Most of the quotes in the previous post are from W. Norris Clarke's The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysic. Not much time this morning, but I'd like to touch on a somewhat unrelated passage from the same book:
Thus either God exists, or I am absurd.
That's the choice on offer, so don't pretend otherwise. If it's the latter, all we ask is that you be intellectually honest and consistent: have the courage of your absence of convictions. For in the real world, God or absurdity
is the basic option that confronts me, if I am willing to go to the depth of the human condition.
(In case you were wondering why atheists are so painfully intellectually shallow, generally even prior to their self-confessed spiritual shallowness.)
But underneath both forms of shallowness is pride and signaling. Ironically, the conspicuous confession of atheism is always a signal of intellectual superiority -- for example, yesterday's commenter, who went out of his way to tell us that "deity" is a term we use when we "just don't understand reality." The implicit point, of course, is that he does understand reality. Signal received!
But how? By virtue of what principle? And other rhetorical questions.
Many people today are afraid of facing up to this radical option [God or absurdity], and so are content to live on the surface of life...
There's nothing wrong with being shallow, on the assumption that we exist in a universe devoid of depth, i.e., with no vertical dimension.
Now, even when I was an atheist I was always attracted to the depth -- even repulsed by shallowness -- but not yet deep enough to be cognizant of the inconsistency. Nevertheless, "It can be shown"
that there is a lived contradiction between affirming theoretically that the universe or myself is unintelligible and continuing to live and use my mind as though it were intelligible...
Petey calls the latter "having your crock and eating it too." But in reality -- the reality for which our commenter claims to be the champion --
it is finally up to each one of us either to accept his or her infinite-oriented nature as meaningful and revelatory of the real or as an opaque, illusory surd.
So, we are free to use our intelligence to choose the ultimate unintelligibility of mind, life, and existence, but that's not only an expensive signal, it's a fatal one: we had to destroy the mind in order to save the mind.
15 comments:
You can point at the evidence but you can’t get the atheist to look beyond your finger.
In addition to the progressive not looking at the evidence of a tampered election .
we had to destroy the mind in order to save the mind.
Sounds similar to: Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
Two thoughts, quotes actually. First, if one is to be atheist, be a complete atheist, akin to this quote from Camus:
The complete atheist is more respectable than the man who is indifferent. He is on the last rung proceeding perfect faith.
In regards to this portion of your post; ...Nevertheless, "It can be shown"
that there is a lived contradiction between affirming theoretically that the universe or myself is unintelligible and continuing to live and use my mind as though it were intelligible...
which reminded me of these words from Lynn Harold Hough, which were put down in 1939.
We confront a curious example of self-hypnotism when we survey a man who has spent years in studying one of the physical or biological sciences, and as he beholds the results of all the long period of labor to get the complicated and manifold facts belonging to a particular field into some sort of significant coherence, now finds himself so fascinated by the quite impersonal chart of facts which his mind has worked out that he becomes utterly incapable of believing in his own critical gifts and reduces all reality to the impersonal and mathematical uniformity of the charts which he has made.
So, we are free to use our intelligence to choose the ultimate unintelligibility of mind, life, and existence, but that's not only an expensive signal, it's a fatal one
Indeed. True atheism ultimately is a form of suicide; you can't kill the deity without also destroying yourself...
You provide the greatest evidence for the non existence of God: you just can't separate 'him' from yourself and your human experience. Therefore, 'God' is patently a human construct, hence, not anything approaching what you imagine as 'divine' ... except in your mind.
Only God and the central point of my consciousness are not adventitious to me.
Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, at least it's an ethos.
Dougman gives us all the denial and RW conspiracy du jour... all in one place.
Covid denail, The Big Lie, and the 1/6 capitol attack deniers
Priceless!
Why is it whenever I see people with this level of denial, ignorance, and conspiracy theories... they are also religious?
Answer: It's a mindset. Some might say, a mental illness or deficiency.
Ya. We believe in nothing!
Zere ARE no ROOLZ!
For God is not an authoritarian leftist. He is, for example, the very basis of free speech, even while knowing full well that our snowflake crybullies will inevitably be triggered by it.
Actually, we think what’s triggering them is that God was also a ruthless authoritarian military demagogue, who advised on things like selling daughters into slavery and genociding enemies.
Yet Jesus Christ (hence the name Christianity), seemed the opposite.
This discrepancy wasn’t a problem until recently, when conservative Christians began demanding ruthless authoritarian military demagogues in the name of God.
Militant irreligion gradually transforms the one possessed into a simple imbecile convulsed by hatred.
Right once again Nicolás.
Yet even I have a difficult time turning my cheek if some crybully wants to re-genderize my child. But how do we know that the gender confused aren't the God-sanctioned lepers of our time?
Personally, I'd let them be as long as they left my kid alone and enlisted in the military for a tour or two. Both crybully and the gender-confused that is. Maybe lepers too. Their flagrant sashaying might then be less annoying if purple hearts were tastefully matched with the appropriate fashion accessories. But that's just me.
Most athiests I know want proof of a God as much as the next guy. But something keeps them from just flipping blind-faithing it, the way a more reasonable person does. I think it happens because they observe the behaviors of the blind-faithed.
Nothing is more dangerous for faith than to frequent the company of believers. The unbeliever restores our faith.
" we had to destroy the mind in order to save the mind."
That Kant be the reason can it? O yes it can.
Just like I said. You prove my point.
And I am far from religious.
I have no church, nor do I need one.
Denial? You’re looking in the mirror.
Post a Comment