Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[Josquin des Prez]

Fromm specifically denies that there is no human nature, of course

I think you may want to rephrase that. Does he deny the existence of a human nature or does he confirms it?  

The question is moot. Of course he denies human nature. He must believe humans can be molded into anything, hence, why social Marxism is synonymous with social engineering. If human nature isn't set in stone, why not change it into something better, perhaps under the supervision of science and psychology?

[Xenophanes]

I think you may want to rephrase that. Does he deny the existence of a human nature or does he confirms it?  

The question is moot. Of course he denies human nature. He must believe humans can be molded into anything, hence, why social Marxism is synonymous with social engineering. If human nature isn't set in stone, why not change it into something better, perhaps under the supervision of science and psychology?

You clearly don't know what you are talking about--and you have just shown you can't understand a simple English sentence.

You didn't consult Chapter III of Beyond the Chains of Illusioin, from which I quote (p. 27): 

"The whole concept of humanity and humanism is based on the idea of a human nature in which all men share."

You didn't even read the Wikipedia article very well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm

You evidently did not bother to read Fromm's remarks on Spinoza in a book you claim to have, Man for Himself:

http://books.google.com/books?id=442AUfGqnhIC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=fromm+spinoza&source=bl&ots=72hhDIwh1D&sig=8p-OVFEQX554BkHfRm1-OvHlpNA&hl=en&ei=mMsWSvMSl8QyjqPYrwg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPA26,M1

So, what do you think of Fromm's account of Spinoza's basic philosophy of man?

[Brian]

Sorry, Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ? But Mozart a fraud? is now the most absurd argument/flamewar on this forum!

[drogulus]

   No, Brian, we can do better, and we will. I'm thinking of starting a thread to end all threads. Or perhaps a poll:

   Would Mozart Be Better For Us If Polytheism Was Fraudulent?

   1) No

   2) Yes,

   3) We Have No Bananas.

   4) Other

   5) All Of The Above

   Choose 2 from the list.

[Florestan]

Not at all.  What I said was, "From the persective of global society this is the key problem with religions, their proponents all believe their religion is 'exceptionally and miraculously right' and the rest 'absolutely wrong'".  I didn' say "all their proponents".  There's a difference.  English is a syntactical language.

Are you trying to tell us that "their proponents all believe"  is not the same as "all their proponents believe" and pretend to be taken seriously?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Ernie,

Switching gears for a moment:

Earlier in this thread  Josquin  wrote:

"Dawkins and the other neo-atheists - Hitchens, Dennett, Harris - are boring. The intellectual sophistication of western society has been reduced to journalistic mediocrities like them and all the other second rate hacks favored by the media. To think there was a time when a genius like Otto Weininger was a wildfire best seller. Today, we have to deal with intellectual lightweights like Dawkins as if they really had anything interesting to say that anybody with an IQ higher then room temperature hasn't thought about it on his own a million times before.."

A few questions:

1.  Is  Josquin  right in his characterization of them ?  As boring, mediocre, lightweight ?

On a separate note, I welcome any author who argues that we as a society should stop being so deferential to religion and recognize that it is often very harmful. And more outspoken in declaring that the metaphysical claims of religions are false.

2.  Do you see any value in this, in this new 'assertiveness' against religion ? And do you agree (generally) with what they have to say about religion ?

The thing that really bothers me about them is that their version of atheism is purely negative.... you just strip belief away and go on from there.

3.  Shouldn't there be a substitute that will fill some of the valuable functions that religions have served ?

[Fëanor]

Since you're asking, I'll give you my two cents ...

...

A few questions:

1.  Is  Josquin  right in his characterization of them ?  As boring, mediocre, lightweight ?
I am a simple person but to me all Dawkin's arguements sound quite familiar.  Indeed I thought of all most everything decades earlier in my life.  So maybe that makes Dawkins "boring, mediocre, lightweight", nevertheless I agree with him on virtually everything.

On a separate note, I welcome any author who argues that we as a society should stop being so deferential to religion and recognize that it is often very harmful. And more outspoken in declaring that the metaphysical claims of religions are false.

2.  Do you see any value in this, in this new 'assertiveness' against religion ? And do you agree (generally) with what they have to say about religion ?
In a word, yes.

The thing that really bothers me about them is that their version of atheism is purely negative.... you just strip belief away and go on from there.

3.  Shouldn't there be a substitute that will fill some of the valuable functions that religions have served ?
No, the problem is religion, not only on the macro, societal scale but also on the personal scale.  After greed the worst human weakness is self delusion.
[/quote]

[karlhenning]

No, the problem is religion, not only on the macro, societal scale but also on the personal scale.  After greed the worst human weakness is self delusion.

Oh, lovely, Re-tread Marx.

[Catison]

The problem with this Dawkins idea that religion is harmful is that he has no viable substitute.  Does he really believe atheism is going to solve the problem of people killing each other?

Atheism might get rid of this so-called problem of people fighting over religion, but we must also acknowledge that people have fought each other over other idealogical beliefs, including atheistic ones.  And he must also acknowledge that most religions, when taken literally, do not call for killing and fighting, but exactly the opposite.  Most of the time, the horrible atrocities done in the name of religion would be condemned by members of that same religion later.  This doesn't argue against religion, but human fallibility.  And of course the ironic thing is that most religions are an attempt to acknowledge the imperfection of humanity and to provide a guiding principle in the face of this imperfection.

But even so, none of these issues argues for or against the inherent truth of any particular religion itself.  If there is any "delusion" it is that atheistic science somehow has a connection to truth free of charge, as if you can divorce philosophical statements about reality from the metaphysical.  There is no way around it, the sentence, "Science discovers reality" is about the metaphysical.  We have no scientific material method for discovering if this is in fact true.  We must make some irrational statement and define our assumptions.  For some, this metaphysical statement is exactly the above.  For others, it is a statement like, "God exists."  The bonus with the latter is that there is a reason for an unmovable set of morals, a grounding of society and social interactions.  This is why I choose it.

Ok, rant over.

[greg]

The problem with this Dawkins idea that religion is harmful is that he has no viable substitute.  Does he really believe atheism is going to solve the problem of people killing each other?

Atheism might get rid of this so-called problem of people fighting over religion, but we must also acknowledge that people have fought each other over other idealogical beliefs, including atheistic ones.  And he must also acknowledge that most religions, when taken literally, do not call for killing and fighting, but exactly the opposite.  Most of the time, the horrible atrocities done in the name of religion would be condemned by members of that same religion later.  This doesn't argue against religion, but human fallibility.  And of course the ironic thing is that most religions are an attempt to acknowledge the imperfection of humanity and to provide a guiding principle in the face of this imperfection.

There's a South Park episode for this. In the future, all religion is abolished, but there is still a massive war between opposing sides. The whole problem was a name for the atheists- the super-intelligent otters of the AAA (Allied Atheist Alliance), the humans of the UAA (United Atheist Alliance), and a rival human faction, the UAL (United Atheist League).
You know stuff like this would still happen in a world without religion. The reason is because people are just stupid.

[Florestan]

The problem with this Dawkins idea that religion is harmful is that he has no viable substitute.  Does he really believe atheism is going to solve the problem of people killing each other?

Atheism might get rid of this so-called problem of people fighting over religion, but we must also acknowledge that people have fought each other over other idealogical beliefs, including atheistic ones.  And he must also acknowledge that most religions, when taken literally, do not call for killing and fighting, but exactly the opposite.  Most of the time, the horrible atrocities done in the name of religion would be condemned by members of that same religion later.  This doesn't argue against religion, but human fallibility.  And of course the ironic thing is that most religions are an attempt to acknowledge the imperfection of humanity and to provide a guiding principle in the face of this imperfection.

But even so, none of these issues argues for or against the inherent truth of any particular religion itself.  If there is any "delusion" it is that atheistic science somehow has a connection to truth free of charge, as if you can divorce philosophical statements about reality from the metaphysical.  There is no way around it, the sentence, "Science discovers reality" is about the metaphysical.  We have no scientific material method for discovering if this is in fact true.  We must make some irrational statement and define our assumptions.  For some, this metaphysical statement is exactly the above.  For others, it is a statement like, "God exists."  The bonus with the latter is that there is a reason for an unmovable set of morals, a grounding of society and social interactions.  This is why I choose it.

Excellent post.

[Florestan]

There's a South Park episode for this. In the future, all religion is abolished, but there is still a massive war between opposing sides. The whole problem was a name for the atheists- the super-intelligent otters of the AAA (Allied Atheist Alliance), the humans of the UAA (United Atheist Alliance), and a rival human faction, the UAL (United Atheist League).
You know stuff like this would still happen in a world without religion. The reason is because people are just stupid.

Well said. This whole idea that atheists are superhuman beings which, by an ideological / metaphysical fiat, have rid themselves of all human flaws and weaknesses and if anybody else would just do the same, the world will know no more wars and evils is a self-righteous, self-delusional, sentimentalist fraud.

[Fëanor]

Well said. This whole idea that atheists are superhuman beings which, by an ideological / metaphysical fiat, have rid themselves of all human flaws and weaknesses and if anybody else would just do the same, the world will know no more wars and evils is a self-righteous, self-delusional, sentimentalist fraud.

That rolls well off the tongue, eh?  But it is largely religionists judging atheists on a religious scale.
However it has nothing inherently to do with an atheist perspective.  There is no broad atheist ideology.  It is simply a matter that we believe the worlds would be at a better starting point without the self-delusion -- not to mention the delusions foster by power-hungry religous leaders bent on political power.

[Florestan]

we believe the worlds would be at a better starting point without the self-delusion -- not to mention the delusions foster by power-hungry religous leaders bent on political power.

Do you believe, in al honesty, that were religions and religious people suddenly to disappear, the world would have no more wars?

And what about the delusions fostered by power-hungry atheist leaders bent on political power?

[Catison]

It is simply a matter that we believe the worlds would be at a better starting point without the self-delusion

Yes, including atheist self-delusion too, right?

[Fëanor]

Do you believe, in al honesty, that were religions and religious people suddenly to disappear, the world would have no more wars?
...

No.

[Fëanor]

Yes, including atheist self-delusion too, right?

Not all atheists are the same.  I've been castigated for implying that all religionists are the same, which I didn't say, and which isn't true.  Please conceed that atheists are not all the same.  I mean for example Atheism was to official philosophy, call it state religion maybe, of the Communist countries; there children grew up being Atheists by virtue of indoctrination and not being permited question the received wisdom -- much like the prevalent style of religious education.

On the other hand, the atheist I know tend strongly to skepicism which includes self-questioning.  (Just as proper scientists welcome challenges to their theories, knowing that science will evolve and advance thereby.)  I would say that most of these atheists were skeptics before they were atheists.  This is to say that self-delusion is less prevalent among atheists than the general population

[Florestan]

No.

Then why do you accuse just one side and ignore the other? Atheist ideologies have very recently (as in living memory) caused tens of millions of deaths and literally ruined entire countries and peoples. Yet when it comes about the evil in the world, it's always religion, and specifically Christianity, that gets blamed for things that happened centuries ago. Why this double standard?

[Catison]

This is to say that self-delusion is less prevalent among atheists than the general population

uh huh...

You are aware that atheists are in some sense deluded too, right?

[DavidRoss]

uh huh...

You are aware that atheists are in some sense deluded too, right?

The very premise of atheism is irrational.  The only rational position for those who do not believe that they have sufficient evidence to support knowledge of God's existence is agnosticism.