tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post3569652788853015430..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Atheistic Religiosity in Kantian Conservatism: Roger Scruton on Wagner's "Ring" CycleLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-46921357129732134792017-11-20T12:30:31.575+00:002017-11-20T12:30:31.575+00:00Mere human art – even at its peak - may be inadequ...Mere human art – even at its peak - may be inadequate as a replacement for God (although, to be fair, did it really stand a chance?). <br />Regarding your last paragraph, it seems that the question of philosophy vs theology might be the most important question we face, and is related here to the question of “What is the best, the happiest, life?” <br />The philosopher who is agnostic on the question of the divine may experience a deficiency regarding religious longing, if, indeed, this longing is a part of our nature. The man who devotes his intellect to the study of God may practice a religion compatible with a rich understanding of nature and human reason (consider, e.g. Exodus 3:13-15, Deuteronomy 4:6, Mark 12:28-31), even if that practice does, perforce, ultimately require faith. <br />Who, then, is happier, who leads the more complete human life, if our soul by nature longs for the divine? Must it not be, in this formulation, the man who takes heed of Psalm 1:1-2, and is blessed for taking delight in meditating on scripture? <br />Yet, faith, in the end, is not proven, or does not convince by reasoned argument alone; and, to return to your post, certainly it is the truth – even if the truth is terrible - that matters in answering questions, not self-delusion for the purpose of fulfilling psychic needs. <br />Human reason, however, and as we know, cannot disprove God, cannot prove faith to be a mere self-delusion.<br />One, I suppose, can turn to the argument that there is variation among humans, and, perhaps, philosophers – that tiny minority of humans - have less of a religious longing, and therefore may alone be truly happy without the divine. The middle Nietzsche, here, is simply the mature Nietzsche, bounded by youth and infirmity. Yet, the thoughtful believer might respond: “Is this rare psychological nature a virtue or a defect?” We don’t consider, for example, the sociopath, who lives detached from low sentiment a superior type of man, even if intelligent in other regards. Nor, of course, and to state the obvious, can less of a “need” for the divine in any way disprove God. <br />Does the question of whether or not one views the most important question as a question, itself pre-suppose one’s position (1 Kings 18:21)? <br />I’ll look forward to the advertised next post!W. Bondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-80662842262187547942017-11-19T22:11:22.968+00:002017-11-19T22:11:22.968+00:00So how does a belief known (or at least thought) t... So how does a belief known (or at least thought) to be false serve the desirable functions of religious belief? I suppose it's possible that large numbers of people for whom religion functions like an exalted version of the Elks Club have no actual idea of, or interest in, the official theologies of the religions they practice. All they really believe is that there's something bigger than we can understand out there somewhere and this something wants us to be nice. (Most atheists, while not sharing this belief, might cheerfully admit that they can't actually disprove it and have no objection to others' believing this minimal theology.) But they participate in the ceremonies of the religion in which they were raised because it is good to have off-the-shelf communal ways to recognize major transitions in life, and many great artists have contributed astonishing poetry, music, architecture, and art to help do that. (Maybe they really Johann Sebastian Bach, when you get down to it.)<br /> The last time I trotted out this theory, an Englishman piped up: "You've just described the Church of England."CJColuccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03691840821795365920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-44033565858948622922017-11-18T17:46:32.450+00:002017-11-18T17:46:32.450+00:00I love the title. And the line,
"I cannot e...I love the title. And the line,<br /><br />"I cannot embrace the atheistic religiosity of Kant, Wagner, and Scruton, because this line of thinking is incoherent self-deception ..."<br /><br />Orwell could have written a sentence like that.Roger Sweenyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12734128265493099062noreply@blogger.com