tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post2138337350640439535..comments2024-03-18T03:29:09.653-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Interviews with a Vampire Novelist: Anne Rice drives stakes through the heart of ChristianityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-24524105419070107542012-03-05T12:46:24.991-08:002012-03-05T12:46:24.991-08:00Aquinas is open to Aristotle, who is a Pagan and w...<i>Aquinas is open to Aristotle, who is a Pagan and who does not believe in a personal God, so the possibility I have described is not entirely hypothetical.</i><br /><br />No, it is entirely hypothetical - what with Spinoza living hundreds of years after Aquinas, having fundamental differences in their philosophies, etc. And it's not as if pagans around Aristotle's time didn't have views Aquinas disagreed with - he spent a fair chunk of his writings explaining why they were wrong.<br /><br />And it's not clear that Aristotle 'did not believe in a personal God' - if 'personal' means 'a being, an agent, a thinker', then it would seem Aristotle's God was personal. A God concerned with day to day affairs of humanity? No.<br /><br /><i>So the man who acts in accordance with reason is virtuous and just, according to Spinoza.</i><br /><br />Which both hinges on "reason" being what Spinoza thought it was, and highlights that his 'virtue' and 'justice' were either tied up with his metaphysical views, or were non-seqs. And again we're left to the live possibility that Spinoza was wrong (if you want to get hypothetical, perhaps after a conversation with Aquinas Spinoza would have recanted and come to believe in a personal God), or that Spinoza's thoughts along these lines are very close to empty. <br /><br />So there's a problem to consider. Spinoza values truth and regards truth (among other things) as blessed as part of a metaphysical system. It's not a claim that 'knowledge is blessedness, full stop' - some knowledge may uproot his conclusions, even about being blessed. If you go to the other end and say 'no, no, knowledge is blessedness regardless of any physical or metaphysical truth', then it's just a pretty useless tautology. Even Conan the Barbarian could just flat out state 'what is best in life'.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-45791412627937975492012-03-05T10:11:47.888-08:002012-03-05T10:11:47.888-08:00Bill: Perhaps. I may post other parts of the dialo...Bill: Perhaps. I may post other parts of the dialogue later, and you can see. Of course, I have an agenda, too. <br /><br />Anyway, I just posted a new blog in which I address (among other things) some of my own misgivings about Mrs. Rice.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-21792286510181115592012-03-05T09:06:58.380-08:002012-03-05T09:06:58.380-08:00David,
This is a nobel attempt to have a reasonab...David,<br /><br />This is a nobel attempt to have a reasonable discussion with a very prejudiced and misinformed person. When she says <i>"With regard to Evangelicals, I think their anti-semitism is so thoroughly documented that no one needs to argue you it here."</i> I think it was time to wrap it up. This is not someone with whom rational discourse is going to be productive.BillTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-86300174389021998322012-03-05T03:50:04.209-08:002012-03-05T03:50:04.209-08:00Aquinas is open to Aristotle, who is a Pagan and w...Aquinas is open to Aristotle, who is a Pagan and who does not believe in a personal God, so the possibility I have described is not entirely hypothetical.<br /><br />“Spinoza happened to think he knew what a considerable portion of 'ultimate reality' is”. That is true, and he says that both mind and extension (i.e. matter) are two attributes of the same substance. I think the technical term for this is “neutral monist” (and not “materialism”). If I am compelled to plump for a “metaphysical” position on this, I would be inclined to go with that.<br /><br />Regarding justice and virtue, Spinoza says: “Men who are governed by reason—that is, who seek what is useful to them in accordance with reason, desire for themselves nothing, which they do not also desire for the rest of mankind, and, consequently, are just, faithful, and honorable in their conduct”. They do unto others as they would have others do unto them. So the man who acts in accordance with reason is virtuous and just, according to Spinoza.<br /><br />And he does not think certain common religious beliefs contribute to true virtue : “How far astray from a true estimate of virtue are those who expect to be decorated by God with high rewards for their virtue, and their best actions; as if virtue and the service of God were not in itself happiness and perfect freedom.”Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-75261561292194427842012-03-04T14:11:06.067-08:002012-03-04T14:11:06.067-08:00So,how sure can we be sure that Aquinas would be a...<i>So,how sure can we be sure that Aquinas would be averse to attempts to find some common ground between Spinoza and himself, for example?</i><br /><br />Aquinas clearly illustrated and argued for what he took God to be. He specifically opposed God not only to nature, but also nature as he saw it to nature as conceived by others, including people who had views similar to Spinoza's.<br /><br />Now you can say "yeah, but imagine a hypothetical scenario where history was utterly different and Aquinas said things totally other than he did and he was placed in a radically different situation. Maybe in that case he would have..." Okay. It's just not very useful here.<br /><br /><i>Spinoza says that knowledge of God (I.e knowledge of ultimate reality) is blessedness.</i><br /><br />And again, Spinoza happened to think he knew what a considerable portion of 'ultimate reality' is - which is why he could make the move that 'knowledge of God is blessedness'. But if Spinoza got certain things wrong about God, then it's no longer clear even he would call the knowledge 'blessedness'.<br /><br />Unless all you're saying here is 'Spinoza said knowledge of the universe is blessedness, no matter what that knowledge is, no matter what metaphysical view of God or nature turns out to be correct, no matter how wrong he was about all these things at the time.' In which case Spinoza's claim is radically thin on content.<br /><br /><i>He states explicitly that the ONLY things that should be publicly honoured are Justice and Charity, and not any metaphysical or theological dogma or creed.</i><br /><br />Remove metaphysical dogma and theology, and it's no longer clear what Justice or Charity are, or if they even exist. And some metaphysical dogma, of course, eliminates both concepts or reduces them to arbitrary standards.<br /><br />I suppose that question could help sharpen my point. 'If someone's knowledge of the world leads them to the conclusion that there is no justice or charity aside from arbitrary labels, and otherwise these things are delusions foisted upon us by blind mechanical processes, would Spinoza say this knowledge made us blessed? If so, what if the idea of being blessed shared a similar fate?'<br /><br />Anyway, are you a materialist? Something else? I didn't catch your reply to this one.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-66865934425683311532012-03-04T03:41:24.625-08:002012-03-04T03:41:24.625-08:00Your comments about Aquinas are well-taken. From t...Your comments about Aquinas are well-taken. From the perspective of orthodox Christianity my views are a kind of paganism, which could be said to limit the search for common ground between the two. But it is worth noting that Aquinas's intellectual project sought to find a synthesis between Christianity and Aristotle (a pagan, "the philosopher", whose theological views did not include a personal God), and this synthesis was mediated by a Muslim (Averroes,"the commentator"). So,how sure can we be sure that Aquinas would be averse to attempts to find some common ground between Spinoza and himself, for example?<br /><br />Spinoza says that knowledge of God (I.e knowledge of ultimate reality) is blessedness. Regarding his own views about what God is, he is quite clear that those views should NOT be publicly honoured ... He states explicitly that the ONLY things that should be publicly honoured are Justice and Charity, and not any metaphysical or theological dogma or creed.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-32235212975027447162012-03-03T14:28:53.872-08:002012-03-03T14:28:53.872-08:00David,
But maybe "following Jesus" has ...David,<br /><br /><i>But maybe "following Jesus" has changed her, maybe she regrets the sewage she poured into millions of minds, now?</i><br /><br />Good question. I think she took a different turn once she started believing in God, but I've never heard anyone directly ask her about those things.Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-6623862263942534152012-03-03T14:27:49.090-08:002012-03-03T14:27:49.090-08:00hat is what Spinoza argues - that knowledge of Go...<i>hat is what Spinoza argues - that knowledge of God (i.e. Nature, for him) is the true state of blessedness, because that knowledge liberates you from illusion and error, and hence makes you free. </i><br /><br />Not really. You make it sound as if Spinoza said 'Learn things that are true, and whatever they are, that's God and that's freedom!' But Spinoza had very particular views on what God was, what nature was, etc. Some truths are incompatible with his vision. If (say) Platonism was true, Spinoza by his own terms would be wrong about God.<br /><br /><i>For Aquinas, the greatest Christian theologian, God is Truth.</i><br /><br />No. First, you're apparently thinking that Aquinas identifies God with truth univocally - that's something Aquinas specifically denies. God is identical with His properties analogically, and there are a variety of properties - goodness, justice, mercy, power, wisdom, etc.<br /><br />Second, as with Spinoza, Aquinas doesn't just cash things out with 'God is truth, so you know, whatever is truth is God. Also, learning that truth is salvation, whatever it is.' If nominalism and materialism was true, then Aquinas would say God does not exist. 'God not existing' is a live option for Aquinas, and arguably Spinoza, dependent on what's true.<br /><br />Also, as I asked. Are you materialist? Something else? No opinion?Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-59033892194484488832012-03-03T13:58:03.242-08:002012-03-03T13:58:03.242-08:00"Pantheism or panentheism at least implies, w..."Pantheism or panentheism at least implies, worshiping and revering this thing no matter what it is." It does imply that knowledge of God (i.e. Reality) is a state of enlightenment, or wisdom, or blessedness, or even salvation. That is what Spinoza argues - that knowledge of God (i.e. Nature, for him) is the true state of blessedness, because that knowledge liberates you from illusion and error, and hence makes you free. <br /><br />If one takes this perspective, can Christian teaching make any sense? To some extent yes. For Aquinas, the greatest Christian theologian, God is Truth. Aquinas says, "God is Truth itself". So to love God (as Jesus commands) means to love the Truth i.e. to strive with all your might to attain and know the Truth about reality. This command to love God (i.e. Truth) taken together with Jesus' command to love your neighbour, is the key to attaining salvation.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-16380542393720601982012-03-03T07:05:39.839-08:002012-03-03T07:05:39.839-08:00Actually, reading reviews for one of Rice's bo...Actually, reading reviews for one of Rice's books yesterday, I started to think I was being too kind to her. She seems to have glorified torture, sadism, rape, and sometimes pedophilia. Her traditional accusations against Christianity come to seem ironic. But maybe "following Jesus" has changed her, maybe she regrets the sewage she poured into millions of minds, now?David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-83316682545762178512012-03-03T04:50:14.209-08:002012-03-03T04:50:14.209-08:00How can I know better than they do themselves?
Yo...<i>How can I know better than they do themselves?</i><br /><br />You've been recommending people switch religions in this thread.<br /><br /><i>God is the Whole, everything that exists, whether "material" or not.</i><br /><br />So, are you a materialist? Something else? Don't you find it odd to say, "Whatever that is, it's God."? Not to mention, as pantheism or panentheism at least implies, worshiping and revering this thing no matter what it is?Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-45142712132785552082012-03-03T04:38:41.462-08:002012-03-03T04:38:41.462-08:00"some people who already are atheists, you ma..."some people who already are atheists, you may recommend they'd be better of being theists"<br /><br />It's possible some theists would be better off as atheists and some atheists better off as theists, but I would be very, very reluctant to make that judgement in any particular case myself. How can I know better than they do themselves?<br /><br />God is the Whole, everything that exists, whether "material" or not.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-17991662969527619942012-03-03T04:05:40.714-08:002012-03-03T04:05:40.714-08:00although it's possible that I am wrong about t...<i> although it's possible that I am wrong about that, and I think many people might be better off believing in a personal god, so I do not necessarily recommend that they become atheists.</i><br /><br />So, then, some people who already are atheists, you may recommend they'd be better of being theists?<br /><br /><i>My views about God are basically the same as those of Spinoza, Einstein, or those found in many philosophical forms of Hinduism. I suppose it's a sort of "panentheism" or "pantheism".</i><br /><br />Alright. Are you a materialist, then? Neutral monist? Panpsychist? Something else?<br /><br />Spinoza's views on God weren't very simple, and atheism as the West knows it is pretty rare in Hinduism as far as I know. Identifying God with the universe is one thing, but for many religious faiths which involve that, the result is a universe which is in stark contrast to the universe as conceived by materialists.Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-51887076578406107252012-03-03T03:44:10.789-08:002012-03-03T03:44:10.789-08:00I would advise atheists to study and meditate upon...I would advise atheists to study and meditate upon the life and words of Jesus, as there is much to admire and learn from that life and those words, even for an atheist.<br /><br />I call myself an atheist, because most christians and theists would regard me as one. I do not believe in a personal God, although it's possible that I am wrong about that, and I think many people might be better off believing in a personal god, so I do not necessarily recommend that they become atheists. I believe that God is the totality of all reality, the Whole. My views about God are basically the same as those of Spinoza, Einstein, or those found in many philosophical forms of Hinduism. I suppose it's a sort of "panentheism" or "pantheism".Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-14172296436478037342012-03-03T02:33:07.627-08:002012-03-03T02:33:07.627-08:00What i would say to christians is this: Ditch the ...<i>What i would say to christians is this: Ditch the travesty of the Nicene Creed, and come follow Jesus!<br /></i><br /><br />Wouldn't you say, "Ditch God altogether."? You're an atheist, ja?<br /><br />Or is it more, "I don't think God exists, but whether God exists or not, or whether you believe God exists or not, doesn't matter."? Or something else?<br /><br />And on the flipside, would your advice to atheists be, "Ditch atheism. Come follow Jesus."?Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-3166639506245917052012-03-03T01:54:42.854-08:002012-03-03T01:54:42.854-08:00Because many people are repulsed by the theologica...Because many people are repulsed by the theological dogmas of orthodox Christianity, and by the sins of organised and institutional Christianity, they are deaf to the true teaching of Jesus. What I would say to such people is: you can reject christianity without rejecting Jesus. The true miracle of jesus lies in the immortal wisdom and goodness of his teaching and his example. Cherish that teaching and example, and strive to live by it, even if you cannot swallow Christian theological dogmas.<br /><br />And what I would say to orthodox Christians is: if you want to believe in the incarnation, the trinity, the resurrection or the last judgement, then that is fine. Perhaps they are true. But perhaps they are NOT true. There is room for reasonable people to disagree about these matters. These beliefs should be optional rather than mandatory. Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-90052119577802806992012-03-03T01:35:54.134-08:002012-03-03T01:35:54.134-08:00I would say that Ms. Rice is correct to choose Je...I would say that Ms. Rice is correct to choose Jesus and therefore reject Christianity. In doing this she is probably a better follower of Jesus than most "christians". Jews have also been correct to reject the central theological claims of Christianity. Fair play to them! I would go further and say that JESUS HIMSELF would reject many of the central claims of Christianity I.e. the incarnation, the trinity and the resurrection. So the sooner orthodox Christians stop insisting on these beliefs the better - then we could all stop squabbling and get on with the most important thing, which is learning and practicing the true teaching of Jesus, as revealed above all in the Sermon on the Mount - a teaching which may be unparalleled in its wisdom and goodness. <br /><br />What i would say to christians is this: Ditch the travesty of the Nicene Creed, and come follow Jesus!<br /><br />Above all else, Christians should,stop believing (and thankfully not all of them do believe it, but far, far too many of them do) that only believing Christians will be "saved" and that everyone else is damned. In fact, they need get rid of this monstrous, barbaric and false notion of eternal damnation. There are hopeful signs that many of them are doing so. Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.com