Philosophy Now Forum

Reflex wrote:Bertrand Russell was an intellectually honest atheist, which makes him a very rare kind of atheist.

In what sense was Russell intellectually more honest than, say, me?

Reflex wrote:I've seen atheists praise the essay and theists remark how depressing it is. Obviously, I fall into the latter group.

You mean you read it? That's one step closer to becoming an imbecile.

Reflex wrote:The only thing I see praiseworthy from an atheist's point of view is the sentiment behind it, which, of course, is irrational by definition.

Well, that is the nature of sentiment, but what exactly do you think that sentiment is?

Sorry, but are we discussing the teapot essay again, or another one?

Nah. Much earlier than the teapot. It's one he wrote in 1903 which "depend(s)," he wrote in 1929, "upon a metaphysic which is more platonic than that which I now believe in."

Nick_A wrote:The essay you linked seems to be a good example of what Simone Weil described as atheism as a purification. I don't see what is irrational about it. As I understand it animal Man lives in a world of darkness in opposition to ourselves destined to be ruled by force. It may be depressing but there is no sense in denying it.

It seems to me to be childish bravado. But you're right: there's no sense in denying what atheism entails -- though atheists here try to put a smiley face on it. And when they do that, they lose a large part of their humanity.

uwot wrote:Nah. Much earlier than the teapot. It's one he wrote in 1903 which "depend(s)," he wrote in 1929, "upon a metaphysic which is more platonic than that which I now believe in."

So he was more rational in his earlier years?

uwot wrote:Nah. Much earlier than the teapot. It's one he wrote in 1903 which "depend(s)," he wrote in 1929, "upon a metaphysic which is more platonic than that which I now believe in."

Ah, okay. I'll skip it then. Teapot makes sense.

Reflex wrote:

uwot wrote:Nah. Much earlier than the teapot. It's one he wrote in 1903 which "depend(s)," he wrote in 1929, "upon a metaphysic which is more platonic than that which I now believe in."

So he was more rational in his earlier years?

I imagine you would think so. He was once pottering around Cambridge, thinking about the ontological argument, when he suddenly decided it was sound. Then again, he promptly chose not to believe it anyway.

Reflex wrote: Nick_A wrote:The essay you linked seems to be a good example of what Simone Weil described as atheism as a purification. I don't see what is irrational about it. As I understand it animal Man lives in a world of darkness in opposition to ourselves destined to be ruled by force. It may be depressing but there is no sense in denying it.

It seems to me to be childish bravado. But you're right: there's no sense in denying what atheism entails -- though atheists here try to put a smiley face on it. And when they do that, they lose a large part of their humanity.

Atheism that I respect recognizes the problem of the human condition. But as you say when it puts a smiley face on it or when it glorifies it I agree that it loses its human value and only tries to justify its egoism. Bertrand Russell wrote of the effect of force. Jesus did also in Luke 13:

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

The word repent here is really a bad translation of “metanoia” or a change in mind, a change in the direction of the soul as Plato described. But the point is that we as animal Man, creatures of reaction as opposed to conscious action, are subject to the same laws of force the rest of organic life on earth is. We can BS all we want but will still be hit by falling towers

Simone Weil describes our relation to force in her famous essay on the Iliad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iliad ... m_of_Force

Weil introduces the central theme of her essay in the first three sentences:
"The true hero, the true subject, the centre of the Iliad, is force. Force employed by man, force that enslaves man, force before which man's flesh shrinks away. In this work at all times, the human spirit is shown as modified by its relation to force, as swept away, blinded, by the very force it imagined it could handle, as deformed by the weight of the force it submits to." She proceeds to define force as that which turns anyone subjected to it into a thing – at worst, into a corpse. Weil discusses the emotional and psychological violence one suffers if forced to submit to force even when not physically hurt, holding up the slave and the supplicant as examples. She goes on to say force is dangerous not just to the victim, but to whoever controls it, as it intoxicates, partly by numbing the senses of reason and pity. Force thus can turn even its possessor into a thing – an unthinking automaton driven by rage or lust. The essay relates how the Iliad suggests that no one truly controls force; as everyone in the poem, even the mighty Achilles and Agamemnon, suffer at least briefly when the force of events turns against them. Weil says only by using force in moderation can one escape its ill effects, but that the restraint to do this is very rarely found, and is only a means of temporary escape from force's inevitable heft………………………………….

There is no use in either denying or proclaiming how wonderful our situation is. Atheists like Russell are aware of the human condition but find no relief other than through imagination. Is there a way out? That is where the essence of religion comes in. Is conscious evolution back to our origin possible for man? Christianity as well as all the great traditions originating with a conscious source seek in their esoteric purpose to awaken Man to this potential. It is a worthy question but couldn’t be sincerely discussed in public. The spirit killers and the blind deniers would get a hold of it and the inevitable conclusion would once again be “yo momma sucks.” But in private it can and we need more opportunities for people to share on the great questions.

Nick_A wrote:Christianity as well as all the great traditions originating with a conscious source seek in their esoteric purpose to awaken Man to this potential. It is a worthy question but couldn’t be sincerely discussed in public. The spirit killers and the blind deniers would get a hold of it and the inevitable conclusion would once again be “yo momma sucks.” But in private it can and we need more opportunities for people to share on the great questions.

Hence, it would seem, the esoteric, apophatic and “secret teachings" to avoid the antagonisms that prevail in this forum.

I may be something of an ass to say so, but I am often amused to see the uninitiated (for the lack of a better term) stumble over the concrete because they do not recognizing the different modes of language: univocal, equivocal and analogous. For them, it's all univocal and the rest simply incoherent. To be fair, it is incoherent to them, but that does not mean the other modes of speech don't carry meaning for others.

To use one well-known example, "What is the sound of one hand clapping" sounds like gibberish, but from a certain point of view, it makes perfect sense. Trying to explain how or why it makes sense, however, is, at least as far as I can tell, impossible.

Reflex wrote:

I may be something of an ass to say so, but I am often amused to see the uninitiated (for the lack of a better term) stumble over the concrete because they do not recognizing the different modes of language: univocal, equivocal and analogous. For them, it's all univocal and the rest simply incoherent. To be fair, it is incoherent to them, but that does not mean the other modes of speech don't carry meaning for others.

I remember when I used to ask why the New Testament seems so mysterious? If something needs to be said just say it. I never really understood the purpose of the New Testament. It seemed to be a historical document with the purpose of gaining followers. I was lucky to learn and verify that the New Testament is a psychological document serving the purpose of awakening and the conscious transition from the old man into the New Man: "Re birth." Then it became clear that words and ideas had to contain levels of meaning and each level had to correspond with the level of awareness of the reader. I know when I experienced even the beginning levels, they made me aware of my ignorance in expecting that the New Testament could be written like a text book catering duality.

Parables for example are a means to bypass the dual mind that wants to classify everything. When it becomes impossible to classify, the mind opens and a person can experience the depth of a parable. I could be sent to Siberia for reeducation for this but I believe that the psychology within the new Testament exceeds anything we call psychology now. It serves the purpose of art of a higher order.

Nick_A wrote:Reflex wrote:

I may be something of an ass to say so, but I am often amused to see the uninitiated (for the lack of a better term) stumble over the concrete because they do not recognizing the different modes of language: univocal, equivocal and analogous. For them, it's all univocal and the rest simply incoherent. To be fair, it is incoherent to them, but that does not mean the other modes of speech don't carry meaning for others.

I remember when I used to ask why the New Testament seems so mysterious? If something needs to be said just say it. I never really understood the purpose of the New Testament. It seemed to be a historical document with the purpose of gaining followers. I was lucky to learn and verify that the New Testament is a psychological document serving the purpose of awakening and the conscious transition from the old man into the New Man: "Re birth." Then it became clear that words and ideas had to contain levels of meaning and each level had to correspond with the level of awareness of the reader. I know when I experienced even the beginning levels, they made me aware of my ignorance in expecting that the New Testament could be written like a text book catering duality.

Parables for example are a means to bypass the dual mind that wants to classify everything. When it becomes impossible to classify, the mind opens and a person can experience the depth of a parable. I could be sent to Siberia for reeducation for this but I believe that the psychology within the new Testament exceeds anything we call psychology now. It serves the purpose of art of a higher order.

Works for me.

You do realize, don't you, that this kind of talk leaves atheists with nothing to talk about?

This particular female primate currently considers the below to be one of the few remaining gaps in knowledge in which "The God of the Gaps" can be inserted:

Maybe being per se is God? That means everyone and everything is a part of God. So God would be a singular consciousness, a singular life in a sense. That singular entity is composed of many dependent parts that over time will become ever more eloquent in expressing reality's fundamental nature. To achieve this, the parts must continually be broken up and reformed, the new forms being more complex and detailed because they include information gathered by earlier generations/iterations.

This concept of God is probably most close to the Omega Point. In time, life is expected to become more "godlike".

Greta wrote: Maybe being per se is God?

Dare I count the number of times I've said that only to be promptly put down by atheists?

That means everyone and everything is a part of God. So God would be a singular consciousness, a singular life in a sense. That singular entity is composed of many dependent parts that over time will become ever more eloquent in expressing reality's fundamental nature. To achieve this, the parts must continually be broken up and reformed, the new forms being more complex and detailed because they include information gathered by earlier generations/iterations.

This concept of God is probably most close to the Omega Point. In time, life is expected to become more "godlike".

Sounds a bit like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Reflex wrote:You do realize, don't you, that this kind of talk leaves atheists with nothing to talk about?

If, like me, you were a bit more of an over-educated imbecile, not only would yoh have plenty to talk about, you would be aware of Karl Popper. There is no arguing with someone who is prepared to make any rationalisation to protect a belief they will defend at all costs.

Reflex wrote:Sounds a bit like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Sounds like you might be a bit more educated than you care to admit.