Tuesday, April 2, 2013
O.K.
Three people have said they would like me to talk about philosophical proofs for the existence of God, and more broadly, about the philosophical discussions of God in Western Philosophy. That is, from my point of view, "popular demand," so tomorrow I shall begin a short series of posts on the subject. Don't say you didn't ask for it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Seeing as you're a Marxist, you may also be interested in Allen Wood's (the Kantian) reformulation of Marx's rejection of god. It goes something like this:
1. God is an independent being
2. Not every being can be a dependent being.
3. God is the independent being which accounts for our dependence.
4. But God is therefore dependent on humans to be realized as an independent being.
Therefore god is not an independent being.
I may be mixing it up, and since Marx wrote it in his youth it's slightly more Hegelian, but it's nevertheless interesting.
Sorry, I've mixed it up. Here it is as Wood presents it.
1. If there were a nonobjective being (God), it would be the only being; there be no objective beings.
2.But there are objective beings.
Therefore 3, there is no nonobjective being.
I would throw in a request.
I have been frustrated by Dawkins' claims that belief in God leads to irrational behavior. I know too many counter-examples.
I just think our professions have done a good job getting people to check their theology at the door almost all the time. Very few emergency rooms check the religious convictions of doctors and nurses. Their work is free-standing.
Most US believers are annoyed by religious arguments in the middle of politics or science.
More common and just as frustrating is the belief that one must believe in God to be moral.
There are many lapses to secular reasoning but I think so much of our work can be done without needing to reach common conclusions on religion.
We should talk about religion because we should seek the truth. I am a philosopher and want to promote this debate. But I find it depressing how many people see ethics itself on the line.
When Dawkins says that Islam is the leading source of evil in the world-- well, I would just like to hear from someone who has read some Marx.
Marx would of course point that the evil committed amongst muslims is not done in the name of Islam directly. That is, there is not a causal connection between being a muslim and being violent. The connection comes the poverty of their economic base (e.g., think of the abject poverty Palestinians live in). Religion is an outlet of expression for a deeper poverty, and depravity, that exist outside that religious system.
This thesis makes a lot more sense. That's why predominately terrorist are those with nothing left to lose, and those with everything to lose, rarely use their faith for terrorism.
Post a Comment