Clarifying Atheism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Clarifying Atheism » Clarifying Atheism

Clarifying Atheism
Zizek and Relgion

Page: 1 2

Clarifying Atheism

Apathy Kills
Decaying Organic Matter

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2007
Location: United States, MIDWEST

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 232

Posted 10/19/09 - 07:26 PM: Subject: Clarifying Atheism	#1
I've been delving into the [relatively new] book of Slavoj Zizek entitled The Parallax View. Aside from the heavy influence of Marx, Hegel, and Kant (most likely in that order) on his thought, he uses some extraordinary examples and insights to clarify his writing. In this book, he makes several side comments along the way from an altogether starkly different perspective. Perhaps Zizek's comments I present here will spark some discussion on a number of levels (persuasiveness of his claims, their truth-value, and so forth). 1) What does it mean to be a true atheist? Zizek, in the following quoted passages, appears to suggest that atheism as it is typically conceived is incommensurate with being a "true atheist". He starts by himself quoting Brecht's Herr Keuner: Someone asked Herr Keuner if there is a God. Herr Keuner said: I advise you to think about how your behavior would change with regard to the answer to this question. If it would not change, then we can drop the question. If it would change, then I can help you at least insofar as I can tell you: You already decided: You need a God. Zizek, following this quote, argues that Brecht is right and that "we are never in a position to choose directly between theism and atheism, since the choice as such is located within the field of belief. 'Atheism' (in the sense of deciding not to believe in God) is a miserable pathetic stance of those who long for God but cannot find him (or who 'rebel against God'). A true atheist does not choose atheism: for him, the question itself is irrelevant..." I find this argument very intriguing. It presents us, in a sense, with a view of theism which encompasses atheism as well. For atheism, through the means of non-belief by reason of defiance or lack of faith, is an ad hoc extension towards theism. "True atheism" is such that the question or proposition or issue of God itself is a mute point. 2) Are atheists the only ones who truly pray (or are "religious")? This argument from Zizek seems strange to me, but I think that it makes some sense. Zizeks says the following, "Today, Theists no longer despise atheists - on the contrary, one of their standard rhetorical turns is to emphasize how, in leaving behind the abstract 'God of philosophers', atheists are much closer to the 'true' God than metaphysical theologists: 'The god-less thinking which must abandon the god of philosophy...is...perhaps closer to the divine God...more open to Him than [metaphysics] would like to admit.' (Heidegger) Even in Derrida's late work, we find a variation on this turn, when, in his reflections on prayer, he points out how not only do atheists also pray, but how, today, it is perhaps only atheists who truly pray... Against this rhetoric, we should assert the literal truth of Lacan's statement according to which theologists are the only true materialists." Perhaps Zizek is utilizing the supposed religiosity of atheists in a different context. By praying, he may be meaning that atheists or non-believers in striving after the metaphysically ideal are reaching closer to the divine and thus have a much more genuine and purer form of prayer, that of rational contemplation or deliberation. Perhaps this God of the philosophers is a purer, more divine, concept of God in that the activity of philosophizing as oppose to traditional Judeo-Islamic-Christian worshiping is akin to religiosity. What do you think?
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire..." Nietzsche

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

Posted 10/19/09 - 09:08 PM:	#2
Well, I have pretty well always considered the question irrelevant, so I guess I pass. I don't quite understand what he means by "praying" here though. If he means bowing, and attempting to establish telepathic communication with supernatural persons, then that is something I do not ever engage in. I have not attempted to since I was maybe thirteen. I feel that he probably means something else, but I'm not quick enough to catch what that is.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5126

Posted 10/19/09 - 09:22 PM:	#3
Apathy Kills wrote: Slavoj Zizek wrote: A true atheist does not choose atheism: for him, the question itself is irrelevant... Even in Derrida's late work, we find a variation on this turn, when, in his reflections on prayer, he points out how not only do atheists also pray, but how, today, it is perhaps only atheists who truly pray... What do you think? I think Messrs Zizek & Derrida work awfully hard at spouting nonsense & (playing at) being rodeo clown sophists. Clearly, the 'question of god' is quite relevant in those situations in which theists, or believers, 'justify' some personal actions & public policies of social consequence, in effect, "in the name of god". Atheists are those who demand non-sectarian accountability based on shared interests & non-privileged, public beliefs. As for 'atheists praying', I suppose this has always been true. The most conspicuous being the mandarins who administer every church, synagogue, mosque & temple as well as most politicians down through the ages, those professionally pious unbelievers who 'thank god daily for not existing except in the benighted imagination of oft-exploited, ever-anxious, placebos & fairytales-infantilized, masses'. Edited by 180 Proof on 10/19/09 - 09:30 PM. Reason: Doh! (But isn't Wosret's latest avatar muy caliente ...)
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 10/19/09 - 09:52 PM:	#4
It sounds like he has some religious-side influences as well. Imagine a person in a society which holds no concept of "God" whatsoever, they are "atheistic" by default, but never make a conscious choice to be atheists. Just like all human society, (that I'm aware of), has no concept of "Zontar" and don't require a conscious choice to be "a-Zontarists". They also don't pray to Zontar simply by philosophizing something vaguely similar. To accept this argument, you would have to loosen the definition of "God" to mean just about any philosophical concept, pushing the concept of a real existential entity called "God" to being merely a mental exercise with little basis in reality. I guess he is preaching to the congregation and his audience agrees with him since they no longer separate an actual entity with a mental association.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Ghosthack
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 126

Posted 10/19/09 - 10:56 PM:	#5
I agree with Zizek's first point. Most of the time when an atheist renounces God it is because he does not feel God to be present in the world. But the need for God is not eliminated and they end up trying to find meaning elsewhere (communism, science, secular humanism, mysticism, new age beliefs etc.). The fact that they turn away from God towards another belief shows that such beliefs are very important to them and that they still 'need a God'. I would say that the true atheists are apatheists. Not an apatheist as in not caring about such questions but in the fact that it does not matter to them if there is a God or not. It takes a strong personality to do this. The second point seems to be an elaboration of the first. There is an interplay here between a loss of faith and prayer. When a theist prays he may pray for many things including good fortune, material things, etc. Sometimes when he is at his most atheistic he prays for more faith. This is the prayer I think he is talking about, a prayer for faith. Apathy Kills wrote: Perhaps Zizek is utilizing the supposed religiosity of atheists in a different context. By praying, he may be meaning that atheists or non-believers in striving after the metaphysically ideal are reaching closer to the divine and thus have a much more genuine and purer form of prayer, that of rational contemplation or deliberation. Perhaps this God of the philosophers is a purer, more divine, concept of God in that the activity of philosophizing as oppose to traditional Judeo-Islamic-Christian worshiping is akin to religiosity. He mentions Heidegger who seems to be a good example. Existentialism, particularly that of Heidegger, is not seen as particularly religious but it's unmistakable that he is speaking a religious language when he writes. It is heavily indebted to Kierkegaard. Heidegger discusses many things important to the Christian and discusses the anxiety that the Christian finds in the world but he leaves out the faith necessary to deal with such problems. He takes us to the limit but never takes the leap of faith that Kierkegaard does. It is not about irrational vs. rational, it is about the philosophers inability to take the leap of faith.

easyjacksn
Almost there...

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Oct 06, 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1230

Posted 10/19/09 - 11:34 PM:	#6
Ghosthack wrote: Most of the time when an atheist renounces God it is because he does not feel God to be present in the world. But the need for God is not eliminated and they end up trying to find meaning elsewhere (communism, science, secular humanism, mysticism, new age beliefs etc.). The fact that they turn away from God towards another belief shows that such beliefs are very important to them and that they still 'need a God'. The pomposity of theists never ceases to amaze me. What makes you think that god is the belief that they're trying to replace and not that belief in god is just one of the many irrational ways of coping people engage in?

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 529

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/20/09 - 01:29 AM:	#7
Apathy Kills wrote: 1) What does it mean to be a true atheist? Zizek, in the following quoted passages, appears to suggest that atheism as it is typically conceived is incommensurate with being a "true atheist". He starts by himself quoting Brecht's Herr Keuner: Zizek, following this quote, argues that Brecht is right and that "we are never in a position to choose directly between theism and atheism, since the choice as such is located within the field of belief. 'Atheism' (in the sense of deciding not to believe in God) is a miserable pathetic stance of those who long for God but cannot find him (or who 'rebel against God'). A true atheist does not choose atheism: for him, the question itself is irrelevant..." I find this argument very intriguing. It presents us, in a sense, with a view of theism which encompasses atheism as well. For atheism, through the means of non-belief by reason of defiance or lack of faith, is an ad hoc extension towards theism. "True atheism" is such that the question or proposition or issue of God itself is a mute point. First of all, I'm not all too sure what a "Hard Determinist" would have to say about all these "choices" and who chooses whom. I'll leave that to someone more qualified to make a commentary in this regard. Regarding Faith and Belief; there was another thread about the possibility of Atheism being a form of Faith. Fine... I began a question in this direction, but soon realized that I had made a mistake insofar as the meaning of the terms being used. This is a rather common mistake and a mistake that will repeat itself in all likelihood. I'll throw a little Tillich in the works and say, "Faith is not an act of knowledge related to uncertainty, nor is it a belief based on incomplete evidence. Because it is not an act of knowledge, it does not have to be supplemented by an act of will. Thus, the will to believe does not create faith." This so-called "choice to believe" is not an expression of Faith and is not a Religious Act. The following may be a bit clearer as to what was written by the author of this "current" idea. "The fundamental symbol of our ultimate concern is God. (note: Tillich opens his book with the statement, "Faith is the state of being ultimately concerned) It is always present in any act of faith, even if the act of faith includes the denial of God. Where there is ultimate concern, God can be denied only in the name of God. One God can deny the other one. Ultimate concern cannot deny its own character as ultimate. Therefore, it affirms what is meant by the word "God". Atheism, consequently, can only mean the attempt to remove any ultimate concern - to remain unconcerned about the meaning of one's existence. Indifference toward the ultimate question is the only imaginable form of atheism. Whether it is possible must remain unsolved at this point." - Paul Tillich "Dynamics of Faith" Atheism is the removal of "Ultimate Concerns" - "Acts of Faith" - "Existence of God" - "Foundations of Religious Belief". For a Theist to grasp this concept, the Theist must first release this "Ultimate Concern" that taints the perspective and interpretation. The "Theist-bias" must be dropped first to even dream of being slightly objective with regard to understanding atheism. Non-faith is not "faith in non-faith, but the state of being "faithless". Faith plays no role as faith is not present to play a role in the mind set of an atheist. The symbol of God is meaningless as it is a non-player, thus the center of the "ultimate concern" is not there, resulting in there being no "ultimate concern". This does not have be be taken on faith. It is simply because it is the status of what it is. Meow! GREG Edited by mayor of simpleton on 10/20/09 - 01:54 AM
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIYJERcdHb0 Jerry Sings!

Apathy Kills
Decaying Organic Matter

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2007
Location: United States, MIDWEST

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 232

Posted 10/20/09 - 02:04 PM:	#8
Hey mayor of simpleton. My interpretation of Zizek is that although there may be many means (i.e. one could be doing so in defiance of one's religious upbringing or perhaps out of sheer rejection to "make the leap [of faith]") by which a person could reject theism and thus enter into "atheism", he maintains that a "true atheist" is such that positions him or herself outside the paradigm of religious belief altogether. So, it appears that any other reason for being an atheist -other than the irrelevance of the matter- is designated as a "miserable pathetic stance" because I guess in a way it remains "within the realm" of theism and religious belief as a whole?
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire..." Nietzsche

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 180

Posted 10/20/09 - 02:14 PM:	#9
Well, of course Zizek sees religion anywhere; his particular brand of Leninism (that would have even the more rational modern Marxists like Althusser reeling) is after all a badly disguised one. He would have something of a point if every atheist (by which I mean a person who holds gods don't exist) actually accepted theist rigmarole about needing to find some sort of transcendental purpose and whatnot. But many (I would even say most) of us don't; in fact Zizek's stance seems closer to it than the stance of most atheists I know.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/20/09 - 03:24 PM:	#10
Doesn't that imply defacto that Religious people then require the trascendental purpose to their lives?
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.