Very NOT cynical Athiest outlook from Andre Comte-Sponville

[Keith P]

People like Dawkins and Hitchins make the arguments but leave us w/ little about how life should meaningfull for the Athiest.

This guy does exactly what Dawkins and Hitchens should turn their efforts towards imo. Finding peace in a world where Yahweh or Allah does not exist.

http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-At.../dp/0670018473

Review
“At first blush "atheist spirituality" may sound like a contradiction in terms, but French philosopher Comte-Sponville makes a compelling argument for a profound dimension of experience that is god-free. His idea of spirituality also bears no small resemblance to Eastern spirituality, and the philosopher-author does not hesitate to cite great Eastern thinkers in this catalogue of references to great minds grappling with important questions. We can do without religion and without God, the author argues, but we can't do without fidelity and community. Comte-Sponville's humanism is deeply traditional, but the red flag "atheist" will undoubtedly affront religious traditionalists. That's unfortunate, because the author's style of arguing is civil and witty, unlike a lot of public discourse on this subject. He draws deeply on the history of philosophers who have pronounced on the subject of God's existence, disposing of the everything-is-permitted nihilism often associated with atheism. Nor does he argue that religion is dangerous, a stance in vogue among today's bestselling atheists. God just isn't logically necessary, but we can still have love, ethical behavior and even the experience of eternity. Formerly a Sorbonne professor, Comte-Sponville presents big ideas with masterful and witty clarity. For those who prefer Kant to cant, this refreshing little book is perfect.”
—Publisher’s Weekly

[PETA]

Is this another general approval of western (Abrahamic) tradition just tossing God out?

Of course God isn't logically necessary... that would be a proof... and we don't have Babelfish...

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by xian

Is this another general approval of western (Abrahamic) tradition just tossing God out?

Of course God isn't logically necessary... that would be a proof... and we don't have Babelfish...

To a certain degree. While Andre here makes the argument against the Abrahamic god he does assert the importance in recognizing the history and validity of the Judeo-Christian tradition. He writes a great deal about communion and how Christianity and Judaism have brought together a social commune in the west for centuries. He sees that tradition as a sort of pillar or foundation for building a godless society.(Being a French philospher he sights the lack of church attendance across Europe as an example. A discussion we've held often) An example for the need of communion in Europe and a rejection of Barbarism or full fledged hedonism.

In fact Andre writes a great deal about accepting religion for it's function as opposed to disposing of it outright. It seems Andre see's the rejection of God as something to come out of one's personal growth only, not as a form of social pressure. If one feels the need to commune w/ God through religion than they should be left to their traditions...under the stipulation that traditon doesn't become a threat towards society.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Keith P

To a certain degree. While Andre here makes the argument against the Abrahamic god he does assert the importance in recognizing the history and validity of the Judeo-Christian tradition. He writes a great deal about communion and how Christianity and Judaism have brought together a social commune in the west for centuries. He sees that tradition as a sort of pillar or foundation for building a godless society.(Being a French philospher he sights the lack of church attendance across Europe as an example. A discussion we've held often) An example for the need of communion in Europe and a rejection of Barbarism or full fledged hedonism.

In fact Andre writes a great deal about accepting religion for it's function as opposed to disposing of it outright. It seems Andre see's the rejection of God as something to come out of one's personal growth only, not as a form of social pressure. If one feels the need to commune w/ God through religion than they should be left to their traditions...under the stipulation that traditon doesn't become a threat towards society.

That notion represents... what... a kind of a spot on a continuum? If I may analogize Catholicism is a very pageant rich religion. Its big on rite and tradition etc etc. It developed that tradition over the centuries because the traditions worked... but it also created problems.... along comes Luther... he's a catholic, he simply pointed out the lack of biblical foundation for all but 2 sacraments. Now, he recognized the value of confession, marriage, vows, good works etc etc but pointed out that they weren't required. Here's how I see your author as representing a point on a continuum... as Luther recognized the value of a more ritualized and strict religious code or order he pointed out that these rituals were not required so too is your author recognizing the value of the "ritual" etc etc but points out that there's no requirement that one believe in God. I disagree but it makes sense in a kind of philosophical progression kind of way.

I disagree because when the articificially imposed requirements the catholic church has established are "lifted" such that Protestants are put in a a position of "should" do X Y or Z rather than "must" do X Y or Z they are less incentivized to do X Y or Z. Now, that's an elitist friggin notion... one that suggests people cannot be trusted to do the right thing on thier own.... and... it is, imo, frequently demonstrated to be true. Your author is even further down the line and the freedom from consequences is even greater making compliance with a moral code even more unlikely.... short version, it put too much trust in too many to do the right thing and has no external mechanism for encouraging it.

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by xian

That notion represents... what... a kind of a spot on a continuum? If I may analogize Catholicism is a very pageant rich religion. Its big on rite and tradition etc etc. It developed that tradition over the centuries because the traditions worked... but it also created problems.... along comes Luther... he's a catholic, he simply pointed out the lack of biblical foundation for all but 2 sacraments. Now, he recognized the value of confession, marriage, vows, good works etc etc but pointed out that they weren't required. Here's how I see your author as representing a point on a continuum... as Luther recognized the value of a more ritualized and strict religious code or order he pointed out that these rituals were not required so too is your author recognizing the value of the "ritual" etc etc but points out that there's no requirement that one believe in God. I disagree but it makes sense in a kind of philosophical progression kind of way.

I disagree because when the articificially imposed requirements the catholic church has established are "lifted" such that Protestants are put in a a position of "should" do X Y or Z rather than "must" do X Y or Z they are less incentivized to do X Y or Z. Now, that's an elitist friggin notion... one that suggests people cannot be trusted to do the right thing on thier own.... and... it is, imo, frequently demonstrated to be true. Your author is even further down the line and the freedom from consequences is even greater making compliance with a moral code even more unlikely.... short version, it put too much trust in too many to do the right thing and has no external mechanism for encouraging it.

Well this is where we tend to disagree. I believe people can do the right thing w/o divine authority. The author writes from the stand point as a raised catholic as well. These points have been raised a bit. I'm not finished w/ the book though so he may spend more time on this very point.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Keith P

Well this is where we tend to disagree. I believe people can do the right thing w/o divine authority.

We don't disagree on that point. God is not necessary to a person being good. Nor does the absence of God necessitate nastiness.

My complaint is almost procedural Keith. It has to do with the notion that people left to their own devices have a tendency to drift off into their own devices... I'm saying that the ritual in catholicism functions to prevent that drift because it is absorbed as daily routine. The opposite can happen as well. I know dead horse but the communists attempts to rewrite morality based on economics resulted in more people killed for an ideology in 75 years than people killed ion the name of God during the entire history of Christianity.

So, I'm saying that in the continuum I mentioned Comte-Sponville's movement further down the road is much more likely to see people off reinventing morality to suit their needs

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by xian

We don't disagree on that point. God is not necessary to a person being good. Nor does the absence of God necessitate nastiness.

My complaint is almost procedural Keith. It has to do with the notion that people left to their own devices have a tendency to drift off into their own devices... I'm saying that the ritual in catholicism functions to prevent that drift because it is absorbed as daily routine. The opposite can happen as well. I know dead horse but the communists attempts to rewrite morality based on economics resulted in more people killed for an ideology in 75 years than people killed ion the name of God during the entire history of Christianity.

So, I'm saying that in the continuum I mentioned Comte-Sponville's movement further down the road is much more likely to see people off reinventing morality to suit their needs

If that were truely the issue Xian you'd advocate non-stop for the need of a central church and central authority. Moralty will be re-written in the Christian tradition as long as denominations splinter.

What Comte-Sponville seems to suggest is that a sort of cultural fidelity aids in the process of society dictating it's norms and taboos. We already do this, church or no.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Keith P

If that were truely the issue Xian you'd advocate non-stop for the need of a central church and central authority.

Except that I believe that getting gov't involved in religion fucks up both. Religion must be volitional. Gov't can compel by consent of the masses.

Originally Posted by Keith P

Moralty will be re-written in the Christian tradition as long as denominations splinter.

I think your saying that the interpretations of the law from the Bible vary from denomination to denomination? If so, yes, I agree. Which is why the claims many put up about rejecting "organized religion" baffle me. Organized religion is the least likely to go off the rails into the jungles of Guyana or follow the path of Koresh. When's the last time there was a standoff with Episcopalians or Methodists?

Anyway, there will be variation of understanding. Personally, I think Christians must defer to the Jews on interpretting the OT (and they are not literalists) excepting where it is in contradiction to the NT. With the NT I think we've got 2000 years worth of interpretation and analysis... its there... whacky new interpretations and concepts (eg - the rapture) are just that.. whacky. However, these variations are still constrained by that history. An atheist tabula rasa has no such restraint or guidance... it troubles me more.

Originally Posted by Keith P

What Comte-Sponville seems to suggest is that a sort of cultural fidelity aids in the process of society dictating it's norms and taboos. We already do this, church or no.

Not sure I follow exactly what you mean. That we continue on pretty much just as we have, with our moral code undisturbed but without that pesky problem of God?

The Church absolutely does establish norms and taboos. I wouldn't use the word dictate because there's no external enforcement. The church doesn't send its cops around to punish the sinners of the flock. Human considerations of shame and guilt however, are implied in those established norms and taboos. But, a person is free to leave the church at any time and reject God - it is a matter of free will.

[umalak_]

Originally Posted by xian

My complaint is almost procedural Keith. It has to do with the notion that people left to their own devices have a tendency to drift off into their own devices... I'm saying that the ritual in catholicism functions to prevent that drift because it is absorbed as daily routine.

I don't understand how you can think that way. To me, how that reads is that you think "being good" is easier if you have Catholic rituals to follow... if you don't, then you are going to have a harder time. Is that what you're trying to say?

ps. please answer the question i asked in the pm or let me know why you don't want to answer it

[PETA]

Originally Posted by umalak_

I don't understand how you can think that way. To me, how that reads is that you think "being good" is easier if you have Catholic rituals to follow... if you don't, then you are going to have a harder time. Is that what you're trying to say?

ps. please answer the question i asked in the pm or let me know why you don't want to answer it

yes, having the mechanism of the community of whatever faith one belongs to makes it easier to comply with their moral code... that is, to be good.

Think of yourself as a child... were you more likely to get into trouble if your parents were nearby or further away? Same principle.

and, no recollection of the question...

[umalak_]

Originally Posted by xian

yes, having the mechanism of the community of whatever faith one belongs to makes it easier to comply with their moral code... that is, to be good.

no, but see you conceded that one must not be Catholic in order to be moral or good... and thus one not need to follow Catholic rituals in order to be moral or good. then you said that if you were to follow Catholic rituals it'd be easier for you to be good. that's how i read it and that's a statement i disagree with.

now you're saying that it's easier to be good or moral according to the Catholic faith if you hang out with other Catholics which isn't the same thing you seemed to be implying with the earlier statement.

and, no recollection of the question...

well i'm sure it's still in your pms. i asked you whether or not you paid for the subscription to Stratfor or not. was curious if you had access through some other means because it won't let me read stories on the site without paying.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by umalak_

no, but see you conceded that one must not be Catholic in order to be moral or good... and thus one not need to follow Catholic rituals in order to be moral or good. then you said that if you were to follow Catholic rituals it'd be easier for you to be good. that's how i read it.

now you're saying that it's easier to be Catholic if you hang out with other Catholics which isn't the same thing you seemed to be implying with the earlier statement.

A child left to play alone in a room of temptations with no parental supervisions is very likely to get into trouble.

A child left in the same room with Mom and Dad hovering is far less likely to do so.

Religion, faith and the community act as symbolic parents encouraging good behavior and discouraging bad behavior. Its not that either is any less likely to be good, its that one has much more leeway available to do bad.

And.. don't pay for what I get but honestly no clue how or why I get them

[umalak_]

See, I don't like that analogy because mature adults aren't like kids and don't need that kind of supervision to do good things. The only way religion acts as that parent is if you have the fear of God and I'm sure many don't.

So if you're saying that while you don't need to have a supernaturally religious moral code in order to be good but that it's better and easier if you do then I'll have to disagree with that. That isn't what I thought you were saying earlier.

and thanks for the answer. you think maybe your law firm signed up for something for Stratfor? because i don't see any free access on the site. are they emailing stories to you or are you going to the site to see them? maybe they had free access for awhile and you signed up during that time. hmmm... sucks, because i don't want to pay their $300+ membership signup thing.

[Sinner]

Going to Mass every Sunday would force me to use MORE coke and hookers...

Damn, that shit is boring.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by umalak_

See, I don't like that analogy because mature adults aren't like kids and don't need that kind of supervision to do good things. The only way religion acts as that parent is if you have the fear of God and I'm sure many don't.

OK - I'll keep trying. Good people need little incentive to be good. Most of us are not always good. It is easier to do things that "aren't good" when the likelihood of repurcussions are low. This is why many law firms have their supply rooms manned by a supply room clerk.. so people don't take boxes of pens home. Now, people don't refrain from taking boxes of pens home because they are "afraid" they refrain because they know better and the clerk is a symbolic reminder.

God does, to Christians, stand in the position of parent. There are few more common analogies about our relationship with God than that, if any.

Originally Posted by umalak_

So if you're saying that while you don't need to have a supernaturally religious moral code in order to be good but that it's better and easier if you do then I'll have to disagree with that.

why is that?

Originally Posted by umalak_

and thanks for the answer. you think maybe your law firm signed up for something for Stratfor? because i don't see any free access on the site. are they emailing stories to you or are you going to the site to see them? maybe they had free access for awhile and you signed up during that time. hmmm... sucks, because i don't want to pay their $300+ membership signup thing.

they show up in my email, and it could well have been through a client... I've done a lot of work on defense contractor cases. That would be my best guess.