[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 260 KB, 467x506, 1336762546597.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2678086 No.2678086 [Reply] [Original]

Are there any good books on non-theistic religious naturalism?

>> No.2678089

u wot m8

>> No.2678101

You mean like naked catholic girls that don't believe in god?

>> No.2679582

>>2678089
>>2678101
Religious naturalism is belief that the entire world is naturalistic, but celebrating it and having a sense of spirituality about the whole thing anyway. Non-theistic religious naturalism is the same thing, but specifically without any belief in any deity (whereas some religious naturalists are pantheists).

>> No.2679589

>>2679582

so naive new-age hippy shit, basically

>> No.2679593

>>2679589
No... If I meant new age hippie shit, that's what I would have written. Sorry about your lack of reading comprehension, bro.

>> No.2679598

>>2679593
it's the same thing, bro. sorry about your inability to read between the lines, faggot

>> No.2679599

>>2679589
are you the guy who used to post pictures of pizza with DFW in the background?

>> No.2679600

>>2678086
The God Delusion

Oh, wait
>good books

In that case, no.

>> No.2679604

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_naturalism#Proponents

>> No.2679605
File: 95 KB, 247x302, 1336481949730.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2679605

>>2679600

>> No.2679609
File: 82 KB, 640x480, Photo on 2012-02-29 at 23.00.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2679609

>>2679599
yep, although not recently. exams and shit.

>>2679600
whether you agree with it or not or whether you think it's good or not, i don't think you can describe The God Delusion as a philosophical book.

>> No.2679610

>>2679609
Is Truman your real first name? I used to go to high school with someone with that name.

>> No.2679612

nietzsche? zen buddhism?

>> No.2679635

>>2679610

no, but it's a cool name.

>> No.2679636 [DELETED] 

>>2678086
The God Delusion

Oh, wait
>good books

In that case, no.

>> No.2679640

>>2679635
Not as cool as the name Capote. It just sounds like some sort of amazing condiment for food.

>> No.2679645

>>2679640

>> No.2679646

>>2679640
why am i laughing? holy shit that was funny for some reason

>> No.2679647

>>2679609
Well it certainly makes claims of philosophical character. The fact that its argumentation is shamelessly lousy is a different matter.

>> No.2679648
File: 31 KB, 390x263, truman_capote.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2679648

>>2679640
nigga was pretty tasty.

>> No.2679650

For the people talking about Dawkins, The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker are much better.

>> No.2679659

>>2679647

he has one chapter where he glibly rubbishes the philosophical arguments for god and philosophy in general, along the lines of 'something as important as the existence of a god can't be proved or disproved with word games and tricks'. his argument against god's existence relies on probability; not free will or anything like that.

>> No.2679665

>>2679659
>he glibly rubbishes the philosophical arguments for god and philosophy in general
His "arguments" show absolute ignorance of Aristotelian philosophy in which they are based.

>his argument against god's existence relies on probability
1. That argument is based on an internal contradiction. He first defines God as a supernatural being, then argues that God could not have arisen naturally. So what? Nobody ever denied that.

2. "The improbable character of biblical belief is acknowledged and even affirmed by the biblical faith itself" - Leo Strauss. Furthermore, "the possibility of God´s existence implies the possible meaninglessness of philosophy [and of science, which is based in modern philosophy]". Dawkins´ arguments do nothing at all to disprove God, not to speak of the fact that they are derivative of older atheists to the utmost and bring nothing original.

>> No.2679687

>>2679665

mate you're knocking on an open door here; I know he condenses the typical arguments against god into easily digestible chunks for mass consumption. i'm just saying it's not philosophy.

and yes I think strauss is right for the most part, and i quite like it when people of faith admit their beliefs are illogical. but unfortunately we have 'creation scientists' and people who want to outlaw stemcell research and abortion on arguments of faith.

>> No.2679723

>>2679650
True dat.

>> No.2679727

Okay let's say we accept the fact that some kind of supernatural entity cannot be disproven...

Why does it have to exist?
Why do you think it's Yahwe (the abrahamic god) and not a different one, like Buddha, Zeus, Odin or Vishnu?
Why is everybody else but you wrong?
How are those different possibilities different from things like The Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, that children are also sometimes taught to believe (until they are taught to unlearn their belief.)

>> No.2679728

>>2679727
BECAUSE JESUS LOVES ME YOU CUNT

>> No.2679731

>>2679727

Are you addressing someone in particular? Because I could answer those, but I haven't been in this thread yet.

>> No.2679734

>>2679731
No. But go for it.

>> No.2679739

Do you mean 'delighted and awed by scientific findings'? Why put the stamp religious in it? I am guessing you mean a sense of wonder and excitement by the intricacies of nature, rather than spirituality?

>> No.2679742

>>2679727

>Why does it have to exist?

Well, it doesn't. But that's sort of a strange question to ask. Why do you have to exist? Why do I? I don't think we can provide adequate answers to that, but we exist nonetheless.

>Why do you think it's Yahwe (the abrahamic god) and not a different one, like Buddha, Zeus, Odin or Vishnu?

I don't think that.

>Why is everybody else but you wrong?

They're not. In fact I think they're all basically right.

>How are those different possibilities different from things like The Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, that children are also sometimes taught to believe (until they are taught to unlearn their belief.)

They aren't.

>> No.2679746
File: 86 KB, 645x634, underage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2679746

>>2679734

I'm not guy you're responding to but, easy mode:
>1) Your grammar is fucked up. But one could say necessity.
>2) Qualitative differences.
>3) Because reasons.
>4) Qualitative AND categorical differences.

Only an underage could think your questions are revolutionary, or even challenging. It's like you don't know that there's thousands of years of thought that addresses them all.

>> No.2679750

>>2679727

>Why does it have to exist?

It doesn't. Personally, I just can't see the universe without the possibility as I fail to understand how matter can just pop into existence by itself. And don't say it has something to do with gravity, if that's the case then where did gravity come from? There was no mass before the Big Bang since there was nothing to HAVE mass. I don't believe in a bearded man in the sky governing my life, I just believe there had to be something out there as a catalyst, and it might as well be 'god' for the sake of the argument.

>Why do you think it's Yahwe (the abrahamic god) and not a different one, like Buddha, Zeus, Odin or Vishnu?

I don't. I think it's all of them. The manner of which 'they' are worshiped and the names may just differ from culture to culture, much of religion is based on what humans have interpreted. Therefore, none of it can be held up as fact. I don't completely believe in science either.

>Why is everybody else but you wrong?

They're not, in much the same way I don't believe I have all the answers either. The only people I shake my head at are the ones who think others are 'stupid' or 'naive' for having different ideas on what life and the universe are. Unless they're wrong on a cold, hard, fact of course, THEN they're wrong.

>How are those different possibilities different from things like The Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, that children are also sometimes taught to believe (until they are taught to unlearn their belief.)

Those two exist as belief. Perception. The same can be said for science. I don't believe in "things are the way they are because they are", I believe in "things are the way they are because we think they are". How do we know there isn't another race out there in the universe who believe in a completely different set of the Laws of Physics? Are they 'wrong'?

>> No.2679757

>>2679746
>qualitative AND categorical
Nah. Still basically an imaginary friend.

>> No.2679764

>>2679746
You forgot your tripcode mister. You clearly have something to prove.

>> No.2679767

>>2679750
>no-one knows the ultimate answers
>thus every answer, even the one without any proof or rational explanation, is right
People consider the belief these things naive because they usually claim something to be some way without any logical proof.

Compare the approaches:
>no-one knows
>so I'll make something up, based on my gut feeling
vs
>no-one knows
>but we should try to find out, without making any unsubstantiated claims

I'll choose the latter. The former is not necessarily wholly stupid, but it should be expected that voicing such claims will make people who follow the latter approach ridicule you.

>> No.2679769

>>2679746
Actually i'd love to see this pretentious fuck point out which specific grammar mistakes he was referring to.

>> No.2679773

>>2679767

Your mistake is creating the dichotomy.

>> No.2679782

>>2679767

What I was getting at was that almost all facts are open to interpretation. Ones that aren't, say, are things like "The sun exists", "Today is Tuesday" etc. And yes, I'm aware time is a human concept I'm referring to someone attempting to measure time.

>> No.2679784

>>2679609
czech beer?

>> No.2679792

>>2679746
How about you give me satisfying answers then, because so far i don't see shit.
It's not that i think my questions are anything special; i just don't find that anyone has been able to answer them satisfyingly without conceding that at least Christianity is no more likely to be true compared to Islam or Buddhism. Which was the point i was working towards.

You did make an amazing job of telling everyone how incredibly smart you seem to think you are though, good luck with that.

>> No.2679798

>>2679750
>And don't say it has something to do with gravity, if that's the case then where did gravity come from?

1)The possibility for gravity to exist was always there. - If I drop my laptop gravity will pull it towards the earth, If I don't drop it gravity is still there.

Gravity (or the hypothetical potential for) was always there without the matter to act upon.

2)The uncertainty principle has been validated time and time again, and supporting evidence has been steadily growing. It looks highly likely that certain subatomic particles can operate as a wave and a particle and are not subject to the physical laws that larger particles are.

This means that said particles can break the speed of light, behave differently when observed, pop into and out of existence, and behave in a manor that's not in accordance with the laws governing our dimension of time.

3)If this is true, It is plausible for the universe to originate without a creator. Even with gravity the lack of matter would negate the need for time. Time began at the singularity.

4) Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you need to invoke a god.

>> No.2679802

>>2679784

yeah; cheap czech beer.
pilsner is my favourite, but all I can't justify buying anything other than kozel or svijany right now.

>> No.2679808

>>2679798

No I know that, it's just what I think.

And my problem with that theory is, that would imply there always was 'something', there was never 'nothing', because in order for there to be a Big Bang, there must not have been anything beforehand right? Otherwise is raises the question of what was there before the Big Bang? Does the Universe end somewhere etc etc. Or have these been answered? I'm not scientist as you can probably tell.

>> No.2679820

>>2679687
>i'm just saying it's not philosophy.
What I´m saying is that he makes philosophical claims: "God is unlikely to exist" - yet he makes them in a really lousy way. And he should not have a free ride just because he is a scientist and not a professional philosopher. You want to join in on the game, you play by its rules.

>people of faith admit their beliefs are illogical
That is not what Strauss says. The biblical faith is rational, but not philosophical: it follows from different premises than philosophy. E.g. for faith it is not the universal that matters the most, but the unique: revelation. They (at least the traditional believers; the modern theology is pretty much a surrender to philosophy) rely on the authority of the Scripture, which results from divine revelation. Inb4 "bronze age bullshit"; no nation is more educated and successful than Jews. For Strauss it ultimately boils down to the fact that philosophy cannot disprove revealed religion and vice versa: they are two incompatible, yet valid, ways of life.

>> No.2679824

>>2679802
Are you Czech, Truman?

>> No.2679841
File: 50 KB, 400x570, cosy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2679841

>>2679824
yes; czech and british.
I live & study in prague.

>>2679820
equally valid ways of life, maybe. but only one can be true.

>> No.2679848

>>2679841
>but only one can be true
Yet we have no way of knowing.

Also, I´m Slovak. If you find it more comfortable, we can continue this elsewhere in our language.

>> No.2679851

>>2679757
>>2679764
>>2679792

Aquinas is the standard Western theologian. Then read Spinoza. Enjoy.

>>2679769

>Why does it have to exist?

It's not a grammatical -mistake-, but it is nigh incomprehensible. You should have asked, "why do you think it exists?" Does anything HAVE to exist? Maybe water doesn't have to exist, yet it does. The moar you know.

>> No.2679885
File: 211 KB, 478x476, ulillillia.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2679885

>>2679848

nemam ceskou klavesnice v tomto notebooku ;_; ale mluvim lepe anglicky

i'm always nicely surprised by the amount of czechs and slovaks on this board.

I'm interested in how you can define belief based on the unique and revelatory as 'rational'; doesn't rational belief inherently require evidence?

Are you saying that the reason the Jews are a successful people is because of their divinely authored edicts?

>> No.2679933

>>2679885
>doesn't rational belief inherently require evidence?
Well yes, but the question is what you are willing to admit as evidence. The believer will admit the Scripture because he believes in its divine origin; the philosopher will not, because he doesn´t believe in its divine origin and without this the Bible boils down to what Spinoza wrote about it in the Tractatus: a bunch of silly stories that reflect nothing but the vivid imagination of Bronze age Israelites.

And this conflict is non-negotiable: no side can disprove the other, as I wrote already, and "belief in revelation is the act, not of man, but of God´s grace", to quote Strauss again.

>Are you saying that the reason the Jews are a successful people is because of their divinely authored edicts?
Basically. The way of life that was prescribed to them by their scriptures has brought about wonderful results.

>> No.2679939

>>2679933
As an addendum, a philosopher can certainly admit that there is wisdom in the Bible and admire it; but if he does, he sees this wisdom as accidental and something that can be attained with more certainty and better argumentation through philosophy.

>> No.2680076

>>2679933
>The way of life that was prescribed to them by their scriptures has brought about wonderful results.
Why is the Israeli government so fucked up and oppressive to the Palestinian people, then?

>> No.2680088

>>2680076
Because of American intervention

>> No.2680102

>>2679933

>Basically. The way of life that was prescribed to them by their scriptures has brought about wonderful results.

Yews got rich because they were only ones that had no problem with taking interest from loans. Other than that they have pretty much been punching bags of rest of the world through their history.

>> No.2680119

>>2680088
Can't argue with that. Our fucking government needs to stop selling weapons to Israel.

>> No.2682044

>>2680076
The real question is, why are Palestinians and the other arab states so pathetic and cannot do shit about it?

>>2680102
Think of all Jewish philosophers, scientists and writers throughout the history, then talk again.