In response to this Mon02Jun03 post by Omar Lughod:

> A thought experiment is not meant to be taken
> literally. It would miss the whole point to ask
> Descartes what side of the bed his malevolent demon
> got up from. My thought experiment requires that you
> consider only the relevant variables, and interpret
> everything accordingly. It was designed to put in
> relief the question of whether an atheist's perspective
> has anything to add to the analysis of religion (which
> you denied on analytic grounds).

If you wish to press this point, Omar, then I'll press
it, too.

> The world it considers need only be as alien as
> required to make religion a viable object of analysis.

This is a fallacy, Omar. Hegel clarifies this in great
detail in his PHENOMENOLOGY OF SPIRIT (1807)
in his section on Empirical Psychology and its
profound limitations (paragraphs 309 to 346). The
summary is that one cannot make the most profoundly
subjective aspect of human experience into an object
of merely objective observation.

It does not work because what it to be studied is
*precisely* what is subjective. To force it into an
objective box will twist it and contort it so that it is
not the same phenomenon we intended to study.

> Imagine that world to be merely the world of
> Christianity in 15th century Italy.

If you must press this point, Omar, starting on
such shaky grounds, then I will press it the other
way.

> The duo will be able to go native as is were, over a
> long period of time, as ethno-methodologists do.
> Here is the thought experiment again:
>
> "A large hole opens up into another world, and we
> want to understand the religious practices of that
> world's inhabitants. You have a choice: you can
> send in either two believers to study them, or one
> believer and one atheist. Which duo will you send
> if you have no other options?"
>
> The question i want considered is whether one
> benefits in scholarship from the addition of the atheist
> in one of the groups. Or does one do better with the
> two believers?

Omar, your question is abstract and unrealistic.
Nevertheless, since you press it, here is my reply:
*Obviously* in any purely *objective* scientific study,
one should choose the duo that includes two opposite
viewponts to study *anything*. One gets more data
that way.

However, Omar, your example of studying a Religion
of beings in 'another dimension' is not scientific, it is
merely hypothetical and mostly absurd. It presumes
far more than it admits.

First, it presumes that Religion can be regarded as an
alien endeavor. In fact, that is exactly how Atheists
regard Religion, so the presumption is not accidental.
Secondly, it presumes that since the athiest/theist pair
of researchers will be useful in dimension X, that is must
also be useful in the Real World. Thirdly, it presumes
that Religion, which is profoundly Subjective, can be
studied like Sociology, which is profoundly Objective.
All these *assumptions*, Omar, are present in your
experiment, which greatly weakens your case. You
should first deal with the valid objections that I have
raised, along with Hegel.

> I still do not recognize the validity of your argument
> that an atheist cannot, as a matter of logic,
> contribute to religious analysis. On Hegelian
> grounds, an atheist must have some insight (both
> inside and outside) into religion or he/she could not
> even assert their own atheism, much less generate
> arguments against religion.

Hegel deals with the harsher Enlightenment critics
of Religion. He concludes that what *they* call Religion
and what *he* calls Religion are two different things.
They study two different things. The atheists study
the stupidity of human beings. They presume that
Religion is stupidity before they begin their first
chapters. Hegel studies the proofs of God's existence
in the first place. This is what the Atheists should do;
they should try to *prove* that God does not exist.
But instead of doing that, they run away from that
scientific project -- from showing the necessary proofs.

> Is atheism not one of the moments of Spirit's self
> conception? If it isn't, how can one even think it
> coherently? if it is, then must it not be accounted
> for dialectically?

Yes, Omar, Atheism is indeed one of the moments of
the Spirit's self-conception. That is granted. Yet it is
not a particularly advanced or elevated moment. It
is, bluntly, quite NEGATIVE. It has nothing positive
to offer, and its approach to Religion is destructive,
with no thought of the constructive. It is iconoclasm.

For Hegel, the Negative is surely part of the key
dialectic of the Spirit's self-development. Nevertheless,
only the Skeptic, Hegel says, remains at the level of
the Negative without further advancement. Ultimately
the Skeptic must aim his own Skepticism back on
himself. His axiom, "the only truth is that there is no
truth," is a logical self-contradiction that is self-canceling.

> What of the fact that there exist atheists who were
> once believers. How can you deny that they lack an
> inside view of religion?

In my view, most Atheists who were once 'believers' were
not actually 'believers' but merely *conformists*. They
conformed because they were obliged to conform in
various circumstances. Once they were able to break
free from their circumstances, they broke violently.

As for those rare souls who were truly believers and
then became Atheists, we should need to hear from
them a detailed account of their experience to know
clearly their actual thoughts. Did they believe that
God would always protect them if they behaved well,
but then they lost a dear family member? Did they
believe that no Evil could touch them if they believed
with all their might, but then they met with a tragedy?
In many of these cases, for example, the so-called
belief was a mere business-deal, and their so-called
inside view was superficial, faulty, half-hearted, and
based on naked self-interest.

There may be other cases, Omar, but we should hear
their thoughts in detail to estimate them properly.

> I simply do not see the logic of your argument that
> an atheist is inherently incapable of comprehending
> religion. Since i do not want to presume on my own
> sanity in this, could some other person provide a
> paraphrase of the argument that would at least show
> its intuitive plausibility? It continues to strike
> me as prima-facie invalid.
>
> =====
> Omar

Omar, please be more accurate with my words. I said
that a person who chooses to be an Atheist would
*logically* exclude himself from Religion, and the
study that Religion demands. An Atheist, *logically*,
does not care about the details of Religion.

Without the details, however, Religion is just a series
of children's stories.

This is the objection that many atheists have toward
Religion -- that its methodology (as Hegel clearly shows)
is the picture-thinking method. This is because, as Hegel
says, Religion is for everybody, that is, the complexity
of Religion is that it *must* reach very small children
as well as fully-tenured Professors. Only picture-thinking
has any chance of doing that.

The Enlightenment critics tended to pick apart the
picture-thinking itself. The miracles were the first to
go. Even Hegel himself did not debate with that. He
also rejected all the miracles of the Bible, as well as the
literalist-fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible (and
of all World Scripture).

However, some Enlightenment critics *stopped* with
their rejection of the Myths and Legends. If *these*
are not scientifically valid, they sang in chorus, then
it is all LIES!

Thus the modern Atheist was born. But this was a
most hasty procedure. The rich sociological fabric of
World Religion was not even slightely given its due.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul wrote:

P> This is a fallacy, Omar. Hegel clarifies this in great
P> detail in his PHENOMENOLOGY OF SPIRIT (1807)
P> in his section on Empirical Psychology and its
P> profound limitations (paragraphs 309 to 346). The
P> summary is that one cannot make the most profoundly
P> subjective aspect of human experience into an object
P> of merely objective observation.
P>
P> It does not work because what it to be studied is
P> *precisely* what is subjective. To force it into an
P> objective box will twist it and contort it so that it is
P> not the same phenomenon we intended to study.

Schizophrenia is also a profoundly subjective experience, so much so that
contemporary psychologists have trouble even defining it. By your argument
should only schizophrenics study schizophrenia?

P> Hegel deals with the harsher Enlightenment critics
P> of Religion. He concludes that what *they* call Religion
P> and what *he* calls Religion are two different things.
P> They study two different things. The atheists study
P> the stupidity of human beings. They presume that
P> Religion is stupidity before they begin their first
P> chapters.

There's plenty of stupidity in religion, however here's one atheist who
takes it very seriously. Large numbers of the world's people, including
consistently over 90% of Americans like Paul, count themselves as believers
of one sort or another. Furthermore, people tend to use religious
justification as grounds for activities that retard the progress of history
so dear to us all. Only a fool could dismiss that as inconsequential. Most
atheists I've known take that very seriously.

Paul is quite correct that there are subjective reasons for religious folk
believing as they do. I think the project is to determine *why* this belief
persists in the face of all empirical evidence to the contrary. Insofar as
psychology is scientific, it's quite reasonable to assume that the
scientific method can be used to gain insight. One needn't be a
bible-thumper to use the scientific method.

For example, one thing we've learned about perception is that people tend to
want to organize their thoughts in coherent patterns in order to make sense
of the world. They will unconsciously seek to find meaning even where there
is none intended - this is the secret to the Rorschach ink blot test. The
meaning in this test is thoroughly subjective and can offer valid insights
to the careful observer. The empirical reality is just an ink blot.

The really interesting thing, the thing truly worth studying, is not the ink
blot - it's the interpretation.

The psychologist Thomas Nagel wrote an article called "What's it Like to be
a Bat?" After discussing the issues, he concludes that we'll never know - we
aren't bats. The subjective experience of being a bat is closed to us.

However, human experience is much more available to our understanding,
because we are all human and capable of more than a passing understanding of
the subjective experience of others. Is being religious like being a bat? If
it's like being a human, then we can certainly study it fruitfully in the
same way we can study being a Republican or a racist or a fan of Nirvana or
being in any other subjective state.

P> Hegel studies the proofs of God's existence
P> in the first place. This is what the Atheists should do;
P> they should try to *prove* that God does not exist.
P> But instead of doing that, they run away from that
P> scientific project -- from showing the necessary proofs.

Because the religious experience is so subjective, relies so much on
conditioning and emotion and is so resistant to valid argument, most
atheists can't be bothered. But please see my recent and forthcoming posts
to the hegel-intro list for at least an honest and humble effort...

P> However, some Enlightenment critics *stopped* with
P> their rejection of the Myths and Legends. If *these*
P> are not scientifically valid, they sang in chorus, then
P> it is all LIES!

The myths and legends, including the bible, are not lies - they are
metaphors capable of revealing deep truths. Bear with me for a moment, and
let's understand what a metaphor is through an example: "Hegel is a beacon".
If I said "Hegel is *like* a beacon", that would be an analogy. But if I say
"Hegel is a beacon", a metaphor, am I lying? Am I saying he stands tall on a
rock and a light shines from his forehead? Of course not.

With a metaphor, the *form* must be distinguished from the *content*. So too
with all picture-thinking.

Religious people tend to take the metaphors literally - as Joseph Campbell
said, they are like diners who visit a restaurant and try to eat the
pictures off the menu. In the meantime, they miss the feast!

I think Hegel rejected a literal interpretation of the "picture-thinking"
while respecting its metaphorical content.

I also think Hegel is working with a metaphor, Spirit, which is a metaphor
for an objectively existing reality that Hegel and the Hegelians are
striving for a better understanding of. Those who think Hegel was not
religious are, I suspect, asking themselves whether Hegel understood Spirit
to be a metaphor, or whether he took the picture for the feast.

- Thom

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm going to confine myself to Hegel-Marx from now on. Most of this is now not even worth an adult's time. I thought this was a serious list at one stage, but it's just a pulpit.
Ciao
Tahir

Dr Tahir Wood
Director: Academic Planning Unit
University of the Western Cape
Phone (021) 959 3385
Fax (021) 959 3170
e-mail: twood@...

>>> petrejo@... 06/02/03 07:39PM >>>

In response to this Mon02Jun03 post by Omar Lughod:

> A thought experiment is not meant to be taken
> literally. It would miss the whole point to ask
> Descartes what side of the bed his malevolent demon
> got up from. My thought experiment requires that you
> consider only the relevant variables, and interpret
> everything accordingly. It was designed to put in
> relief the question of whether an atheist's perspective
> has anything to add to the analysis of religion (which
> you denied on analytic grounds).

If you wish to press this point, Omar, then I'll press
it, too.

> The world it considers need only be as alien as
> required to make religion a viable object of analysis.

This is a fallacy, Omar. Hegel clarifies this in great
detail in his PHENOMENOLOGY OF SPIRIT (1807)
in his section on Empirical Psychology and its
profound limitations (paragraphs 309 to 346). The
summary is that one cannot make the most profoundly
subjective aspect of human experience into an object
of merely objective observation.

It does not work because what it to be studied is
*precisely* what is subjective. To force it into an
objective box will twist it and contort it so that it is
not the same phenomenon we intended to study.

> Imagine that world to be merely the world of
> Christianity in 15th century Italy.

If you must press this point, Omar, starting on
such shaky grounds, then I will press it the other
way.

> The duo will be able to go native as is were, over a
> long period of time, as ethno-methodologists do.
> Here is the thought experiment again:
>
> "A large hole opens up into another world, and we
> want to understand the religious practices of that
> world's inhabitants. You have a choice: you can
> send in either two believers to study them, or one
> believer and one atheist. Which duo will you send
> if you have no other options?"
>
> The question i want considered is whether one
> benefits in scholarship from the addition of the atheist
> in one of the groups. Or does one do better with the
> two believers?

Omar, your question is abstract and unrealistic.
Nevertheless, since you press it, here is my reply:
*Obviously* in any purely *objective* scientific study,
one should choose the duo that includes two opposite
viewponts to study *anything*. One gets more data
that way.

However, Omar, your example of studying a Religion
of beings in 'another dimension' is not scientific, it is
merely hypothetical and mostly absurd. It presumes
far more than it admits.

First, it presumes that Religion can be regarded as an
alien endeavor. In fact, that is exactly how Atheists
regard Religion, so the presumption is not accidental.
Secondly, it presumes that since the athiest/theist pair
of researchers will be useful in dimension X, that is must
also be useful in the Real World. Thirdly, it presumes
that Religion, which is profoundly Subjective, can be
studied like Sociology, which is profoundly Objective.
All these *assumptions*, Omar, are present in your
experiment, which greatly weakens your case. You
should first deal with the valid objections that I have
raised, along with Hegel.

> I still do not recognize the validity of your argument
> that an atheist cannot, as a matter of logic,
> contribute to religious analysis. On Hegelian
> grounds, an atheist must have some insight (both
> inside and outside) into religion or he/she could not
> even assert their own atheism, much less generate
> arguments against religion.

Hegel deals with the harsher Enlightenment critics
of Religion. He concludes that what *they* call Religion
and what *he* calls Religion are two different things.
They study two different things. The atheists study
the stupidity of human beings. They presume that
Religion is stupidity before they begin their first
chapters. Hegel studies the proofs of God's existence
in the first place. This is what the Atheists should do;
they should try to *prove* that God does not exist.
But instead of doing that, they run away from that
scientific project -- from showing the necessary proofs.

> Is atheism not one of the moments of Spirit's self
> conception? If it isn't, how can one even think it
> coherently? if it is, then must it not be accounted
> for dialectically?

Yes, Omar, Atheism is indeed one of the moments of
the Spirit's self-conception. That is granted. Yet it is
not a particularly advanced or elevated moment. It
is, bluntly, quite NEGATIVE. It has nothing positive
to offer, and its approach to Religion is destructive,
with no thought of the constructive. It is iconoclasm.

For Hegel, the Negative is surely part of the key
dialectic of the Spirit's self-development. Nevertheless,
only the Skeptic, Hegel says, remains at the level of
the Negative without further advancement. Ultimately
the Skeptic must aim his own Skepticism back on
himself. His axiom, "the only truth is that there is no
truth," is a logical self-contradiction that is self-canceling.

> What of the fact that there exist atheists who were
> once believers. How can you deny that they lack an
> inside view of religion?

In my view, most Atheists who were once 'believers' were
not actually 'believers' but merely *conformists*. They
conformed because they were obliged to conform in
various circumstances. Once they were able to break
free from their circumstances, they broke violently.

As for those rare souls who were truly believers and
then became Atheists, we should need to hear from
them a detailed account of their experience to know
clearly their actual thoughts. Did they believe that
God would always protect them if they behaved well,
but then they lost a dear family member? Did they
believe that no Evil could touch them if they believed
with all their might, but then they met with a tragedy?
In many of these cases, for example, the so-called
belief was a mere business-deal, and their so-called
inside view was superficial, faulty, half-hearted, and
based on naked self-interest.

There may be other cases, Omar, but we should hear
their thoughts in detail to estimate them properly.

> I simply do not see the logic of your argument that
> an atheist is inherently incapable of comprehending
> religion. Since i do not want to presume on my own
> sanity in this, could some other person provide a
> paraphrase of the argument that would at least show
> its intuitive plausibility? It continues to strike
> me as prima-facie invalid.
>
> =====
> Omar

Omar, please be more accurate with my words. I said
that a person who chooses to be an Atheist would
*logically* exclude himself from Religion, and the
study that Religion demands. An Atheist, *logically*,
does not care about the details of Religion.

Without the details, however, Religion is just a series
of children's stories.

This is the objection that many atheists have toward
Religion -- that its methodology (as Hegel clearly shows)
is the picture-thinking method. This is because, as Hegel
says, Religion is for everybody, that is, the complexity
of Religion is that it *must* reach very small children
as well as fully-tenured Professors. Only picture-thinking
has any chance of doing that.

The Enlightenment critics tended to pick apart the
picture-thinking itself. The miracles were the first to
go. Even Hegel himself did not debate with that. He
also rejected all the miracles of the Bible, as well as the
literalist-fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible (and
of all World Scripture).

However, some Enlightenment critics *stopped* with
their rejection of the Myths and Legends. If *these*
are not scientifically valid, they sang in chorus, then
it is all LIES!

Thus the modern Atheist was born. But this was a
most hasty procedure. The rich sociological fabric of
World Religion was not even slightely given its due.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo












Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Homepage: http://hegel.net
Group Homepage: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel
other Hegel mailing lists: http://Hegel.net/res/ml.htm
Listowners Homepage: http://kai.froeb.net

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Hegel-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Group policy:
slightly moderated, only plain Text (no HTML/RTF), no attachments,
only Hegel related mails, scientific level intended.

Particpants are expected to show a respectfull and scientific attitude both to Hegel and to each other. The usual "netiquette" as well as scientific standards apply.

The copyright policy for mails sent to this list is same as for Hegel.Net, that is the copyright belongs to the author but the mails are issued under the GNU FDL (see ttp://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Tahir, perhaps you might reconsider. The only reason this list descends to
this level is because everyone persists in allowing a single
individual--who has done a remarkable job in discrediting himself
completely--to set the agenda. The way to change that is to decide what
_you_ what to discuss and stick to it. Then other posters will be able to
respond to your thoughts and not just one other person's.

In the first few years of the Internet, it was very easy to get distracted,
just responding impulsively to any stimulus. Hence the term
cyberaddiction. Some people have a lot of time on their hands and enter
into discussions compulsively. But now I think having a sense of purpose
is preferable. Most moderators try to keep things under control by
enforcing "netiquette". I think this is a losing strategy, as it only
allows malice to proceed by different means. Another form of
self-discipline is necessary: the ability to keep track of where you are
and where you need to go to advance any line of discussion. I find this
form of self-discipline lacking. You would think academics would have it
but they don't. They are too intimidated by the pressures of having to get
along with one another, they crap their pants every time a conflict seems
to get out of hand.

At 02:15 PM 6/3/2003 +0200, Tahir Wood wrote:

>I don't know about anyone else, but I'm going to confine myself to
>Hegel-Marx from now on. Most of this is now not even worth an adult's
>time. I thought this was a serious list at one stage, but it's just a pulpit.
>Ciao
>Tahir

This is a plea for tolerance. As a member of Hegel lists for many years, I
have seen some of them disintegrate over personal attacks and innuendos.

Many of the contributors on the list have over the years been of invaluable
help and support in allowing me to further my understanding of Hegel.

If anyone is unhappy with someone, please use your mail filtering rules to
delete their posts automatically.

This is your right.

Please do no not engage in covert or overt warfare.

Please respect the rights of others who might not wish to hear about your
personal likes and dislikes.

Regards
Ivor Sarakinsky

In response to the Mon02Jun03 post by Thomas Quine:

> Schizophrenia is also a profoundly subjective experience,
> so much so that contemporary psychologists have trouble
> even defining it. By your argument should only schizophrenics
> study schizophrenia?

Now you're just being sarcastic, Thomas. Yet, to apply
Hegel's criticism of Empirical Psychology (PhG) to this
problem, I think we must recall the existential psychiatry
of R.D. Laing. Laing made significant contributions to
the study of schizophrenia by attempting to see things
from *inside* the patient's experience, rather than by
continually looking *outside* the patient's experience
for clues (e.g. drug therapy, shock therapy, behaviorism,
and so on).

> There's plenty of stupidity in religion...

To be fair, Thomas, there's plenty of stupidity in
Atheism, too.

> ...however here's one atheist who takes it very
> seriously.

Don't exaggerate your case, Thomas, since it is already
well known that Atheists consider "taking Religion
seriously" to mean only that they hate Religion very
much, and will anything they can to destroy it. Karl
Marx was an open advocate of the Religious criticism
of Daumer, who regarded the Christian Eucharist to be
merely a variation on early Christian cannibal rituals.
Such intense hatred and slander may be regared by some
as "taking Religion seriously", but in fact there is
no real will to delve into a scientific study of its
internal states.

> Large numbers of the world's people,
> including consistently over 90% of Americans like
> Paul, count themselves as believers of one sort or
> another. Furthermore, people tend to use religious
> justification as grounds for activities that retard
> the progress of history> so dear to us all. Only a
> fool could dismiss that as inconsequential. Most
> atheists I've known take that very seriously.

It's not as though atheists and Anti-Christs have
done much better, Thomas. Communists caused millions
of deaths before they fizzled away with the USSR.
Also, Hitler was great hater of Christianity (going
by his own TABLE TALKS of the 1940's), and he was
also one of the great mass murderers of all time.
I have already shown that Hegel distinguishes sharply
between Religion and the State that exploits Religion
for its Rule of Force. That is a common theme in
Hegel that does not get enough attention.

> Paul is quite correct that there are subjective
> reasons for religious folk believing as they do.
> I think the project is to determine *why* this belief
> persists in the face of all empirical evidence to the
> contrary.

Thomas, if you really mean that, then the first step
is to *define* exactly what that belief is! Do you
think you know? Then show it! Because most Atheists
put up a straw-man caricature of Religion and call that
Religion so they can burn it down with ease. The truth
is that Atheists generally cannot define Religion well
at all, except in insulting and demeaning terms (e.g.
stupidity).

> Insofar as psychology is scientific, it's quite reasonable
> to assume that the scientific method can be used to gain
> insight. One needn't be a bible-thumper to use the scientific
> method.

Granted, Thomas, so I hope to see more Atheists try to
be scientific about Religion. So far I've seen nothing
encouraging at all.

> For example, one thing we've learned about perception is
> that people tend to want to organize their thoughts in
> coherent patterns in order to make sense of the world.
> They will unconsciously seek to find meaning even where
> there is none intended - this is the secret to the Rorschach
> ink blot test. The meaning in this test is thoroughly
> subjective and can offer valid insights to the careful
> observer. The empirical reality is just an ink blot.

That's not so much of a 'secret' Thomas.

> The really interesting thing, the thing truly worth
> studying, is not the ink blot - it's the interpretation.

That's already well known.

> The psychologist Thomas Nagel...concludes that...the
> subjective experience of being a bat is closed to us.
> However, human experience is much more available to our
> understanding, because we are all human and capable of
> more than a passing understanding of the subjective
> experience of others. Is being religious like being
> a bat?

This is the level of question that I have come to expect
from Atheists when speaking about Religion. It is regarded
as an "alien" form of consciousness. That is indeed the
Marxist view, taken from Feuerbach. But it is just as
valid to argue that the Atheist has the "alien" consciousness
because the vast majority of people, for the vast majority
of centuries of human life, have appreciated the Objectivity
of God at some level or other. It is such a basic part of
World History that for somebody to regard it all as "stupidity"
probably indicates an elevated alienation from the human race.

> If it's like being a human, then we can certainly study it
> fruitfully in the same way we can study being a Republican
> or a racist or a fan of Nirvana or being in any other
> subjective state.

Thomas, is there really a scientific study of "being Republican"?
There are socio-economic statistics about being Republican,
obviously, but if one has a Democratic researcher and a
Republican researcher studying the phenomena of "being Republican,"
one arrives at results that are so varied that one cannot actually
call the results scientific. They are OPINIONS, and indeed one
can already predict the opinions of the Democratic researcher and
the Republican researcher.

Political partisanship is also profoundly subjective. It may be,
to use the Kantian term, an Antinomy, as in metaphysics. Perhaps
only Dialectics can resolve the contradictions between the Parties.
If so, then perhaps only Dialectics can resolve the contradictions
between the Religious person and the Atheist.

If so, the result will *not* be one-sided. It will probably be,
as in Hegel's theology, a case where the negative of the Atheist
(e.g. the Enlightenment) has been *sublated* under a clearer
form of Religious Experience.

> ...With a metaphor, the *form* must be distinguished from the
> *content*. So too with all picture-thinking.

That is precisely Hegel's point, Thomas. Yet you seem to still
regard it in a one-sided manner.

> Religious people tend to take the metaphors literally - as
> Joseph Campbell said, they are like diners who visit a
> restaurant and try to eat the pictures off the menu. In the
> meantime, they miss the feast!

To be more precise, I believe Joseph Campbell borrowed that
phrase from the famous Zen mystic, Alan Watts.

> I think Hegel rejected a literal interpretation of the
> "picture-thinking" while respecting its metaphorical content.

Your term, "rejected" is too high-handed, too one-sided, Thomas.
Actually, Hegel delved very deeply into the picture-thinking
of all the World Religions in 1830. This is one of the great
benefits of his brilliant LECTURES ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
(1818-1831).

Hegel clearly *criticized* the Form of picture-thinking, yet
he did more -- he arranged the Forms in a HIERARCHY. Yet we
cannot begin to discuss this major aspect of his narrative until
we realize that Hegel recognizes a legitimate social place for
picture-thinking. (I have posted quotes from Hegel on this
very topic fairly recently).

> I also think Hegel is working with a metaphor, Spirit,
> which is a metaphor for an objectively existing reality
> that Hegel and the Hegelians are striving for a better
> understanding of.

You are mistaken on this point, Thomas. Hegel uses the term
Spirit to mean Spirit, and his definition of Spirit is complex;
it may take years to grasp. Yet Hegel's System is based on
his concept of Spirit. To fail to know that is to fail to know
Hegel's System. Period.

> Those who think Hegel was not religious are, I suspect, asking
> themselves whether Hegel understood Spirit to be a metaphor, or
> whether he took the picture for the feast.
>
> - Thom

Those who think Hegel was not religious (and there are many of
them) usually read Hegel through the rose-colored glasses of
Marx. Hoping to avoid studying Spirit, they regard Spirit as
merely the subjective, finite mind. Marx and Kiergegaard were
both of that erroneous opinion, and their views are probably
the most common views of the 20th century on this topic.

Nevertheless, in the final decade of the 20th century, after
the fall of the USSR, Western scholars stepped up research in
Hegel studies. At University of California in Berkeley, for
example, P.C. Hodgson, Jon Stewart and H.S. Harris provided a
three-volume set of Hegel's LECTURES ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF
RELIGION (1818-1831) that promises to change the Western
perception of Hegel for all time.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo, M.A.

--- petrejo <petrejo@...> wrote:

> In response to the Mon02Jun03 post by Thomas Quine:
>
> > Schizophrenia is also a profoundly subjective
> experience,
> > so much so that contemporary psychologists have
> trouble
> > even defining it. By your argument should only
> schizophrenics
> > study schizophrenia?
>
> Now you're just being sarcastic, Thomas. Yet, to
> apply
> Hegel's criticism of Empirical Psychology (PhG) to
> this
> problem, I think we must recall the existential
> psychiatry
> of R.D. Laing. Laing made significant contributions
> to
> the study of schizophrenia by attempting to see
> things
> from *inside* the patient's experience, rather than
> by
> continually looking *outside* the patient's
> experience
> for clues (e.g. drug therapy, shock therapy,
> behaviorism,
> and so on).

is an existentialist psychologist that is an atheist a
contradiction in terms? that is, can an atheist
existentialist make contributions to the study of
religion?

>
> > There's plenty of stupidity in religion...
>
> To be fair, Thomas, there's plenty of stupidity in
> Atheism, too.
>
> > ...however here's one atheist who takes it very
> > seriously.
>
> Don't exaggerate your case, Thomas, since it is
> already
> well known that Atheists consider "taking Religion
> seriously" to mean only that they hate Religion very
> much, and will anything they can to destroy it.
> Karl
> Marx was an open advocate of the Religious criticism
> of Daumer, who regarded the Christian Eucharist to
> be
> merely a variation on early Christian cannibal
> rituals.
> Such intense hatred and slander may be regared by
> some
> as "taking Religion seriously", but in fact there is
>
> no real will to delve into a scientific study of its
>
> internal states.
>

So you are acknowledging that it is possible (not
logically impossible) to study the internal states of
a religion, without being a theist? Would William
James' 'Varieties of Religious experience' count as
such a study?

> > Large numbers of the world's people,
> > including consistently over 90% of Americans like
> > Paul, count themselves as believers of one sort or
>
> > another. Furthermore, people tend to use religious
> > justification as grounds for activities that
> retard
> > the progress of history> so dear to us all. Only a
>
> > fool could dismiss that as inconsequential. Most
> > atheists I've known take that very seriously.
>
> It's not as though atheists and Anti-Christs have
> done much better, Thomas. Communists caused
> millions
> of deaths before they fizzled away with the USSR.
> Also, Hitler was great hater of Christianity (going
> by his own TABLE TALKS of the 1940's), and he was
> also one of the great mass murderers of all time.
> I have already shown that Hegel distinguishes
> sharply
> between Religion and the State that exploits
> Religion
> for its Rule of Force. That is a common theme in
> Hegel that does not get enough attention.
>

Are you saying that a devout theist cannot be a mass
murderer? Can you think of no wars in the defense of
one's religious beliefs? Do the thirty years wars not
count?

> > Paul is quite correct that there are subjective
> > reasons for religious folk believing as they do.
> > I think the project is to determine *why* this
> belief
> > persists in the face of all empirical evidence to
> the
> > contrary.
>
> Thomas, if you really mean that, then the first step
> is to *define* exactly what that belief is! Do you
> think you know? Then show it! Because most
> Atheists
> put up a straw-man caricature of Religion and call
> that
> Religion so they can burn it down with ease. The
> truth
> is that Atheists generally cannot define Religion
> well
> at all, except in insulting and demeaning terms
> (e.g.
> stupidity).
>

Actually, the burden is on the believer to provide
both a definition and argument for God's existence,
not the atheist. for noone can prove the absence of a
thing, for there is no obvious manifestation of God.
unless that thing's conditions for existence are
already laid out, there is no reason for the
secularist to treat is as anything but a mere opinion,
equivalent to the childish belief in Santa Clause. It
is the theist who is claiming the reality for a thing
that is not universally apparent, and so must put
forth hir justifications.

What is in question for the atheist is not the
reality of the belief, (whose reality "as a belief" no
atheist denies) but whether the belief can be
justified as bespeaking a reality in fact. For the
atheist there is a missing premise, between the
initial premise that one believes in God, and the
conclusion that God exists. Traditionally,
philosophers have provided a variety of arguments to
fill in that premise, eg., ontological, cosmological,
teleological, but all of these have been found
wanting.

> > Insofar as psychology is scientific, it's quite
> reasonable
> > to assume that the scientific method can be used
> to gain
> > insight. One needn't be a bible-thumper to use
> the scientific
> > method.
>
> Granted, Thomas, so I hope to see more Atheists try
> to
> be scientific about Religion. So far I've seen
> nothing
> encouraging at all.
>

I contend that a theist cannot be scientific about
religion unless se can measure hir perspective against
one who does not share hir "prejudices". For
prejudices can be all they are until justification can
be provided that such perspecives have correspondence
to an independent reality, a reality that exists
independent of the mere belief.

> > For example, one thing we've learned about
> perception is
> > that people tend to want to organize their
> thoughts in
> > coherent patterns in order to make sense of the
> world.
> > They will unconsciously seek to find meaning even
> where
> > there is none intended - this is the secret to the
> Rorschach
> > ink blot test. The meaning in this test is
> thoroughly
> > subjective and can offer valid insights to the
> careful
> > observer. The empirical reality is just an ink
> blot.
>
> That's not so much of a 'secret' Thomas.
>
> > The really interesting thing, the thing truly
> worth
> > studying, is not the ink blot - it's the
> interpretation.
>
> That's already well known.
>
> > The psychologist Thomas Nagel...concludes
> that...the
> > subjective experience of being a bat is closed to
> us.
> > However, human experience is much more available
> to our
> > understanding, because we are all human and
> capable of
> > more than a passing understanding of the
> subjective
> > experience of others. Is being religious like
> being
> > a bat?
>
> This is the level of question that I have come to
> expect
> from Atheists when speaking about Religion. It is
> regarded
> as an "alien" form of consciousness. That is indeed
> the
> Marxist view, taken from Feuerbach. But it is just
> as
> valid to argue that the Atheist has the "alien"
> consciousness
> because the vast majority of people, for the vast
> majority
> of centuries of human life, have appreciated the
> Objectivity
> of God at some level or other. It is such a basic
> part of
> World History that for somebody to regard it all as
> "stupidity"
> probably indicates an elevated alienation from the
> human race.
>

More irrelevant comments that still do not answer to
the validity of the argument; what you have not shown
is that an atheist cannot know, subjectively, of the
religious experience; indeed, you suggest above that
it is possible for one to have a subjective
understanding of religion. Note that having a
subjective understanding of religion does not mean
believing that God exists. it means understanding
what it would mean to believe that that is so. for if
the criterion for such a belief required such a
commitment, then the religionist would be incapable,
in principle, to speak coherently about atheism, which
no atheist denies hir. moreover, to expect that kind
of commitment from the atheist would by definition
make the "scientific" analysis of religion an
impossibility. for it would remove all the
conditions of justification, of verification, or of
falsifiability, and with them the minimum that can be
expected of a scientific endeavor. The theist must in
fact provide the arguments that would motivate the
kind of belief that the atheist lacks. For the whole
point, for the atheist, is that it isnt clear why the
belief in God is necessary at all. And even if the
conception is thought to be necessary in the history
of thought (as many left Hegelians think) it still
remains unclear why that thought too isnt sublated in
a profounder brew.

> > If it's like being a human, then we can certainly
> study it
> > fruitfully in the same way we can study being a
> Republican
> > or a racist or a fan of Nirvana or being in any
> other
> > subjective state.
>
> Thomas, is there really a scientific study of "being
> Republican"?
> There are socio-economic statistics about being
> Republican,
> obviously, but if one has a Democratic researcher
> and a
> Republican researcher studying the phenomena of
> "being Republican,"
> one arrives at results that are so varied that one
> cannot actually
> call the results scientific. They are OPINIONS, and
> indeed one
> can already predict the opinions of the Democratic
> researcher and
> the Republican researcher.
>

What is in question is why the religionist is
operating with anything more than opinions. Where is
the argument to move the atheist from thinking so? I
have seen none presented so far.

> Political partisanship is also profoundly
> subjective. It may be,
> to use the Kantian term, an Antinomy, as in
> metaphysics. Perhaps
> only Dialectics can resolve the contradictions
> between the Parties.
> If so, then perhaps only Dialectics can resolve the
> contradictions
> between the Religious person and the Atheist.
>
> If so, the result will *not* be one-sided. It will
> probably be,
> as in Hegel's theology, a case where the negative of
> the Atheist
> (e.g. the Enlightenment) has been *sublated* under a
> clearer
> form of Religious Experience.
>

Do you allow, in principle, that the dialectical
development could lead to the opposite conclusion, as
so many leftist Hegelian thinkers do? if you close
this off as a possibility, then where lies your
scientific detachment with respect to truth? do you
deny teh possibility altogether that atheism can be
true. if so, why should we treat your arguments any
differently than you have been treating Marx et al?

> > ...With a metaphor, the *form* must be
> distinguished from the
> > *content*. So too with all picture-thinking.
>
> That is precisely Hegel's point, Thomas. Yet you
> seem to still
> regard it in a one-sided manner.
>
> > Religious people tend to take the metaphors
> literally - as
> > Joseph Campbell said, they are like diners who
> visit a
> > restaurant and try to eat the pictures off the
> menu. In the
> > meantime, they miss the feast!
>
> To be more precise, I believe Joseph Campbell
> borrowed that
> phrase from the famous Zen mystic, Alan Watts.
>

Entirely irrelevant comment. if the 'argument' is what
is in question, it constitutes an adhominem to point
to its originator.

> > I think Hegel rejected a literal interpretation of
> the
> > "picture-thinking" while respecting its
> metaphorical content.
>
> Your term, "rejected" is too high-handed, too
> one-sided, Thomas.
> Actually, Hegel delved very deeply into the
> picture-thinking
> of all the World Religions in 1830. This is one of
> the great
> benefits of his brilliant LECTURES ON THE PHILOSOPHY
> OF RELIGION
> (1818-1831).

You have a bad habit of reminding this list of hegel's
brilliance, or of the brilliance of his works, as
though you are adding anything relevant to our
appreciation of Hegel. None of us doubt that
brilliance; but that does not preclude the real
possibility that Hegel got it wrong, both in its
parts, and in his overall schema. what remains in
question is the actual arguments. if you would wish us
to consider your own interpretations valid, summarize
their arguments for us so that we can share in your
perspective of things. do not merely assume Hegel's
authority, for we often question your interpretation
of hegel's autority (that is, we question your
authority to interpret him correctly) as we also put
into question many of the specific arguments that we
interpret Hegel to have. We would be guilty of
succumbing to the fallacy of the "argument from
authority" if we were not to challenge you on these
points.

>
> Hegel clearly *criticized* the Form of
> picture-thinking, yet
> he did more -- he arranged the Forms in a HIERARCHY.
> Yet we
> cannot begin to discuss this major aspect of his
> narrative until
> we realize that Hegel recognizes a legitimate social
> place for
> picture-thinking. (I have posted quotes from Hegel
> on this
> very topic fairly recently).
>
> > I also think Hegel is working with a metaphor,
> Spirit,
> > which is a metaphor for an objectively existing
> reality
> > that Hegel and the Hegelians are striving for a
> better
> > understanding of.
>
> You are mistaken on this point, Thomas. Hegel uses
> the term
> Spirit to mean Spirit, and his definition of Spirit
> is complex;
> it may take years to grasp. Yet Hegel's System is
> based on
> his concept of Spirit. To fail to know that is to
> fail to know
> Hegel's System. Period.
>
> > Those who think Hegel was not religious are, I
> suspect, asking
> > themselves whether Hegel understood Spirit to be a
> metaphor, or
> > whether he took the picture for the feast.
> >
> > - Thom
>
> Those who think Hegel was not religious (and there
> are many of
> them) usually read Hegel through the rose-colored
> glasses of
> Marx.

Irrelevant, since what is in question is not the
influence, but whether the influence is true or not.

Hoping to avoid studying Spirit, they regard

> Spirit as
> merely the subjective, finite mind. Marx and
> Kiergegaard were
> both of that erroneous opinion, and their views are
> probably
> the most common views of the 20th century on this
> topic.

Not Marx, and certainly not Kierkegaard, as far as i
can tell. Kierkegaard did not think that Hegel went
subjective enough, for he ignored the full scope of
the existential experience involved in Abraham's
choice. Marx thought that the subjective experience of
Spirit was part of the superstructure of beliefs
associated (necessarily) with an underlying material
ground; once that material ground was in place, then
Subjective Spirit could shape further developments, as
he assumed it would do in a socialist order; without
those underlying grounds, the notion of Spirit
remained just that.

>
> Nevertheless, in the final decade of the 20th
> century, after
> the fall of the USSR, Western scholars stepped up
> research in
> Hegel studies. At University of California in
> Berkeley, for
> example, P.C. Hodgson, Jon Stewart and H.S. Harris
> provided a
> three-volume set of Hegel's LECTURES ON THE
> PHILOSOPHY OF
> RELIGION (1818-1831) that promises to change the
> Western
> perception of Hegel for all time.
>

All atheists of "good faith" should rejoice at the
idea that Hegel puts his beliefs at risk in a clearer format.

=====
Omar

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

In response to the Thu05Jun03 post by Omar Lughod:

> Is an existentialist psychologist that is an atheist
> a contradiction in terms? that is, can an atheist
> existentialist make contributions to the study of
> religion?

The point about R.D. Laing was not about religion,
Omar, it was about an innovator's vision to see the
subjectivity of schizophrenia rather than only the
objectivity of it, as with the usual medical procedure.
However, since you asked, it is probably R.D. Laing's
specific spiritual insights that make him an innovator.
(This raises the distinction between atheism and
materialism, but for modern purposes the two are
most often synonymous. Empiricism is the most
common method of the materialist. But those few
scientists (or atheists) who reject the Empirical mold,
and thus also the materialist mold, may be said to be
quite different from the ordinary, modern atheist.

> So you are acknowledging that it is possible (not
> logically impossible) to study the internal states of
> a religion, without being a theist? Would William
> James' 'Varieties of Religious experience' count as
> such a study?

Well, Omar, one should probably recognize William
James as a spiritualist, rather than an atheist-materialist,
wouldn't you agree?

> Are you saying that a devout theist cannot be a mass
> murderer? Can you think of no wars in the defense of
> one's religious beliefs? Do the thirty years wars not
> count?

Omar, your questions are a bit lop-sided. Murder and
war are two different things, even in Old Testament terms.
Theists can engage in war and have often done so.
Whether the war was just or not may still be questioned.

As for your first question, whether a devout theist can
be a mass murderer, it clearly depends on how sarcastic
the question is intended; and that depends on the
meaning of the word, 'devout.'

I would say that one cannot imagine a Prophet or a
Saint who was also a mass murderer. It is absurd.
That violent criminals frequently have ordinary
homes -- including religion -- is quite irrelevant.

> Actually, the burden is on the believer to provide
> both a definition and argument for God's existence,
> not the atheist. for noone can prove the absence of a
> thing, for there is no obvious manifestation of God.
> unless that thing's conditions for existence are
> already laid out, there is no reason for the
> secularist to treat is as anything but a mere opinion,
> equivalent to the childish belief in Santa Clause. It
> is the theist who is claiming the reality for a thing
> that is not universally apparent, and so must put
> forth hir justifications.

Omar, that is one of the most common evasions of the
problem. Atheists everywhere flock to that argument
since it is the lazy way out. This helps to prove that
the only offering of the Atheist is NEGATIVE, and
that Skepticism is his only method.

> What is in question for the atheist is not the
> reality of the belief, (whose reality "as a belief"
> no atheist denies) but whether the belief can be
> justified as bespeaking a reality in fact. For the
> atheist there is a missing premise, between the
> initial premise that one believes in God, and the
> conclusion that God exists.

This is where the philosophical of the Arguments
for the Proof of the Existence of God are relevant.
Actually, the Atheist is just as obligated to provide
arguments as the Theist, logically speaking.

> Traditionally, philosophers have
> provided a variety of arguments to
> fill in that premise, eg., ontological, cosmological,
> teleological, but all of these have been found
> wanting.

Wanting by whom, Omar? This is exactly what you
as an Atheist must prove, and not merely take for
granted. But Atheists hope to take this for granted,
since this is in fact an Atheist Dogma.

> I contend that a theist cannot be scientific about
> religion unless he can measure hir perspective against
> one who does not share hir "prejudices". For
> prejudices can be all they are until justification can
> be provided that such perspecives have correspondence
> to an independent reality, a reality that exists
> independent of the mere belief.

Omar, this is exactly my point -- BOTH sides must rise
to the challenge in philosophy to PROVE their point
of view, using logical arguments.

What changes everything today is that Hegel's
Metaphysical and Speculative Dialectical Logic may
now be used by the Theists. This has powerful
consequences.

> More irrelevant comments that still do not answer to
> the validity of the argument; what you have not shown
> is that an atheist cannot know, subjectively, of the
> religious experience; indeed, you suggest above that
> it is possible for one to have a subjective
> understanding of religion. Note that having a
> subjective understanding of religion does not mean
> believing that God exists. it means understanding
> what it would mean to believe that that is so. for if
> the criterion for such a belief required such a
> commitment, then the religionist would be incapable,
> in principle, to speak coherently about atheism, which
> no atheist denies hir. moreover, to expect that kind
> of commitment from the atheist would by definition
> make the "scientific" analysis of religion an
> impossibility. for it would remove all the
> conditions of justification, of verification, or of
> falsifiability, and with them the minimum that can be
> expected of a scientific endeavor. The theist must in
> fact provide the arguments that would motivate the
> kind of belief that the atheist lacks. For the whole
> point, for the atheist, is that it isnt clear why the
> belief in God is necessary at all. And even if the
> conception is thought to be necessary in the history
> of thought (as many left Hegelians think) it still
> remains unclear why that thought too isnt sublated in
> a profounder brew.
>
> > > If it's like being a human, then we can certainly
> > study it
> > > fruitfully in the same way we can study being a
> > Republican
> > > or a racist or a fan of Nirvana or being in any
> > other
> > > subjective state.
> >
> > Thomas, is there really a scientific study of "being
> > Republican"?
> > There are socio-economic statistics about being
> > Republican,
> > obviously, but if one has a Democratic researcher
> > and a
> > Republican researcher studying the phenomena of
> > "being Republican,"
> > one arrives at results that are so varied that one
> > cannot actually
> > call the results scientific. They are OPINIONS, and
> > indeed one
> > can already predict the opinions of the Democratic
> > researcher and
> > the Republican researcher.
> >
> What is in question is why the religionist is
> operating with anything more than opinions. Where is
> the argument to move the atheist from thinking so? I
> have seen none presented so far.
>
> > Political partisanship is also profoundly
> > subjective. It may be,
> > to use the Kantian term, an Antinomy, as in
> > metaphysics. Perhaps
> > only Dialectics can resolve the contradictions
> > between the Parties.
> > If so, then perhaps only Dialectics can resolve the
> > contradictions
> > between the Religious person and the Atheist.
> >
> > If so, the result will *not* be one-sided. It will
> > probably be,
> > as in Hegel's theology, a case where the negative of
> > the Atheist
> > (e.g. the Enlightenment) has been *sublated* under a
> > clearer
> > form of Religious Experience.
> >
> Do you allow, in principle, that the dialectical
> development could lead to the opposite conclusion, as
> so many leftist Hegelian thinkers do? if you close
> this off as a possibility, then where lies your
> scientific detachment with respect to truth? do you
> deny teh possibility altogether that atheism can be
> true. if so, why should we treat your arguments any
> differently than you have been treating Marx et al?
>
> > > ...With a metaphor, the *form* must be
> > distinguished from the
> > > *content*. So too with all picture-thinking.
> >
> > That is precisely Hegel's point, Thomas. Yet you
> > seem to still
> > regard it in a one-sided manner.
> >
> > > Religious people tend to take the metaphors
> > literally - as
> > > Joseph Campbell said, they are like diners who
> > visit a
> > > restaurant and try to eat the pictures off the
> > menu. In the
> > > meantime, they miss the feast!
> >
> > To be more precise, I believe Joseph Campbell
> > borrowed that
> > phrase from the famous Zen mystic, Alan Watts.
> >
> Entirely irrelevant comment. if the 'argument' is what
> is in question, it constitutes an adhominem to point
> to its originator.
>
> > > I think Hegel rejected a literal interpretation of
> > the
> > > "picture-thinking" while respecting its
> > metaphorical content.
> >
> > Your term, "rejected" is too high-handed, too
> > one-sided, Thomas.
> > Actually, Hegel delved very deeply into the
> > picture-thinking
> > of all the World Religions in 1830. This is one of
> > the great
> > benefits of his brilliant LECTURES ON THE PHILOSOPHY
> > OF RELIGION
> > (1818-1831).
>
> You have a bad habit of reminding this list of hegel's
> brilliance, or of the brilliance of his works, as
> though you are adding anything relevant to our
> appreciation of Hegel. None of us doubt that
> brilliance; but that does not preclude the real
> possibility that Hegel got it wrong, both in its
> parts, and in his overall schema. what remains in
> question is the actual arguments. if you would wish us
> to consider your own interpretations valid, summarize
> their arguments for us so that we can share in your
> perspective of things. do not merely assume Hegel's
> authority, for we often question your interpretation
> of hegel's autority (that is, we question your
> authority to interpret him correctly) as we also put
> into question many of the specific arguments that we
> interpret Hegel to have. We would be guilty of
> succumbing to the fallacy of the "argument from
> authority" if we were not to challenge you on these
> points.

Yes, Omar, that is exactly what I am saying, too.
The Atheists are also guilty of the "argument from
authority" since they tend to believe Marx and
Nietzsche at their word, and simply refuse to offer
proofs for Atheism -- just as they refused to.

Hegel is rare among philosophers since he rises to
the challenge of the Ontological Argument restated
to incorporate the Dialectical Method. The others
tend to run away when the argument becomes
this deep.

> Not Marx, and certainly not Kierkegaard, as far as i
> can tell. Kierkegaard did not think that Hegel went
> subjective enough, for he ignored the full scope of
> the existential experience involved in Abraham's
> choice.

But as Jean-Paul Sartre (one of the few intelligent
atheists, at least in his earlier writings) said, Kierkegaard
is actually summarized and absorbed within Hegel's
narrative of the Unhappy Consciousness. Sartre
said, "compared with Hegel, Kierkegaard scarcely
seems to count." This is because Kierkegaard did
not have enough insight to understand Hegel's
profound moment of dialectical subjectivity.

> Marx thought that the subjective experience of
> Spirit was part of the superstructure of beliefs
> associated (necessarily) with an underlying material
> ground; once that material ground was in place, then
> Subjective Spirit could shape further developments, as
> he assumed it would do in a socialist order; without
> those underlying grounds, the notion of Spirit
> remained just that.

Yes, Omar, that's quite right. And in that assumption
Marx was quite mistaken. It is merely an assumption,
by the way, and no arguments are provided to prove
it. Anyone can reduce anything mental to its materialist
components if they want to -- Freud did the same thing
upon entirely different grounds (e.g. infantile psychical
contents). But it always amounts to a reductionism,
that is, an abstraction.

Hegel was quite clear that the concept of Materialism
belongs to the realm of the Abstract. It seems concrete,
but that is an illusion. The actual concrete term is the
dialectical concept, that ontologically includes Being
within itself. Being, by itself and in intself remains a
mere Abstraction.

> All atheists of "good faith" should rejoice at the
> idea that Hegel puts his beliefs at risk in a clearer format.
>
> =====
> Omar

Quite right, Omar, that is the issue at hand. Hegel
raises the issue once again, perhaps once and for all.
Can the Ontological Problem, dialectically considered,
finally solve the questions about the Existence of God,
for the first time in human history?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo, M.A.

Additional response to the Thu05Jun03 post by Omar Lughod:

> What is in question is why the religionist is
> operating with anything more than opinions.
> Where is the argument to move the atheist from
> thinking so? I have seen none presented so far.

No, what the Atheist wants is for the Theist to
prove his views, but for the Atheist to sit back
and do nothing.

I have already said that Hegel offers to PROVE
the existence of God, Omar. I have said this
several times. Instead of looking into this new
and provocative statement (as a logician would)
you don't ask about it.

No, the Atheist only recognizes OPINIONS, since
the Skeptics chant in chorus: 'the only truth is that
there is no truth.' So opinions are all that they need,
and all they recognize in anybody else. By far most
atheists do not seek to prove their position logically.

> Do you allow, in principle, that the dialectical
> development could lead to the opposite conclusion,
>as so many leftist Hegelian thinkers do?

No, I do not allow that in principle, Omar, because I
know the actual history. I know that there is no such
thing as a Left Hegelian, just as there is no such thing
as a Right Hegelian.

In 1838, the non-Hegelian, David Strauss, was forced
by Bruno Bauer to admit that Hegel would not have
agreed with his non-Hegelian views. So in his book,
IN DEFENSE OF MY LIFE OF JESUS AGAINST THE
HEGELIANS (1838) David Strauss invented the terms,
Left-Hegelian and Right-Hegelian. He placed himself
on the Left, and he placed Bruno Bauer and Hegel on
the Right!

That is sufficient proof that these terms that atheists
like to use to claim Hegel as their leader are BOGUS.
Hegel was not an Atheist. Anybody who actually
reads Hegel thoroughly must see that clearly.

Even Marx admitted that to agree with Hegel he
must first "turn Hegel upon his head." Nevertheless,
millions of his followers have no shame in calling
themselves "Left Hegelians." They are actually
anti-Hegelians, and they should simply admit it.

> if you close
> this off as a possibility, then where lies your
> scientific detachment with respect to truth? do you
> deny the possibility altogether that atheism can be
> true. if so, why should we treat your arguments any
> differently than you have been treating Marx et al?

It is logically possible, Omar, that atheism can be
true, given specific definitions of atheism and of
theism. That must be a logical possibility, otherwise
there is no debate.

Yet Hegel says that he has *proven* the Reality of
God (e.g. the existence of God, although Hegel marks
a sharp difference between Existence and Reality, since
Existence, 'dasein,' tends to refer to finite being, and that
is misleading when it comes to metaphysical realities).

So the real problem is to analyze carefully what the
arguments of Hegel are, beginning with this Ontological
Argument in response to the challenge of Kant's 100
dollar riddle.

By contrast, Omar, Karl Marx did not choose to
prove his theories of Atheism -- like Nietzsche he
asserted them on his authority, with his wit and
his sarcasm. That is not logic.

> You have a bad habit of reminding this list of hegel's
> brilliance, or of the brilliance of his works, as
> though you are adding anything relevant to our
> appreciation of Hegel. None of us doubt that
> brilliance; but that does not preclude the real
> possibility that Hegel got it wrong, both in its
> parts, and in his overall schema.

Well, it's not a bad habit, Omar, it's a good habit.
Atheists *need* to be reminded that Hegel was not
an Atheist, and that Hegel sharply criticized Atheism.
They need to *respond* to Hegel with something
other than sarcasm, too.

If you think Hegel was wrong, Omar, then by all
means, try to prove it logically.

> What remains in question is the actual arguments.
> if you would wish us
> to consider your own interpretations valid, summarize
> their arguments for us so that we can share in your
> perspective of things. do not merely assume Hegel's
> authority, for we often question your interpretation
> of hegel's autority (that is, we question your
> authority to interpret him correctly) as we also put
> into question many of the specific arguments that we
> interpret Hegel to have.
> =====
> Omar

I have said repeatedly, Omar, that I *never* merely
assert Hegel's authority.

I provide more quotations from Hegel than any other
List member, and I have done so for many years.

People who accuse me of not showing my work have
either recently joined these Lists or simply blank out
whenever I produce a strong quote from Hegel that
negates their views.

I provide quotes from Hegel for a reason -- so his
opponents can try to use logic against him. But they
usually don't even try; they just change the subject
or use sarcasm.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo, M.A.

Omar, Paul (in alphabetical order),

this debatte seems to lead to nowhere. I seems also rather abstract to me:
discussing the possibility of error in Hegel's theology or its
interpretation
(as/by a theist or atheist) instaed of talking of Hegel's concept of God
itself.

The later concept seems to be teh more furitful on a Hegel list,
in case you are interested on that subject.

Also, as I have mentioned several times before, discussions about
atheism, about wether God exists or not etc, will lead to nowhere
wehn you don'T define your concept of God in the first place.

(it will also not help here to say: the concept of Hegel, of the bible,
of the xyz church etc, because the interpretation of these concepts
themselves are different by different people, so you need to give
your interpretation in your own words.

HTH
Kai

--
Kai Froeb, Muenchen
http://kai.froeb.net
http://hegel-werkstatt.de

Kai wrote:

> Omar, Paul (in alphabetical order),
>
> this debatte seems to lead to nowhere. I seems also rather abstract to me:
> discussing the possibility of error in Hegel's theology or its
> interpretation
> (as/by a theist or atheist) instaed of talking of Hegel's concept of God
> itself.
>
> The later concept seems to be teh more furitful on a Hegel list,
> in case you are interested on that subject.
>
> Also, as I have mentioned several times before, discussions about
> atheism, about wether God exists or not etc, will lead to nowhere
> wehn you don'T define your concept of God in the first place.
>
> (it will also not help here to say: the concept of Hegel, of the bible,
> of the xyz church etc, because the interpretation of these concepts
> themselves are different by different people, so you need to give
> your interpretation in your own words.
>
> HTH
> Kai

Very good Kai. Perhaps one should put the following question:

In Hegel's philosophy and Logic: Does God determine Being, or is God
defined and recognized within and through the determinations of Being?

All the best,
Beat

Let's consider the ontological argument for God's
existence, and Kant's treatment of it.

God is a perfect being.
A perfect being cannot lack existence.
Therefore, God must exist.

Paul, on behalf of hegel, suggested that Kant's
counterargument to the ontological argument lies in
his 100 dollar discussion. I understand that
discussion to be merely an illustration of the actual
argument. It illustrates the difference between
possibility and actuality, between the mere thought of
a thing, 100$, and the reality of a thing, the actual
money. One gains nothing by having 100 possible
dollars, whereas the 100 actual dollars give you
spending power.

The argument underlying this illustration is the
following:

knowledge of a thing means the coordination between
both the understanding's concept of a thing and the
sensible intuition of a thing. where the concept
allows you merely to think it, the addition of a
sensible intuition of it, allows you to know it. to
think a thing is to speak to its possibility, to
provide a sensible intuition for that possibility is
to realize it, and hence to speak to its actuality.

Kant argues that the traditional metaphysical notions,
God, world, soul, freedom, etc., have a concept, but
not possibility of a corresponding intuition: there is
no "possibility of experience" where these ideas are
concerned, and hence no possibility of knowing their
presumed objects, and hence no possibility of speaking
to their presumed reality on theoretical grounds. For
the "possibility of experience" exhausts the criterion
for both knowledge and hence reality of these objects,
theoretically speaking.

We are still, according to this account, justified in
"thinking" God, freedom, Soul, etc. For it is through
the concept that we think. But we are not justified
in claiming a knowledge of these putative objects, nor
a fortiori, a knowledge of the reality of these
objects.

Kant's dialectical critique of the ontological
argument gives expression to this analysis:

that argument, laid out above in one of its versions,
provides, according to Kant, a mere analytical
inference, on the basis of a definition of God. What
it does not in fact provide is a synthetical argument,
an argument that takes you outside of the
understanding's concept, to a possible experience.

The argument though provides an illusion of synthesis.
the middle term, by speaking to "existence" makes you
think that an extra-synthetic-something has been added
to the definition provided in the premise. But this
is not so, according to Kant, for "existence" is not a
real predicate. It merely identifies what is already
embedded analytically in the initial definition. the
"existence" in the second premise speaks merely to
possibility, a conceptual entity, and not to an
actuality that is synthesized from outside the concept
in an independent intuition.

Why is the distinction between possibility and
actuality important? because we are capable of
thinking all kinds of things, ghosts, unicorns, etcs.,
but only capable of knowing what is an object of
possible experience. Without that criterion the
floodgates are opened to all manner of fantasy, and
there is no way to distinguish those thoughts of ours
that can correspond to reality, and those that cannot.
It is a special distinction of these metaphysical
ideas, that they cannot have any empirical
representation that corresponds to their conception.
For no empirical intuition is "perfect" in its
representation. We can only think them.

Kant allows that such thoughts function as
regulative or heuristic tools providing systematic
unity to our empirical inductions, and as moral
postulations that provide the ultimate object of
morality, the "highest good," with regulative
viability. but beyond these limited employments, these
ideas can only impede in our moral practice, for the
claim for knowledge of them denies us the capacity to
act in the "spirit" of the moral law". For if we know
that God, freedom, and the Soul, exist, we would
always act out of fear of God's wrath or desire for
God's reward. It is for that reason ultimately that
Kant had to limit knowledge of God, freedom and the
Soul, in order to make room for a mere faith.

So i ask: how is Kant's criticism of the ontological
argument invalid on Hegelian grounds?




--- Paul Trejo <petrejo@...> wrote:

> Additional response to the Thu05Jun03 post by Omar
> Lughod:
>
> > What is in question is why the religionist is
> > operating with anything more than opinions.
> > Where is the argument to move the atheist from
> > thinking so? I have seen none presented so far.
>
> No, what the Atheist wants is for the Theist to
> prove his views, but for the Atheist to sit back
> and do nothing.
>
> I have already said that Hegel offers to PROVE
> the existence of God, Omar. I have said this
> several times. Instead of looking into this new
> and provocative statement (as a logician would)
> you don't ask about it.
>
> No, the Atheist only recognizes OPINIONS, since
> the Skeptics chant in chorus: 'the only truth is
> that
> there is no truth.' So opinions are all that they
> need,
> and all they recognize in anybody else. By far most
> atheists do not seek to prove their position
> logically.
>
> > Do you allow, in principle, that the dialectical
> > development could lead to the opposite conclusion,
> >as so many leftist Hegelian thinkers do?
>
> No, I do not allow that in principle, Omar, because
> I
> know the actual history. I know that there is no
> such
> thing as a Left Hegelian, just as there is no such
> thing
> as a Right Hegelian.
>
> In 1838, the non-Hegelian, David Strauss, was forced
> by Bruno Bauer to admit that Hegel would not have
> agreed with his non-Hegelian views. So in his book,
> IN DEFENSE OF MY LIFE OF JESUS AGAINST THE
> HEGELIANS (1838) David Strauss invented the terms,
> Left-Hegelian and Right-Hegelian. He placed himself
> on the Left, and he placed Bruno Bauer and Hegel on
> the Right!
>
> That is sufficient proof that these terms that
> atheists
> like to use to claim Hegel as their leader are
> BOGUS.
> Hegel was not an Atheist. Anybody who actually
> reads Hegel thoroughly must see that clearly.
>
> Even Marx admitted that to agree with Hegel he
> must first "turn Hegel upon his head."
> Nevertheless,
> millions of his followers have no shame in calling
> themselves "Left Hegelians." They are actually
> anti-Hegelians, and they should simply admit it.
>
> > if you close
> > this off as a possibility, then where lies your
> > scientific detachment with respect to truth? do
> you
> > deny the possibility altogether that atheism can
> be
> > true. if so, why should we treat your arguments
> any
> > differently than you have been treating Marx et
> al?
>
> It is logically possible, Omar, that atheism can be
> true, given specific definitions of atheism and of
> theism. That must be a logical possibility,
> otherwise
> there is no debate.
>
> Yet Hegel says that he has *proven* the Reality of
> God (e.g. the existence of God, although Hegel marks
> a sharp difference between Existence and Reality,
> since
> Existence, 'dasein,' tends to refer to finite being,
> and that
> is misleading when it comes to metaphysical
> realities).
>
> So the real problem is to analyze carefully what the
> arguments of Hegel are, beginning with this
> Ontological
> Argument in response to the challenge of Kant's 100
> dollar riddle.
>
> By contrast, Omar, Karl Marx did not choose to
> prove his theories of Atheism -- like Nietzsche he
> asserted them on his authority, with his wit and
> his sarcasm. That is not logic.
>
> > You have a bad habit of reminding this list of
> hegel's
> > brilliance, or of the brilliance of his works, as
> > though you are adding anything relevant to our
> > appreciation of Hegel. None of us doubt that
> > brilliance; but that does not preclude the real
> > possibility that Hegel got it wrong, both in its
> > parts, and in his overall schema.
>
> Well, it's not a bad habit, Omar, it's a good habit.
> Atheists *need* to be reminded that Hegel was not
> an Atheist, and that Hegel sharply criticized
> Atheism.
> They need to *respond* to Hegel with something
> other than sarcasm, too.
>
> If you think Hegel was wrong, Omar, then by all
> means, try to prove it logically.
>
> > What remains in question is the actual arguments.
> > if you would wish us
> > to consider your own interpretations valid,
> summarize
> > their arguments for us so that we can share in
> your
> > perspective of things. do not merely assume
> Hegel's
> > authority, for we often question your
> interpretation
> > of hegel's autority (that is, we question your
> > authority to interpret him correctly) as we also
> put
> > into question many of the specific arguments that
> we
> > interpret Hegel to have.
> > =====
> > Omar
>
> I have said repeatedly, Omar, that I *never* merely
> assert Hegel's authority.
>
> I provide more quotations from Hegel than any other
> List member, and I have done so for many years.
>
> People who accuse me of not showing my work have
> either recently joined these Lists or simply blank
> out
> whenever I produce a strong quote from Hegel that
> negates their views.
>
> I provide quotes from Hegel for a reason -- so his
> opponents can try to use logic against him. But
> they
> usually don't even try; they just change the subject
> or use sarcasm.
>
> Regards,
> --Paul Trejo, M.A.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

=====
Omar

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

In response to the Fri06Jun03 post by Beat Greuter:

> ...In Hegel's philosophy and Logic: Does God determine
> Being, or is God defined and recognized within and
> through the determinations of Being?
>
> All the best,
> Beat

Beat, you have raised the Ontological Problem. Were
you aware of that when you asked your provocative
question?

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul Trejo wrote:

> In response to the Fri06Jun03 post by Beat Greuter:
>
> > ...In Hegel's philosophy and Logic: Does God determine
> > Being, or is God defined and recognized within and
> > through the determinations of Being?
> >
> > All the best,
> > Beat
>
> Beat, you have raised the Ontological Problem. Were
> you aware of that when you asked your provocative
> question?
>
> Best regards,
> --Paul Trejo

If it is THE Ontological Problem since Aristotle - and it is - then my
question is not provocative, and a philosophical anwer must show Hegel's
attitude - as a philosopher - to God.

Best wishes,
Beat Greuter