Religion

[samr]

It seems to me that atheist writers nowdays ignore some aspects of religious philosophy, as represented by Aldous Huxley,  G.K. Chestertone.

(I am not sure if Huxley was a christian, but "Brave New World" talks favourably of christianity).

As far as I understand the first two, they both argue that there is a sense of _mystery_ within life, and that this mystery is best understood in the context of a god.

This mystery applies to sex, and to human life in general.

I think that the line of argument that _starts_ from human psychology, and ties it to a god, is a form of reasoning not dealt with, at least in the popular defences of atheism. Am I wrong?

[Selene]

Sam:

What is your point in starting these three threads?

Tell us something about yourself.

What brought you to OL?

Are you a student, worker slave for the state, or an entrepreneur?

Adam

still driving the OL welcome wagon

[samr]

Hi indeed.

I am Israeli, unemployed, and pretty confused. I am starting the threads in order to clarify my world-view, though I suspect I have more urgent things to do, and clarifcation should come in other ways.

[George H. Smith]

It seems to me that atheist writers nowdays ignore some aspects of religious philosophy, as represented by Aldous Huxley, G.K. Chestertone. (I am not sure if Huxley was a christian, but "Brave New World" talks favourably of christianity). As far as I understand the first two, they both argue that there is a sense of _mystery_ within life, and that this mystery is best understood in the context of a god. This mystery applies to sex, and to human life in general. I think that the line of argument that _starts_ from human psychology, and ties it to a god, is a form of reasoning not dealt with, at least in the popular defences of atheism. Am I wrong?

The word "mystery," in this context, can mean (a) something we don't currently understand, or (b) something we will never understand.

Which meaning are you using?

Ghs

[Selene]

Hi indeed.

I am Israeli, unemployed, and pretty confused. I am starting the threads in order to clarify my world-view, though I suspect I have more urgent things to do, and clarifcation should come in other ways.

Sam:

I did not mean the question as an attack or criticism, it is just that we have had posters before you that had hidden agendas and I was trying to understand what your intent was here.

Additionally, since you chose OL, I assume you are attracted to Ayn's ideas.

Adam

[samr]

It seems to me that atheist writers nowdays ignore some aspects of religious philosophy, as represented by Aldous Huxley, G.K. Chestertone. (I am not sure if Huxley was a christian, but "Brave New World" talks favourably of christianity). As far as I understand the first two, they both argue that there is a sense of _mystery_ within life, and that this mystery is best understood in the context of a god. This mystery applies to sex, and to human life in general. I think that the line of argument that _starts_ from human psychology, and ties it to a god, is a form of reasoning not dealt with, at least in the popular defences of atheism. Am I wrong?

The word "mystery," in this context, can mean (a) something we don't currently understand, or (b) something we will never understand.

Which meaning are you using?

Ghs

Neither, I think that for some Christian thinkers it doesn't carry primarily a cognitive sense, but carries primarily an existential one.

An "existential" sense is that one that speaks directly to a person's "sense of life" in the Randian sense. It is more than merely emotional. I don't think that the sense with which Rand looked at the scycrapers of New York and wept is merely emotional. (A person could feel momentarily emotional attraction for someone. But if that wouldn't be deep, that wouldn't be "existential"). Existential is deeper than merely emotional.

I think that in the "Brave New World", if you remember it, the main character, mourns that sex has lost its mystery in the "modern society", that sex is "merely physical". Maybe he doesn't use that term actually, that's my way of putting it.

Or again, "The insoluble mystery" (story number eight) by Chesterton is indeed an apologetic work on christianity (as it seems to me) - then what is the argument it makes? I think it argues that there is some "sense of sacredness" without which questions like "Why not desecrate a corpse?" cannot be answered. So "sacredness" is an emphasis on values, in this context.

I think that most atheists whom I have read miss this important sense of "faith". But having said this, I must really shut up. I sense that atheists don't get something about religion, and then a missionary zeal arises in me (not really being a religious person myself).

I have read your book "The case against god", though some time ago, and not with the attention it deserves.

[samr]

__deleted

[samr]

For example, I think that Pyotr Chaadayev, though he isn't a "rational" philosopher like Descartes, or Hume (trying to dissect reality into the different components), is definitely a great philosopher.

Though I am not sure I always understand him - like a moth trying to fly into the fire, but bumping into glass.

And, what Nikolai Nikolayevich says in the beginning of Dr. Zhivago on life and death. If that is christianity, I will never say a bad word against it.

[George H. Smith]

It seems to me that atheist writers nowdays ignore some aspects of religious philosophy, as represented by Aldous Huxley, G.K. Chestertone. (I am not sure if Huxley was a christian, but "Brave New World" talks favourably of christianity). As far as I understand the first two, they both argue that there is a sense of _mystery_ within life, and that this mystery is best understood in the context of a god. This mystery applies to sex, and to human life in general. I think that the line of argument that _starts_ from human psychology, and ties it to a god, is a form of reasoning not dealt with, at least in the popular defences of atheism. Am I wrong?

The word "mystery," in this context, can mean (a) something we don't currently understand, or (b) something we will never understand.

Which meaning are you using?

Ghs

Neither, I think that for some Christian thinkers it doesn't carry primarily a cognitive sense, but carries primarily an existential one.

An "existential" sense is that one that speaks directly to a person's "sense of life" in the Randian sense. It is more than merely emotional. I don't think that the sense with which Rand looked at the scycrapers of New York and wept is merely emotional. (A person could feel momentarily emotional attraction for someone. But if that wouldn't be deep, that wouldn't be "existential"). Existential is deeper than merely emotional.

I think that in the "Brave New World", if you remember it, the main character, mourns that sex has lost its mystery in the "modern society", that sex is "merely physical". Maybe he doesn't use that term actually, that's my way of putting it.

Or again, "The insoluble mystery" (story number eight) by Chesterton is indeed an apologetic work on christianity (as it seems to me) - then what is the argument it makes? I think it argues that there is some "sense of sacredness" without which questions like "Why not desecrate a corpse?" cannot be answered. So "sacredness" is an emphasis on values, in this context.

I think that most atheists whom I have read miss this important sense of "faith". But having said this, I must really shut up. I sense that atheists don't get something about religion, and then a missionary zeal arises in me (not really being a religious person myself).

I have read your book "The case against god", though some time ago, and not with the attention it deserves.

It does absolutely no good to say that "mystery" carries primarily an existential sense until you define (or otherwise explain) what you mean by "mystery."

Religion thrives on this kind of vague thinking.

Ghs

[samr]

I'm not sure anymore that it is really smart to defend christian religion, not being a christian myself.

It isn't mine terms that I am using (mystery), so I am not sure that there is sense in defending the thinking of others.

I detract the post, and will try to make posts in the future that will be a result of my personal thinking.