, atheism is not a starting point; it is a conclusion, based on evidence (or lack of evidence) and will always be open to re-interpretation or re-formulation based on new evidence.
Hereandnow wrote:Philosophers ask questions empirical scientists cannot, questions like, what is consciousness' structure, what is reason, what is art, ethics, knowledge and so on. Science employs reason all the time, but never (though in quantum physics. I've read, there is interesting speculation) asks what reason is itself.

So what has this to do with atheism? You and others (all the others, really) treat the matter as a scientist would, and this is question begging to a philosopher who rather asks, say, what are the structures of consciousness that give rise to even the possibility of making assertions in time and space about the world. For the world of science is not independent of the human cognizing and experiencing agency. It is constructed out of this.
Well, yes, the world is treated as a scientist treats the world: empirical, testable, predictable, without supernatural agency. Why? Because in every experiment and every observation ever done, that's the conclusion that we have drawn.

Now, every experiment and conclusion could be wrong, but it's going to take extremely strong evidence to throw away those conclusions. Still, we have to be open to it.

More later, I'm late...
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Fanman »

Spectrum,

Surely when you say "zombie parasite" you're speaking about something analogous to something inherent in our make up that causes theism/religious belief? Only, I don't think that there is such a parasitical entity. Religion is a world view, and whilst I agree that existential angst can be a motivator of religious belief, I think it's wrong to claim that it is the core reason for every theist, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary? If the cause of religious belief was something generic in our DNA, wouldn't we all be theists? I think that some people are naturally more prone to having beliefs than others, but I don't know what the cause of that could be? Perhaps it has something to do with brain chemistry?

I think you also have to take into account that some people have experiences that they can't explain the nature of that seem to be supernatural. These experiences can cause them to have beliefs or reinforce any beliefs they may have. There are so many possible factors to consider when trying to pinpoint the cause of religious belief that trying to pinpoint the core reason may be akin to searching for a needle in a haystack. How do you define the core reason as opposed to something not being the core reason? Being a science minded person you've opted for a physiological core cause, but someone else may perceive the core reason to be of the social sciences. I think that there could be a physiological cause, but without knowing for certain the core reason could be psychosocial - like having parents who are theists and being influenced by them. Or as I stated, having "spiritual" experiences. You may think you've found the proverbial needle, but from an objective perspective I think there are still valid reasons to keep on looking. I mean, is your claim falsifiable?
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Ranvier »

General

The only fact that anyone can be certain about, is that "we are here". Conscious, thinking about our own existence and state of being. This is not some phenomenon of modern days but most likely something that even an ancient human was pondering:
- How did we get here? We have the answer to this question from Darwinian description of evolution (somewhat, still incomplete). The next question becomes:
- Why are we here? Why did we come to "be"? Beside the obvious physiological answer to such question in child like answer, we begin to ponder "why is anything here"? The BB is a possible "how" answer but not "why". Logic and science dictates, with principles of cause and effect, that there is a reason for everything. Hence, one can deduce that there was a cause for BB and with the evidence of logic of science in physical laws, one can deduce that there is some "purpose" in this physical existence. Simple.

Philosophy of religion, like any theory, is a subject to modification and improvement but so far this is the only theory that even attempts to answer such "why" question. That should be logical. Neither science nor non-theism offers any insight or alternate proposal as to "why is anything here". To answer... "just because" or as Mr. Dawkins "why ask why?" in a sentiment that "why" is "silly" question, seems narrow minded and childish. Therefore, Atheist or non-theist position seems to be shrouded by ignorance in simply avoiding such "why" question. There is no needle or a haystack, just sensibility in distinction between such two different questions.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Fanman wrote:Spectrum,
Surely when you say "zombie parasite" you're speaking about something analogous to something inherent in our make up that causes theism/religious belief? Only, I don't think that there is such a parasitical entity. Religion is a world view, and whilst I agree that existential angst can be a motivator of religious belief, I think it's wrong to claim that it is the core reason for every theist, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary? If the cause of religious belief was something generic in our DNA, wouldn't we all be theists? I think that some people are naturally more prone to having beliefs than others, but I don't know what the cause of that could be? Perhaps it has something to do with brain chemistry?
"zombie parasite" is analogical to real parasites that take control of a living thing's brain and command the victim to behave in the interest of the parasite. See this interesting video on how parasites control the destiny of the ants.

There are many other parasites which take control of certain animal brains, e.g. snails, etc.

Analogically to the "zombie parasite" our DNA is structured in such a way that enable a certain kind of cognitive dissonance algorithm that control the majority of humans towards theism without them being conscious [beyond instinct and reason] of what they are doing.
  • Note when Abraham was commanded to kill his own son by God, presumably he was filled with dread but at the same time he was very willing [no hesitation] to do it because that "zombie parasite" has taken control over his human brain to shut off the power of an inherent bonding [love] and compassion for his son merely to do his duty and serve God [in reality is illusory].
In many other cases, "zombie parasite" has taken control over many human brains and compel ordinary human beings to do inhuman things in the name of God [non-existent and illusory]. Note the terrible evils, terror and violence by evil Islamists.
I bet if an established and advance Islamic State with nuclear capacity like North Korea would not hesitate to nuke the whole Earth as they has nothing to lose as they are so sure they will end up in Paradise with 72 virgin regardless of what happen to Earth.

As with potential to commit evil, this "zombie parasite" is inherent and a potential in All humans because the fundamental of the DNA are generic.

While this "zombie parasite" is active in the majority in compelling them to theism, for some, the "zombie parasite" is dormant when suppressed by strong rational or other neural inhibitors.

For others whose "zombie parasite" is active but did not turn to theism, they may turn to drugs, hallucinogens, pain killers, etc. to relieve the resulting angst.
I think you also have to take into account that some people have experiences that they can't explain the nature of that seem to be supernatural. These experiences can cause them to have beliefs or reinforce any beliefs they may have. There are so many possible factors to consider when trying to pinpoint the cause of religious belief that trying to pinpoint the core reason may be akin to searching for a needle in a haystack. How do you define the core reason as opposed to something not being the core reason? Being a science minded person you've opted for a physiological core cause, but someone else may perceive the core reason to be of the social sciences. I think that there could be a physiological cause, but without knowing for certain the core reason could be psychosocial - like having parents who are theists and being influenced by them. Or as I stated, having "spiritual" experiences. You may think you've found the proverbial needle, but from an objective perspective I think there are still valid reasons to keep on looking. I mean, is your claim falsifiable?
My claim is falsifiable if the concept of cognitive dissonance within human is false.
some people have experiences that they can't explain the nature of that seem to be supernatural.
There are tons of research that explain most supernatural experiences [mostly altered states of consciousness] are resulted from mental illness, taking of drugs, hallunogen, diseases, brain damage, etc.
We have so much empirical explanation for the basis of supernatural experiences, why must be fall for an unknown entity. The compulsion that drive one to believe in the supernatural is by the power of that "zombie parasite."
Thus it would be more effective to understand the mechanics of what is and how this "zombie parasite" is created and how it works.

"from an objective perspective"??? :?: theism i.e. fundamentally based on faith [without proof nor justifiable reason] can never [no way] be objective.

-- Updated Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:53 am to add the following --
Ranvier wrote:General
The only fact that anyone can be certain about, is that "we are here".
Certain??? Note you are in a philosophy forum.

In 'general' term like "we," "are," & "here" are clear, has no issue and are accepted.

But from a philosophical perspective, these terms "we," "are," & "here" do not has any certain truths to them. They are merely bit, pieces and part of the language game.
Because these elements are uncertainty, one cannot arrive at certainty. That cannot follow deductively.
What we can possibly arrive at is best a qualified relative certainty, never an absolute certainty.

The only way is to keep asking questions about them.
Bertrand Russel wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

-- Updated Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:33 am to add the following --
[b]Fanman[/b] wrote:You may think you've found the proverbial needle, but from an objective perspective I think there are still valid reasons to keep on looking. I mean, is your claim falsifiable?
Yes, keep on looking, but make sure it is in the right direction, i.e. inward into one self.
The effectiveness of turning the "problem of God" inward towards one own's psychology is then one can own and take control of the problem rather than be at the mercy [a slave] of some thing unknown .

This is what Buddhism and other Eastern religions are doing.
Buddha's 4NT-8FP -A Life Problem Solving Technique
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... ng#p105207

Point is we have mapped the human genome but we have not yet mapped the human brain's 100 billion neurons and its connection. The question of God is more likely to come from the human genome and human brain [big potential for exploration] rather from the galaxy out there.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Steve3007 »

Spectrum:
Note when Abraham was commanded to kill his own son by God, presumably he was filled with dread but at the same time he was very willing [no hesitation] to do it because that "zombie parasite" has taken control over his human brain to shut off the power of an inherent bonding [love] and compassion for his son merely to do his duty and serve God [in reality is illusory].

In many other cases, "zombie parasite" has taken control over many human brains and compel ordinary human beings to do inhuman things in the name of God [non-existent and illusory]. Note the terrible evils, terror and violence by evil Islamists.
I bet if an established and advance Islamic State with nuclear capacity like North Korea would not hesitate to nuke the whole Earth as they has nothing to lose as they are so sure they will end up in Paradise with 72 virgin regardless of what happen to Earth.
It seems to me that the "zombie parasite", if it exists as an identifiable part of our DNA, is not specific to religion. It is the general tendency/ability of humans to conceptualise any abstract concept. Whether it is a god or an ideology. Once that has been accepted, and the idea of killing for the greater good has been accepted, the actions of someone like Abraham can be seen as perfectly rational. In World War II, Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris was perfectly willing to kill innocent German children for what he saw as the greater good. Killing children for the greater good, whether deliberately or as "collateral damage" is a pretty widely accepted activity.
User avatar
Scribbler60
Posts: 177
Joined: December 17th, 2015, 11:48 am

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Scribbler60 »

Steve3007 wrote:In many other cases, "zombie parasite" has taken control over many human brains and compel ordinary human beings to do inhuman things in the name of God [non-existent and illusory]. Note the terrible evils, terror and violence by evil Islamists.

It seems to me that the "zombie parasite", if it exists as an identifiable part of our DNA, is not specific to religion. It is the general tendency/ability of humans to conceptualise any abstract concept.
My take on it, FWIW, is that this "zombie parasite" is our all-too-human frailty to see patterns where there are no patterns. Look up at the clouds and you'll see this happening almost immediately. One cloud looks like a horse, another like a man hunched over a piano, another like a car.

These are all Type 1 errors: false positives.

Human beings evolved to have a tendency to make type one errors. This shouldn't be surprising, given that a type one error is more likely to make a person more cautious, therefore more likely to live to pass on their genes. Is that a lion in the grass or is it just the wind? Let's not stick around to find out, let's just run away.

The parallels with religious and ideological thought are clear. Religions and ideologies encourage adherents/believers to draw connections between events where there actually are no connections (prayer leads to healing {proven false}, supply-side economics are good for the economy {proven false}, trigger warnings and safe spaces help people feel secure {proven false}, immigration lowers crime rates {still an open question}). In another arena, sports figures are rife with type one errors. A baseball player may wear his "lucky socks", a hockey player may wind tape around the blade of his stick an exact number of times, a tennis player may only enter her match on the left side of the court. We call those type one errors "superstitions."

So, from what I see, this "parasite" is simply part of our evolutionary heritage, which is likely why pretty much every human society developed its own form of religion, of god(s), of sacrifice and observance to curry favour from divine supernatural entities.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Fanman »

I think that you've made some good points Spectrum. I can't say that I agree with you on all of them, but I think that there could be a physiological reason why some people have faith and others don't. Whilst religious belief is seemingly a matter of choice, there could be genetic factors which mean that some people are predisposed to it. Although, you make it seem to be something as clear cut as the gene that causes different eye colour. I don't think it's that simple (although it could be). In having religious beliefs, nurture is a very important factor. Such that, if there is a "belief gene" it is unlikely to have an effect / be activated unless the person is introduced to a religion.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Gertie »

HAN
just place a Bunsen burner under your forearm for five seconds. For me, god is reducible to the redemptive necessity built into suffering qua suffering.
Fine for you, not for me. Now what?

As I've pointed out before, when you start to try to justify your 'God is...' to me you have to rely on a particular approach to knowing stuff which is difficult to extend beyond your own experiential states, and give a special status to the type of experiential states which for you leads to the conclusion 'God is...such and such'.

If I don't choose to give those particular experiential states (suffering) special status, I don't get your conclusion.

I might just come to the conclusion that some experiential states are by their nature nasty and nice, and the need for comfort results from the nasty ones. I've no reason to call that 'God' or 'redemption'


And if we use our shared ways of agreeing we know stuff (if in a limited an imperfect way), we see a naturalistic explanation for suffering being part of the evolved human reward system.

You can dismiss these problems as unsophisticated atheism, but they look fundamental to me. I know you think you've answered them before, but I have to agree to differ.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Hereandnow »

Gertie:
And if we use our shared ways of agreeing we know stuff (if in a limited an imperfect way), we see a naturalistic explanation for suffering being part of the evolved human reward system.
And I agree with this naturalistic explanation for suffering. But I think all I have written does deserve a closer reading than you want to give it, for your position here is too dismissive.

At any rate, this that I have put on the table is just the tip of the iceberg. The rest of the argument extends into a broader spread of thinking that sees language as much more than a passive calculus on the world that presents itself. Language, in the view I defend, not only conditions the world, it constitutes it, levels it, and in the process turns what is alien and powerful into something manageable. A scientific principle is essentially reductionist as it brings the bare intuited side of the world, which is utterly transcendental, to heel, and what we witness is, in pragmatic terms, pure manageability, a reality made real out of reified manageability. That side of things, the feels and intuitions of sensation, the "presence" of things, is not scientific at all. The keyboard beneath your fingers, just as an example, bares, quite outside the naturalistic interpretations that rule your thinking (and Steven Hawking's and mine), significant analysis. And yet, we are "in" that "outside" in a way that is more fundamental (logically prior or "originary." This latter term is used to point out that when we are doing science there is beneath the observing eye a structure that makes observation possible at all. Since you can't do science without this, without grammar and logic, say, then this that underlies is logically prior. And just ot note, this is not Husserl's stated position, in case you decide to look it up) than we are "in" the naturalist's or scientist's world.

This makes way for my critique of atheism. The matter goes far beyond what Scribbler above calls an "extremely simple and easily understood" denial of a proposition "god exists." I do hope at least it has become clear that if this is what atheism is about, this simple tilde placed before a proposition, then the agency behind this kind of belief understands almost nothing of atheism. It's not symbolic logic. It's the world.

What is the world? To put the matter in plain English, the world is simply evil. It's evil in the sense that a king is called evil if s/he tortures people in the dungeon while entertaining guests in the ballroom. We would not say, oh, what a lovely table setting, too bad about the torturing. We would be appalled at the lot of it. This is not to anthropomorphize the issue. It is simply to state clearly the way things are, and frankly, being purely descriptive, this can't be refuted.

Now this is crucial, if you're still reading. Our default regard for the world is simply to accept its evil. It is, after all, the world. Nothing can be done but what can be to ameliorate the human (and animal) condition. This is where language comes in. The reality is this: we are thrown into (Geworfenheit is Heidegger's term) this world to suffer and die. I am certainly not talking so much about you or I right now-- we are the ones dancing beneath the chandelier; but then, the question is not so much about us, as about what the world is doing, and has done, and what it is. I bring to light especially the those who suffer unimaginably, the ones torn a apart limb from limb, burned alive or cooked in a Sicilian bull, and so on. These are the most poignant examples I can think of; that's why I bring them up. The world *does* this (through us, on occasion, though certainly not always) and it is language that covers up the crime (so to speak)!It is through the endless parade of "what a nice day" and "such a shame" and is supper ready?" that we completely turn away from the reality that is the world that lives beneath it all. My mentor, Heidegger, calls this das man (though I use his terms, I don't strictly present his views here): the everydayness of the lives we live that fills experience with certainty that all is as our mothers, our culture, and our language tell us.

It is this das man that keeps the issue of god, the real issue of our throwness into wretchedness, at bay. I say above, god is the redemptive necessity inherent in the world. This redemption is understood as necessary *only* if you can throw off the interpretative veil of language and culture enough to see the world plainly.

Keep in mind, I agree with science, with evolution and the theory that suffering and joy and the rest have risen into existence through a process whereby gene mutations spawn greater reproductive and survival abilities leading to new gene pools that compete and win out;and these eventually yield to yet more competitive advantages, and so on, and so on. Can't argue against this, and I don't. But science is a pragmatic body of problem solving that does not take on new paradigms until there is something to say empirically. Good and evil are NOT empirical concepts, which is one big reason the evil of the world goes unnoticed.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021