Philosophy Discussion Forums

Nick_A,

But that is the idea of atheism being a purification. A lot of what is called religion is fantasy. Yet those ho have experienced noesis know it is very real. The questions atheism brings makes it easier to separate the wheat from the tares and open to the triune reality rather than remaining obsessed with dualism which governs the world.

Even if this were true, its acceptance would be limited to a small group or set of people. I think it would be problematic for atheism to reconcile something along the lines of which you speak. Or to assign a truth value to it - because there is no empiricism. Atheism negates ideas like this with terms like irrational, fantasy, illusion and delusion. Because when measured against the empirical, they seem impossible. Of course, atheists can think deeply and meaningfully, but those terms can never be directed at them - because their claims are evidential. I accept that there could be more to reality than what can be empirically measured, but I don’t have an exact idea of what that could be. Atheism does not do cognitive dissonance! In this context, atheism is a purification, but seemingly only to atheists. In my view, they have a strong claim of what constitutes reality.

Nick_A wrote: ↑May 7th, 2021, 9:12 am

Tegularius wrote: ↑May 7th, 2021, 3:17 am There is no "what if" about it. Predictions are made based on what is known or assumed to be known. That is its source. They don't flow out of nothing. You seem surprised by the fact. But the whole point was, which you managed to detour, that simply with words and assumptions one can create any scenario one wishes, even virgin births. There's nothing wrong with that as long as it remains fictionalized since there's no such thing in nature. The reason you can't respond logically is because it's irrefutable. Any attempt to do so becomes becomes abstruse, incomprehensible and totally non-sequitur as per your responses.

You are with the majority who follow the trodden path of thought. I admire those who have seen and felt more deeply so are capable of deductive reason.

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

Positive atheists for some reason have become closed to their potential for experiencing INTUITION which enables them to sense the insufficiency of the trodden path of thought. They have become unable to contemplate unrelated facts "and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law." Since this is intolerable for the closed mind, they had to be killed. The world demeans them but those like me admire them.

Are you open to new facts which would reveal the logic behind the virgin birth those like Jesus and Socrates spoke of? I don't think so. It seems so absurd to you that you will revolt against it.

I love the Einstein quote - I had not seen this one before - but I would interpret his meaning a little differently - I'm not sure I understand how you're reading it.

It seems to me that when he mentions 'one law', he is using the word in the sense of 'law of nature'. In other words, he is saying that in deduction, we observe phenomena and based on those observations we create a framework, a theory, which can encompass them all, not the other way around. We don't assume a particular law or conception of reality and then perform empirical studies and make observations to confirm it - but rather, with the observations as a starting point, we develop the conceptions of nature which bring all of those observations into a rational consistency with each other. In a sense, we must be free of particular conceptions in order to develop ones that allow us to understand what was previously unexplainable. Our understanding of our universe is in a perpetual state of evolution - when we begin to believe that we have formed the one correct and true understanding, a model that we think will eventually explain everything, then we've become stuck and our evolution stops. At least that is how I understand this quote.

In pre-scientific times where people were surrounded by things that they did not understand, the idea of a miracle was easier to accept - something unexplained could be understood as supernatural. In modern times, we seem to have lost this because we've become so accustomed to the ability of science to explain everything, that we tend to make the assumption that everything is ultimately explainable in those terms, and in doing to we may close ourselves off to an evolution in our way of thinking. I think maybe that's what you're trying to get at here?

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

Intuition proceeds on a foundation of what's already known. Without this foundation Albert could not have developed either of his theories...something he forgot to mention. Without that foundation one proceeds directly into the Platonic realm of noesis which only imagines a higher reality without in the least understanding the reality which actually allows one to make such assertions.

The power and necessity for intuition has never been disputed either in art, psychology or science in yielding empirical results and insights long before Einstein came along. And yet this clichéd sentiment is made to appear as a new revelation.

Tegularius wrote: ↑May 10th, 2021, 6:05 pm

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

Intuition proceeds on a foundation of what's already known. Without this foundation Albert could not have developed either of his theories...something he forgot to mention. Without that foundation one proceeds directly into the Platonic realm of noesis which only imagines a higher reality without in the least understanding the reality which actually allows one to make such assertions.

The power and necessity for intuition has never been disputed either in art, psychology or science in yielding empirical results and insights long before Einstein came along. And yet this clichéd sentiment is made to appear as a new revelation.

Yes, but it is not new knowledge. It is remembered and its essence always was as an aspect of the forms so is remembered. For atheism to open to anamnesis or remembrance, it must assume a conscious source which it doesn't allow itself to do.

Nick_A wrote: ↑May 11th, 2021, 9:14 am

Tegularius wrote: ↑May 10th, 2021, 6:05 pm

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

Intuition proceeds on a foundation of what's already known. Without this foundation Albert could not have developed either of his theories...something he forgot to mention. Without that foundation one proceeds directly into the Platonic realm of noesis which only imagines a higher reality without in the least understanding the reality which actually allows one to make such assertions.

The power and necessity for intuition has never been disputed either in art, psychology or science in yielding empirical results and insights long before Einstein came along. And yet this clichéd sentiment is made to appear as a new revelation.

Yes, but it is not new knowledge. It is remembered and its essence always was as an aspect of the forms so is remembered. For atheism to open to anamnesis or remembrance, it must assume a conscious source which it doesn't allow itself to do.

Can't see what this has to do with the fact that intuition proceeds on a foundation of what's already known. It cannot work its way out of a vacuum.

Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein

Somebody should have told Albert that one without the other isn't of much use especially after having strained both to the full extent in developing his theories for which he is rightfully famous. The rest of him is a write-off. That's the way it is with celebrities. Whatever they say, even the most conventional crap gets repeated as if it were something new.

Tegularius, You probably have never had an AHA moment which makes it possible to experience animal duality into a vertical conscious, triune perspective. Until you experience this third dimension of thought, remembrance will seem absurd to you.

Nick_A wrote: ↑May 12th, 2021, 10:08 am Tegularius, You probably have never had an AHA moment which makes it possible to experience animal duality into a vertical conscious, triune perspective. Until you experience this third dimension of thought, remembrance will seem absurd to you.

All this stuff - animal consciousness, triune perspective, 3rd dimension of thought - hides a lot more than it reveals. Terms like these which travel the route from superficial to absurd is for mystics only who have no idea what they're talking about since such terms can mean anything you want then to mean. To get any marrow out of life, if that's what people are searching for, requires a different mindset altogether; not one that keeps imitating and quoting others. That's what theists do to uphold their beliefs - relying on others instead of thinking for themselves.

Tell me, did Simone Weil use any such terms to explain her thoughts and if so, in what context did she use them?

Yes Simone did refer to the third dimension of thought.

https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/06/2 ... %20between

........................Weil argues that this creates an incomplete and, in its incompleteness, illusory representation of reality — even when it bisects the planes of mathematical data and common sense, such science leaves out the unquantifiable layer of meaning:

If the algebra of physicists gives the impression of profundity it is because it is entirely flat; the third dimension of thought is missing.

That third dimension is that of meaning — one concerned with notions like “the human soul, freedom, consciousness, the reality of the external world.” (Three decades later, Hannah Arendt — another of the twentieth century’s most piercing and significant minds — would memorably contemplate the crucial difference between truth and meaning, the former being the material of science and the latter of philosophy.)

But most perilous of all, Weil argues, is our tendency to mistake the findings of science for objectivity and capital-T Truth, forgetting that it is scientists who make science — and scientists are human, a product of their time, beholden to their era’s values and to their own subjective impressions of truth. She cautions:

Scientific theories pass away as men’s fashions did in the seventeenth century; the Louis XIII style of dress disappeared when the last of the old men who had been young during Louis XIII’s reign were dead… Science is voiceless; it is the scientists who talk. And what they say is certainly not independent of time.

Weil argues that much of the subjectivity, which robs science of the necessary largeness in explaining the world in its full dimensions, is due to a certain scientific tribalism — scientists’ tendency to confine themselves to small groups that study only small subsets of the larger whole, with little or no cross-pollination between these tribes:...............................

Thanks for the link. I was aware of the site for a long time but so far only read a few of her quotes. I know she's definitely worth reading and will give it more attention. I probably won't agree with her on a few things, just as I don't when reading Nietzsche. But that's neither the point nor necessary. The real value of their thoughts is to make one think; the ability, in short, to realign one's own perspectives because that's all they had as well. I prefer works in which the word Truth is only used to anchor a perspective, often only temporarily, that is, not anything assumed to be frozen in time but as something morphological which flows and adapts.

Tegularius wrote: ↑May 12th, 2021, 6:11 pm Thanks for the link. I was aware of the site for a long time but so far only read a few of her quotes. I know she's definitely worth reading and will give it more attention. I probably won't agree with her on a few things, just as I don't when reading Nietzsche. But that's neither the point nor necessary. The real value of their thoughts is to make one think; the ability, in short, to realign one's own perspectives because that's all they had as well. I prefer works in which the word Truth is only used to anchor a perspective, often only temporarily, that is, not anything assumed to be frozen in time but as something morphological which flows and adapts.

The essence of religion may begin with a conscious source but gradually becomes secularized and losing its potency. Simone's dedication to truth as you suggest does make us think. For example at a young age she wanted to become part of the circle of conscious humanity. Does it exist? It is worth pondering. If it does it indicates human conscious potential. Atheism makes a believer question and purify our ability to consciously contemplate. This is a good thing. She wrote in a personal letter when she was 14

...........I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth...................

Does such a level of reality exist or is it just wishful thinking and Man is doomed to arguing partial truths forever?

Nick_A wrote: ↑May 13th, 2021, 4:35 pm

Tegularius wrote: ↑May 12th, 2021, 6:11 pm Thanks for the link. I was aware of the site for a long time but so far only read a few of her quotes. I know she's definitely worth reading and will give it more attention. I probably won't agree with her on a few things, just as I don't when reading Nietzsche. But that's neither the point nor necessary. The real value of their thoughts is to make one think; the ability, in short, to realign one's own perspectives because that's all they had as well. I prefer works in which the word Truth is only used to anchor a perspective, often only temporarily, that is, not anything assumed to be frozen in time but as something morphological which flows and adapts.

The essence of religion may begin with a conscious source but gradually becomes secularized and losing its potency. Simone's dedication to truth as you suggest does make us think. For example at a young age she wanted to become part of the circle of conscious humanity. Does it exist? It is worth pondering. If it does it indicates human conscious potential. Atheism makes a believer question and purify our ability to consciously contemplate. This is a good thing. She wrote in a personal letter when she was 14

...........I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth...................

Does such a level of reality exist or is it just wishful thinking and Man is doomed to arguing partial truths forever?

When one is 14 it's normal to be idealistic and especially the more intelligent one is. Terms like "transcendent kingdom" are reminiscent of myself in the teen years. It was then that terms like truth possessed a numinous quality somehow leading to some kind of salvation or metanoia. But after many years all that disappeared. What eventually replaced it was that truth is only an assumption created by humans by which to anchor their thoughts; one in which truth is more like a ship that never finds a harbor.

I don't think that Weil in her later years would have expressed herself in that way. But like I said, I want to become more acquainted with her thoughts.

Nick_A wrote: ↑May 4th, 2021, 2:39 pm...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 agree to an extent. Christianity has been corrupted to be evil - by encouraging followers to think and act in evil ways, but pretending they are good. Evil is persistently trying to deny responsibility and instead making another pay (lie of Christ dying for your sins). This not only hurts others but also prevents a person from experiencing the necessary remorse & growing pains to correct their way. So Christianity in this sense - causes people to get more lost & hurt themselves & others.

I believe original Christian teachings were not about human sacrifice scapegoating & denial, shifting response-ability etc. It seems like this (from Fowler’s faith stages)...

3) Current/corrupt Christian dogma (to justify Catholic crusades etc)
4) Atheism/Agnosticism - questioning the above
5) Authentic Christianity/Taoism - all the good in all religions minus the dysfunctional dogmas

Nick_A wrote: ↑May 4th, 2021, 2:39 pm 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.

Hello Nick!

A most intriguing Op! I haven't read the entire thread, but wanted to at least contribute to the OP and/or argue same. First, just a couple of fundamental (no religious pun intended) questions or clarifications:

1.What is considered a self serving fantasy in that context?

2. I was thinking that the supposition involving 'true faith' was very intriguing. Much like theism, does atheism also have that kind of faith as specifically mentioned? It seems their belief system, if based upon theism, has some element of 'faith' to it, but am not sure.

3. Are 'atheists necessary' in the sense that there is always going to be a concept of arguing the antecedent or even much like the Unity of opposites philosophy is to Taoism? Or do you think that is simply some sort of logically necessary truth based upon a priori logic (Ontological argument)?

4. Is the 'spiritual part' consist of a metaphysical phenomena from cognition involving ineffable experiences and other features of sentient phenomena?

Thank you in advance.

Just a sort of a commentary, there are those who would argue that 'religion' itself can give the concept of a God a bad name. In much the same way, I would agree with part of the OP. However, those questions/clarifications that may or may not have been parsed could shed some proverbial light on what's really motivating the (some) atheist(s). Meaning, it could be a kind of Einsteinian grudge, hence:

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” -Albert Einstein

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 16th, 2021, 1:56 pm
“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” -Albert Einstein

Einstein as a scientist...a genius even if far from the only one.

Einstein as a philosopher, as a thinker...pathetic and more often, a disgusting little hypocrite.

Tegularius wrote: ↑July 16th, 2021, 4:25 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 16th, 2021, 1:56 pm
“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” -Albert Einstein

Einstein as a scientist...a genius even if far from the only one.

Einstein as a philosopher, as a thinker...pathetic and more often, a disgusting little hypocrite.

Hi Teg! LOL, there wouldn't happen to be any irony in your response would there

Consider philosophers like William James and Maslow having drawn from thier cognitive studies/patients in psychology (their couch sessions), a physicist who philosophizes about cosmology and religion seems to carry more weight, accordingly.