take advantage of the answer I gave to someone met on a philosophical blog to express my position on God (or at least some of these issues). Copioincollo the thought of that user, on which I thought a bit '(enough) and I wanted to respond: ______________________________________________________________
"My path was opposed because I had a religious upbringing, my faith is dissociated from occurred as an evolutionary reason that continuous so now I believe in God because I think that is the root cause of an effect that I perceive with my senses. Certainly I do not have the time of the photograph of the '* source * of all that surrounds us, it' s the author of this, but my logic is refusing to accept that the case is the 'creator of all this * wonder * , which shows a highly refined intelligence. " ______________________________________________________________
This is his thought. To answer and make it more agile, I share his involvement in three points:
1)" My journey has been opposed because I had a religious upbringing, my faith has been dissociated from the fact of evolution as a reason for going "... right, the road is the right one. I, too, after ten years of Catholic Scouting, I have no hard feelings taken the path of philosophy, which led me to a serenely atheistic position.
2) ... so now I believe in God because I think that is the root cause of an effect that I perceive with my senses. Here's the problem: the root cause
. Let's go back to the demonstrations and so medieval
postulates, who attempted a demonstration of God with opinionated reasoning "logical"! There are ... That is: suppose the cause is right and good, but as long as our approach is:
- morally neutral: the Creator is not "good", as they believed the pseudo-medieval philosophers and fathers of the Church: the concepts of "good" and "bad" compared to the Creation, did not no sense: they are "Human, All Too Human, Nietzsche would say;
- scientifically humble, ie probabilistic, possibilistic and non-dogmatic : that is ready to undergo corrections and denials. If I believed that God is the "big bang", will be confronted with a fine theories (as good as the other theories cosmogonic) suggest that our universe as a "sottouniverso" universes larger, potentially infinite, and eternal potential in an infinite chain of evolution (which we, microbes in the universe, and suppose we can not even imagine). Then the blessed "finger" that gives rise to the universe is by no means a certainty, but a design that is in the Sistine Chapel. Imagine if he was a man with a white beard and booming voice to give rise to more ... (I'm not butt of consumer jokes you, I'm just teasing the "religious" media world's population, we really still believe in such nonsense).
3) course I do not have the time of the photograph of the '* source * of all that surrounds us, it' s the author of this, but my logic is refusing to accept that the case is the 'creator of all this * wonder * You talk about "Wonder," good. In Triennale I graduated with a thesis on the pantheist Spinoza, implacable opponent of superstitious religion, but not defined as "atheist" in the strict sense. In ethics he gives his definition of God and "love" of God (something close to the wonder of you speak of). This feeling of "reading between the lines" of Creation I think I expressed well in my short paper on the subject. You carry the main part, giving voice to Russell and Einstein about this nice feeling of "finding" of the Whole, to which we belong:
"While it is true that one aim of science is to discover rules that allow the association between and to provide them the facts, this is not its only purpose. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered at the lowest possible conceptual elements independent of each other. That is the rational unification of the multifaceted effort that it meets the highest success [...] Who has known the thrilling experience
process turned out well in this area, is moved by profound reverence for the rationality
highlighted existence. Through the knowledge [man] follows an emancipation from the shackles of far-reaching hopes and desires, and what comes to mind that attitude of humility
to the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence . (Einstein)
echoes Spinoza are incredibly obvious: a love filled, humble and reverent is alive on the skin of one of the greatest scientists of all time. Einstein also discussed elsewhere the "pleasure of the beauty of artistic creation and logical chains of thought." Once again, we put together: the causal
(identified in creation) and the feeling
, knowledge and emotion.
Another man of science (commonly considered philosopher) Bertrand Russell, and it strengthens our considerations:
"the intellectual love of God is a
fusion of thought and feeling : I think it can be said to consist in mixed real thinking the joy of learning the truth, [joy] is understood as something more than pleasure. " (Russell)
You do not want to suggest here that the way to "happiness" is the preserve only of scientists (or the most "sensitive" among them). It is true that it is interesting that the scientific approach - by definition free of any emotion in his investigation - consider the feeling of 'love of
intellectualis described in'
Spinoza's Ethics. And when that happens, this is due to the fact that he remained at the level of
reason, that there is still that moment of knowledge which, while not adding anything to the
knowledge, consists of an act of intellection which generates profound emotional .
To understand the 3rd kind of knowledge in Spinoza, I think you fit any manuals, if you do not already know. Let
still on Spinoza, because we need his concept of anthropomorphism * *
(but could also be good for our purposes Feuerbach): Appendix to the first part of the 'Ethics, "Spinoza
note that if God is 'maximally perfect body (by definition), then it is absurd that is subject to a "fine" during the Creation. The philosopher insists a deep aversion to injury finalist
* * , criticizing the classical conception that God would act, as men, according to the purpose. Spinoza exposes long logical arguments, sometimes using the words on, strong support for the unacceptability of the idea of \u200b\u200ba God moved on (or becoming) the aims and objectives. The final, distinctively human, is attributed to God, to whom, however, hard to recognize the true essence. The
* * Creating to Spinoza, is not an act indifferent
(ie the 'created' could not be different from what was then done): the creation is a necessary step, especially accomplished, perfect. In this sense So, we infer - Spinoza says basically the - that we call God
"nature" .
And what's more perfect than nature? (Re) creates, expands, adapts, alternates ... The test we can see at any time. But it is a
machine, a mechanism
! And behind it there is only a "blind watchmaker"! Indeed, it is more of a watch ... A watch would be "done" by someone then say that it is rather a complex and beautiful to watch
mechanism, where it is true that nothing happens to
case (we omit some scientific discoveries that seem to reintroduce the
case in the physical world). But this does not mean that there is an end
a
reason, a task, a trial
, a path aimed
.
We should be able to stand in front of '
absurd, and instead develop
solutions and consolations, we should be able - once and for all! - To contemplate the wonder of
nothing, instead of leaving the "no way" we absorb the cliff of despair. But this requires a maturity of humanity. And we're still yes and no adolescents full of pimples, full of complex inner nonsense ... Lying in bed, listening to Marco Masini, wondering why we feel so alone and lost.
talked of nature: it is certainly something more perfect than God "anthropomorphic" tradition, which would have a "character" (irascible, Old Testament, compassionate - New Testament!). Idea ridiculous, patently false and ridiculous in my opinion. Even this is something human, too human ...
The problem, however, is when we look too far
. This is the crucial point that I wish to emphasize. I'll use a picture for me to understand:
- I observe, bent on the ground, a flower in his prime (I causality still in close, I'm still not "admiring", nor anything I'm still minus). I take the causal links in botanical and biological (the perfection of the stem, the microscopic features of each particle, etc.).
- looked up horizontally on the lawn, or admire the regularity of the Whole, harmony and celebrations implacable and reassuring of Creation (try the "beatitude" mentioned by Spinoza). Well. STOP!
---> I do not have to get up even more on the look, to see what else I'll end there! Guccini is a great poet, but I do not agree is when he sings:
"And you with your materialistic obsession,
that God is dead and man is only in this abyss;
the truth on the ground looking for - from pigs -
hold on acorns and let the wings. "
Well, this verse, poetically beautiful, do not share
The eyes must remain on the ground , if we are honest and genuine research. If we're talking (as much as possible) of truth and reality. We should not go to hypostatize nothing, neither to look "elsewhere" (he was a worldly-style Catholic Platonist or something ...) or a "someone else", a watchmaker in the world.
It's all here, and there is not enough.
transcendental assumptions are a delight of the mind ... necessary, mind you!, but still a delight. A useful trick, mind you!, But still a gimmick.
This also recognizes Nietzsche, who would like to see in men the courage to act with "psychological acuity" the inverse of the abandonment to the blind and illusory transcendental truth and unreflective). Yet he knows that "blind faith", the religious hope, escape from our anguish and fragility (of finite beings and temporary) are
expedients which, together, make the happiest man than they face a stoic attitude relentless, cynical and sharp. I added, as adults, we are in need of suckling (Freud in fact we see in religion a little more than a mass psychosis, is no coincidence: all children reverence to the Great Father punisher).
many believers come to this point, I will speak of 'incontrovertible
"strength" of this religious sentiment exhausting transportation, love and fascination with the All,
that can only hint at a design, a boost Author an immense and immensely good ...
But, again using the words of Nietzsche, I surmise, rather than
our mind - that has the logos
and (unfortunately and thankfully)
many other skills - always chasing our finitude and our troubles. It builds strong feelings
who, after many layers of cultural and epochal
and acceptances habitual and unreflective,
ends up being inexplicable and compelling .
But it is immediate and incontrovertible!
Let me explain: the immense love for all, the feeling of being cared for, the fact of not being able to think that there is something else ... etc., do not prove anything. As suggested by Nietzsche again:
'form
quick, frequent associations of feelings and thoughts that recently, when another with lightning speed,
not feel like even more complex subjects, but as a unit. In this sense we speak of the moral sentiment
and
religious sentiment, as well as units that are: in truth
are rivers with a hundred well-springs and tributaries. "
In essence, the Father of suspect works up here and makes us ask: are you sure you have faith (and
"you" also means the "you" humanity in its evolution and succession / devolving culture and history) is then soaked, for your own biological nature of:
- existential trauma ... (Quietly explained as a legacy of macro-trauma of separation from the uterus: see Freud, Lacan, etc.).
- psychological condition of instability ... (due to your condition of being finite, vulnerable, frightened death: see Freud, etc.).
All
conditions that condense (re-read the Nietzsche I passed!)
in a single "blended" which is the religious sentiment (and / or moral), which We feel so much inherent and obvious (which for some is the decisive proof of the existence of something
of higher education).
Yeah .. Yes, just
that same "feeling" that moved me as well TRUTHFULLY in some particular conditions: when I was in front of a priest Iun bit 'n leg .. and I was physically .. and fascinated by the flames of the cozy fire scout camp .. O
the same jumble factors (confused, painfully recognizable!) who moved my grandmother and my neighbor when they go to church. All
factors explained ... with many difficulties, but
explained psychoanalytically, sociologically, causally: scientifically, in fact. After all, as perceptively observes M. Onfray:
"God was born from the rigor, stiffness and immobility of the dead bodies of members of the tribe."
And from that moment on,
seized by terror, the man began to set up
totem, invocations, deities, rituals
...
The strength that these beliefs and habits have today, it must be the temporal stratification. So much so that now, after centuries, it is clear that looks so amazing and incontrovertible
the power of divine manifestation in the human : by force, has had centuries of "training" to help strengthen their own. The myth, moreover, will never die is born with man. In fact, I agree that:
"the last God will disappear with the last man. And with him will disappear fear, fear, anxiety, and machines to create gods. The terror in front of anything, the failure to consider death as a natural process, inevitable, with which you must come to terms. [...] As well as the fear of meaninglessness and absurdity, that the domestication of the "nothing" "
(M. Onfray)
The final objection then I know by heart by now: the believer will say:
"Yes, ok. But continue to give a logical and scientific name ("childhood trauma", "primal anxiety", etc.). Something you can not explain with words you miserable, earthly man. You give a name miserably restricted to sensations and feelings immanent, indescribable, ineffable, undisputed. " But as Dawkins says:
when you start
to preach the existence of something that is indescribable, intangible and unwatchable , then it is made up winning
you can not deny or prove that there is something that you say be bodiless, formless, without place. ..
For now I close here. The suggestions and objections, of course, are endless ..
Luca
