I wouldn’t be a Christian

[robvalue]

That’s the problem, really. Most of the time, I feel like I’m speaking a different language to a theist. We must be looking at the same reality, but our approaches are so different that I can’t find a way to integrate them.

Some theists do employ decent amounts of scepticism, and I follow them up to that point; then they veer off and they totally lose me. The only form of theism that makes sense to me is a sort of emotional deism, where you feel there must be (or must have been) a creator, but that you don’t try to justify it further than that or make any claims about the creator. Everything else feels like trying to shoe-horn in things that don’t fit.

[Belacqua]

I read Varieties some time last year.

Then you no doubt recall it better than I do! I think it's been, um, twenty years... I remember being surprised to find the Zen-like stuff.

But I'd argue he makes room for religious experiences that aren't very Zen-like at all (ie. intense Christian mysticism).

That must be so. It's kind of a survey course, right? So it covers both the see-our-truth-through-nature elements as well as the more transcendent approaches. 

As far as theistic philosophers go, I've toyed with sharing some of his notions here. He makes some pretty good arguments. And one of his greatest strengths is that he completely sympathizes with the skeptic's mindset. Sometimes, that makes all the difference, y'know?

Again, it's been a while, but I recall having a lot of respect for him. He really was open-minded and respectful of the different views, including that of the skeptic. As I remember it he even mentions the name of a young up-and-comer named Freud, who turned out to have a lot to say about things, in the next generation.

I suspect James is underrated. He would be worth a lot more attention. 

(I remember carrying around Varieties with me for several weeks while I was reading it. At one point I was out in the forest and came to a steep slope that I needed both hands to get down, holding on to bamboo stalks. I set the book on the trail and tried to remember to come up the slope again at the same point so I could find it. But somehow I got off track and ended up spending an hour searching for the Varieties of Religious Experience. At the time it seemed awfully symbolic!)

[Angrboda]

For example, has anybody read Simone Weil?

She was a Jew who learned to read ancient Greek by age 12, and graduated first in her class in philosophy from the École Normale Supérieure (Simone de Beauvoir came second that year). She turned to Christian mysticism via Plato.

If a person were to become convinced of the truth of Weil's God, and became a Christian because of it, it would be exactly the opposite of showing obeisance to a tyrannical sky-daddy.

Why do we always assume that when a person becomes a Christian he becomes a stupid one?

Are you trying to argue that gods based on Christian mysticism and Plato aren't stupid? Okay. I'm all ears. Give it your best shot.

[vulcanlogician]

Are you trying to argue that gods based on Christian mysticism and Plato aren't stupid?  Okay.  I'm all ears.  Give it your best shot.

The problem with calling Plato's God stupid is that it is really tough to figure out what he actually meant by positing the existence of this "God." You run into the same problem with reincarnation. In some works, Plato seems to suggest that he believes in reincarnation (Book X of The Republic for instance). If you take this at face value, Plato appears to be giving his readers a complete doctrine of reincarnation and showing us exactly how it works in Book X. The problem is, in another work, Phaedrus, he presents us with a completely different scheme of how reincarnation supposedly works. Something is awry.

http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/plato4.htm

The thing that is stupid is the circle squaring that later Christian thinkers did with Plato's God concept. They erroneously took his conjecture at face value because it seemed to fit so well with their mythos. I would say that their interpretations constitute a fundamental misunderstanding of Plato.

[robvalue]

Maybe Plato wasn’t all one author, or changed his mind over time?

[vulcanlogician]

That must be so. It's kind of a survey course, right? So it covers both the see-our-truth-through-nature elements as well as the more transcendent approaches. 

Very much so. I think a "survey course" is an apt descriptor. He indicates early that he intends not to examine religious experiences as they relate to a specific doctrine or societal entity. Rather he examines the relation of an individual to a body of symbols (whether theistic or atheistic), giving special attention to transcendental aspects of belief/adoption of a given body of symbols.

For the purposes of his discussion, he defines religion thusly:

Religion, therefore, as I now ask you arbitrarily to take it, shall mean for
us THE FEELINGS, ACTS, AND EXPERIENCES OF INDIVIDUAL MEN
IN THEIR SOLITUDE, SO FAR AS THEY APPREHEND THEMSELVES
TO STAND IN RELATION TO WHATEVER THEY MAY CONSIDER
THE DIVINE. Since the relation may be either moral, physical, or ritual,
it is evident that out of religion in the sense in which we take it,
theologies, philosophies, and ecclesiastical organizations may
secondarily grow. In these lectures, however, as I have already said, the
immediate personal experiences will amply fill our time, and we shall
hardly consider theology or ecclesiasticism at all.
We escape much controversial matter by this arbitrary definition of our
field. But, still, a chance of controversy comes up over the word “divine,”
if we take the definition in too narrow a sense. There are systems of
thought which the world usually calls religious, and yet which do not
positively assume a God. Buddhism is in this case.

https://csrs.nd.edu/assets/59930/williams_1902.pdf

---

Maybe Plato wasn’t all one author, or changed his mind over time?

That very well might be, Rob. A few of "his" works are considered spurious by scholars generally. For some others, it's a matter for debate.

But even among the least controversial of his works, one finds Plato testing the strength of dissimilar ideas... making arguments in one book that are incongruous with arguments he makes in others. To me, this suggests that Plato is more "Socratic" than he is commonly given credit for; ie. his works are more about asking questions than providing answers.

It's true that as Plato matured as a philosopher he became less Socratic... though to what extent is debatable. If anything is true, however, it's this: Plato does not want his statements to be accepted on Plato's own authority. As sure as he is of himself sometimes, he knows that he isn't really convincing his reader of anything unless he puts together a sound logical argument.

[Belacqua]

Are you trying to argue that gods based on Christian mysticism and Plato aren't stupid?  

[/quote]

Absolutely yes. 

Okay.  I'm all ears.  Give it your best shot.

No, I don't want to.

I respect the posts you've made on this forum -- I've noticed them -- but the way you phrase this it sounds like a dare. Plato's God, and the Christian tradition that grows out of it, isn't something I'm willing to type out in a sound bite. It's a hell of a lot of work to get it. 

I am no expert, but there are fantastically brilliant people who have examined and believed it. I am not willing to call them stupid. 

But I also don't want to come across here as cagey or unwilling; that's not my intention. It's just a huge topic, which is subtle and -- even if it's untrue -- has given rise in its evolution to powerful, beautiful, and influential thought. So please give me a break and don't ask me to do in 25 words or less.

---

THE FEELINGS, ACTS, AND EXPERIENCES OF INDIVIDUAL MEN
IN THEIR SOLITUDE, SO FAR AS THEY APPREHEND THEMSELVES
TO STAND IN RELATION TO WHATEVER THEY MAY CONSIDER
THE DIVINE. Since the relation may be either moral, physical, or ritual,
it is evident that out of religion in the sense in which we take it,
theologies, philosophies, and ecclesiastical organizations may
secondarily grow.

I like this a lot. I remember why I liked the book so much now.

Maybe James was the first (?) to approach the topic as psychology, as private phenomenology, rather than as theology or church history. Important stuff. 

---

one finds Plato testing the strength of dissimilar ideas... making arguments in one book that are incongruous with arguments he makes in others. To me, this suggests that Plato is more "Socratic" than he is commonly given credit for; ie. his works are more about asking questions than providing answers.

This is crucial to me. We would all do well to approach things in this spirit, I think. 

This is one of the things I harp on about... People today expect all writing to be like journalism or a science text. The idea of a book as a permanent challenge or a life-long puzzle seems to be lost. 

Plato is surely great because he posed more or less the whole range of philosophical questions and was far too wise to think that he could solve them. And he employed -- practically invented -- any and every literary genre that he needed to do the work. I mean, the Myth of Er has "myth" in the title. And as I recall all that about the soul growing wings and the chariots with horses -- he says very clearly "this is kind of what it's like." Our modern writing is often anemic in comparison. As if we think we're really going to find The Truth of things! Ha!

One big question is how much later Christian writers adopted the same approach. For example there's an ongoing debate among Dante experts as to how serious he was concerning what Hell and Purgatory are "really" like. I'm in the camp that says he knew full well about myth and symbolism, and knew that art tells truth in non-literal ways. But I tend to keep quiet about that at conferences, because tempers run hot.

---

As sure as he is of himself sometimes, he knows that he isn't really convincing his reader of anything unless he puts together a sound logical argument.

Well, maybe we ought to do a thread on Plato's God, I don't know. You'd be good at it, and maybe we owe it to Jormungandr. 

As I mentioned before, life has me busy these days, and I might not be able to contribute regularly. But it seems like something that ought to be tackled. 

In addition, it's a fascinating topic to see how the Neoplatonic guys fed into Christian theology. Plotinus, for example was a great genius -- the first ever to posit that people have subconscious parts of their minds. So there's pretty much nothing more interesting. 

But it's up to you... If you're willing to take the snark that people will give you for it.

[brewer]

I'd probably be a maltheist if the abrahamic god was proven to be real, and the bible was an accurate representation of his character.

I think this is an important distinction.

The God we're discussing here seems to be the lowest common denominator God, the one the dumb literalists believe in. 

If I were a Christian who had read and understood, say, Dante's Paradiso, the whole thing would be different. That God is not a tyrant who demands worship. 

The fact that so many atheists wish to discuss the dumb version and not the God of Augustine, Aquinas, Dante, etc. (the God smart Christians believe in) makes me think we are being somewhat unfair.

Do these "smart christians" denounce parts/sections of the bible?

This sounds like cherry picking. Isn't that what only reading Paradiso would be?
Most of the christians I know are of this sort. They hold up the bible as the word of god, but when the lowest common denominator god show up it's ..............

[vulcanlogician]

Well, maybe we ought to do a thread on Plato's God, I don't know. You'd be good at it, and maybe we owe it to Jormungandr. 

As I mentioned before, life has me busy these days, and I might not be able to contribute regularly. But it seems like something that ought to be tackled. 

In addition, it's a fascinating topic to see how the Neoplatonic guys fed into Christian theology. Plotinus, for example was a great genius -- the first ever to posit that people have subconscious parts of their minds. So there's pretty much nothing more interesting. 

But it's up to you... If you're willing to take the snark that people will give you for it.

This thing is, I'm ill-prepared to argue on Plato's behalf as far as this goes. I feel like I'd want to read Timaeus before undertaking such a task. The only argument I feel confident in making to this end is that (given his propensity toward employing myth and allegory) it is unwise to approach him too literally on a given matter--and I've said as much already.

That being said, I've dipped into some of Plato's Late works and found them rather difficult and dissatisfying. I'm much more a fan of the Early/Middle period writings, with (surprise!) the Republic being my most favorite. (The Symposium and Phaedrus are my second and third favorites respectively.) That probably indicates 1) what I like about Plato to start with and 2) the amount of interest I have in the Late works.

[Belacqua]

Do these "smart christians" denounce parts/sections of the bible?

This sounds like cherry picking. Isn't that what only reading Paradiso would be?
Most of the christians I know are of this sort. They hold up the bible as the word of god, but when the lowest common denominator god show up it's ..............

Do you think there are no such thing as "smart Christians"? I don't know your background, but this may be a lack of research on your part. 

Sola scriptura literalism is pretty new. Most theologians of the past would have considered it simple-minded, driven by pride ("I can understand it just fine, thanks"), and even idolatrous, since it worships the book rather than God. Biblical hermeneutics is a fascinating field, and has prompted the literature of Christian Europe, even not explicitly religious literature like Proust, to be susceptible in honest ways to different kinds of interpretation. 

Some people will be guilty of cherry-picking, but that's an overly simple way of describing what goes on among -- I'll say it again -- smart Christians. 

As an example, Augustine saw the main message as that of the Gospels, and insisted that the rest be read in this spirit. He wrote:

“So anyone who thinks he has understood the divine scriptures or any part of them, but cannot by his understanding build up this double love of God and neighbour, has not yet succeeded in understanding them.”

A good interpretation will lead our love for our neighbor to increase, according to him. And I know there are parts of the OT which don't lend themselves to that, but he thought these parts were outdone by Jesus. 

He also didn't insist on bibliolatry: 

“Therefore a person strengthened by faith, hope, and love, and who steadfastly holds on to them, has no need of the scriptures except to instruct others. That is why many people, relying on these three things, actually live in solitude without any texts of the scriptures.”

The message and the way of life is what's important, not the text. Dante echoes this at the top of Purgatory, when Virgil tells him that, now he's pure, he should only do what he wants, because it will be right. (Sin is a misdirection of desire.) At that point, the Bible is unnecessary. William Blake, in one of his very last drawings, shows the Bible chained up in Heaven, where it is no longer useful. 

I would never suggest reading only the Paradiso. It's part of a balanced diet. However if I were on a desert island, it'd be in my top ten. 

As for "most of the Christians" you know -- I am fortunate in that I don't have to deal with them. Quality and truth are not decided by majority vote, and I feel no compunction to set them straight. Guarda e passa -- look and pass on. 

---

This thing is, I'm ill-prepared to argue on Plato's behalf as far as this goes. I feel like I'd want to read Timaeus before undertaking such a task. The only argument I feel confident in making to this end is that (given his propensity toward employing myth and allegory) it is unwise to approach him too literally on a given matter--and I've said as much already.

That's also making me a bit shy. I'd have to re-read a lot, and I'm deep into other things now. So to do a good job would require special effort. 

That being said, I've dipped into some of Plato's Late works and found them rather difficult and dissatisfying. I'm much more a fan of the Early/Middle period writings, with (surprise!) the Republic being my most favorite. (The Symposium and Phaedrus are my second and third favorites respectively.) That probably indicates 1) what I like about Plato to start with and 2) the amount of interest I have in the Late works.

For me, the Symposium and the Phaedrus are about the best things ever written. They continue to grow on me. And I've been told by people who are comfortable in Classical Greek that they are among the most beautiful things ever written in that language. They are truly great works of art. I guess I need to be disciplined and work more on the late things, rather than just re-read these two over and over...

Have you seen the book Plato's Philosophers: The Coherence of the Dialogues by Catherine H. Zuckert? This comes highly recommended. Because I know you don't have enough to read already! Ha!