The God of Kierkegaard (Moved to AvT)
Offline I'm a little concerned about the language used in this freethinkers' forum. It says, "All theist posts will be destroyed". That's rather un-freethinking, isn't it?
The reason I'm a bit concerned, is that it can be too easy to leap to conclusions about what someone means, just because of the language they use. Censoring people because of the words they use sounds to me like totalitarianism - which is just what religions are good at.
A case in point is Soren Kierkegaard. Would he be classified as a theist, given that he wrote so extensively and profoundly on ---- "God".... ?
But wait - what did he mean by God?
He wrote extensively about God, religion, being a Christian, and faith. Yet none of the meanings for these words he used, had anything to do with the established Christianity of his time. He actually wrote "An Attack on Christendom". He referred to God as the Infinite. He referred to religion as one's striving to live truthfully in relation to the Infinite.
Soren Kierkegaard is often mistaken as a Christian who believes in a personal God, because he wrote with extraordinary depth on one's personal relationship to God. The thing is, by God, Kierkegaard wasn't referring to a personal God, or to any finite type of God, or to a supernatural God, but to the Infinite. God, for Kierkegaard, meant literally that which is everything.
He's a good example of how religious misunderstanding goes wrong. To modern Christians, Kierkegaard is a Christian, and yet in his own day, he rejected just about everybody who called themselves a Christian - and he lived in a Christian state. Those 'Christians' rejected his views, and called him an eccentric. To modern atheists, Kierkegaard is also a Christian,and yet if anyone was an atheist, it was him.
I won't go on about Kierkegaard, because he's just an example of how some people get very fixed ideas about what words ought to mean, as if everything is determined by the majority, or common usage.
....But perhaps the warning really means, "If you prefer to let other people decide for you, please don't post here." ?
- Login to post comments
Right, which could be easily construed as a lead-in to talking about a probable infinite God. We get so much of that kind of argument that a knee-jerk reaction could be expected (if you were more familiar with the forums, that is - that's why I wanted to clarify).
I thought "infinite" was literally "not finite". Am I missing a step here? Are you responding to an argument I'm not familiar with? I don't think I know Paul Davies, either.
I admit that I still have my suspicions. If you wanted to discuss Kierkegaard's conception of God, there are more specific ways to go about it, like quoting Kierkegaard, and comparing him to, say, Augustine or Aquinas.
It's a common charge. You don't need the quotes, we really don't believe in magical creatures. Really. That's about all you need to be an atheist.
I don't think there's a certification course. It's enough, even, to profess to not believe in magical creatures here, so there's no reason to claim a greater non-belief in magic.
It's probably just that your writing style matches a couple of the theists, here. Honestly, I think if it turns out to be a misunderstanding, that's going to be the cause, and not some actual dispute about the nature of things or how things are censored. I've seen, as a relatively new moderator, the amount of work that goes into moderating this site, and while you might disagree with the classification of a post, there has been literally no censorship.
But he was addressing an audience that understood the word "God" to mean a personal god. I probably wasn't clear. I know that he disagreed with the Danish church, but the "God of Jesus Christ", as you put it, is a personal god.
Well first of all, the concept of "Ultimate Reality" is a bit dubious, since I don't think any such thing has been discovered or is actually discussed outside of first-year dorm rooms. Reality, at least insofar as philosophy and science are concerned, is a slippery and frequently surprising thing, so speculation about its "ultimate" qualities often sounds a bit reaching.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
It's not that complicated. You said "people don't see any personal advantages in understanding the nature of Ultimate Reality." You're presupposing that your beliefs are true, and then charging that we don't submit to them because we don't see any personal advantages in it. Great job!
I thirst for knowledge because possessing knowledge makes me happy. My goal is thus to discover truth, not to protect my beliefs or gain emotional security. Thus, I don't subscribe to beliefs based on their implicated pros and cons. Of course, it's debatable that being happy is a personal advantage, but this clearly isn't what you meant.
On your question, my objective reality is the same as your "Ultimate Reality," without all the metaphysical woo woo. Reality is reality. If your "Ultimate Reality" is true, then it is, by definition, objective reality.
If it's real, it's real. If it's real, it's objective reality. If there is a true nature of absolutely all realities, whatever the hell that means, then it's still objective reality.
I haven't seen anything logical yet.
So your believe in infinite things despite an evidential vacuum?
Based on your definition, yes.
Ah, so perhaps your "Ultimate Reality" is not what I thought it was; if so, then what I wrote earlier would be incorrect. So, your "Ultimate Reality" can be true for one person, but not another?
What does that mean? Too much Plato?
So, you believe in a God that is somewhat hinted by the Bible, as well as in at least several other scriptures?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Why does a professing "atheist" have to identify ultimate reality as "God?"
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
The reality beyond the appearances of the phenomenal world.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
How can you possibly know about this reality except through your experience of the appearances of the phenomenal world? Isn't the phenomenal world *just* our experience of reality?
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Lmfao, I just saw this post.
I wish I knew.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I was simply answering a question that had been asked. The technical/philosophical term for ultimate reality is the noumenal, as opposed to the phenomenal. As a believer, I hold that ultimate reality is God. And yes, you can experience the divine. This is the basis for faith.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Dude, that's EXTREME ultimate reality. Get it right...
Eden had a 25% murder rate and incest was rampant.