[lbo-talk] The God Delusion

[Jeffrey Fisher]

On 10/24/06, Jerry Monaco <monacojerry at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/24/06, joanna <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> > I fail to understand how a story about human small-mindedness becomes a
> > story about how there is nothing other than a material universe.
> >
> > Joanna
> >
> >
>
> 1) All organized religions are double edged, just like all ideologies.  At
> times they can broaden our way of thinking, bringing us to see patterns we
> didn't previously see, that may be true (unfortunately they are often false)
> and at other times they can make us small minded.  (I except
> Maoism-Avakianism which always lowers the IQ of the believer.  No double
> edge there!)  All organized religions and ideologies usually produce a way
> of thinking that brings about confirmation bias and a tendency to search for
> causal explanations that fit into one's world-view. Narrow-mindedness is a
> correct term here, but in my opinion "smart" people are as likely, if not
> more likely, to fall into this way of thinking as "dumb" people.  I do not
> exempt myself here.  I do it all the time.  ("Ah but I was so much older
> then, I am younger than that now.")  Jeffrey's example is just one
> illustration of this process.
>
> 2)  I haven't jumped into this conversation because frankly I find the whole
> thing beside the point.  I have always considered myself an "atheist" (since
> about age 13) but this was mostly a political-cultural reaction to the
> Catholic Church and later a cultural-political attraction to secular
> socialism and anarchism.  But frankly, this is all that I can say because:
>
> a: I don't know what either atheism or theism means.  I have never been able
> to figure it out.  So I would rather call myself, like Erich Fromm, a
> non-theist.  But I have read Spinoza's Ethics several times since my teenage
> years,  and I have to say he is a theist who is so consistent and monist
> that he could also either be a pantheist or as (Spinoza himself affirms) a
> monotheist.
>
> b:  If you define god or gods by any historical or current organized
> religion then I would say that I am an atheist.  The great religious books
> interpreted literally seem the equivalent of fairy tales to me.  But many
> believers I know interpret the great religions "historically."  In other
> words, as human beings grow, individually and socially so does their notions
> of god or gods. Meister Eckhart once said that any set conception of "God"
> was a form of idolatry.  His mysticism sometimes seems equivalent to
> atheism.

maybe i'm misunderstanding joanna and jerry, but at the moment i'm
finding it very interesting that my own anecdote -- a very small part
of a very long story leading up to and including my present a/theistic
position -- has suddenly landed me on the side of those hostile to
religion.

the idea that i somehow extrapolated from a twisted would-be
missionary to the non-existence of god, or that that was the point of
my anecdote, is a little much. but i certainly don't believe in *that
guy's* god and never would.

my academic work is primarily in mysticism, and within that negative
theology. i'm quite familiar with eckhart and his spirtual
grandfather, dionysius the areopagite (on whom i've published). i also
find nagarjuna's brand of buddhism very appealing. but i chose not to
talk about those things because it seemed to me that most people on
this list already thought me a religious man, and it seemed more
germane and maybe more interesting to note how i am not. the first
step away from it -- for me -- was to begin to recognize what in
certain forms of religiosity was simply unacceptable to me. i do not
claim either that there is no god or, still less, that my anecdote
proves it. on the contrary, no such thing can be proven. and eckhart's
apophaticism, including his idea of idolatry, is very near to my own
thinking about things, although i still prefer the horse's mouth
(dionysius) and i still feel infinitely more atheist than christian,
or even religious or, god forbid, "spiritual" <shudder>.

so, just for the record.

beyond that, i have never liked the word agnostic, which always seemed
to me a way of avoiding committing oneself to the term atheist. i
prefer to say i'm an atheist and then, if it gets that far, explain
what i mean by it -- which includes the idea that i don't claim to
"know" any more than an agnostic does. i tend to understand theism
technically, as referring to a belief in a personal god who takes an
active hand in the world. i don't believe in that. if i did, i would
worship that god. i'm not a deist, either, in part because, who
worships a deistic god? what's the point? and that's the thing, right?
so i call myself an atheist and i have a pretty good idea what i mean
by it, and i think it's sustainable both in technical philosophy of
religion/theology terms and in common terms of not believing in (any
of) the god(s) that people will generally mean when they ask me if i
believe in god. in those cases it's much easier to just say no than to
try to explain what i do think. and more likely to be understood.

and yeah, i like spinoza, too.

j

--
http://brainmortgage.blogspot.com/
http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=18&pid=21721