Discuss. :)
"Only theologians can be true atheists." (J. Lacan)
by Narkissos 22 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Caedes
In much the same way one needs to spend a lot of time studying the various father christmas myths before one can claim not to believe?
-
quietlyleaving
if I've understood this article correctly, or at least some of it, I think I can agree more than disagree with the statement, Narkissos.
In a nutshell, it seems to point to the eucharistic elements of christianity for its transformative power in developing a subjective stance but as part of a community and from a political standpoint
edit: of course my approach is highly coloured by my xjw viewpoint
-
Black Sheep
One of New Zealand's leading theologians, Lloyd Geering, is an atheist.
I remember him causing quite a stir when I was young. They tried to excommunicate him.
Wikipedia During his church trial he claimed that the remains of Jesus lay somewhere in Palestine, and that theresurrection had been wrongfully interpreted by churches as a resuscitation of the body of Jesus. He also rejects the notion that God is a supernatural being who created and continues to look over the world.
I read one of his books when I first broke free from the bOrg. It proposed a very different view of the role of modern day Christianity than anything I would have expected.
Cheers
Chris
-
thomas15
It is my understanding that an "atheists", true or otherwise has proof that God does not exist. This, if correct begs the question, where and or what is the proof?
So, based on this understanding of mine, in order to have proof that God does not exist, you must have a through knowledge of God. Therefore, you must be a theologian at the very minimum. In the end though, the idea that finite man could have a through knowledge of our infinite God seems in my opinion to be a difficult reach.
-
Caedes
Thomas15,
I don't know a single atheist who claims to have 'proof' that god/s don't exist. I am an atheist on much the same basis that I reject all claims of the supernatural. Do I have proof that the tooth fairy does not visit children to exchange teeth for money? No, I have no such proof but that does not prevent me making the statement "the tooth fairy is a fairy tale and is not real" as a statement of fact. I reject your god on the same basis I reject all gods and supernatural entities, I need no formal study in the field of Norse mythology in order to reject the Nordic gods.
So, do you reject Thor despite having (presumably, although just my luck to be talking to some kind of expert in the field!) no thorough knowledge of the finer points of Norse religion?
-
slimboyfat
Similar to Derrida's claim that true believers experience atheism all the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3fScS2cnB0
Or Zizek's lecture on why only an atheist can believe.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/171014/1/Why-Only-an-Atheist-Can-Believe-Slavoj-Zizek
-
jws
Perhaps this could be compared to the JWs. People who don't know anything about the JWs can be anti-JW or at the very least have no opinion on them and no interest in them whatsoever. Those who know the JW religion because we were part of it reject it at an entirely different level.
Somebody may have never been brought up believing in religion and decide there is no God. Or maybe they study science and conclude the same thing. But there's always that God argument that many athiests probably haven't taken the time to really understand. And without really understanding it, it's really hard to show a believer the error in his ways.
But the theologian knows religion intimately and can see the flaws with it. After really knowing it, he can reject it and fully understand that religion is not an option.
Accepting a conclusion (be it atheism, scientific findings, etc.) is not the same as understanding what the true scholars do. I can accept difficult concepts such as quantum physics, but I don't understand them like Stephen Hawking would. A theologian who rejects God is at a whole different level than somebody who was never taught God and rejects God.
But, some might say the end result is the same. And you don't have to spend years in the study of BS to reach that conclusion. Do I need to spend months or years researching the Flying Spaghetti Monster to not believe in him?
-
Spook
I've found some theists to make the best atheists because they have gone "further down the rabbit hole." Ehrman and Avalos are good examples of this type...those who go to Harvard Divinity School, for example.
These former theists have the additional advantage of knowing very deeply that most traditional Christian doctrines are inventions, not supported by the texts or believed by many at the the purported time of Christ. They are also best equipped for the truly esoteric arguments unique to some of the theistic apologists such as Craig.
Most "generically" theistic philosophers are much closer to, say, Plantinga or William James than they are to stricter "apologists" like Craig. Craig has "sophisticated" arguments very popular with laymen but not very popular with the theistic philosophers (when compared to strict theologians).
I'm a less common atheist because I do believe I can prove that a number of gods don't exist. The merit of these arguments depends on the definition of words and the assumption that nothin with a logically impossible set of characteristics can be said to exist.
-
AllTimeJeff
In my view, discussions like this (which are most welcome) get to the heart of the matter. I don't want to characterize why Narkissos started this, but the responses thus far demonstrate a consistent pattern by both sides of the argument, (which happens in all debates). That is, to define the other side, instead of trying to define your own stance.
For me, I think a more colloquial definition of atheism fits here. Because it is highly doubtful that most atheists are of the scholarly variety. Their reasons are based on their own existential experience. For us on this board, most here have it based on their JW experience, seeing no wizard behind the curtain, which for many, gives permission to not believe anymore, or to study and read enough to be convinced that god doesn't exist. There is no one "template for atheists".
The argument that atheists must present proof for god not existing is very disingenuous, very dishonest, and very distractionary.
Both sides have the exact same amount of evidence to work with. And it is sad, because for theists, the problem has always been that their god (whether of the Christian, Islamic, or tribal variety as examples) must rely on his/her adherents. For whatever reason ALL of the gods of ALL cultures are conspicuous by their absence.
In dealing with the reality of god's current absence, proof is not demanded of the atheist.
At best, in my opinion, theists, not atheists, can only wage an argument of what we in the USA call "reasonable doubt". That is to say, it is reasonable to doubt that we evolved. But it is highly circumstantial. And that is as far as any "proof" by theists can be taken.
Atheists on the other hand, for whatever reason they wish to claim that god doesn't exist, have a very real advantage. Where is he? That has always been the question.
Whether or not you want to be a scholar and delve deeper into the original manuscripts and their historical transmission to our day, suffice to say, more and more people do not need to be told that god exists or doesn't exist. One merely needs to see the level of of active participation of "god" in the planets affairs today, and compare that with the claim of theistic adherents to see for oneself who is being honest.
This isn't a statement of belief on an individuals decision to believe in a higher power, btw. I am commenting on the severe group think mentality of organized religion. Their still insistent claims today of a theist demanding "proof" of gods non existence is very untenable.
From the standpoint of being intellectually honest, one cannot demand belief in the traditional religions stance that their god exists. So I would respectfully disagree that only theologians can be true atheists. All organized religions around the world face the same problem in the face of skepicism: WHERE IS SHE?
Edited for clarity... I hit submit by accident... My apologies.