tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post8474807161391815663..comments2024-03-29T03:19:09.227-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: IN DEFENSE OF ATHEISM, IN A MANNER OF SPEAKINGRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-11509928986870539892016-12-12T04:46:31.754-05:002016-12-12T04:46:31.754-05:00As a communist, I am a bit perplexed. Why should a...As a communist, I am a bit perplexed. Why should a communist be offended when an exploiter calls him/her "commie"? Why should anyone expect the exploiter to act differently?<br /><br />Nobody would expect a tapeworm to change their behavior: they do what tapeworms do. Exactly the same applies to exploiters: they do what exploiters do.<br /><br />As a commie, I'd feel worried if an exploiter suddenly acted differently. Makes sense?<br /><br />The Uninvited AnonymousAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-16072268684066512742016-12-10T17:30:37.391-05:002016-12-10T17:30:37.391-05:00Well, since GJ has opened the door, I'll enter...<br />Well, since GJ has opened the door, I'll enter. IMO, broad brush phrases like "the shallowness of the new atheists" who are "trying to convert the world to atheism" are at least misleading and arguably wrong. Consequently, they unjustifiably insult most writers who have been associated with that term. <br /><br />NA writers with whom I'm familiar wrote at a level appropriate to their target audiences - audiences likely to include few people willing and able to tackle Nietzsche, Feurbach, Russell, and such. In the introduction to TGD, Dawkins explicitly defines his target audience as those already wavering in their faith and perhaps needing assurance that they are in respectable company in doing so - not what I would call "proselytizing". Dennett's Breaking the Spell explicitly seeks to put some scientific meat on the phenomenon of religious belief in general, suggesting a science friendly target audience. Harris's End of Faith is indeed an example of polemics, unfortunately an early entry in anti-Muslim hysteria. Lesser known writers such as Jennifer Hecht (and possibly Susan Jacoby - I'm not sure she accepts the NA label) write as popularizing historians, not polemicists. I can't speak to Hitchens's target audience since by the time it appeared I had already had enough of the genre, but his book presumably is also a polemic although one aimed at his usual audience. Ie, the target audience for NA books with which I'm familiar is the better educated segment of the general public, not the academy. As GJ suggests, theological depth is neither required nor appropriate to that audience. (I assume that public talks and TV documentaries may well be polemic, but obviously neither target the academy.) <br /><br />In any event, the NA phenomenon seems to have had its fifteen minutes of fame and to be currently of little if any significance. So it's unclear to me what at this late date motivates such seemingly out-of-context de rigueur snarks, especially if arguably inaccurate. Charles Wolvertonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-87764656741647037832016-12-10T16:51:28.725-05:002016-12-10T16:51:28.725-05:00Don't knock the New Atheists. An effective cri...Don't knock the New Atheists. An effective critique of theism doesn't have to be profound. Indeed, to insist on such profundity would be to miss an essential point of their critique: that something as silly as belief in gods (or ghosts, or fairies, or whatever) shouldn't be accorded the respect and deference it's typically accorded. <br /><br />But to be more on topic, it's a mistake to assume that one's atheism has to be, or should be, profound. Mine certainly isn't: just as I'm an "atheist" about preternatural beings like the gods of ancient Greece and Rome, so I'm an atheist about the god of Islam and Christianity. It's just that simple...and unprofound. GJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05405004325909934516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-15944312083446871682016-12-09T14:32:30.641-05:002016-12-09T14:32:30.641-05:00Daniel Langlois,
I'm not asking you to respec...Daniel Langlois,<br /><br />I'm not asking you to respect communism, but to use respectful language about communists, that is, not to use the word "commie" to refer to them.<br /><br />This is a philosophy blog and any criticism, respectful or not, of communism as a doctrine or system is welcome, I imagine. <br /><br />When I ask for respect for communists, I'm not thinking of Stalin, but of many friends and people with whom I've participated in left political struggles, both here in Chile and in the United States, who were members of the Communist Party. I'd like to include Marcelo Concha Bascuñan, member of the Central Committee of the Chilean Communist Party and father of my woman partner, disappeared by the Pinochet dictatorship in 1976. They all may have been blind to human rights abuses in communist countries, but they were well-intentioned human beings deserving of respect, concerned about social injustice in the societies they lived in. <br /><br />By the way, I'd like to point out that Trotskyites consider themselves to be communists, are very critical of the lack of democracy in communist countries and would be offended by someone using the word "commie" instead of the word "communist".<br /><br />I hope that you can see why I'm asking you to refrain from using the word "commie" in this blog, where we both participate. If you continue to use it, I guess that I will make a formal protest to the blog owner and ask other participants for their opinion. Otherwise, I hope that we can discuss political ideas with mutual good will.<br />s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-51072066539884580802016-12-09T12:06:31.383-05:002016-12-09T12:06:31.383-05:00If you protest against being called a 'commie&...If you protest against being called a 'commie' because you are not one, that's different than protesting against being called a 'commie' because you are one. I mean, if you are one..you are one. I'm glad we got that cleared up. <br /><br />As to how much respect communism deserves, I don't insist upon the last word. I'm musing on the relation between communism and atheism. Atheism is a critical part of most branches of the Communist ideology. Many governments with Communistic leanings have made concerted efforts to eradicate or renounce religion. The Communist Party of China forbids its members from adhering to any religion, and the Socialist Weimar Republic is responsible for the ~100% atheism rate in parts of East Germany.Mexico under Calles and Albania also followed an aggressive nationalization policy, while Castro threw the clergy into prison in the aftermath of the botched-up Bay of Pigs Invasion. <br /><br />I find whenever I am up against the religious who are very outspoken against Atheists, they bring up that these communist countries are Atheists. This question isn't a jab at atheism. People who believe in god tend to believe in themselves and have self worth, that has no place in a totalitarian government. LOL. Crazy stuff. Too bad it's true :|.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915977609430813824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-72432484312169801972016-12-07T22:14:52.345-05:002016-12-07T22:14:52.345-05:00'I feel that one should not use derogatory ter...'I feel that one should not use derogatory terms for Communists. '<br /><br />I understand how being called a commie by another commie might be very much more agreeable than being refered to in that way by a capitalist pig or liberal apologist wimp or pig -ignorant non-political someone who tries too hard to show that they are clever, in a way which annoys other people. But, I do have a point, it was a point about relevance. If we're going to pitch atheism, then communism seems relevant here. Thanks for helping me to make my point!<br /><br />I'm not saying it like "arghghhh you damn commies and your cold war". A commie is a communist. I'm saying it like 'when Brezhnev became head of the commie party he did this and this and this'. No one cares what commies think anyway. I think we just might care, though, that talk of the 'commie threat' reached its peak in the early 1950s - a period of US history known as the Second Red Scare. During the infamous witch hunts by Senator Joseph McCarthy in Cold War USA, being branded a 'commie' could lose someone their job, friends and leave them cut off from society. <br /><br />While I am musing about the proper company that I am in, here, and considering that you shouldn't call someone a commie unless you want to start a fight, I'll plug Bill Vallicella ('Kant, subjectivity and facticity'); I'm looking at his blog posts about Wolff. Sample comment: 'When the otherwise distinguished Robert Paul Wolff over at The Philosopher's Stone plays the stoned philosopher and quits the reservation of Good Sense, I call him 'Howlin' Wolff.'' Another remark: 'he is a lifelong lefty, having first drunk the Kool-Aid at the Sunnyside Progressive School.' I am willing to stipulate that 'lefty' is sometimes considered to be a bit derogatory. Ask me how an American would refer to a socialist, if not by lefty, and I would probably answer pinko, which is rarely used without derogatory intent and is frequently used in phrases like pinko-commie bastard. I would be clear, that there are few localities in America (Vermont comes to mind) where one could publicly use the word 'good' to modify 'socialist' and not start a fight.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915977609430813824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-81020937042044041952016-12-07T16:05:14.547-05:002016-12-07T16:05:14.547-05:00As an atheist Marxist I can definitely say I have ...As an atheist Marxist I can definitely say I have nothing but love for Berkeley, the new Pope, Spinoza, and Rousseau.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-47823194135620812492016-12-07T15:31:26.299-05:002016-12-07T15:31:26.299-05:00Daniel Langlois,
We had a long conversation a wee...Daniel Langlois,<br /><br />We had a long conversation a week or so ago about Cuba a week or so ago and one of the reasons that I stopped answering your question is that I found your use of the word "commie" offensive. I'm not a Communist myself, but I have known Communist Party members here in Chile as well as in the United States and I feel offended for their sake when you use the term "commie". I googled the word "commie" and it is <br />generally considered to be a derogatory term.<br /><br />http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Commie<br /><br />https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/commie<br /><br />Just as one would not use a derogatory term for Jews or gay people or African-American people in this blog, I feel that one should not use derogatory terms for Communists. <br /><br />s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-45320680447560579042016-12-07T15:19:23.947-05:002016-12-07T15:19:23.947-05:00It might be relevant to consider why the League fo...It might be relevant to consider why the League for the Revolutionary Party do not in general accept people who believe in God. They're a Trotskyist organisation in the United States. A fundamental tenet of their organization is our conception of consciousness, and specifically class-consciousness. They believe revolutionary proletarian consciousness is a product of the class struggle itself. I mention them, as a small, propaganda organization with an enormous task of cohering the vanguard of the working class. It's not that I'm a member it's just a reminder that there are commies, is this relevant? I'm thinking in terms of clarifying Marx’s view, not my own. If you are an atheist, you are not only against Berkeley and the Pope, you are against Spinoza and Rousseau.In politics, the most important differences are always of course, the differences you have with your closest friends.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915977609430813824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-40581880398221536142016-12-07T14:43:46.075-05:002016-12-07T14:43:46.075-05:00Alternatively, students often defend evil in the w...Alternatively, students often defend evil in the world as necessary for good. E.g., we need pain to appreciate pleasure, we need suffering and loss to experience joy and gain. Oddly enough though these defenses imply that Heaven is going to be a very boring place.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-19864800414093635332016-12-07T12:00:14.813-05:002016-12-07T12:00:14.813-05:00Well, Jerry, if George Bernard Shaw is to be belie...Well, Jerry, if George Bernard Shaw is to be believed, you will have good company and be listening to Mozart.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-4865586734097320442016-12-07T11:05:06.014-05:002016-12-07T11:05:06.014-05:00Of course! Your literary examples explain this. I ...Of course! Your literary examples explain this. I should have gotten it! I will probably burn in hell now.Jerry Fresiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566575038825699112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-12106108494710220292016-12-07T10:23:34.562-05:002016-12-07T10:23:34.562-05:00As a failed philosopher (I have a BA and some MA s...As a failed philosopher (I have a BA and some MA study), and even more as a fan of Russell, and perhaps even a disciple of Nietzsche, I deeply appreciate this comment.TheDudeDiogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613928663752680375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-24494619307571864872016-12-07T08:28:16.409-05:002016-12-07T08:28:16.409-05:00Jerry, I am sorry I did not make this clear. I wa...Jerry, I am sorry I did not make this clear. I was not saying that God is the author of the Bible. I was saying He is the author of the world! The world is a story told by God. Hence the world [not the Gospels or the rest of the Bible] exists from a narrative point of view.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-33943692098411366602016-12-07T07:43:40.547-05:002016-12-07T07:43:40.547-05:00Russell's essay is entitled "Why I am not...Russell's essay is entitled "Why I am not a Christian", not "Why You should not be a Christian" and that differentiates him from the New Atheists, who are annoying because they are trying to convert the world to atheism, are proselytists, are salesmen. Russell has too much class for that. <br /><br />I find it strange that several commenters, whom I assume are professional philosophers (I'm not one), find Russell's rational arguments for atheism to be shallow or not profound. Does a lifetime of practicing philosophy convince one that rational arguments (supposedly the lifeblood of philosophy) are somehow superficial or less convincing than an examination of unconscious motives and strategies such one finds in Nietzsche? That would be ironic if it were the case. <br /><br />It is true that there are good reasons and bad reasons for being religious or being an atheist, but they are as varied as are human beings. For someone as rational as Russell, standard rational arguments are undoubtedly a good reason for not believing in God. Others may reject religion, especially Christianity, because they find it to be strategy of those who are weak and resentful (Nietzsche says that he could believe in a dancing god such as Dionysus). There are those who are religious because rational arguments convince them just as there are those who are religious because they seek the community of believers or find religious rituals to be moving. A bad reason to be religious might be because religious services are a great place to pick pockets. A bad reason to be an atheist might be to piss your mother off, although at times that's not such a bad reason.s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-81157168412356125002016-12-07T07:43:17.109-05:002016-12-07T07:43:17.109-05:00Great blog. I don't understand the statement t...Great blog. I don't understand the statement that God "is quite literally the author" when the gospels are "according to" so and so, and differ importantly at that...because they are "inspired?" <br /><br /><br />Jerry Fresiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566575038825699112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-61919938599447510732016-12-07T07:08:03.620-05:002016-12-07T07:08:03.620-05:00Ed is definitely right about the shallowness of th...Ed is definitely right about the shallowness of the new atheists. Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-4803348798130549452016-12-07T05:38:51.790-05:002016-12-07T05:38:51.790-05:00Just rereading your original post, Bob, and unders...Just rereading your original post, Bob, and understanding it better. I think you've hit the nail on the head. It comes down in the end to whether one "experiences the world in that way." Nietzsche didn't, and that's why, as Ed Barreras said above, Nietzsche's critique is profound and Russell's not so much. The levels of dialectic, though, are dizzying. E.g., people on both sides of the divide are correct that those on the other side may well have gotten there in bad faith: the religious person, as Nietzsche said, by ressentiment; the secular person by rebellion. And so it goes. It's dilemmas all the way down. That's probably why this post has gotten more commentary than any in quite a while. Tom Cathcarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136970056480275148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-29209502268033219142016-12-06T22:30:42.771-05:002016-12-06T22:30:42.771-05:00Interesting definition of religion from the late c...Interesting definition of religion from the late cultural anthropologist, Clifford Geertz: "(1) a set of symbols (2) which acts to establish powerful moods and motivations in men [sic] (3) by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic." Most argument is about (4), while the nub of the matter is (2) and (3).Tom Cathcarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136970056480275148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-6508265770432190302016-12-06T22:07:28.154-05:002016-12-06T22:07:28.154-05:00Correction to my previous post: That should read &...Correction to my previous post: That should read "Jacques Maritain."Ed Barrerashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00245166137503830356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-20270834097300549712016-12-06T22:05:19.860-05:002016-12-06T22:05:19.860-05:00For the record, I think Russell's critique of ...For the record, I think Russell's critique of theism is mostly shallow. It's certainly a come-down from the likes of Nietzsche and Feuerbach, who were leagues more sophisticated in their theological understanding. It seems to me there's a direct line from Russell to the kind of sneering, ill-informed polemics against religion we see from the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. This probably has something to do with the proto-positivism inherent in Russell's broader philosophical commitments. In any case, the debate between Russell and the Catholic philosopher Frederick Copleston (he of the multi-volume history of philosophy) is available on YouTube for anyone interested. <br /><br />Matt, if you are interested in Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy you may want to check out Edward Feser's *Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide*. This is a short, accessible introduction to Aquinas that emphasizes so-called analytic Thomism, that is, Thomistic philosophy as interpreted in light of current topics in analytic philosophy. If you already have a strong background in philosophy, you may find its discussions too basic. The same author recently published a book called *Scholastic Metaphysics*, which I have not read but which apparently is more substantial. I should say, though, that Feser has had a separate career as a particularly nasty conservative polemicist. This is perhaps not surprising, as, for better or worse, Thomists tend to be politically conservative Catholics. Is this a reason not to be a Thomist? Perhaps. But I feel compelled to mention this in case you're someone who likes to be judicious in where you spend your hard earned money (you could buy a used copy). You may also want to look into the great early twentieth-century Thomists Etienne Gilson and Jacques Miritain. Also, Pierre Hadot has a slim book on Plotinus that is, of course, wonderful. In fact, I'd say start with Hadot's book. Ed Barrerashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00245166137503830356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-74022136098286156362016-12-06T22:03:47.076-05:002016-12-06T22:03:47.076-05:00My undergraduate advisor was a philosopher of reli...My undergraduate advisor was a philosopher of religion for some forty years, and at one point right around retirement (and during a Paul Tillich study group) he remarked, "I've never seen a student suddenly stand up in class and say, 'Eureka! I get it now!'"<br /><br />More to the point, William James, back in his <i>Varieties of Religious Experience</i>, notes that religious conversion often has a long build-up, even if it's not obvious at the conscious level, and even if the person who's about to change doesn't realize it.<br /><br />Conversion, in any of the accounts I've seen and heard, involves a change not simply in propositional beliefs, but in worldview, in the way things are seen and experienced, how the world seems to one to be ordered. Religious belief in general, in the cases where it deeply held, seems usually to be like this. Arguments, at best, come along for the ride. As someone who has never had that sort of belief, I can see why it would be comforting. To be a character in the story of a great author would be better than good, or than great--it would be <i>important</i>. And that, I think, would trump all other considerations.Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07676100459376704673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-49508251724994427152016-12-06T21:50:00.967-05:002016-12-06T21:50:00.967-05:00All the best Christians are atheists. I.e., they&...All the best Christians are atheists. I.e., they're not theists. I'm thinking Santayana, Tillich, and in a sense, believe it or not, a lot of Christians in the pews. That is, for them (us), religion isn't a set of beliefs or propositions or dogmata. Martin Buber said religion is an attitude. You feel an I-Thou relationship to the world rather than I-It. That's not something you can argue for or against. It's more like music than prose. Some people hear the music, some don't. Those who hear it say it inspires them to humility, forgiveness, awe, gratitude, love. Not that secular people can't have those attributes. Obviously they can. But for the people who hear it, the music seems a sublime expression of those things. Are our religious feelings just projections of our own stuff onto some vague idea of the Absolute? Who knows? Who cares? It really makes no difference. Too bad that religious apologists get hung up on the doctrinal stuff. Harnack thought it was the Greeks that got the Judaeo-Christian religion off on a foreign, conceptual track. As Bob says, arguments for or against the "existence" of God are foreign to the Biblical mind-set. I can't think of a single intelligent atheist that I disagree with. But when I hear the music, I go to church. And when I hear Martin Luther King speak, it gets to me more deeply than when I hear Stokely Carmichael. I don't know why, it just does. It's the difference between poetry and prose.Tom Cathcarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136970056480275148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-16603588582330811782016-12-06T16:12:55.132-05:002016-12-06T16:12:55.132-05:00I am also reminded of the dialog between Frodo and...I am also reminded of the dialog between Frodo and Sam in the Two Towers:<br /><br />“And we shouldn’t be here at all, if we’d known more about it before we started. But I suppose it’s often that way. The brave things in the old tales and songs, Mr. Frodo, adventures, as I used to call them. I used to think that they were things the wonderful folk of the stories went out and looked for, because they wanted them, because they were exciting and life was a bit dull, a kind of a sport, as you might say. But that’s not the way of it with the tales that really mattered, or the ones that stay in the mind. Folk seem to have been just landed in them, usually their paths were laid that way, as you put it. But I expect they had lots of chances, like us, of turning back, only they didn’t. And if they had, we shouldn’t know, because they’d have been forgotten. We hear about those as just went on, and not all to a good end, mind you; at least not to what folk inside a story and not outside it call a good end. You know, coming home, and finding things all right, though not quite the same; like old Mr Bilbo. But those aren’t always the best tales to hear, though they may be the best tales to get landed in! I wonder what sort of a tale we’ve fallen into?”<br /><br />“I wonder,” said Frodo, “But I don’t know. And that’s the way of a real tale. Take any one that you’re fond of. You may know, or guess, what kind of a tale it is, happy-ending or sad-ending, but the people in it don’t know. And you don’t want them to.”Briannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-91203433306938261312016-12-06T16:10:42.021-05:002016-12-06T16:10:42.021-05:00"And because, although I would find it demean..."And because, although I would find it demeaning to be merely a character in a story, a part of me longs for the security and meaning that being such a character offers."<br /><br />Precisely. We are all little pebbles of various sizes rolling down the same side of the mountain.Briannoreply@blogger.com