SpeedOfSound wrote:Biochemistry is the greatest threat of all time to theism.

How naive of you. There's not an existing scientific 'fact' that threatens anything but literal readings of religious text.

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Biochemistry is the greatest threat of all time to theism.

How naive of you. There's not an existing scientific 'fact' that threatens anything but literal readings of religious text.

Heh. Case in point.

logical bob wrote:

think wrote:Now I suppose that none of these are in the strictest sense "theistic" -- but my guess is most of this work provokes much more negative intellectual criticism from contemporary atheism than from the church. What I really object to is not atheism generally (when one takes the broad view, the distinction becomes rather meaningless in my opinion), but the kind of atheism that insists the crucifix is a piece of wood and that disbelief in god is akin to disbelief in pink dragons.

This seems rather muddled. You're quite right to say that none of these examples are theistic. Whoever you take to speak on behalf of contemporary atheism, their criticism doesn't make something theistic. Theism is when you believe in at least one god. Richard Dawkins has no time for cultural relativism, for instance. In no way does this make cultural relativism a theistic viewpoint.

Although you define theism very broadly, your definition of atheism seems narrow, covering only that which specificity tackles theism (and perhaps only that which tackles it a specific way). Arguments about The God Delusion and William Lane Craig rumble on, but that doesn't alter the fact that theism has been bankrupt for a long time and since Tillich the more clear-sighted Christians have been abandoning it too. Once an idea is debunked, it's debunked. You shouldn't expect a steady flow of interesting writing debunking it further.

What you now have isn't a poverty of atheistic thought but a post-theistic situation where all the good stuff is predicated on atheism.

True true...but my point is really that I don't see the distinction between atheism and theism as an important one. I know what I said is ambiguous, but with the exception of Foucault I think most of the thinkers I listed would not claim to be atheists.

I am interested by thinkers whom I see as working within the mode of thought that has traditionally belonged to the ritualistic or religous thought, but may not explicitly announce themselves as "believers". Seth Benardete is a great example. Zizek would be another. I find the way or mode of thought much more interesting than statements like "god does/does not exist". Such statements tell you nothing out of context.

In a certain sense you must be right when you note that we live in a post-theistic situation...on the other hand, perhaps philosophy has always lived in a post-theistic situation.

Tillich debunked theistic personalism, but that is not the be-all and end-all of theism. If you go back to Aristotle, and then wind forward to Aquinas, these are not proponents of theistic personalism, but rather the idea that the world of composite things could not exist without something that is non-composite, or in Aristotle's terms, Pure Actuality.

This really means something metaphysically ultimate, which actually doesn't exist in the normal sense of 'exist', since it is existence.

Whether or not such ideas will gain a new momentum, as theistic personalism crumbles, who knows.

think wrote:I am interested by thinkers whom I see as working within the mode of thought that has traditionally belonged to the ritualistic or religous thought, but may not explicitly announce themselves as "believers". Seth Benardete is a great example. Zizek would be another. I find the way or mode of thought much more interesting than statements like "god does/does not exist". Such statements tell you nothing out of context.

I'm not familiar with Benardete, though a search turns up a distinguished classicist with holistic ideas about the relationship between philosophy and literature and a reputation for close reading of Greek texts. Žižek, who clearly identifies himself as an atheist, is into psychoanalysis, Marx and Hegel and has mischievously talked about atheism as the true Christianity. How either of these could be considered to be "working within the mode of thought that has traditionally belonged to religious thought" is far from clear.

It doesn't matter, though. If you want to tell us what interests you that's fine, but a far cry from your original statement that "the poverty of atheist thought is a real problem." On the explanation you've given you might as well say that there is a poverty of thought amongst those who don't believe in Zeus since no interesting arguments against his existence have been published recently and the writers who interest you don't explicitly identify themselves as non-believers in Greek mythology.

nunnington wrote:Tillich debunked theistic personalism, but that is not the be-all and end-all of theism. If you go back to Aristotle, and then wind forward to Aquinas, these are not proponents of theistic personalism, but rather the idea that the world of composite things could not exist without something that is non-composite, or in Aristotle's terms, Pure Actuality.

This really means something metaphysically ultimate, which actually doesn't exist in the normal sense of 'exist', since it is existence.

Whether or not such ideas will gain a new momentum, as theistic personalism crumbles, who knows.

Tillich offers God as a solution to the problem of Being. This presupposes that we consider Being a problem. It's not unlike a missionary offering salvation to people who never thought they were damned.

logical bob wrote:

nunnington wrote:Tillich debunked theistic personalism, but that is not the be-all and end-all of theism. If you go back to Aristotle, and then wind forward to Aquinas, these are not proponents of theistic personalism, but rather the idea that the world of composite things could not exist without something that is non-composite, or in Aristotle's terms, Pure Actuality.

This really means something metaphysically ultimate, which actually doesn't exist in the normal sense of 'exist', since it is existence.

Whether or not such ideas will gain a new momentum, as theistic personalism crumbles, who knows.

Tillich offers God as a solution to the problem of Being. This presupposes that we consider Being a problem. It's not unlike a missionary offering salvation to people who never thought they were damned.

Good point, and you could address the same objection to Aristotle and Aquinas. What if I don't see a need for a metaphysical ultimate? I suppose they would say that we are driven to this idea by the notion of non-ultimate things, or composite things, or contingent things.

And mystics might argue that we are driven there by the experience of transcendence, but that is another kettle of fish.

nunnington wrote:

logical bob wrote:

nunnington wrote:Tillich debunked theistic personalism, but that is not the be-all and end-all of theism. If you go back to Aristotle, and then wind forward to Aquinas, these are not proponents of theistic personalism, but rather the idea that the world of composite things could not exist without something that is non-composite, or in Aristotle's terms, Pure Actuality.

This really means something metaphysically ultimate, which actually doesn't exist in the normal sense of 'exist', since it is existence.

Whether or not such ideas will gain a new momentum, as theistic personalism crumbles, who knows.

Tillich offers God as a solution to the problem of Being. This presupposes that we consider Being a problem. It's not unlike a missionary offering salvation to people who never thought they were damned.

Good point, and you could address the same objection to Aristotle and Aquinas. What if I don't see a need for a metaphysical ultimate? I suppose they would say that we are driven to this idea by the notion of non-ultimate things, or composite things, or contingent things.

And mystics might argue that we are driven there by the experience of transcendence, but that is another kettle of fish.

As I've just finished saying in another thread, people who try to pass off their gut feelings as philosophy are doing no one any favours. As logical bob has just finished telling think, if you've just come here to tell us your likes and dislikes, it's a far cry even from a critique. It's not, of course, what you're doing,; evidently, you've adopted a negative dialectic in discoursing about your belief system. Mysticisim is glorified masturbation. I'm not, understand, saying that it doesn't have its merits.

How to counter? By not countering.

There is no need to refute arguments that are self-refuting.

Any evidence for God that has to come from any theologian philosopher is automatically counter-productive. If God's existence is so evident, then why do you even have to come up with all these clever rhetoric to prove his existence? Surely, if God exists and he wants to make his existence known to us, couldn't he have chosen a simpler, more direct and more effective approach like, for example, come down to earth and introduce himself to everyone?

Put another way, the best evidence for God's non-existence is the fact that people have to come up with all these clever rhetoric to rationalize how God could possibly exist.

Positron wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:My atheism is just like my agoblinism or my aunicornism. Obviously I don't need to go around pointing out my lack of any belief in these particular creatures from myth and high fantasy.

But a theory about God differs from a theory about goblins or unicorns in that a theory about God is a theory about how it is that we are here.

We can simply eliminate a theory about goblins or unicorns, but eliminating a theory about how it is that we are here implies either agnosticism about the issue or an alternate metaphysical position.

So, if some manaic argues that "the goblins in their workshops created all human life" you'll no longer have a basis to dismiss his "theory"..? I don't need to adopt a metaphysical position in order to say his position is a ridiculous fantasy, unworthy of serious consideration.

I don't claim this to be some intellectually-rich position, on its own. It is just my declared opposition to unintelligent, but politically potent, garbage.

But any negative claim about the intelligence or others is necessarily a positive claim about the intelligence of the claimant.

It puts the claimant in very dangerous territory.

I recall a well known radio host who was reading a school handout to demonstrate the low standards of our education system. He said "You will not believe how these idiots have spelt 'wild beast'".

The handout was about wildebeests.

The average monotheistic creationist fascist, such as one of those to whom I was referring, is moronic (at least he's moronic on this topic). I quite am happy to suggest that such a person is less intelligent, in this area, than you or me. Especially me.

The struggle for secularism, for example, ought not to be considered trivial.

It certainly is not trivial - but you are assuming that this is an atheism/theism thing.

I did not conflate secularism with atheism. Implicit in secularism is a certain distrust for at least some of the claims of the monotheistic fascists.

But how do you think that the USA got separation of the church and state in the first place when most of the people involved in that decision were Christians? Separation of church and state is an idea from the dissenting tradition of Christianity - they tried do get the same thing in Britain

Again, I do not conflate atheism with secularism. A Christian secularist can say, "The central claims of the Bible are true, but I'm not confident enough about all of them, or else I'm not thuggish enough, to want all Biblical morality imposed upon everybody with the force of law." When it comes to "Biblical truth", an atheist can simply point out where the onus lies.

Some atheists worry about a slow slide into theocracy: without people calling "bullshit" on the poisonous rubbish monotheists endlessly propagate, this is a possibility. Why not? This has already happened with Islam, and the Christian fascists (in America, for example) want their turn, once again, for a "reign of piety and iron".

Certainly this element exists and they have managed to get more than one presidential candidate to flirt with their ideas, without saying anything explicit.

But I would have thought that if the majority of Christians in the USA wanted a fascist theocracy then you would have a fascist theocracy.

Which is why I said a slow slide into theocracy. It's a numbers game, and some of their "ideas" seem to be gaining popularity.

We laugh at the cretins, but we will not be laughing so much, perhaps, if their numerical advantages allow them to drag us all down with them.

If some group manages to overturn American democracy then it they will not be cretins. It will be the people who allow them to do this that will be the cretins.

I agree that it would be suicidal to roll over and let it happen; but don't underestimate the damage that can be done by large numbers of stupid people.

logical bob wrote:

think wrote:I am interested by thinkers whom I see as working within the mode of thought that has traditionally belonged to the ritualistic or religous thought, but may not explicitly announce themselves as "believers". Seth Benardete is a great example. Zizek would be another. I find the way or mode of thought much more interesting than statements like "god does/does not exist". Such statements tell you nothing out of context.

I'm not familiar with Benardete, though a search turns up a distinguished classicist with holistic ideas about the relationship between philosophy and literature and a reputation for close reading of Greek texts. Žižek, who clearly identifies himself as an atheist, is into psychoanalysis, Marx and Hegel and has mischievously talked about atheism as the true Christianity. How either of these could be considered to be "working within the mode of thought that has traditionally belonged to religious thought" is far from clear.

It doesn't matter, though. If you want to tell us what interests you that's fine, but a far cry from your original statement that "the poverty of atheist thought is a real problem." On the explanation you've given you might as well say that there is a poverty of thought amongst those who don't believe in Zeus since no interesting arguments against his existence have been published recently and the writers who interest you don't explicitly identify themselves as non-believers in Greek mythology.

Lol jesus you guys are jumpy. You asked me who I thought was doing good work, I namechecked some dudes. Obviously, if I think militant secularism is stupid I'm not going to give props to militant theists -- my point is the action happens in the ambiguity. I'm not trying to "pass my tastes off as philosophy" -- peep the context Cito.

Yes, Zizek identifies himself as an atheist (sort of), yes I think in a certain sense he is absolutely correct that atheism is Christianity. His atheism is ambiguous, like Nietzsche, Hegel, Derrida, etc. That's basically where philosophy belongs, in my opinion. How is he in the mode of thought that traditionally belongs to religion? His basic concerns are ritual and symbol, rather than instrument and axiom -- (though, of course, Zizek is an uncommonly eclectic thinker so of course I don't mean to say he is simply limited). I think Zizek would be a perfect counter example to the intellectual poverty of atheist thought, even though his atheism is (in my opinion) extrinsic. Why does Nietzsche see himself as descended from the line of religious thinkers rather than scientific thinkers? Not because he's a militant theist!

My point is not that atheism is bad, or whatever. But I do think militant atheism fights the wrong battles, participates in a degraded argument. Militant atheism's natural enemy is religious fundamentalism. How high can the level of the argument be? I would like to see more atheists like Zizek, fewer like Sam Harris in the public imagination. I can't complain too much as it seems this is exactly the direction we are headed. Hopefully we can step back from the "god debate" and check out some of the larger and more interesting ideas being brought to the table by Hegel and Plato scholars, Marxists, Lacanians, and empiricists. If you can be a hegelian atheist, or an empiricist theist...there are probably more interesting aspects of thought to worry about than "is the set of (possible or actual) gods non-empty".

think wrote:How high can the level of the argument be?

If it does not rise above mere commentary on the state of philosophy, then the level of the argument rises to the level of journalism. As a blog post, not bad. Wake me when I can see it in print. Ink is good.

Cito di Pense wrote:

think wrote:How high can the level of the argument be?

If it does not rise above mere commentary on the state of philosophy, then the level of the argument rises to the level of journalism. As a blog post, not bad. Wake me when I can see it in print. Ink is good.

lol oooookay. Would you like to make any positive contributions to this humble discussion of recent philosophical developments or are you just here to troll?

If anyone wants to get down to the nitty gritty, we can look at some text and comb the arguments...I would love that! But that doesn't mean there's no value in merely surveying the landscape. It is occasionally permissible to talk about philosophy....

think wrote:...there are probably more interesting aspects of thought to worry about than "is the set of (possible or actual) gods non-empty".

But would you recognize it if you ran into it?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

think wrote:...there are probably more interesting aspects of thought to worry about than "is the set of (possible or actual) gods non-empty".

But would you recognize it if you ran into it?

What "it" are you referring to?

logical bob wrote:

think wrote:However, I do think the intellectual poverty of atheist thought is a real problem.

Turning that on its head, could you give us an example of some intellectually rich theistic thought from, say, the last 60 years?

Analytic thomism.

think wrote:I would like to see more atheists like Zizek, fewer like Sam Harris in the public imagination.

What do you think of Žižek's flirtation with Stalinism? I find this far more crass and disqualifying than anything Harris has said, and Harris has made some silly remarks.

Matthew Shute wrote:

think wrote:I would like to see more atheists like Zizek, fewer like Sam Harris in the public imagination.

What do you think of Žižek's flirtation with Stalinism? I find this far more crass and disqualifying than anything Harris has said, and Harris has made some silly remarks.

Frankly, it is a bit crass. Zizek is a crass, anti-humanist, anti-bourgeois personality.

More disturbing is the possibility that there is an intrinsic connection between Hegel and Rousseau's philosophy and Stalinism. Zizek's views on Stalinism are obviously controversial, intentionally provocative, blah blah blah...I think he is looking in the right places for a solution to problems that have been inherited through Hegelian philosophy and Rousseau's anti-enlightenment political theory; but, I don't think Zizek has come up with an adequate solution. What he has done is insist that we understand other ideas from the inside rather than merely judging them by whatever external criteria we happen to uphold...of course, this activity requires something like "flirtation" with Stalinism. One has to get "inside" Stalinism to understand the purges. So I applaud him for taking seriously the connection between philosophy and the substance of political life (the failure to do so on the part of Harris and the like could also be considered "crass" on the level of bad thinking rather than bad opining), but basically I would say Zizek doesn't have the right answer yet and unfortunately he sometimes devolves into a self-parodying media whore.

Whatever he thinks of Christianity and Stalinism, he's one scruffy hombre.