[ 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: 88 KB, 330x495, 1348441149861.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4480729 No.4480729 [Reply] [Original]

>there are people on /lit/ right now who have read Voltaire and still believe in God

>> No.4480734

>>4480729
funny thing is voltaire did

>> No.4480735

>there are people on /lit/ right now who have read Shakespeare and still, in their heart, say there is no God

>> No.4480743

>>4480729
>>4480734

fukken REKT son might as well delete this thread

>> No.4480757

>>4480729

>there are people who have read Dune and do not worship Muad'dib

His flesh floundered, but he swam on.

>> No.4480800

>>4480734
Yes, he was alive during the enlightenment.

Literally every single person alive in western society believed in God during the enlightenment. He's as close as you can get to atheism in that time frame, accept it.

>> No.4480811

>>4480800
I can only assume that you provided the original story for Bill and Ted's Most Excellent Adventure, and they spiced up your meticulous survey of Enlightenment religious beliefs.

>> No.4480812

>>4480800
Thats not true as far as the French Revolution period is concerned, the Anti-theism of the revolution was very pronounced.

But the Deistic idea of God is completely antiquated anyway, no different than saying 'I don't know, God did it'. A worthless concept that introduces far more questions than it has ever hoped to answer..

>> No.4480822

>>4480812
The anti-theism of the whole period is pronounced. It simply wasn't in the best interest of the ambitious to publicly announce.

>> No.4480823

>>4480812
Well, this is pretty much what I mean. Voltaire vehemently denied that any religious texts were "true" and that there was some sort of actual religion, but believed in God because there was no good explanation for our origins without him. So, he "believed in God" only by necessity, not because he actually believed any religious teachings

>> No.4480825

>>4480823
>>4480735

That isn't atheism, that is a disagreement on the meaning of God.

>> No.4480834

>>4480823
He believed in a conception of God that was clearly derived from a Christian understanding, just as atheists of today who end up acting the same as Christians because they're still trapped in the ideological framework of the culture they were raised in.

>> No.4480835

>>4480825
Rejecting religion is the only meaningful argument about God, an ethereal God is unimportant

>> No.4480838

Voltaire was a shitty philosopher, he misunderstood Leibniz and tried to humiliate him.
Read Rousseau.

>> No.4480843

>>4480835
How does that work if there are religions without gods?

>> No.4480844

>>4480843
Sorry; I mean, rejecting God as he's taught by religion and rejecting all religions that claim to understand the will or character somehow of God. I don't know about any godless religions but they really aren't pertinent to this discussion

>> No.4480866

>>4480835
All gods are the same God. It is just a massive symbol. Different cultures expressing the same transcendental idea. This wasn't an idea foreign to the Catholic church. It wasn't even an idea they were opposed to. It just didn't provide the same methods of control, so they kept this way of thinking in house.

>> No.4480872

>>4480866
Doesn't matter. If none of the actual texts we have on God have any relevance to anything or any truth, then believing in God doesn't mean anything. There's no point to it all.

>> No.4480875

>>4480838
Leibniz misunderstood the tradition that the top tier french enlightenment philosophers like, Voltaire Montesquieu and Rousseau relied heavily on, and was a serious derailing force on the agenda being promoted. What you are suggesting is no different than saying Rousseau misunderstood Locke and tried to humiliate him.

>> No.4480883

>>4480872
You misunderstand the concept, all the actual texts we have on God are relevant. They are different facets of something which is so far beyond our ability to ever completely conceive of that we can only represent it symbolically.

>> No.4480885

>>4480883
Again, that's completely meaningless. You still haven't given me a shred of information that makes anything matter. So what if all these books on God exist and we're too stupid to figure them out? If we can't figure them out then they're meaningless to us, so there's no point in caring.

If you demonstrate how there's even a tangible bit of real information that religion from divine inspiration has given us, then you're demonstrating a reason to believe. Instead, you're giving an endless loop of fallbacks that guarantee the existence of absolutely nothing.

>> No.4480896

>>4480883
>beyond our ability to ever completely conceive of

Meaningless by definition, that which is outside comprehension is irrelevant.

At least the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an intelligible concept.

>> No.4480901

>>4480896
Hence my original point; rejecting God as he is taught by religious texts, and rejecting all religious texts that claim to know God is the only important argument about God. If you reduce God to being the universe, or as completely obfuscated and impossible to understand, or completely not understandable, then you've demonstrated that God is not something to believe in. This is the "anti-theism" of the enlightenment was; it rejected the only significant part of the idea of God and all that was left was the ethereal part that filled the blanks in understanding but had no relevance to how one acts, lives, or thinks about the world.

>> No.4480903

>>4480885
What is the difference between something being meaningless and failing to see the meaning of something? We can figure them out, we wrote them. In fact, we can put them together to can a more complete picture. We can't comprehend fully,but that doesn't mean we comprehend nothing at all. Judaism is built around this, they don't say the name of God because their religion started off syncretic and it is the name of something they know they don't completely understand. They view God as essentially a framework for being. This is compatible with Socrates and is swallowed up and re-appropriated by Aristotle who used this framework to give context to Plato's idea of a transcendental highest good. This, along with Judaism proper is used by the Christian/Catholic church to incorporate transcendental ethics personified in the main character of Jesus. The later church then rediscovers classical texts and reworks the system of Aristotle to update and give context to these ethics which had stagnated with the loss of previous texts. The damage had already been done however, and their dogmatism had rotted on the vine, so you have the French and English enlightenment philosophers distancing the Symbol and all the different ideas contained within from the church.

We exist and something caused this to happen. Ideas exist beyond us that we never fully understand and have to constantly expand because as we understand more and more we know that we know less and less of the bigger picture. There is a reason that one of Shakespeare's most quoted lines is about only a fool being able to accept in his heart that there is no God. A lack of belief in God stems from a lack of understanding on the meaning of God. Religious texts are designed to appeal to the people who are too dumb to contemplate the meaning of the word, but they are written by groups of people who have devoted their life to nothing else.

>> No.4480904

>>4480903
>We exist and something caused this to happen
Physical processes, yes

>A lack of belief in God stems from a lack of understanding on the meaning of God

What is the meaning of God?

>> No.4480906

>>4480896
How so? It is possible to conceive the limits of thought despite by definition not being able to think of them. You can know that you do not know without knowing exactly what it is that you don't know

>> No.4480912

>>4480906
What you're saying is you can walk to visit God, but he exists only in a different dimension, and if only we could understand higher dimensions we could see God.

It doesn't improve our understanding of the world and is a pointless pursuit. Since God hasn't given us even a modicum of usable advice or information, why should we waste time pursuing him, anyway?

>> No.4480916

>>4480904
>Physical processes, yes
What caused these physical processes? These processes govern reality, right? We are part of the system, and are limited by it. We'll never fully understand it because we are active participants. God is simply a symbolic placeholder for the generative force which created and controls what we exist in, and the elements of our existence which are never completely understandable due to the limits of imposed on us by the way this system created and restricts us.

Replace "This system" /"system" with the word God, and let God represent the unknowable beyond the limits of participatory understanding

>> No.4480917

Am I really stupid, /lit/?

I believe in God because nothing else solves the eternal prime mover argument in my head.

>> No.4480921

>>4480916
Okay, great. So you say that, we don't know where the universe came from. I agree. You assert that this had to be God. Sure, whatever, I mean it's not like I can say no.

This still has absolutely no significance to anything, doesn't change how I view the world, doesn't improve my understanding and has no tangible use.

>> No.4480925

>>4480917
The exact same argument was made about the origins of life, except now science has proven that it has naturalistic origins. A lack of scientific understanding doesn't prove God, and even if the universe does suggest God, that knowledge has absolutely no meaning or relevance to our lives

>> No.4480933

>>4480921
The problem here is that I am trying to explain God to you in a way that doesn't involve the personification of the concept into a big man in the sky. This is how it was sold to people who weren't well educated and couldn't handle the concept, and it is a preconception that you can't let go of. If you are willingly limiting yourself to the concept as it was designed to be sold to idiots, of course you find it silly. It is the very definition of trolling,but I am having fun anyways so who cares.

The information that science tells us about reality tells us equally as much about God as the work of the philosophers and theologians. There a practical uses for both, one creates technology and the other gives us wonderful gems like murder is bad, and society is good. Science and theology/philosophy coexisted for longer than they have been separate.

>> No.4480947

>>4480933
>The problem here is that I am trying to explain God to you in a way that doesn't involve the personification of the concept into a big man in the sky.

Well "the big man in the sky" is figurative. You're missing what I'm saying, or just ignoring it. So you don't think any religious texts are actually "right" in the sense of being the absolute word of God that all should follow. So instead, we have the incomplete texts and pursuits of thousands of people trying to ponder the character, intent, and desires of an entity that no one understands, no one can comprehend, and no one has valid claim to know. So, what we're left with is a giant vat of "who knows?" and, with a few minor exceptions (music, art, etc) we have zero real output. You see, the pursuit of God for the sake of pursuit is not honorable, right, good, or just. It's a waste of potential resources; the pursuit of God only makes sense if it efficiently produces results.

The pope? He prays for world peace every easter, to no effect.

A majority of people in the world believe in religions that encourage prayer. Billions of people have prayed, and yet, there is absolutely no irrefutable evidence of prayer having any tangible effect. Prayer is a worthless exercise, and detracts from more useful or comprehensive acts.

>The information that science tells us about reality tells us equally as much about God as the work of the philosophers and theologians.

This is not true; actually, science has pushed back God's domain to being nothing more than "the creator of the universe", because that's one of the final statements that religion has claim to that science hasn't utterly disproved through careful and tangible methods.

>There a practical uses for both, one creates technology and the other gives us wonderful gems like murder is bad, and society is good.

Actually, evolution gave us the wonderful gems like murder is bad and society is good. Self-replicating genes over thousands of generations sort of have the effect of selecting only for traits and behaviors that maintain themselves; that's why they maintain. If murder weren't selected against, we would have been wiped out. Science can demonstrate that our morality comes from a naturalistic basis; no society has ever been found, despite their mystic beliefs, that murder is acceptable (except, ironically, societies where murder was encouraged as a sacrifice to the God you want to exist).

>Science and theology/philosophy coexisted for longer than they have been separate.

Yes, as I have said before, with more primitive technology we had a much more daunting time trying to understand how everything originated. Much of that isn't obfuscated anymore. Science is the method that has shown us evidence; philosophy has taught us how to use rationality to derive implications from this evidence. Theology has simply been a large waste of human energy.

>> No.4480948

>>4480933
>gives us wonderful gems like murder is bad
Humans are the only species that kill eachother

>> No.4480952

>>4480948
Well, not exactly, but humans surely have an inclination toward it.

>> No.4480962

>>4480800
> Revising historical persons atheists

>> No.4480966

>>4480962
>revising historical persons religious

>> No.4480969

>>4480734
I think OP was refering to God with a capitlized g, i.e. the abrahamic god.

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can believe in a god that is not Spinoza's pantheistic god.

>> No.4480996

>Voltaire
>any interesting ideas whatsoever

pick none

>> No.4481001

>>4480996
seconded

>> No.4481030

>>4480834
Then again it could be argued that the the ideological framework most westerners adhere to has little to nothing to do with Christianity, and that most people that identify themselves as Christians are so far removed (or rather evolved) from the original ideological and religious framework of the books of worship that claiming to be one while not adhering to the dogma and the respect of Jewish law that Jesus demanded of his followers is a form of hypocrisy.

>> No.4481060
File: 26 KB, 232x235, Sade_(van_Loo).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4481060

>>4480800
>Literally every single person alive in western society believed in God during the enlightenment.
Except the cool ones.

>> No.4481061

>>4481060

>sade
>cool

ccccrrraaawwwlllliiinnnggg iiiiiinnnnnnn

mmmyyyyy sssskkkkkiiiiiiiinnnnnnn

>> No.4481070

>>4481061
>not recognising Sade as the culmination of enlightenment thinking

>> No.4481071
File: 24 KB, 450x299, marquis de sade.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4481071

>>4481061

>> No.4481074

>>4481070
>>4481071

mmmmyyyy wwwooouuunnddddsssssss

ttttthhhhheeeeyyyyy wwwwiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllll

nnnnnoooottttttt hhhhheeeeeeaaaallllllllllllllll

>> No.4481076

>>4481074
confirmed for not having read sade bitchboi

>> No.4481078
File: 74 KB, 460x640, EmilFilla_ReaderOfDostoevskyx3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4481078

>mfw I haven´t been on 4chan for months and this is the first post I read when I come back

>> No.4481080

>>4481061
Well, I believe the feeling of "crawling in my skin" was quite relevant to the people in Sades dungeon when he skinned them alive.

>> No.4481079

>>4481076

ffffffffeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrr

iiiiiisssssssss hhhhhhhooowwwwww


iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii fffffffffaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllll

>> No.4481721

>>4480969

But Spinoza's god isn't even "pantheistic". It's the destruction of "God" as a concept that can hold itself together in the face of mechanics being compromised as forces and pieces and other "things".

There is no consolation of being a "beloved" son or a "beloved" starchild other than in the abstract imagery of being loved by some vast "intellect" which would LOVE EVERYTHING ELSE. You are thrown into a system of unknown mechanics that discover you and which you play around with in an attempt to build a nexus and networks of power.

>> No.4481808

But anon, Voltaire is sophistry.

>> No.4481817
File: 66 KB, 620x620, angry maggot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4481817

>there are people

>> No.4481822

"Voltaire believed in God, though not very much, I think, and I don't think he loved mankind very much either"

>> No.4481842

>>4481721
I totally agree with your first paragraph. Spinoza gained his bad reputation precisely because this (no authority, no "Father", no Kantian transcendence).
What's the point of claiming there is something called "God" when this something is equal to "everything"?
Pantheism implies the very concept of God is just useless. According to Spinoza, saying something like "God exists" is a tautology, there's no outside of nature, there's only nature, so theology is unnecessary.
From a pantheist point of view there's only physics. The rest just stems from this.

>> No.4481851

>>4480925
that's the thing though, is it cannot be proven that the universe can be caused through natural means because it cannot cause itself

>> No.4481890

>>4480947
>Actually, evolution gave us the wonderful gems like murder is bad and society is good.
Actually, evolution is a process and has no conception of "good" or "bad". Please stop applying morality to something that is incapable of it.

>If murder weren't selected against, we would have been wiped out.
No, people born as conjoined twins are "selected against" and usually die early after birth, which is why there's not a lot of them. "Murder" doesn't affect how or whether people can reproduce, and people frequently reproduce before an untimely death anyway. "Murder" is not selected against, and given it's frequency, there's no reason to believe it is.

Geeze, man, get it together.

>> No.4481920
File: 626 KB, 1525x1946, 1335071067924.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4481920

>he thinks he's God because he stays in his room all day doing maths equations and making spiders fight each other