Can Theism defeat Humanistic Arrogance?

I am convinced that humanism (in all of its philosophical expression) is utterly defeated on all fronts.

There are still vestiges of it lingering around college campuses (as well as arrogant organizations like National Geographic, and “Skeptic” magazine) where philosophical consistency is no longer demanded or applauded…(this mindset is passed from the philosopher down to the common forum participant.)

But does humanism (in its recent popular form of atheistic materialism…pragmatism, or naturalism) have anything useful left to contribute to society at large, or will Christian theism continue its historical trend of domination and regain its place as the sole epistemological authority in society?

To help clarify my point, consider this statement by popular existentialist Albert Camus discussing the consequences of Existentialism:

If nothing is true, if the world is without order, then nothing is forbidden; to prohibit an action, there must, in fact, be a standard of values and an aim. But, at the same time, nothing is authorized; there must also be values and aims in order to choose another course of action. Absolute domination by the law does not represent liberty, but no more does absolute anarchy.

Thus the secular “post-Kantian” philosopher is driven to complete irrationality for the sake of his own freedom. But what happens when man reaches this state? Camus says this:

“At the point where it is no longer possible to say what is black and what is white, the light is extinguished and freedom becomes a voluntary prison.” (Quotes from Camus: The Rebel, 71.)

Thus by placing the mind of man as the ultimate epistemological authority, man is left a prisoner of his own longed for freedom. A freedom consisting of complete non-motion.

This drive towards complete non-motion…or “death” is clearly seen in the writings of Sartre.

“Sartre’s philosophy is a cool demonstration that destructiveness is no accident but an ontological necessity and that all human experience is founded upon nothingness.”
- Jean Wahl “A Short History of Existentialism.”

Satre himself admits that existentialism will destroy genius, art, and ultimately the individual himself. (Existentialism and Human Emotions page 33.) He says repeatedly that man is existence without essence. That is the goal of man.

In light of the dramatic and negative ends of a humanistic worldview, does Christian theism leave anything to it (humanism) that may be beneficial or could possibly have value?

I say “no.”

What do you guys think?

I had a hard tiem deciphering what you are trying to argue. let me begin by arranging a few quotes.

  • camus

Now basically what this quote asserts is that if there is no ultimate authority, nothing can be seen as right or wrong, and nothing has value, therefore everything would plunge into chaos.

The thing i would like to add to this is that if you do have an authority, for it to work, it doesn’t have to be true. All you have to do is pick an authority.

In relating this quote to the discussion at hand, i would reiterate it to emphacize that in this context, it is teh absence of consequences that releases people from their reasons to not act “immoral”

The grief that camus experienced need not be experienced by everyone. Just because there is no light does not mean there is nothing of value or nothing to enjoy. The fact that he calls it a prison is an emotional opinion.

i would have you re-construct this sentence before i scrutanize it.

explain how existentialism is humanistic, pragmatic, or any other of the schools of thought you have seen fit to declare worthless.

How about this. Pragmatism says not to put gays to death, whereas the holy bible says you will be sent to hell for it.

But hey, if i ever want advice on how to best treat slaves, i’ll consult the bible.

what’s valueable or benificial?

it depends on who you are.

I think you (edit: I mean Shotgun) understood something, well.

Some of us aren’t so interested in the eternal life (or rather the dream/hope of it).
Or at least not fixated/obsessed about it.

It’s a matter of preference to some, and unthinkable for others. :slight_smile:

Im still wondering why humanism is so defeated and why national geographic is arrogant.

I thought that was obvious.

For someone obsessed with God, admitting any authority other than that of God (or fake representative of it) can be seen arrogant.
And the God is always the winner, so everything else is defeated in her/his mind . :smiley:

It’s a pretty simple system many people love to stick with.

It’s a form of logical fallacy, the appeal to (pseudo) authority.
And it’s a ultimate/extreme/super-simplified version of it. :slight_smile:

While you’re discussing fallacies Nah, look up the “Genetic Fallacy”…and don’t quit your day job, because a psychologist…you are not.

Let’s wheel the conversation around to the topics in the OP.

what about pragmatism is arrogant?

Humanism doesn’t equate to atheism, even though many humanists are (for illogical reasons) atheists; and, further, it should also be noted that atheism may or may not be wrong–God and morality are issues separate from humanism. Neither are materialism, pragmatism and naturalism necessarily evil.

On the other hand, humanism is not compatible with Christianity or other revealed religions/“philosophies”.

We are here without assistance from God, and with no evidence that God exists or not. You could say that, if God exists, we are being forced to focus on ourselves, iow, that we’ve been left no choice but to be humanists. And of course the same is true if God does not exist. :sunglasses:

Looks like someone just googled up random existentialists and created a gross misinterpretation.

Initially you believe that consistency is king. Why? If individuals do not create a conjunction (p ^ ~p) but rather a disjunction (p v ~p) where is the flaw in that?
Either there is a god or there is not a god is radically different than there is a god and there is not a god. Either way you did not follow through with any coherent ideas
explaining what you even mean.

Of course it contributes to almost EVERYTHING society has or will done since the Renaissance on. Tell me, do you think computers were created by dogmatic theists? Or by someone who came to understand the workings of the world and pushed his way towards creation? As far a Christianity being an epistemological source especially the most powerful one: you are wrong. Eastern schools have far more accuracy in the way of understanding knowledge and systems of knowledge. Faith is not a logical occurrence despite what you seem to believe. Western philosophy has not used “faith” to determine logical truths in quite some time.

I take it the Camus quote was taken from “The Rebel”. Before I even go any further maybe you should examine the context of the quote and the purpose of the text. Maybe then you will understand it the way it was meant to be understood. It certainly is not a critique of existentialism it is actually an affirmation of man/society creating their own values and purposes.

The existentialists are called the “irrational men” because life itself is highly irrational. They are said to have understood the chaos and despair of life and create their own purpose. They believed we are simply “thrown” into living and must make things best with the randomness of our lives.

the 2nd quote speaks of “existential shock”. This was first spoken of by Nietzsche when he said “God is dead. And we are his murderers.” He creates this shock in order to make people understand the freedom we have been given. The shock causes immobility in those who do not live “authentically” and embrace their freedom. Therefore they would be considered to be living an inauthentic life.

I disagree with your use of epistemological as well. Man becomes the moral authority upon determining what is good, how I want to live, and what I want to do.

Nothingness is what we all go into. Ex deus nihilo. I recommend Heidegger if you wish to understand the idea of “death” and how it is important to assuring we live our life to its fullest.

Also, nothingness is what we can do for most things. We can tell you what they are not. I am not a dog. We can clearly define a dog. While I am a human being. Can we easily define what it is to be human?

Christianity is fine and dandy for some. Existentialism creates an importance on this life which Christianity does not. Christian doctrine believes those without power are the inheritors of god’s gift. Why should we revere the weak? Why should we believe this life is nothing but our trial before a sentence? I feel far more comforted knowing that I can make my own life choices.

If you read more into existentialism you would also find out its “essential” founder was a devout Christian (Soren Kierkegaard).

Satori:

This is an absurd depiction of the Christian position. How could you possibly say that Christianity doesn’t “create an importance on this life”? Have you read the gospels? All Jesus wants is for everyone to love life so that we can all live like the lilies of the field: without care. Christianity doesn’t deny you the right to make your own life choices, rather it is a choice we make in life. The Christian life choice is to love. So no, Christianity doesn’t prevent choice; it presumes it, because it is a choice.

The thing is with Christianity and Existentialism is that they have the same presumptions. They both presume the chaos of the flux; that all is suffering and death. Look at Genesis 1: what was there when God started creating but chaos itself? God didn’t create from nothing but from the slippery elements of the flux… And again, the creative force of God is love; love is the “purpose” God creates from the “chaos and despair” of God’s life (to refer to another remark you made about existentialists…).

The difference is that existentialists think we should build a monument, or something like that, with our lives, while Christianity, by choosing love, risks losing all. Love gives. It doesn’t build. But perhaps I should read Existentialism is a Humanism again… Is that the kind of existentialist you are? like Sartre? An atheistic kind?

Martyrdom. It is a trial for an end game. The church creates the idea that sacrificing for the church is the ultimate idea and that you will be rewarded in heaven. The idea of heaven alone places a passe effect on this life. “If I live a life pure and true, then I will be able to have eternal paradise”. Granted this does not take into account all facsimiles of Christian accounts; the general idea is there. I am by no means one to bash religions or beliefs I am simply restating the thoughts of the Existentialist. Personally, I don’t know what I believe but I do feel the limitation of this life and therefore live without regrets.

Also, funny you would say absurd. Are you familiar with the philosophy of the absurd?

We are limited in who we love in Christianity. We must love Christ or God. What if I choose not to?

The presumption is that man must create his own purpose among this. Whereas (most Christian sects) presume God gives us purpose.

I think we should as well.

It is a risk of losing all. Since the only certainty we have is this life.

Love is certainly a trait I find important. But without receiving love do you think you would be able to recognize it? Through our reception we build an understanding of what we view as love.

What kind of existentialist am I…that is a good question. My philosophical background is Eastern Religion and European Existentialists. I liken my thoughts with Camus and Heidegger. Sartre was a bit too pretentious and did not understand his limitations. Read why Albert Camus wrote “the Rebel” and how Sartre played into that.

I look forward to your response.

Sartori:

Ah, but this is the Church, not Christianity. Have you read perhaps the greatest existentialist of all? Soren Kierkegaard? He tried to reclaim Christianity from those who called themselves Christians…

But yes, sacrifice is indeed a central theme in Christian thinking, but it is not sacrifice for/to the church unless by “church” you mean all of creation… Love, in my usage of the term, could be described as “active sacrifice” to all of creation. You know you are in love when you’re giving all that you have (yes, even your life) to your beloved…

This is a serious misunderstanding… How can you possibly say this when Jesus explicitly and quite famously says that the only law is to love, and that we should “love our enemies” even? So no; Christian love is not only love of Christ/God. It is an all-encompassing love. Anyone who practices exclusion in regards to who they love is one of those so-called Christians Kierkegaard attacked…

I agree that the common sense of this idea does. But you’re being very Nietzschean here… i.e., Christians as despisers of life… I think you need to understand that like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche was attacking so-called Christians, not necessarily Christianity itself… Nietzsche in fact depicted his overman as what, Caesar with the soul of Christ? Something like that… Anyways; to me heaven is not some place you go to after you physically die. The eternal life Christianity speaks of is not everlasting physical life (just as its resurrections are not physical resuscitations). Heaven is something that obtains in this life, from the actions of this life. It’s when all of creation is encompassed by the supportive arms of love where love, as active sacrifice, as giving all that you have to creation, is hard work. Heaven is not the prize to be won after this life, which is when life really gets underway… No, no, no… Instead Heaven is the prize to be won during this life, and it is when everyone loves/serves all, even the least. (Note: God is greatest because God serves even the least.)

Yes, many so-called Christians think this. Many so-called Christians think God created from nothing and therefore, as Sartre says, has pre-defined the purpose of all creation. But to me God isn’t some super-being out there who created from nothing but simply a character in a story (or collection of stories) that shows us a way of life. It is up to each of us poor existing individuals to choose what life we live. God simply gives us an option: the life of love… So yes, God gives us purpose in a sense, but it is an invitation not a determination…

I assume you’ve read Existentialism is a Humanism? Sartre uses this idea (as does Dostoevsky) that from others we see how to be. In other words, we create/choose our own essence and in doing so we “choose” for the rest of humanity because our action is an affirmation and advocation of our choice… It’s basically an idea describing the spread of a way of life, where our choices in life further the multiplication of the way of life we chose… I think this is basically the idea in Genesis 1, where what we see happening is the multiplication of life, of God’s way of life, with the result being “everything is good”. God’s way of life doesn’t multiply because God says so, but because each of us takes it upon ourselves…

The point isn’t to recognize love but to live it. God shows us love - most especially through the stories of Jesus Christ - so if we want to recognize or live love then that is where we should look (we shouldn’t necessarily look to how we’ve been treated by others). But as should be clear from the foregoing there is often a lot lost in translation, for example in those so-called Christians who support war and gay-bash… So you are right, “through our reception of love we build an understanding of it”. This is something I’m battling right now: what it means to love. We are shown many concrete examples in Scripture, and it is through these that we need to develop our understanding of love (if we are to comment meaningfully on Christian teaching that is). You’ve already heard my best characterizations: love doesn’t hold back; it gives all that it has; love is total sacrifice to the beloved, serving their every need…

However, against “needing to receive love before understanding love”, ultimately someone had to love before being loved (this is what Sartre’s argument in Existenialism is a Humanism should have been; i.e., it’s not about an existence that precedes its essence but a lover that precedes being loved…). That event, the first issuance of love, is the beginning spoken of in Genesis 1… The beginning isn’t the start of being and time, but of love and life, of responsibility , unconditional service and self sacrifice… God is the one who loved before ever being loved or witnessing love… God is the one whose example we all should follow; i.e., we should all love even if we’ve never been loved. We should love our enemies even…

So as for existentialism you can see I’m more a proponent of the theistic variety like Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard. No matter how much I love Heidegger and Camus I’ll take The Brothers Karamazov over any of their texts any day… In the pages of that book Christian love burns white hot.

Odd…I find Christianity the most arrogant of all. Think about it- the entire universe was created by the Sky Daddy just for humanity. Man is given dominion over all the animals & plants, and all the resources of the world. Religious pseudosciences say that physics is “fine tuned,” meaning all physical laws are tweaked for our comfort and convenience. So which is more arrogant- the assertion that man is just another animal, low born and unexceptional or that all the Universe is tailored to our satisfaction?

In general terms, simple theism is a bit more innocuous- some great power created the Universe, saw it was just fine, then left it to its own devices. But how many vanilla deists are there anymore?

I really thought Shotgun was right about view around the “non-motion=death”.

I mean, life is the movement/change. When it stops, it’s the death.
He is right about it and also normal to see it stupid/wrong in something that might be seen as seeking death.

But when we see a bit more closely, we can start to see the “non-motion” as the supporting ground for the “motion”, so to speak.
In a way, “motion” depends on the “non-motion”.
Also, the motion/change may well include the motionless/stable peiod.

Seeking eternal something is also seeking no-change, and it’s a death in a sense.
So, seeking eternal life is also stability/death seeking desire, in a sense.

I think “Desires often defeat themselves.”

I certianly don’t think we are going to see Chiritianity come to dominance undoing Science and Democracy as it goes. On the other hand, the Humanist line seems to be getting a bit tired. So I think some new ideas are going to move us along just as new ideas have always come along. People often forget what a tiny speck of the timeline we are dealing with. The Ancient Egyptian society and religion lasted longer than the age of any of the ideas we have kicking on the table. I think we are in a very transient time in human history and to predict the future philosophies is just extrondinarily hard. I do think Yaweh is just about at the end of his run though. I just hope the Wiccans don’t take over. :slight_smile:

Separating Christianity from the Church is not all that feasible. It is essentially like separating man from religion. As for the greatest adjective; many/all would disagree. Though a great philosopher, he only sought to give man back a place in the world. But how can he reclaim something that already belongs to man. Man took Christianity and shaped it to his purpose.

While an interesting idea; I feel differently towards love.

We may love our enemies but what is the consequence for not submitting/loving to God/Christ? I may love the entirety of the world but dangle on the cliff of hell if I do not love God/Christ. And yes I believe the OT is a part of the Bible as a whole.

It is not the Christians who despise life but those in charge of the Christian world. So when you follow them (the leaders) instead of living your life; it is a dangerous risk of not living. Granted your view of heaven is a bit more of a modern 20th century rendition. Still, it makes me wonder is the altruistic life a worthwhile life? If you are told you are going to suffer and have no reward at the end why would you?

So is he really God then? Sounds like a forming of a conscious.

Sartre also speaks of living w/o bad faith. So, as biological organisms what good is it to staunch our lives and pretend to be who we are not on the inside? We can attempt to shape ourselves but it is a lie. Through others we can perceive what we really are. The freedom lies in our choices of how we are really ourselves. If I am a generous man, I can choose to donate money, donate time, or donate my life. This is the freedom you speak of. The man was already generous; but his choice was how he chose to be generous.

A certain quote with a sword comes to mind. Love is selectively chosen. Christ/God did not love the Sodomites, he did not love the Egyptians, and there is little love to be found in street corners and hovels. Love is only recognized by those who have received it. When someone comes into the world; with parents who have money or status. Odds are (if the parents are Christians) over time they will establish the same love for Christianity that their parents had. Because they have experienced love.

You sound a bit aroused by social unrest in Mother Russia!

I will take Camus’ A Beautiful Death for the cold and unapologetic style. We should all envy those in Camus’ books, they are sure of who they are and have lives without regret.

So what is love to you? I say it’s not holding anything back (total sacrifice/service to the beloved).

“Submission to God/Christ” is not submission to some overlord/tyrant but the voluntary adoption of God/Christ’s way of life. The consequence of not submitting is indeed hell (the existence we’re all mired in). The consequence of submitting is heaven (a world where everyone loves everyone). So no. If you “love the entirety of the world” you’re already submitting to God and therefore there is no hell for you. You’re already in heaven… The Kingdom of God obtains through your actions.

Regarding the “Bible as a whole” let’s be fair: the Bible is an anthology of texts. Just as we can’t expect every text in the scientific tradition to corroborate each other, neither can we expect every text in the Christian tradition to corroborate each other. In other words, we need to understand that each contributor to the Bible brought their own theologies to bear upon it, and therefore we cannot expect consistency in the text nor that it forms some kind of whole. I’m not saying we reject the OT; I’m simply saying we need to be extremely careful with this text. We need to understand it is an anthology of an entire tradition… We need to treat it as such.

Is the altruistic life worthwhile? All I can say is that if everyone served all then each would be served by all. In other words, we’d all essentially become masters of all creation. To me this is the goal of Christianity (if not Judaism). Is that worthwhile? You tell me… So regarding “no reward at the end”, I disagree. The reward for all your hard work is heaven on earth. The reward is becoming master of all creation… But yes, you will still die. Sorry, nothing can beat physical death! Not even God.

How is he not God? Is Hamlet any less Hamlet because there was no historical Hamlet? Is Hamlet any less worth studying if there was no historical/ontological Hamlet? Of course God is still God. God is just rethought as God truly is: just a character in a story. The point of Christianity isn’t to pacify us with some caring super-being (like an opiate or something), but to get us to live the good life…

Correct me if I’m wrong, but as an atheist, Sartre believes man is the first existence that precedes its essence… In other words, Sartre would totally disagree that we are something “on the inside”. To Sartre, we determine what we are… There is nothing to compare what we become to… There is no true/essential self other than the self that we choose… Your comments don’t seem to be consistent with existentialism at all…

You’ve also said we have no access to the consciousness of others, so just how, precisely, are we to perceive ourselves through others?

True, the OT God does some unloving things (I address this in other posts but basically God is perfected in Jesus Christ, who no longer releases the cleansing waters of destruction but rather the cleansing waters of forgiveness).

But you’re wrong about an important fact: JESUS CONSORTED WITH THE LOW LIFES OF HIS TIME. He spent his time with prostitutes and tax collectors, the sick and non-Jews… Jesus was criticized precisely because of the sorts of people he hung out with… So in the “street corners and hovels” is precisely where you would find JC… Not just in Christian hangouts…

Clearly arrogance defined as a feeling or impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims is not limited to humanists. If there are arrogant theists, maybe theism needs to defeat arrogant theists before it goes on to defeat arrogant others.

Thanks for the off-the-top-of-the-head emotional response Felix…

But, actually, I wrote this post in response to a similar thread started by Mad Man P…I just changed the standpoint from that of the God-hater to that of a Christian…(and a consistent Christian at that.)

While I stand by the case I’ve made here…it is secondary to my wish to dmonstrate the double standard in people’s minds. Where were you on Mr. Mad Man’s post?

Anyway…I was hoping he would respond here so that we could have a debate…but, I don’t suppose he’s up for it.

Can I modify what you said a little? :smiley:

Isn’t that GOD thing arrogant (in your definition) ? :slight_smile:

Sorry Shotgun, for the off topic chat.