/lit/ - Literature

>>6527257
Neither would make them Christians

>>6527257
Yep, you've figured it out anon, Kierkegaard, Aquinas, Lewis, Boethius, and more all believed in Christianity just out of pure fear of the church, not because of any silly notions of faith.

>>6527257
They read Aquinas and realised that he actually made sense.
I guarantee you that 99.99% of atheist so-called intellectuals today haven't read and understood Aquinas on any deep and significant level.

>>6527257

religion is a social practice before it is a set of beliefs

>>6527257
They believed in it because they didn't know as much about history or science. Most of them, if they were alive today, wouldn't be Christians.

>>6527291
I refuse to. I think he's too right-wing.

Its like wearing clothes, you do it because its the socially accepted thing to do.

>>6527333
Right left politics is a false dichotomy.

>>6527333
>a Christian philosopher
>"right-wing"
American education, everybody.

yeah dude, totally. people are only ever a product of their time. you figured it out bro.

>>6527491

man, I subconsciously put "you figured it out" after reading the first reply w/o realizing it

>>6527257
some because they had to, some because for them there wasn't alternative

>>6527257
Many of them believed in Christianity simply because the world they were raised in believed, and virtually every aspect of law and custom was informed by Christian tradition. In an era without separation of church and state, there wasn't a meaningful difference between the Christian religion and Western culture in general. In an era without religious pluralism, the concept of "choosing" to be Christian didn't really exist. You were Christian because you were born Christian, in much the same way as you're a white person because you were born a white person. There isn't a conscious element of choice involved in accepting it, or the idea that if you didn't like being what you are, you could choose to be something else.

Religion was an ethno-national identity, and in such a world, atheism would essentially be synonymous with being a man outside of culture and society. Nobody was atheist. There were impious and unobservant Christians, but they were still Christian despite their divergence from church teachings.

>thinking you can sit on your ass and prove God as if it is a matter of mathematics
>not knowing that humans have built in mental mechanisms that interpret sense perception
>not knowing that God is just a metaphysical entity built out of a lack of self-awareness of these mechanisms

>>6527887
>not knowing that God is just a metaphysical entity built out of a lack of self-awareness of these mechanisms

wtf are you talking about? The ancient greeks talked about the five senses and their relation to the picture of reality we conceive of mentally; that isn't some brand new innovation.

>>6527951
There are the senses which perceive the external world and the internal mechanisms which process sense information. For example you see a car moving. Due to your innate notion of causality you know that the car you saw in one instance is the same car in the next instance.

>>6527961
Yeah I know that, but you seem to think that the ancients were ignorant of this and I disagree. Parmenides in the fifth century distinguished between what our senses tell us and what "the truth" is; I don't think the notion of God came about from not realizing how humans perceive the world through senses+mental processes.

>>6527835
Not even. The reason why they believed in a greater power was because there was a need to explain life. All the beautiful fucking animals, flowers, and plants were what inspired them to believe in a greater being. Of course evolution explained all that so Christianity was rendered useless.

>>6527333
>I refuse to. I think he's too right-wing.
>left wing right wing in theology

>>6527887
>implying you cannot define the existence of god through numbers.
What is a monad?

>>6527257
>because they basically had to
>because they were intelligent

These are not the only reasons to believe in Christianity.

There was a much smaller movement against the Christian religion at that time (assuming you are talking about American and British authors of the 16th and 17th century.)

That being said, if you have ever met a person who believes they are an atheist yet was raised Christian (I mean like actually in a church every Sunday and told masturbation leads to Hell) you may find their lives living on their own have been very difficult. This is so for many reasons (too many to be listed here).

In "the past" as you call it--there was less review, less opposition, and less fear of "indoctrination" from among peers who may not have believed in a traditional "God."

Being raised Christian basically meant... You are Christian. If you weren't... the only people you ever reported back to on how your life was (before internet blogs and what not) were DEFINITELY Christian and would do nothing but tell you how much Hell you were going to tolerate for eternity.

This might seem to qualify as "basically had to" but I would argue it's something more complicated. The same reason you visit your awful relatives for holidays.

>>6527257

Well, very good arguments can be made that Aquinas is doing something similar to what philosophers like Al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes were doing, namely, protecting philosophy within a community defined by faith.

Descartes, Leibnitz, and Spinoza are all basically atheistic; their views of God end up reducing the Christian god to a cause of physics, and people today are only persuaded that they were religious because of how effective their obfuscation of the matter was.

This is likely also true of at least Hobbes and Hegel.

>>6527257
She's kind of homely, but she looks like she may enjoy and be good at sucking penis.

>>6528040
>Descartes, Leibnitz, and Spinoza are all basically atheistic
>This is likely also true of at least Hobbes and Hegel.

Epic. Let me guess. The greeks also were just pretending too, right.

>>6528158
This comment deserves applause.

>>6527992
How does evolution take away from the beauty and intricacy of God's world? It doesn't disprove anything about Christianity.

>>6527980
Hi, care to elaborate on what you think the idea of "God" came from? Thanks.

>>6528286

Feel that irony, OP?

>>6528158
Wasn't Descartes a pretty devote Catholic?

Would you classify Aquinas' concept of causality in the universe to be top-down or bottom-up?

>>6528286
I'm not sure, but I doubt it can be attributed to a singular cause.

>>6527257

In Aquinas' case we know that when he claims that elements of Christianity were rational was indeed because he thought they were rational, because he was willing to say that some aspects of Christianity had to be taken on faith, and that people should only give the best rational arguments for Christianity, and admit that they had none if they didn't.

>>6528040
Leibniz and Descartes were incredibly pious, and their Philosophy reflected it. The idea that God " must be good" gives Descartes the external world, and God's perfection gives Leibniz determinism, because God must do the most with the least means since he is the most rational and efficient being there can be, meaning the world is structured in the best balance between simple means and complex effects- the fact that modern physics has similar presuppositions about the world comes from it's Christian origins in Pious Natural Philosophy.

I mean shit, part of the reason why Aristoteleanism was rejected was because it was too Pagan for most of the 17th century guys.

>>6527342
Or it's cold outside...

>>6528191
It takes away the need for God to be the default explanation for life's origin.

It doesn't have to counter or even contradict Christianity, it simply provided an alternative for people who didn't believe to religion to explain where the fuck anything comes from.

>>6528496
if that were the case no one would wear anything in the summer

>>6528503
kek get a load of this guy
he thinks evolution explains the origin of life
he thinks evolution is a justification for atheism
it's 2015 people

>>6528504
I assume they would still wear shoes and probably bras.

But I think you missed the point, there are logical uses for clothing other than "only because society says to" sure there is shame in nudity in most cultures about take that away completely and people would not default to naked apes.

>>6528506
When did I even say if I believed in evolution or not?

>>6528506
or perhaps he's wondering why someone would shoot a man before throwing him out of a plane

>>6528521
Speaking of, what was to stop the guy he pretend shot from being like "Hey guys, he didn't shoot me."

>>6527291
This.
They always refute it in a way that clearly shows their misunderstanding.

>>6528519
I'm sorry I misread your original post. On re-reading it makes perfect sense I just jumped the gun in order to sound edgy by saying things like "kek get a load of [thing]" and "it's [year] people!"

>>6528425
Yes, he was. He probably has read more theology than everything else in his life.

>>6528519
You dont believe in evolution?
Americans...

>>6528663
Evolution as it is understood now is most probably wrong in a few major areas.

>>6528430

>>6528712
Such as?

>>6527333
>being this retarded
>2015

also waste of trips....

>>6528663
what does it even mean to say you "believe in evolution"

like, you believe dinosaurs existed in the past, before humans were around?

but, humans came up with the concept of dinosaurs from making explanatory theories about fossils...

a human concept, pre-existed human existence?

>>6528760
average retard twitter user

>>6528040
>Descartes, Leibnitz, and Spinoza are all basically atheistic

Heavily triggered. I want off this ride.

>>6528525
He....He didn't pretend to shoot him. It was a scare shot. It was meant to scare the guy he was holding, not make the others think he'd been shot.

>>6529167
Yeah, it's incredibly annoying when atheists include every important modern philosopher in their club because OBVIUSLY they couldn't be religious sheep. The truth claims of Christianity are irrelevant to the fact that you're being a retard and making unsubstantiated revisionism.

With Spinoza I'd give you a point, but Descartes and fucking Leibniz? Haha, no.

>>6527257
at least today we know that people are ironic

>>6527333
Even if 'left/right-wing' made sense when applied to theologians, AND even if Thomas Aquinas had anything to do with politics, AND even if he really were 'too right wing' you would still be retarded.

>Refusing to read an important author because you disagree on political issues
>Ever

>>6529167
I mean Spinoza was more or less a romanticist atheist.

>>6527887
You can prove mathematical truths because they are necessarily true. You can only prove statements that are necessarily true. Most, probably all, people working in Phil. of Religion nowadays think that God necessarily exists if he exists at all, so that 'God exists' is necessarily true if He does. This means that, if God exists, proving Gods existence a priori as with mathematics is not out of the question. Maybe it isn't actually possible to, but that isn't obvious.

>>6528040
>Descartes or Leibniz being atheistic in any way, shape or form
Descartes needs God in order to explain why we can have knowledge of the external world, for christsakes. And for Leibniz, without God there's no divinely-ordained synchronicity for one thing, so no explanation for causation or the principle of sufficient reason.

people believe in religion not because they have a hole in their brains, but because they have a hole in their hearts

t. anon from a taiwanese board

>>6527286
What makes you so sure of that?

>>6528712
Being this retarded...

I can understand that maybe a single religion, such as Christianity or Islam for example, might be wrong due to the truth that Jesus or Allah as entities don't necessarily exist but I have always been curious as to the idea that EVERY SINGLE civilization ever has had a "religious" system or a need to believe that something exists that is far more complex and above our mere existence.

Anybody care to comment on this/correct me? Doesn't this point to the fact that there is something out there since even remote civilizations that didn't have any exchange of anything with others developed religious or pseudo-religious beliefs?

I would not be convinced if you said that "muuh reasons to explain shit all around" since ALL civilizations arrived at the conclusion that there were entities that controlled them. Surely, even at least 1 must have come up with some other explanation that is not gods.

>>6533093
>but I have always been curious as to the idea that EVERY SINGLE civilization ever has had a "religious" system or a need to believe that something exists that is far more complex and above our mere existence.
Nietzsche explains why this is so in The Gay Science, gimme a minute and I'll find you the section.

>Doesn't this point to the fact that there is something out there
Argument ad populem. Just because a shitload of people believe in X doesn't make X true.

Somewhat related I suppose.

I can understand the idea of the God of deism.

Is the jump from deism to Christianity just a matter of accepting the word of scripture, church fathers, etc? I mean going by history the specifics of what Jesus did is just too fuzzy to say anything with certitude, I suppose trusting what the apostles and those who came after them claim is the main hinge for belief?

>>6533138
Maybe it doesn't make it true but you do have to admit it sure is weird that EVERY civilization in existence ended up believing in the concept of god/gods. Even in cases where they didn't have any contact with each other.

>>6533138
>>6533146
Is the pre-scientific mind inherently drawn to the concept of creating gods?

I mean there must be other explanations they could have come up with, at least one of them would have, no?

>>6533146
>but you do have to admit it sure is weird
I see what you mean, but that which seems weird only seems so because we don't yet understand it.

Here's one of the sections in which he deals with it.

>>6533162
see
>>6533168
Primeval man conceived of the universe in terms of individual wills, even today this idea persists strongly: "stupid car, why did you break down now", etc.

>>6533162
You have it backwards, bro
Hint: the fault is on the word "god"

>>6533162
the scientific mind is one of the most drawn to creating god, the western mind seeks above all else totality. totality is achieved through transcendental signification, like an umbrella where god or the forms reside at the top. it is through plato's theory of the cave in the republic that the western mind's fundamental mode of operation is formulated.

>>6533178
exactly, that example sounds like adorno's ideas of rational superstitiousness as well (ie we talk to our cars).

>Aquinas

what has this guy even said?

i am too dumb and lazy to read it for myself.

>>6533206
I really need to get into philosophy.

Thanks guys!! Gonna start with the Greeks I guess.

>>6528766
whoa, trippy, man

as advanced as we see ourselves, modern society seemingly can't shake that petty notion that our lives are objectively superior to those of people in the past.

when was it decided that secular democratic capitalism was the pinnacle of human civilization? when was it decided that all other forms of thought and lifestyles are simply stepping stones on the path to this current iteration of doing things?

if you really need to analyze a group of people who are seemingly trapped by societal circumstances beyond their control, you don't need to look any further than 2015. we are just as stuck as any human beings ever have been.

>>6533168

That doesn't really give an argument though, he is just throwing an idea out there without giving us a reason to accept it. It seems especially erroneous since he claims that metaphysics is a stand in for religious belief, when metaphysics was developed at a time when everyone believed in some sort of God. Not to mention that not all metaphysics is "otherworldly", most is talking about things we conceive of right here in our experience. Finally, not all religions are otherworldly either, many Pagans believed that their God's really did exist somewhere in the world, at the top of mount Olympus or somewhere similar. Nietzsche was a really weak thinker when he wasn't attacking egalitarianism or talking about being an ubermensch.

>>6533263
>That doesn't really give an argument though, he is just throwing an idea out there without giving us a reason to accept it.
If you really need someone else to spoonfeed you an idea before you can accept it, then you're not taking it very seriously.

>It seems especially erroneous since he claims that metaphysics is a stand in for religious belief, when metaphysics was developed at a time when everyone believed in some sort of God.
I think you misunderstood his first sentence. Third one too. He's in agreement with you that metaphysics came later.

>Not to mention that not all metaphysics is "otherworldly"
You're missing the point here, that people replace their formerly held otherworldly beliefs with otherworldly metaphysics.

>Finally, not all religions are otherworldly either
"Under the rule of religious ides, one has become accustomed to the notion of (otherworldlyness)"
He's not arguing that all religions are otherworldly, he's giving a descriptive account of the prevalent religion of the time and its effects on the individual.

>Nietzsche was a really weak thinker
He sure would seem so if you don't actually try to understand him.

So eager to think critically, yet so unwilling to critically think.

>tfw Imam Ghazai turned me back into the way of God
>tfw even Aquinas was influenced by his work
>tfw neo-platonists forever rekt with The Incoherence of the Philosophers

TAKBIR
A
K
B
I
R

>>6533375

>If you really need someone else to spoonfeed you an idea before you can accept it, then you're not taking it very seriously.

I need an actual argument to convince me, if I just accept every statement because someone postulated it I would believe that the moon did'nt exist because David Icke said it's does'nt. Accepting a position without sufficient reason to is intellectually lazy.

>I think you misunderstood his first sentence. Third one too. He's in agreement with you that metaphysics came later.

I know that he agreed that metaphysics comes after religious ideas, but his claim was that people lose their otherworldly religious beliefs and due to feeling empty then adopt metaphysical beliefs. This is historically unfounded because as I said: metaphysics was not developed in a time when atheism was big, almost everyone was religious when metaphysics was first formulated, so there isn't grounds to say that they adopted metaphysics because of a lack of religion, because they did'nt lack religion.

>You're missing the point here, that people replace their formerly held otherworldly beliefs with otherworldly metaphysics.


>He's not arguing that all religions are otherworldly, he's giving a descriptive account of the prevalent religion of the time and its effects on the individual.

No I got that part that he thinks that people replace otherwordly religious ideals with otherworldly metaphysics with the former dies out, it is false, as I showed above.

He never distinguished between otherworldy and non-otherwordly "metaphysics" or "religious ideas" in the qoute what so ever, he just used those terms simpliciter and attributed otherworldlyness to them.

>He sure would seem so if you don't actually try to understand him.

>So eager to think critically, yet so unwilling to critically think.

He now, I did'nt say he was a weak thinker simpliciter, only that his good stuff revolves around a certain strain of his thought, one that actually makes a fairly large portion of his work. I like Nietzsche quite a bit all in all.

>>6527257
Neither, for lack of not caring. There was no stigma of being "intellectual" while also being a Christian. That's a social stigma that's recently come about in only the past 50 or so years.

I'm not sure what you expected for an answer really?

>>6527257
>Did intellectual authors of the past pretend to believe in Christianity because they basically had to, or because they were intelligent?
ftfy

>>6530594
>>6530879
>Spinoza
>Atheist

Saying "romanticist atheist" does not make it any better. It does not mean Spinoza is anything more than a glorified philosophy professor, but how can it be about atheism? Is that the ebin non-Christian = atheist maymay?

I'm fairly certain there's little need for believing in Christianity, given the plentiful proof we have of its existence.

>>6533826
>did'nt exist because David Icke said it's does'nt.
C'mon gangster learn to apostrophe.

>>6533826
>Accepting a position without sufficient reason to is intellectually lazy.
I agree but what I meant is that, given an idea, one should be able to find reasons to support it or argue against it on one's own, instead of simply complaining that the author was being lazy. I think Nietzsche just didn't want to waste time piling up evidence and engaging in polemics, and that he wanted the reader to think for himself.

OH, I get what you're saying about the _origin_ of metaphysics now, but
>there isn't grounds to say that they adopted metaphysics because of a lack of religion, because they did'nt lack religion.
>he thinks that people replace otherwordly religious ideals with otherworldly metaphysics with the former dies out, it is false, as I showed above.
He's saying that people in modern times often turn to metaphysics as a replacement for religion. Not that it was developed as a replacement for religion. E.g, the birth of nihilism, absurdism, etc.

I'm sorry if I came off as hostile earlier, but I thought you were simply dismissing a great thinker and writer.