Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Nick_A]

Simone Weil wrote:

The errors of our time come from Christianity without the supernatural. Secularization is the cause—and primarily humanism.

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith: in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be atheistic with the part of myself which is not made for God. Among those men in whom the supernatural part has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.

Those who have experienced the vertical awakening of their supernatural part are fortunate concerning the future of their being but unfortunate in society which has not experienced this awakening. They will be ridiculed and condemned as ignorant except for the charlatans who appeal to those needing consolation.

The believer must remember that atheists are necessary. They help keep the self serving fantasy out of Christianity making it possible for some others to experience the awakening of their spiritual part.

[Thomyum2]

Simone Weil wrote:

The errors of our time come from Christianity without the supernatural. Secularization is the cause—and primarily humanism.

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith: in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be atheistic with the part of myself which is not made for God. Among those men in whom the supernatural part has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.

Those who have experienced the vertical awakening of their supernatural part are fortunate concerning the future of their being but unfortunate in society which has not experienced this awakening. They will be ridiculed and condemned as ignorant except for the charlatans who appeal to those needing consolation.

The believer must remember that atheists are necessary. They help keep the self serving fantasy out of Christianity making it possible for some others to experience the awakening of their spiritual part.

I would say I don't interpret Weil's statement the same way that you seem to do here. Rather, I think what she is pointing out in this passage is that there is a part of our nature that has a desire to form a human and limited concept of God, a desire for certainty about our knowledge of and relationship with God and a sense of security in the feeling that we know the answers, we understand God and are safe in that knowledge - I see this as the 'consolation' to which she refers. I take it not that she is saying that 'atheists are necessary', but rather that their denial of the existence of God puts them at a certain advantage over a believer who clings to human conceptions of the divine; their atheism, paradoxically, frees them from falling into that trap of forming a preconceived idea of God instead of developing a genuine experience of and relationship with the supernatural.

Put a little differently, I'd say that a believer may fall into trap of worshipping their idea of God, rather than a real or living God, who will always remain partly shrouded in mystery beyond the reach our limited and mortal human minds; whereas an atheist could, in a sense, be actually more free to discover the truth on their own by remaining unencumbered by religious teachings or preconceived notions of what God is. The believer must be watchful to keep this human 'part of myself which is not made for God' - this part that desires consolation, desires to have the answers - from becoming a 'hindrance to true faith', that is, a faith that is grounded in a living relationship and not in a particular dogma or set of correct beliefs. Freeing oneself from these kinds of beliefs is the 'purification' here.

Your thoughts? Thank you for sharing this quote - it has inspired me to look more into Weil's work.

[Nick_A]

Hi Thomyum2

I would say I don't interpret Weil's statement the same way that you seem to do here. Rather, I think what she is pointing out in this passage is that there is a part of our nature that has a desire to form a human and limited concept of God, a desire for certainty about our knowledge of and relationship with God and a sense of security in the feeling that we know the answers, we understand God and are safe in that knowledge - I see this as the 'consolation' to which she refers. I take it not that she is saying that 'atheists are necessary', but rather that their denial of the existence of God puts them at a certain advantage over a believer who clings to human conceptions of the divine; their atheism, paradoxically, frees them from falling into that trap of forming a preconceived idea of God instead of developing a genuine experience of and relationship with the supernatural.

I agree. We have this need to provide a human and limited concept of God. The deeper view is taken by those like Plotinus who defined the Absolute as the ONE with the ONE being outside Time and Space. The process of creation within time and space occurs within God or the ONE. This is why the Son is the necessary intermediary between Man and its Source.

John 14:11

Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.

Humanity as a whole lacks the quality of conscious attention necessary for contemplation of the ONE so the scale of the idea devolves into the self serving idolatry of a personal GOD

Put a little differently, I'd say that a believer may fall into trap of worshipping their idea of God, rather than a real or living God, who will always remain partly shrouded in mystery beyond the reach our limited and mortal human minds; whereas an atheist could, in a sense, be actually more free to discover the truth on their own by remaining unencumbered by religious teachings or preconceived notions of what God is. The believer must be watchful to keep this human 'part of myself which is not made for God' - this part that desires consolation, desires to have the answers - from becoming a 'hindrance to true faith', that is, a faith that is grounded in a living relationship and not in a particular dogma or set of correct beliefs. Freeing oneself from these kinds of beliefs is the 'purification' here.

Yes we worship an idol. I agree the atheist doesn’t worhip anything so is more free to open the supernatural parts of themselves when they accidentally experience the need to do so.

Simone wrote:

There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God.
Perhaps every evil thing has a second aspect—a purification in the course of progress towards the good—and a third which is the higher good.
We have to distinguish carefully between these three aspects because it is very dangerous for thought and for the effective conduct of life to confuse them.
Of two men who have no experience of God, he who denies him is perhaps nearer to him than the other.
The false God who is like the true one in everything, except that we cannot touch him, prevents us from ever coming to the true one.
We have to believe in a God who is like the true God in everything, except that he does not exist, since we have not reached the point where God exists.

I think we would both agree that she describes the human psych and the potential and dangers associated with it.

Perhaps every evil thing has a second aspect—a purification in the course of progress towards the good—and a third which is the higher good.
We have to distinguish carefully between these three aspects because it is very dangerous for thought and for the effective conduct of life to confuse them

It seems atheism supports the need of the Christian to grow beyond the good into the geater good and the experience the heart is searching for.

[Thomyum2]

Simone wrote:

There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God.
Perhaps every evil thing has a second aspect—a purification in the course of progress towards the good—and a third which is the higher good.
We have to distinguish carefully between these three aspects because it is very dangerous for thought and for the effective conduct of life to confuse them.
Of two men who have no experience of God, he who denies him is perhaps nearer to him than the other.
The false God who is like the true one in everything, except that we cannot touch him, prevents us from ever coming to the true one.
We have to believe in a God who is like the true God in everything, except that he does not exist, since we have not reached the point where God exists.

I think we would both agree that she describes the human psych and the potential and dangers associated with it.

Perhaps every evil thing has a second aspect—a purification in the course of progress towards the good—and a third which is the higher good.
We have to distinguish carefully between these three aspects because it is very dangerous for thought and for the effective conduct of life to confuse them

It seems atheism supports the need of the Christian to grow beyond the good into the geater good and the experience the heart is searching for.

I found this article on the web which I think sums this all up very well and you might find to be interesting reading: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/189582862.pdf

The author points out on page 2 that there is an ambiguity in the term 'atheism' in that it can mean "either absence of a belief in God or belief that there is no God". Further along, on page 9, he suggests that these are the 'two atheisms' that Weil mentions in your quote above and it must be the 'absence of belief' definition that she is saying can be a purification:

Although Weil does not spell out in her remark what the other sort of atheism is, we know from things she says elsewhere that she had strong misgivings about the sort of materialistic atheism espoused by Marxists and other revolutionary thinkers or activists in her day, and also about the scientism – the ‘overly zealous reverence for science’ – that she saw around her. We can, then, reasonably surmise that the contrast she is making is between an idolatrous atheism that puts its faith in such things as technological progress or the revolutionary struggle, and another sort that...is capable of forming a bridge for crossing over from idolatrous religion to a purified faith.

So in the other sense of the word, atheism as an active "belief that there is no God", or a belief system wherein the concept of God is simply replaced with one of an excessive faith in science and materialism, can perhaps be understood as another form of that same kind of 'consolation'.

[Nick_A]

I'm glad you came along. Usually I don't get the opportunity to discuss ideas like positive and negative atheism in the context of experienced belief through noesis as opposed to the attractions of idolatry. I'll read the link and get back to you. It is important that at least some have opened to the path leading to the experience of objective human meaning.

[Tegularius]

Why not renounce the supernatural completely as a fable? Doing so doesn't in any way negate the spiritual as an experience independent of the supernatural. Even as an atheist I can walk into a cathedral and feel a certain awe which was not there on the outside. Atheism can resemble a purification by allowing the spiritual to assert itself independent of any peculiarities relating to religion. I don't think it's a mistake to suspect that's precisely how the gods were created as internal placeholders within themselves. The creation of gods and religion was their way of anchoring the spiritual. In the past, especially among ancient civilizations, I think the feeling capacity was considerably more raw and intense than in modern times. The manner in which they created and imagined is far removed from the more contemporary manifestations of spirit. In spite of these severe differences where one would seem alien to the other it all emanates from the same source.

[Nick_A]

Why not renounce the supernatural completely as a fable? Doing so doesn't in any way negate the spiritual as an experience independent of the supernatural. Even as an atheist I can walk into a cathedral and feel a certain awe which was not there on the outside. Atheism can resemble a purification by allowing the spiritual to assert itself independent of any peculiarities relating to religion. I don't think it's a mistake to suspect that's precisely how the gods were created as internal placeholders within themselves. The creation of gods and religion was their way of anchoring the spiritual. In the past, especially among ancient civilizations, I think the feeling capacity was considerably more raw and intense than in modern times. The manner in which they created and imagined is far removed from the more contemporary manifestations of spirit. In spite of these severe differences where one would seem alien to the other it all emanates from the same source.

Here is a typical definition of supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."


Is the Virgin Birth a supernatural event? As absurd as it seems to you now, is it possible that science in the future could explain it and then it would be a natural rather then a supernatural event. Some atheists are open minded and can admit the possibility while others cannot. Atheism and belief are relative in quality. They can become complimentary or just remain in opposition as is the norm for the human condition.

[Tegularius]

Why not renounce the supernatural completely as a fable? Doing so doesn't in any way negate the spiritual as an experience independent of the supernatural. Even as an atheist I can walk into a cathedral and feel a certain awe which was not there on the outside. Atheism can resemble a purification by allowing the spiritual to assert itself independent of any peculiarities relating to religion. I don't think it's a mistake to suspect that's precisely how the gods were created as internal placeholders within themselves. The creation of gods and religion was their way of anchoring the spiritual. In the past, especially among ancient civilizations, I think the feeling capacity was considerably more raw and intense than in modern times. The manner in which they created and imagined is far removed from the more contemporary manifestations of spirit. In spite of these severe differences where one would seem alien to the other it all emanates from the same source.

Here is a typical definition of supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."


Is the Virgin Birth a supernatural event? As absurd as it seems to you now, is it possible that science in the future could explain it and then it would be a natural rather then a supernatural event. Some atheists are open minded and can admit the possibility while others cannot. Atheism and belief are relative in quality. They can become complimentary or just remain in opposition as is the norm for the human condition.

It not only "seems absurd", it is absurd. How many actual (real) virgin births have been reported in ancient times as compared to modern times. As usual, you stretch an argument to a level where open-mindedness itself becomes absurd. Nothing to learn here!

[Fanman]

Tegularius,

Why not renounce the supernatural completely as a fable? Doing so doesn't in any way negate the spiritual as an experience independent of the supernatural. Even as an atheist I can walk into a cathedral and feel a certain awe which was not there on the outside. Atheism can resemble a purification by allowing the spiritual to assert itself independent of any peculiarities relating to religion. I don't think it's a mistake to suspect that's precisely how the gods were created as internal placeholders within themselves. The creation of gods and religion was their way of anchoring the spiritual. In the past, especially among ancient civilizations, I think the feeling capacity was considerably more raw and intense than in modern times. The manner in which they created and imagined is far removed from the more contemporary manifestations of spirit. In spite of these severe differences where one would seem alien to the other it all emanates from the same source.

I do not believe that old (ancient) "supernatural" practices have disappeared, just because people claim they don’t engage in them anymore. In what aspect of life, except technologically and medicinally, have people progressed so much that they don’t do the same things as the ancients did? People will engage in anything they derive something from. And if what they engage in gives them a sense of community, security and/or power, for what reasons would they stop? This does not demonstrate that the supernatural exists, but it does give an indication that there is something there because people continue to live according to its dictates. If atheists went to certain parts of the world and claimed the supernatural doesn't exist, they would be ridiculed.

[Nick_A]

Thanks for the link Thomyum2. The author does understand Simone as well as others I am ignorant of. But It is good to read of others not so dogmatic. When I read this excerpt, the positive atheist would have a negative attitude that would deny understanding. According to Simone, God does not exist for us. From P.9

Like thinkers such as Meister Eckhart before her and Paul Tillich after her, Weil voiced
the thought that speaking of God as ‘existing’ can be misleading.43 She proposes, as a
‘method of purification’, praying to God ‘not only in secret as far as men are concerned, but
with the thought that God does not exist.’44 Commenting on this remark, Gustave Thibon, the
editor of a collection of Weil’s writings, notes: ‘God does not in fact exist in the same way as
created things which form the only object of experience for our natural faculties. Therefore,
contact with supernatural reality is at first felt as an experience of nothingness.’45 The
inclusion of the phrase ‘at first’ here might be taken to imply that, as one’s spiritual acuity is
refined, it then becomes possible to encounter or feel God’s supernatural reality as something
other than nothingness. But this does not appear to be Weil’s point. For Weil, the purification
that is brought about by acknowledging that God does not exist is not a prelude to replacing a
false conception of God with one that is closer to the truth – a more nuanced and accurate
conception that may then remain permanently in place as an object of love and worship. Her
writings imply that any conception, merely insofar as it is a conception (‘an object in my
mental world’, as Rowan Williams puts it46), will remain contaminated by one’s own desires
and aspirations. The believer in God must therefore always be on her guard in order to avoid
the idolatry of supposing that she is capable of conceiving of God.

I know this idea from Plotinus describing the ONE as beyond time and space which we cannot conceive. We are aware of the ONE through dunamis or the conscious results of universal laws in the world. So what does atheism deny for Plotinus? If they deny idolatry then I would agree.

[Nick_A]

Why not renounce the supernatural completely as a fable? Doing so doesn't in any way negate the spiritual as an experience independent of the supernatural. Even as an atheist I can walk into a cathedral and feel a certain awe which was not there on the outside. Atheism can resemble a purification by allowing the spiritual to assert itself independent of any peculiarities relating to religion. I don't think it's a mistake to suspect that's precisely how the gods were created as internal placeholders within themselves. The creation of gods and religion was their way of anchoring the spiritual. In the past, especially among ancient civilizations, I think the feeling capacity was considerably more raw and intense than in modern times. The manner in which they created and imagined is far removed from the more contemporary manifestations of spirit. In spite of these severe differences where one would seem alien to the other it all emanates from the same source.

Here is a typical definition of supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."


Is the Virgin Birth a supernatural event? As absurd as it seems to you now, is it possible that science in the future could explain it and then it would be a natural rather then a supernatural event. Some atheists are open minded and can admit the possibility while others cannot. Atheism and belief are relative in quality. They can become complimentary or just remain in opposition as is the norm for the human condition.

It not only "seems absurd", it is absurd. How many actual (real) virgin births have been reported in ancient times as compared to modern times. As usual, you stretch an argument to a level where open-mindedness itself becomes absurd. Nothing to learn here!

But suppose it isn't absurd, then what? If everyone were so dogmatic, who could have an open mind essential to open to the law of the INCLUDED middle in addition to the well known law of the EXCLUDED middle (non-contradiction)? Yet if the law of the included middle were better known it would explain cosmological levels of reality and how miracles like the Virgin birth are possible between higher and lower cosmoses. Why emotionally deny what we don't understand?

[Tegularius]

Why not renounce the supernatural completely as a fable? Doing so doesn't in any way negate the spiritual as an experience independent of the supernatural. Even as an atheist I can walk into a cathedral and feel a certain awe which was not there on the outside. Atheism can resemble a purification by allowing the spiritual to assert itself independent of any peculiarities relating to religion. I don't think it's a mistake to suspect that's precisely how the gods were created as internal placeholders within themselves. The creation of gods and religion was their way of anchoring the spiritual. In the past, especially among ancient civilizations, I think the feeling capacity was considerably more raw and intense than in modern times. The manner in which they created and imagined is far removed from the more contemporary manifestations of spirit. In spite of these severe differences where one would seem alien to the other it all emanates from the same source.

Here is a typical definition of supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."


Is the Virgin Birth a supernatural event? As absurd as it seems to you now, is it possible that science in the future could explain it and then it would be a natural rather then a supernatural event. Some atheists are open minded and can admit the possibility while others cannot. Atheism and belief are relative in quality. They can become complimentary or just remain in opposition as is the norm for the human condition.

It not only "seems absurd", it is absurd. How many actual (real) virgin births have been reported in ancient times as compared to modern times. As usual, you stretch an argument to a level where open-mindedness itself becomes absurd. Nothing to learn here!

But suppose it isn't absurd, then what? If everyone were so dogmatic, who could have an open mind essential to open to the law of the INCLUDED middle in addition to the well known law of the EXCLUDED middle (non-contradiction)? Yet if the law of the included middle were better known it would explain cosmological levels of reality and how miracles like the Virgin birth are possible between higher and lower cosmoses. Why emotionally deny what we don't understand?

So, in effect, whatever eludes logic, nature or experience simply supply a supposition to give it a modicum of probability? It's amazing what realities or potentials thereof we create through language only. To complete as truth whatever wishful thinking desires surround it with a subject and a predicate and that which never existed all of a sudden blooms forth as something one can argue for or against. Is this perhaps what free will does when it has nothing else to do; simply make the impossible less improbable?

[Nick_A]

Tegularius

So, in effect, whatever eludes logic, nature or experience simply supply a supposition to give it a modicum of probability? It's amazing what realities or potentials thereof we create through language only. To complete as truth whatever wishful thinking desires surround it with a subject and a predicate and that which never existed all of a sudden blooms forth as something one can argue for or against. Is this perhaps what free will does when it has nothing else to do; simply make the impossible less improbable?

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

Do you as an atheist deny the potential for science to verify the necessity for our source or are you open to the possibility that science will eventually verify the necessity of our source?

[Tegularius]

Tegularius

So, in effect, whatever eludes logic, nature or experience simply supply a supposition to give it a modicum of probability? It's amazing what realities or potentials thereof we create through language only. To complete as truth whatever wishful thinking desires surround it with a subject and a predicate and that which never existed all of a sudden blooms forth as something one can argue for or against. Is this perhaps what free will does when it has nothing else to do; simply make the impossible less improbable?

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

Do you as an atheist deny the potential for science to verify the necessity for our source or are you open to the possibility that science will eventually verify the necessity of our source?

What do you mean by the necessity of our source and why it must be a necessity?

[Nick_A]

Tegularius

So, in effect, whatever eludes logic, nature or experience simply supply a supposition to give it a modicum of probability? It's amazing what realities or potentials thereof we create through language only. To complete as truth whatever wishful thinking desires surround it with a subject and a predicate and that which never existed all of a sudden blooms forth as something one can argue for or against. Is this perhaps what free will does when it has nothing else to do; simply make the impossible less improbable?

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

Do you as an atheist deny the potential for science to verify the necessity for our source or are you open to the possibility that science will eventually verify the necessity of our source?

What do you mean by the necessity of our source and why it must be a necessity?

What if science reaches the point in its investigations where what it predicts requires a source, is this a possibility?