The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 15, 2019 12:16:55 GMT
Been reading a bit of the French Christian philosopher Simone Weil's work recently. Her views on religious belief are very unique and was interested what people here make of them.
As far as I understand her views (and please correct me if I've got anything wrong), she thinks there are basically four reasons why people may believe in some sort of transcendent entity:
1. They were raised to do so
2. They have used logic and/or evidence to reach that conclusion
3. They have taken a leap of faith
4. They have had a personal religious experience
She rejects the first 3 reasons:
Reason 1: She believes this is just going through the motions
Reason 2: She believes logic and evidence should lead one to rejecting rather than embracing the transcendent
Reason 3: She feels this is giving oneself an excuse not to think
She therefore says everyone ought to be an atheist unless and until one has a personal religious experience whereupon one will find it impossible to be an atheist.
So unlike most Christian apologists who generally argue under Reason 2 or less commonly under Reason 3, she actually argues for atheism up to the point where one can no longer be an atheist which is when one has a personal communication with God.
Note that she doesn't argue that one ought to believe because people claim to have had religious experiences (such reasoning would fall under the first 3 reasons which she rejects). She doesn't even argue that having a religious experience of your own means that logically the transcendent must exist. All she argues is when you have one, you will find it impossible to be an atheist, even if all logic suggests you ought to be. Your belief is therefore justified by the impossibility of denying it.
True believers like herself (she had a religious experience at the age of 28) therefore have more in common with atheists than the vast majority of theists - both true believers and atheists have justified beliefs, while the other theists have unjustified beliefs.
Oddly therefore one could completely accept her argument while still being justified in one's atheism.
Any thoughts on this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 12:32:14 GMT
I'm inclined to widely agree with her.
A tad concerned that she is a bit saying "My reason for believing is better than yours" though... Almost like she is having to justify to herself why she is a person of faith, and why her belief is valid.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Apr 15, 2019 14:33:44 GMT
Been reading a bit of the French Christian philosopher Simone Weil's work recently. Her views on religious belief are very unique and was interested what people here make of them. As far as I understand her views (and please correct me if I've got anything wrong), she thinks there are basically four reasons why people may believe in some sort of transcendent entity: 1. They were raised to do so 2. They have used logic and/or evidence to reach that conclusion 3. They have taken a leap of faith 4. They have had a personal religious experience I think reasons 2,3, and 4 are not so easily separable. Many theists think that their "leap of faith" is supported by some (admittedly inconclusive) evidence, such as no known instance of life coming from non-life. And their belief might be strengthened by the personal experience of (as they see it) an answered prayer.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 15, 2019 15:40:06 GMT
If reason 4 was the main one there would be no organized religion.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 15, 2019 17:01:29 GMT
Been reading a bit of the French Christian philosopher Simone Weil's work recently. Her views on religious belief are very unique and was interested what people here make of them. As far as I understand her views (and please correct me if I've got anything wrong), she thinks there are basically four reasons why people may believe in some sort of transcendent entity: 1. They were raised to do so 2. They have used logic and/or evidence to reach that conclusion 3. They have taken a leap of faith 4. They have had a personal religious experience I think reasons 2,3, and 4 are not so easily separable. Many theists think that their "leap of faith" is supported by some (admittedly inconclusive) evidence, such as no known instance of life coming from non-life. And their belief might be strengthened by the personal experience of (as they see it) an answered prayer. Yeah they're not mutually exclusive. I think Weil's point is that if you have 4, you don't need 1-3. While 1-3 on their own or in combination are insufficient to justify belief. I think though 4 would have to be stronger than an apparent answered prayer (which would probably fit 2 or 3 more closely). I think it's a feeling that you are actively communing with the divine.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 15, 2019 17:44:39 GMT
Was her religious experience sufficiently detailed to guide her to a specific branch of Christianity by chance? Or does that choice fall back on 1-3?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 17:45:45 GMT
Was her religious experience sufficiently detailed to guide her to a specific branch of Christianity by chance? Or does that choice fall back on 1-3? Salient point 👍
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 15, 2019 21:18:32 GMT
Was her religious experience sufficiently detailed to guide her to a specific branch of Christianity by chance? Or does that choice fall back on 1-3? Her parents were secular Jews and she considered herself an agnostic for much of her life though she was attracted to Christianity due to its ethics and the beauty of its hymns. She never officially joined any Christian denomination but was most partial to Catholicism. Probably a combination of having her religious experiences at Catholic holy sites and the fact she grew up in a predominantly Catholic society (if not a Catholic household).
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 15, 2019 21:33:51 GMT
The most important point here is what, exactly constitutes No 4?
We have a person posting on here who claims to have 'been to Hell' and back when in a fever. We know that can't be true.
What makes one person's delusions any kind of evidence or any more worthwhile than anyone elses?
The nut houses are full of people who have seen/are Jesus or some other Holy thing.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 15, 2019 21:41:57 GMT
The most important point here is what, exactly constitutes No 4? We have a person posting on here who claims to have 'been to Hell' and back when in a fever. We know that can't be true. What makes one person's delusions any kind of evidence or any more worthwhile than anyone elses? The nut houses are full of people who have seen/are Jesus or some other Holy thing. The argument isn't that it is evidence. The argument is because the person who has had the experience lacks the capacity to disbelieve then their belief is justified. So even if the person is bonkers they are still justified in believing. However anyone else who hasn't had such an experience ought not to believe the person - instead they should consider them bonkers. So far from a person's delusions being taken as a form of evidence, Weil is saying they should be rejected. Like I say, it's a weird argument.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 15, 2019 21:47:27 GMT
The most important point here is what, exactly constitutes No 4? We have a person posting on here who claims to have 'been to Hell' and back when in a fever. We know that can't be true. What makes one person's delusions any kind of evidence or any more worthwhile than anyone elses? The nut houses are full of people who have seen/are Jesus or some other Holy thing. The argument isn't that it is evidence. The argument is because the person who has had the experience lacks the capacity to disbelieve then their belief is justified. So even if the person is bonkers they are still justified in believing. However anyone else who hasn't had such an experience ought not to believe the person - instead they should consider them bonkers. So far from a person's delusions being taken as a form of evidence, Weil is saying they should be rejected. Like I say, it's a weird argument. Well in that case, it is just yet another circular argument. I believe because I believe.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 15, 2019 21:54:12 GMT
Well in that case, it is just yet another circular argument. I believe because I believe. Yes, I suppose one could probably phrase it that way. But I think the difference is one can generally change one's beliefs while Weil thought someone who had had a religious experience would find that impossible no matter what contrary logic, evidence or experience might be presented. So maybe "I believe because I can never do otherwise" is closer.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 15, 2019 22:14:24 GMT
Well in that case, it is just yet another circular argument. I believe because I believe. Yes, I suppose one could probably phrase it that way. But I think the difference is one can generally change one's beliefs while Weil thought someone who had had a religious experience would find that impossible no matter what contrary logic, evidence or experience might be presented. So maybe "I believe because I can never do otherwise" is closer. Yes, butt they only can claim that because they 'believe' that they have had a religious experience...so circular.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 16, 2019 22:50:44 GMT
Been reading a bit of the French Christian philosopher Simone Weil's work recently. Her views on religious belief are very unique and was interested what people here make of them. As far as I understand her views (and please correct me if I've got anything wrong), she thinks there are basically four reasons why people may believe in some sort of transcendent entity: 1. They were raised to do so 2. They have used logic and/or evidence to reach that conclusion 3. They have taken a leap of faith 4. They have had a personal religious experience She rejects the first 3 reasons: Reason 1: She believes this is just going through the motions Reason 2: She believes logic and evidence should lead one to rejecting rather than embracing the transcendent Reason 3: She feels this is giving oneself an excuse not to think She therefore says everyone ought to be an atheist unless and until one has a personal religious experience whereupon one will find it impossible to be an atheist. So unlike most Christian apologists who generally argue under Reason 2 or less commonly under Reason 3, she actually argues for atheism up to the point where one can no longer be an atheist which is when one has a personal communication with God. Note that she doesn't argue that one ought to believe because people claim to have had religious experiences (such reasoning would fall under the first 3 reasons which she rejects). She doesn't even argue that having a religious experience of your own means that logically the transcendent must exist. All she argues is when you have one, you will find it impossible to be an atheist, even if all logic suggests you ought to be. Your belief is therefore justified by the impossibility of denying it. True believers like herself (she had a religious experience at the age of 28) therefore have more in common with atheists than the vast majority of theists - both true believers and atheists have justified beliefs, while the other theists have unjustified beliefs. Oddly therefore one could completely accept her argument while still being justified in one's atheism. Any thoughts on this? Reasons 1, 2 and 3 are fine because faith is not a disease, neither is it "illogical" because it can be efficient to simply follow what authorities say. It can save the time, resources and heartache of trying bad ideas over and over. How much better reason 4 might be depends on the quality of the experience. Atheists are not more logical than anyone else, they just think they are. They tend to read at a rather elementary level of understanding and that makes religion difficult for them because it requires a much higher level of reading and art.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 16, 2019 23:36:49 GMT
Been reading a bit of the French Christian philosopher Simone Weil's work recently. Her views on religious belief are very unique and was interested what people here make of them. As far as I understand her views (and please correct me if I've got anything wrong), she thinks there are basically four reasons why people may believe in some sort of transcendent entity: 1. They were raised to do so 2. They have used logic and/or evidence to reach that conclusion 3. They have taken a leap of faith 4. They have had a personal religious experience She rejects the first 3 reasons: Reason 1: She believes this is just going through the motions Reason 2: She believes logic and evidence should lead one to rejecting rather than embracing the transcendent Reason 3: She feels this is giving oneself an excuse not to think She therefore says everyone ought to be an atheist unless and until one has a personal religious experience whereupon one will find it impossible to be an atheist. So unlike most Christian apologists who generally argue under Reason 2 or less commonly under Reason 3, she actually argues for atheism up to the point where one can no longer be an atheist which is when one has a personal communication with God. Note that she doesn't argue that one ought to believe because people claim to have had religious experiences (such reasoning would fall under the first 3 reasons which she rejects). She doesn't even argue that having a religious experience of your own means that logically the transcendent must exist. All she argues is when you have one, you will find it impossible to be an atheist, even if all logic suggests you ought to be. Your belief is therefore justified by the impossibility of denying it. True believers like herself (she had a religious experience at the age of 28) therefore have more in common with atheists than the vast majority of theists - both true believers and atheists have justified beliefs, while the other theists have unjustified beliefs. Oddly therefore one could completely accept her argument while still being justified in one's atheism. Any thoughts on this? Reasons 1, 2 and 3 are fine because faith is not a disease, neither is it "illogical" because it can be efficient to simply follow what authorities say. It can save the time, resources and heartache of trying bad ideas over and over. How much better reason 4 might be depends on the quality of the experience. Atheists are not more logical than anyone else, they just think they are. They tend to read at a rather elementary level of understanding and that makes religion difficult for them because it requires a much higher level of reading and art. We should get rid of this troublesome democracy we have in the U.S. and replace it with an efficient system like they have in China and North Korea.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 17, 2019 10:27:57 GMT
They tend to read at a rather elementary level of understanding and that makes religion difficult for them because it requires a much higher level of reading and art. Your clueless delusion has been duly noted.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 19, 2019 22:02:05 GMT
Reasons 1, 2 and 3 are fine because faith is not a disease, neither is it "illogical" because it can be efficient to simply follow what authorities say. It can save the time, resources and heartache of trying bad ideas over and over. How much better reason 4 might be depends on the quality of the experience. Atheists are not more logical than anyone else, they just think they are. They tend to read at a rather elementary level of understanding and that makes religion difficult for them because it requires a much higher level of reading and art. We should get rid of this troublesome democracy we have in the U.S. and replace it with an efficient system like they have in China and North Korea. They can be very annoying when they decide to appoint themselves judge, jury and perhaps even executioner, but that is exactly what they do not do typically.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 19, 2019 22:15:21 GMT
We should get rid of this troublesome democracy we have in the U.S. and replace it with an efficient system like they have in China and North Korea. They can be very annoying when they decide to appoint themselves judge, jury and perhaps even executioner, but that is exactly what they do not do typically. What's keeping you from moving there? Language?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 19, 2019 23:08:57 GMT
I think #1 and #3 are hidden in the interpretation of #4 IN THAT some "experience" will only be convincing of there being a god if a) someone has been told that that kind of experience is something that can only happen if there is a god, and b) they have "faith" that their particular experience actually indicates the existence of God.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 20, 2019 8:58:26 GMT
Been reading a bit of the French Christian philosopher Simone Weil's work recently. Her views on religious belief are very unique and was interested what people here make of them. As far as I understand her views (and please correct me if I've got anything wrong), she thinks there are basically four reasons why people may believe in some sort of transcendent entity: 1. They were raised to do so 2. They have used logic and/or evidence to reach that conclusion 3. They have taken a leap of faith 4. They have had a personal religious experience She rejects the first 3 reasons: Reason 1: She believes this is just going through the motions Reason 2: She believes logic and evidence should lead one to rejecting rather than embracing the transcendent Reason 3: She feels this is giving oneself an excuse not to think She therefore says everyone ought to be an atheist unless and until one has a personal religious experience whereupon one will find it impossible to be an atheist. So unlike most Christian apologists who generally argue under Reason 2 or less commonly under Reason 3, she actually argues for atheism up to the point where one can no longer be an atheist which is when one has a personal communication with God. Note that she doesn't argue that one ought to believe because people claim to have had religious experiences (such reasoning would fall under the first 3 reasons which she rejects). She doesn't even argue that having a religious experience of your own means that logically the transcendent must exist. All she argues is when you have one, you will find it impossible to be an atheist, even if all logic suggests you ought to be. Your belief is therefore justified by the impossibility of denying it. True believers like herself (she had a religious experience at the age of 28) therefore have more in common with atheists than the vast majority of theists - both true believers and atheists have justified beliefs, while the other theists have unjustified beliefs. Oddly therefore one could completely accept her argument while still being justified in one's atheism. Any thoughts on this? Reasons 1, 2 and 3 are fine because faith is not a disease, neither is it "illogical" because it can be efficient to simply follow what authorities say. It can save the time, resources and heartache of trying bad ideas over and over. How much better reason 4 might be depends on the quality of the experience. Atheists are not more logical than anyone else, they just think they are. They tend to read at a rather elementary level of understanding and that makes religion difficult for them because it requires a much higher level of reading and art. What is an example of literature that you think the lower level of reading leads to atheism. Any particular passages that you think the atheist has misinterpreted because of his elementary level of reading and lack of "art?"
|
|