Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Christian Atheism, Muslim Atheism, Religious Atheism Generally - Possible?

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.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2065
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Christian Atheism, Muslim Atheism, Religious Atheism Generally - Possible?

Post by Hereandnow » January 22nd, 2018, 1:18 pm

If the people responders CAN'T be distinguished

Dlaw
Posts: 424
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

Re: Christian Atheism, Muslim Atheism, Religious Atheism Generally - Possible?

Post by Dlaw » January 22nd, 2018, 4:56 pm

Hereandnow wrote:
January 22nd, 2018, 1:14 pm
Dlaw:
What would the physical difference be between something that has "latent subjectivity" and something that doesn't?

If we constructed an S-Zombie - which we defined as exactly like a human in every respect but WITHOUT subjectivity, how would we tell the S-Zombie from a real human?
First, I don't know what you mean by 'physical'. It is a fiction, materialism, that is. A useful term and I may use it in many contexts, but not philosophically. If it is brought up philosophically, it needs a lot of explaining.

What also needs explaining is subjectivity. I am tempted to say that defining a human without subjectivity is like defining, say, defining a room with out extension. A room IS extension. All the things you would mention always already are subjectivity; even those scientific pronouncements have their origin in the meanings laid forth by a structured subjectivity.

But I think you have in mind phenomena. Never mind that we may live "in mind" and all we see are ideational content, what if among these, there were no subjective core, like a soul or a transcendental ego? The question is, what if there were no transcendental ego would there be a
discernible difference?

Depends on how you define the such an ego. If positing it is justified, then there is something there in the world that does the justifying and would be missing, and the difference you seek would be found in the absence of this. So, is the positing of a transcendental ego justified? The subjective end of things we do in conscious awareness, in judging, in feeling, in thinking, in questioning, and so forth, needs to be determined in such a way that the judging what it is without such a positing.

Kierkegaard would say the evidence you seek reveals itself by taking your inquiring self off the matter at hand, the theoretical searching for a transcendental ego, and attending to the dynamic of what presents itself when foundational issues, for him , the passionate pursuit eternal happiness through faith that delivers the soul into its true actuality, rise to awareness. Were you to put the question to K. he would probably your say thoughts are about words, like the word 'soul' while the real issue before you is passionate engagement. This engagement IS the soul (see his Sickness Unto Death). No proof is needed beyond putting one in the midst of this powerful dread of realizing the life you live in the everyday world is not really who you are. You discern this by being a real Christian, which is being in an existential crisis.

K. is called a father of existentialism because he brilliantly tried to bring matters of philosophy to a level beneath, if you will, science to what is at the Real core of our being here. Kant tried to do this with transcendental arguments and for him the structural features of consciousness were rational. For K. they are the whole person's world, filled with need and fear and passion. That is the real human being. What is missing in the above question, once the soul is taken out of the picture is this.
To me it's a bit like the Touring test in which people are on one side and computers and other people are on the other and the former listen to the latter respond to questions. If the people responders can be distinguished from the computers then is there a difference? K. would laugh at this silliness. If the computer is capable of an existential crisis per above, then let's talk.
So an S-Zombie would be a person without existential crisis? Or would an S-Zombie be a person without passion? Both? Neither? Anyway, the Zombie problem is very useful philosophically now that we know so much about the material body, evolution, physics. When people like Kierkegaard were writing, the concept of the human really came from the concept of the soul. I think that's clear. That's because the body to them was just meat. They had no idea about Evolution, no idea about physics or physical chemistry, no idea about DNA.

Our model of the human body is so informed now, so rich and deep that the Zombie problem serves to reconnect soul-based philosophical ideas with the reality of, if you will, flesh, blood and particles.

Dlaw
Posts: 424
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

Re: Christian Atheism, Muslim Atheism, Religious Atheism Generally - Possible?

Post by Dlaw » January 22nd, 2018, 5:01 pm

On the Christian tip, if you will:

Let's look at Christ on the Cross as the ultimate existential crisis.

His moment of doubt: why has His Father, the Creator and King of the Universe, foresaken him?

Because he's not there.

Christ is not Saved. He blows away like chaff in the wind. Yet in his destruction he becomes our Savior.

To my mind, only Atheism describes this perfect moment of subjectivity.

Dlaw
Posts: 424
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

Re: Christian Atheism, Muslim Atheism, Religious Atheism Generally - Possible?

Post by Dlaw » January 22nd, 2018, 5:12 pm

[How about this on the Islamic tip:

"In Allah, all our idols are smashed. All our ghosts and heroes are dust. We have only the words of the Prophet, and like small children, we can barely read them.

And so we pray, as one, and prostrate ourselves to the King of the Universe, all equally loved and equally unseen by Him.

He is not moved by our prostrations. He is not pleased by our songs. He hears our prayers like the stone of a distant mountain. Our voices fade long before they reach his Kingdom.

He demands from us jihad we can never perform. We are as unworthy as dust is to slake a thirst. So when we bow our heads, we water the Earth with our wretched tears because our Father is gone.

And yet we rise as one, bathed in His Mercy."

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2065
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Christian Atheism, Muslim Atheism, Religious Atheism Generally - Possible?

Post by Hereandnow » January 22nd, 2018, 9:51 pm

Dlaw:
So an S-Zombie would be a person without existential crisis? Or would an S-Zombie be a person without passion? Both? Neither? Anyway, the Zombie problem is very useful philosophically now that we know so much about the material body, evolution, physics. When people like Kierkegaard were writing, the concept of the human really came from the concept of the soul. I think that's clear. That's because the body to them was just meat. They had no idea about Evolution, no idea about physics or physical chemistry, no idea about DNA.

Our model of the human body is so informed now, so rich and deep that the Zombie problem serves to reconnect soul-based philosophical ideas with the reality of, if you will, flesh, blood and particles.
Well, this is familiar territory to me. Science has little to nothing to say on matters like this. I know that sounds shocking, but there is simply this: Science assumes there is nothing in the perceptual act itself that stands int he way of what it posits about the world. But this is wrong. And there is nothing I can say to convince you, except: Kant, Husserl, Levinas, Peirce, Dewey, James, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Buber, et al. There is another world of thought out there. But it takes time and interest.
As for me, I am going on a reading hiatus. I am in Rorty's Mirror of Nature. He has a lot say about your objections above, but it takes a lot of orientation, that is, reading philosophy.

Dlaw
Posts: 424
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

Re: Christian Atheism, Muslim Atheism, Religious Atheism Generally - Possible?

Post by Dlaw » January 23rd, 2018, 8:30 pm

Hereandnow wrote:
January 22nd, 2018, 9:51 pm
Dlaw:
So an S-Zombie would be a person without existential crisis? Or would an S-Zombie be a person without passion? Both? Neither? Anyway, the Zombie problem is very useful philosophically now that we know so much about the material body, evolution, physics. When people like Kierkegaard were writing, the concept of the human really came from the concept of the soul. I think that's clear. That's because the body to them was just meat. They had no idea about Evolution, no idea about physics or physical chemistry, no idea about DNA.

Our model of the human body is so informed now, so rich and deep that the Zombie problem serves to reconnect soul-based philosophical ideas with the reality of, if you will, flesh, blood and particles.
Well, this is familiar territory to me. Science has little to nothing to say on matters like this. I know that sounds shocking, but there is simply this: Science assumes there is nothing in the perceptual act itself that stands int he way of what it posits about the world. But this is wrong. And there is nothing I can say to convince you, except: Kant, Husserl, Levinas, Peirce, Dewey, James, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Buber, et al. There is another world of thought out there. But it takes time and interest.
As for me, I am going on a reading hiatus. I am in Rorty's Mirror of Nature. He has a lot say about your objections above, but it takes a lot of orientation, that is, reading philosophy.
You and I are of a mind on the fact that the "perceptual act" does not get its due as a phenomenon in the Universe. Possibly it's just too strange for people to handle.

I've been known to make a completely Atheistic argument that's kind of structured like Intelligent Design - when I'm trying to make a point.

Made a good thread on here at one time.

anonymous66
Posts: 155
Joined: January 12th, 2018, 4:01 pm

Re: Christian Atheism, Muslim Atheism, Religious Atheism Generally - Possible?

Post by anonymous66 » May 22nd, 2018, 10:12 am

To do deny the possibility of Christian Atheism is to deny reality. There is a wiki page and everything.
Don Cupitt describes himself as a Christian non-realist and is an Anglican priest.
And there are Atheists who just like the traditions and stories of Christianity. Robert Price attended church for many years despite the fact that he is an atheist.

Erribert
Posts: 35
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 11:37 pm

Re: Christian Atheism, Muslim Atheism, Religious Atheism Generally - Possible?

Post by Erribert » May 27th, 2018, 5:23 pm

I see atheism as theistic. They seem to conflict in who their God (or Gods) is, yet they have a very strong belief system. I have met atheists who believe in the Big Bang, for example. That is theism, so far as I can tell.

There are many that have a deep faith in Reason. That is theism as well. The untested belief in Evolution is pure theism. Some say that evolution has direction, or purpose (create fitness or survival). In true atheism, Evolution would have no purpose or direction. Evolution and devolution would mean the same thing.

I suppose it depends on how the word is defined. There can be a strong belief that something does not exist as such person understands such a thing. For example if God is defined as Nature, then atheists do not believe in Nature.

Perhaps Atheism is very specific in its disbelief. In that sense, there is atheism in any religion. Take for example the Gnostics. Their belief is that the God Christians pray to is a False God. This false god is also called a demiurge or Yabaldoath; it is purely a mechanical god like physicists believe in. Is Gnosticism atheist? Well in terms of the Christian God I suppose it is. Is Buddhism atheist? Again, it would depend on what theism is. Is Brahman a God or is he simply everything. Does god come from within? If so, then atheists are alienated from themselves.

I don’t believe in atheism. I suppose that makes me an a-atheist. :-). I choose not to believe in atheism.

Cheers

Post Reply