atheist Christian — anonymous66

An entirely vacuous notion as far as I can see. It supposes that you can take all that God stuff out of Christianity and be left with a moral code and a systematic ethic and you really can't. An atheistic Judaism is completely possible rooted as it is so firmly in an exact (and exacting) set of commandments. Take God out of Christianity and it disappears altogether.

Don Cuppitt makes it look pretty attractive.

podcast.

Book 1

Book 2

'Made'. He hasn't been communicant since 2008, far too late to to admit to the untenability of his position for my liking. He pretty much admitted to the unsustainability of atheistic religion as far back as 1997.

Hi Anon - I have been following your progress with interest. Re 'atheist Christian' - I think your issue might be with the image or idea of God. It's a legitimate problem. Years ago, as part of my spiritual formation, I wrote an essay on the topic that 'God is not God'. What I meant by that was that the popular images and ideas of God - what people intend when they use the term - are socially conditioned, and are like aggregates of words, images and memories. I also formed the view that many people (including many of my relatives) believe in a kind of 'sky-father' figure, which is a cultural archetype. I wouldn't say it's wrong to believe such things, but if you can't believe such ideas, that doesn't necessarily mean you're really atheist.

Here are some reviews relating to these points:

Review by Galen Strawson of Saving God: Religion after Idolatry; and Surviving Death, two books on philosophy of religion, by Mark Johnston.

Review of Karen Armstrong's 2009 book A Case for God by Alain du Bouton.

I recommend this book in particular for it's scholarly and insightful approach to religion, and the importance of a religious practice. Karen Armstrong elaborates some of these ideas in an opinion piece published around the same time:

Religious truth is, therefore, a species of practical knowledge. Like swimming, we cannot learn it in the abstract; we have to plunge into the pool and acquire the knack by dedicated practice. Religious doctrines are a product of ritual and ethical observance, and make no sense unless they are accompanied by such spiritual exercises as yoga, prayer, liturgy and a consistently compassionate lifestyle. Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvana, Brahman or Dao. Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd. — Karen Armstrong

Should we believe in 'belief'?

most systems do promise to be therapeutic. I'm not sure I see that in existentialism. Existentialism seems to be more about giving up on systems, and just finding ways to enjoy life w/o a system. — anonymous66

Seems to me that giving up on systems and finding ways to enjoy life w/o a system might be highly therapeutic for some people.

My operating system is Christian, whether I like it or not, however much I might wish otherwise. I've pared down that PX OS, tried overriding it with new OSs, and all that, but it won't budge. Is the systemic part good or bad?

Some system is helpful; it provides pathways, symbols, models, useful tools, goals, etc. Can any system get out of hand? Systems tend to get out of hand, which is why we must pay attention: nip metastatic systems in the bud. Systems want to subvert our energy into following the rules and regs of the system, rather than living a full life.

I don't think of stoicism as a system, so much as a set of recommended exercises; exercises designed to free you of attachments to things, situations and people, and, indeed, yourself. I tend to think of the value of such exercises as consisting in the creative ways in which you can use them to produce real transformations in your ways of being and thinking.

I think of existentialism as the philosophy that eschews generalities; that sees beyond 'what one does', beyond the kinds of sets of general rules that we find ready-formulated for all kinds of occasions. For me, existentialism is also concerned with living in the light of acknowledgement that life is an impenetrable mystery, and that the standpoints we customarily adopt are always without exception exercises of faith, and are often little more than flimsy shields against anxiety.

I think the existential trick par excellence is to fully commit ourselves to an all-inclusive worldview which is large enough to accomodate inconsistency and even contradiction which does not satisfy our neurotic need for tidiness and does not ameliorate our anxieties and our doubts, but amplifies them into creative forces so that we can grow. (Here I am not referring to anxiety and doubt as it is commonly understood; that is I don't mean to say that one should cultivate skepticism and feed one's insecurities, rather the opposite). So, I don't think the essence of existentialism consists in "finding ways to enjoy our lives", but in finding ways to live authentically, which always means living in light of the spirit, the personal and the unique not under the tutelage of objectification, the impersonal and the general.

So, I see the possibility of a great compatibility between stoicism and existentialism.

...the pros and cons of following a system vs not following a system? — anonymous66

I'm not following a system except systematic questioning. Of course scepticism can go too far. I think 'systematic questioning' demands of the questioner that they accept a certain structure to the sorts of questions that can reasonably be asked, but then it feels like 2500 years of philosophy provide a good basic structure. I start from Nelson Goodman's 'Ways of world-making', which argued that there could be several intellectual worlds, as long as each was internally consistent. And I start from a dislike of the univocal, which includes being anti-monotheistic: the idea of One Truth or One Good seems to be intrinsically fascist. Adorno and Horkheimer's 'Dialectic of Enlightenment' leans towards saying that very thing. So...consistent anarchism, that the thing. It strikes me that self-organising nature's pretty much like that :)

Hi Anon - I have been following your progress with interest. Re 'atheist Christian' - I think your issue might be with the image or idea of God. — Wayfarer

Thank you for those thoughts and links. I'm okay with almost any conception of God, even in regards to Christianity. If God, it doesn't really make sense to criticize Him. It seems to me that Christianity is basically just assuming that there is a God, and that He is perfectly Good, it's just that we humans aren't capable of understanding a perfect God. But, I do wonder, if God, then what, if anything, can we say we actually know about Him? I see various opinions, and speculation, but nothing concrete, and it seems to me that instead of God reaching out to us in any way, we humans are just speculating and making assumptions about God. I like Don Cuppit's non-realisim. It seems to fit the evidence. The Stoic version of God looks pretty good, as well. They said they got their view of God by observing nature- not from any revelation. But, I struggle with the idea that this is the best possible world. I've done my own "mod" to Stocisim, to make it "better". In my modification, the universe is destroyed and recreated in an eternal recurrence, but instead of being exactly the same, each recurrence is just a little better than the one before it.

I've read De Botton, and I like him. I've heard of Karen Armstrong, and she looks intriguing.

Seems to me that giving up on systems and finding ways to enjoy life w/o a system might be highly therapeutic for some people.

My operating system is Christian, whether I like it or not, however much I might wish otherwise. I've pared down that PX OS, tried overriding it with new OSs, and all that, but it won't budge. Is the systemic part good or bad? — Bitter Crank

What do you mean here by PX OS? OS is operating system, correct? But PX?

Some system is helpful; it provides pathways, symbols, models, useful tools, goals, etc. Can any system get out of hand? Systems tend to get out of hand, which is why we must pay attention: nip metastatic systems in the bud. Systems want to subvert our energy into following the rules and regs of the system, rather than living a full life.

I like what you wrote here. Systems can be helpful, but they can also make us miss the point of life.

OS is operating system, correct? But PX? — anonymous66

PX = Chi Rho = a symbol of Christ. Hence Christian Operating System.

It seems to me that Christianity is basically just assuming that there is a God, and that He is perfectly Good, it's just that we humans aren't capable of understanding a perfect God. But, I do wonder, if God, then what, if anything, can we say we actually know about Him? — Anonymous66

To which a Christian would answer "what has been revealed in the Bible"! That is what "revelation" means. Now I don't want to come off as preaching, as I don't self-identify as Christian, but through the path I've been following, I think I've developed an understanding of it. The point for Christians is that they have a relationship - actually, one of their sayings is, 'it's not a religion it's a relationship'. The divine manifest for them in the form of Jesus.

I tried reading an article or two on Cuppitt, but it didn't resonate with me. The Christian philosophers I've been reading recently are Keith Ward, Ed Feser, and David Bentley Hart. I also read the Christian mystics, specifically the illustrious Meister Eckhardt, and have a strong affinity with Christian Platonism.

But my main influences has been Buddhist meditation, particularly according to Sōtō Zen guidelines. I never join a Sōtō sangha but I very much appreciate their philosophy, based on the writings of Master Dogen. There is a saying in Zen, 'the gateless gate'. It doesn't make any sense intellectually, but if you do the practice, you can go through 'the gateless gate'. This attitude is similar to the practice of apophatic mysticism, also known as negative theology; it is contemplating the unknown, the unmanifest. It is not anything, not God, not the world, not this or that. Also found in the Christian classic called The Cloud of Unknowing. But the key thing is practice, you have to get out of the verbal/symbolic aspect of the brain.

To which a Christian would answer "what has been revealed in the Bible"! That is what "revelation" means. Now I don't want to come off as preaching, as I don't self-identify as Christian, but through the path I've been following, I think I've developed an understanding of it. The point for Christians is that they have a relationship - actually, one of their sayings is, 'it's not a religion it's a relationship'. The divine manifest for them in the form of Jesus. — Wayfarer

I assumed that Christians believe that theirs is a revealed religion and that they believe the Bible is that revelation. My question still stands. What, if anything, can we say we know about God? I don't believe there is a simple answer to that question. After 40 years of experience with the religion, Christianity makes more sense if I assume it's men trying to explain God, than if I assume a God is directly communicating with us.


.

My most moving experiences of Christian mercy were at a Catholic teaching hospital. I worked there as a wardsman in my teens, and witnessed how the nursing sisters would minister to the patients in acute distress; I perceived a real spiritual power in their ability to do that. Later a dear relative had major surgery in that same hospital, and I saw the same again. 'Mater Misercordea' - 'mother of mercy' - I began to see it wasn't simply a figurative expression.

To which a Christian would answer "what has been revealed in the Bible"! That is what "revelation" means. Now I don't want to come off as preaching, as I don't self-identify as Christian, but through the path I've been following, — Wayfarer

My question still stands. What, if anything, can we say we know about God? — anonymous66

My most moving experiences of Christian mercy were at a Catholic teaching hospital. I worked there as a wardsman in my teens, and witnessed how the nursing sisters would minister to the patients in acute distress; I perceived a real spiritual power in their ability to do that. Later a dear relative had major surgery in that same hospital, and I saw the same again. 'Mater Misercordea' - 'mother of mercy' - I began to see it wasn't simply a figurative expression. — Wayfarer

@Wayfarer. I've met some really cool people as well, people who showed mercy and compassion, some of whom were believers, others definitely not. What is your point?

As an aside. Ever read anything by Frederick Buechner? I've read Godric, On the Road with the Archangel, Telling the Truth, The Bebb tetralogy, and I just ordered Speak What You Feel (not what you ought to say).

I think people like to think about living like a Stoic sage (or similar) rather than actually living as a Stoic sage. Thinking is one thing, actually implementing this through action is another.

There is certainly an aesthetic element to systems. Having a system helps you believe you have power over reality. That you have understood the essence of existence, or how the world works, or whatever. Systems are sophisticated, complex, and can sometimes be even esoteric - the pop-science you read in the magazines is not the same thing as what actual scientists study. It's a condensed, exoteric generalization of something that happens within a certain framework of rules, regulations, customs and beliefs.

System-thinking is generally good. In fact it's probably better to think in terms of systems instead of hodge-podge conceptual mish-mash. But the downside to system thinking is that it tends to lead to dogmatism, because of the aesthetic component. Believers in a system actually become attached to the system, and go beyond using the system as an explanation to wanting the system to be correct. A system that was good for one scenario gets shoe-horned into other scenarios that it doesn't belong. An entire culture evolves around the system: you see this in medieval Scholasticism, for example.

So the key is to work with systems in an open-ended manner, keeping them open for change or rejection. That is, after all, the final destination for any inquiry related project: it is either changed or entirely thrown out. The "truth" from the eyes of the observers is never static, it is always dynamic and changing.

Here is the Amazon list of the spiritual books that influenced me during my formative years. Most of those I read in the 1970's and 80's.

There is something called spiritual realisation or self-realisation. You don't encounter those terms very much any more, but they were found in some of the books in that list (such as Autobiography of a Yogi, a copy of which was given to every guest at Steve Jobs funeral.) It is very different understanding to that of mainstream Christianity, although it's not necessarily antagonistic to it; also very hard to convey. But the gist of it is, that the sage penetrates maya or the illusion that characterises the human condition, and realises that actually only God is real, and that God is not a sky-father or a remote mythological deity but the only actual reality. Then, of course, the Buddhist texts don't speak in terms of God at all; but they do question a lot of what most of us take for granted as real, so as to open one's eyes to a greater reality.

I don't know if any of that will mean anything to you or not, but that is where my path lead, and the path I'm following. I think I'm taking a spell from posting for a while, to read and reflect some more. Be well.

↪anonymous66 Here is the Amazon list of the spiritual books that influenced me during my formative years. Most of those I read in the 1970's and 80's. — Wayfarer

Thanks for that. I'll take a look.

There is something called spiritual realisation or self-realisation. You don't encounter those terms very much any more, but they were found in some of the books in that list (such as Autobiography of a Yogi, a copy of which was given to every guest at Steve Jobs funeral.) It is very different understanding to that of mainstream Christianity, although it's not necessarily antagonistic to it; also very hard to convey. But the gist of it is, that the sage penetrates maya or the illusion that characterises the human condition, and realises that actually only God is real, and that God is not a sky-father or a remote mythological deity. Then, of course, the Buddhist texts don't speak in terms of God at all; but they do a lot of what most of us take for granted as real.

I don't know if any of that will mean anything to you or not, but that is where my path lead, and the path I'm still following. I think I'm taking a spell from posting for a while, to read and reflect some more. Be well. — Wayfarer

The studying I've done suggests that wise people throughout the ages have seen stories about God as just that, stories. They believed in a God (or many gods), and believed that the stories were important and had a point, but they didn't think of them as literal in any way.

It's interesting to see how the stories have developed. The Greeks saw the gods as just as flawed as humans. The Romans, through Vergil, cleaned up the stories, to agree with their views of morality. It seems that gradually we (we humans, or at least some of us?)came to believe that God is perfect... or perhaps that He is so other that He cannot be understood.

Either there is something that might be described as God, and we are gradually discovering Him... or we are creating our version of a perfect God. I'm not sure which.

God is not a God, not a Zeus or Indra or Baal. It was depicted in those terms because that was how people thought in those times, but the reality was never that. I don't believe in a God but I'm not atheist. I get that this seems nonsensical. Anyway I really am signing out for a while - sionara.

God is not a God, not a Zeus or Indra or Baal. It was depicted in those terms because that was how people thought in those times, but the reality was never that. I don't believe in a God but I'm not atheist. I get that this seems nonsensical. Anyway I really am signing out for a while - sionara. — Wayfarer

That does make sense to me. If God IS, then He would be practically inconceivable. And I've also said, "I don't believe in a God, but I'm not an atheist"

God is not a God, not a Zeus or Indra or Baal. It was depicted in those terms because that was how people thought in those times... — Wayfarer

I have been putting forward that view for several years: God is inconceivable--which is not the same thing as not existing. I don't know whether God exists or not. But the inconceivable God is not describable. Any sentence like "God is..." "God does..." "God can..." will be, must be, wholly insubstantial. We have to be satisfied with the "I Am Who I Am" or nothing.

It is something that has to be explored through disciplined meditation. I learned meditation from an awareness training type of group - secular rather than religious - but at the time was deeply reading the books mentioned in the above Amazon list.

I learned that there is a teaching called 'the negative way' or the 'via negativa'; you find it in old-school Christianity, but also in Eastern religions. (It's very different from modern mainstream Christianity.) It is the way of un-knowing. But you have to learn to sit, because it's something you really can't 'do', there's no action you can take to make anything happen. One of the key sayings from Krishnamurti: 'it's the truth that liberates you, not your desire to be free.'

More like that which is beyond particular description. God clearly is a concept in that sense, an infinite which cannot be reduced to any description. The mistake is to ask how God exists or what God does. God is infinite and so cannot be any such state. Such finite and discrete description cannot be accurate to God or do God justice.

In terms of the finite, existing states, God cannot be. It would be to be what God is not. God is the real that the finite cannot be. In this sense, God cannot exist by definition.

Stoicism and most systems do promise to be therapeutic. I'm not sure I see that in existentialism. Existentialism seems to be more about giving up on systems, and just finding ways to enjoy life w/o a system. — anonymous66

I just realized I've been completely oblivious to the existence of Existentialist Psychology and Psychotherapy, so the answer is, "of course some people think that existentialism is therapeutic."

I don't think of stoicism as a system, so much as a set of recommended exercises; exercises designed to free you of attachments to things, situations and people, and, indeed, yourself. I tend to think of the value of such exercises as consisting in the creative ways in which you can use them to produce real transformations in your ways of being and thinking.

I think of existentialism as the philosophy that eschews generalities; that sees beyond 'what one does', beyond the kinds of sets of general rules that we find ready-formulated for all kinds of occasions. For me, existentialism is also concerned with living in the light of acknowledgement that life is an impenetrable mystery, and that the standpoints we customarily adopt are always without exception exercises of faith, and are often little more than flimsy shields against anxiety.

I think the existential trick par excellence is to fully commit ourselves to an all-inclusive worldview which is large enough to accomodate inconsistency and even contradiction which does not satisfy our neurotic need for tidiness and does not ameliorate our anxieties and our doubts, but amplifies them into creative forces so that we can grow. (Here I am not referring to anxiety and doubt as it is commonly understood; that is I don't mean to say that one should cultivate skepticism and feed one's insecurities, rather the opposite). So, I don't think the essence of existentialism consists in "finding ways to enjoy our lives", but in finding ways to live authentically, which always means living in light of the spirit, the personal and the unique not under the tutelage of objectification, the impersonal and the general.

So, I see the possibility of a great compatibility between stoicism and existentialism. — John

Well said. I do find Stoicism intriguing, and I see much to admire. I find their writings to be encouraging and uplifting. Something that struck me lately, is Seneca's recommendation that we choose someone who we admire (presumably someone dead, lol) and imagine them watching over our lives, and think about whether or not that someone would approve of our actions.

But, my life is untidy, I see contradictions in the world around me and in myself, and I have doubts, anxieties and fears that I hope existentialism will help me deal with. I also like a good mystery.

Some of you might appreciate this article comparing Victor Frankl's existential Logotherapy to Stoicism.

Something that struck me lately, is Seneca's recommendation that we choose someone who we admire (presumably someone dead, lol) and imagine them watching over our lives, and think about whether or not that someone would approve of our actions. — anonymous66

I find myself thinking about this all the time, and it has come to my attention that perhaps I hold beliefs not only because I myself agree with the content of the belief but also because I am afraid of what others will think if I don't believe in what they themselves believe in.

I suppose this is why the internet is generally a poor place for serious philosophical discussion. It is much to easy to form a cult surrounding a belief, with aggressive tendencies. You see this a lot in third way feminist movements, for example.

I guess an existentialist might ask "Are you genuinely and authentically" following your system or are you doing it because that is what the wise philosopher MUST do? Are you trying to fit into an image, or genuinely doing out of your own authentic self? This might be trickier than it seems..as who is to say if you trick yourself into believing this or that notion or if it is in fact something you really "feel" is correct. Is it something that "seems" like it works because it "seems" to work for everyone else, or is it something that genuinely fits your understanding of the world that is unique to you? I guess that is how an existentialist might integrate or not integrate a systems approach..

This post is not necessarily meant to avow or disavow systems or existentialism.. just trying to answer the question as to how one might inform the other or how they can be related.

Good article on Frankl. Have you encountered Jules Evans?

A reflective, if brief post, which it's points I note.. I would say though , that existentialism has it's roots in experience and not in any theory, this means It is perhaps harder to question or compartmentalize . I would also posit that it's fundamentals are valid , that is, without any judgements or comparisons, a very difficult area of study because for one thing It is basically an experience of being....not a philosophy or dogma..as for Sartre his novels were illuminating of the existential experience, the philosophy came after...

Jules Evans spoke at Stoicon (Stoicism as a Wellbeing Intervention in the Workplace, Prisons and Mental Health Charities). It was the first time I had encountered him... I was impressed.

How did you become acquainted with him?

He published an article in the Sydney Morning Herald some time back. I was impressed by it, not least because you hardly ever read articles by philosophers in the news media. Then I saw his book and found his website, which has many good articles on it. I admire him....launching a career as a philosophical therapist is an achievement!