Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 33:05 — 30.4MB)
This is a 33-minute preview of a 1 hr, 43-minute episode.
Discussing Friedrich Schleiermacher’s “On Religion; Speeches to its Cultured Despisers” (1799, with notes added 1821), first and second speeches.
Does religion necessarily conflict with science? Schleiermacher says no: the essence of religion is an emotional response to life; it doesn’t give knowledge or even tell us what to do exactly. Moreover, this attitude is a necessary to fully enter into life, to be a whole and fulfilled person. Yes, he’s of the “romantic” school, but his approach can still be seen today in liberal Protestant churches.
Featuring guest podcaster and blog contributor Daniel Horne.
Read the text online or buy the book.
End song: “Remembrance” by Fingers. Read about it.
Hello. I’m a sociology student who would have taken philosophy if earning a living were not among my ambitions. Came across the podcast recently and am enjoying it tremendously. Perfect accompaniment to nightly 2-hour pacing sessions with my newborn son.
I’ve only listened to 6 episodes so far, but I see that the religion theme is very represented. I’m excited by the announcement this episode that the “new atheists” will be tackled soon. I have a great interest in them, mostly because I’ve followed Christopher Hitchens’ debating for years.
From what you guys have said so far, I anticipate that some of you might have the same problem with Dawkins, Hitchens, et al, that I do: That they are correct to question religion, but only because it is often a subset of the category of ideas elevated beyond questioning — and that science (or the enlightenment, in Hitchens’ case) also has the potential to become the basis for shoddy ethics.
Foundational thought is everywhere a temptation. Sometimes I wonder if Heidegger intentionally “failed” to finish his stuff on metaphysics for fear of unwittingly providing a stable grounds for some new theology.
Typing with one hand as the little guy fails to nod off so I’ll keep this brief. Thanks so much for the podcast.
Dan
Thanks Dan — much appreciated. The New Atheists episode is right around the corner.
Does religion necessarily conflict with science?
It obviously depends on the religion. Vedanta, Heidegger-ism, Taoism, German idealism, etc. are all compatible with science.
There are real questions science cannot answer and thus naturalism is ridiculous. For example, “Should this grant application be approved?” is NOT a question science can answer.
Yeah, the question posed here (and I always feel the need to come up with a question to orient us so it doesn’t end up just being “what does Schleiermacher have to say?” which is not an attractive way to get people in on a discussion) is much more general than Schleiermacher’s approach in answering it would indicate. Maybe the question he’s addressing would be more adequately phrased as “need something that looks roughly like Western religion be in conflict with science?” (Not that, realistically, most Eastern religions are free of anti-scientific superstitions, even if we Westerners can read texts like the Chuang Tzu in isolation and discount the references to supernatural feats and such as merely allegorical or illustrative or whatever…) The question in interpreting Schleiermacher then becomes whether what he’s proposing really is akin to regular folks’ religion or not… like if he can admit a God that we can relate to on a personal level (which I think he does, even if it’s not one that literally has a personality and thereby relates to us individual to individual).
Regarding Darwinism (which is most frequently spoken of as conflicting with religion):
Darwinism as a matter of FACT has little or no utility. It can explain why there are multidrug resistant bacteria and why a cocktail of anti-HIV drugs is better than one but it can only explain. The discovery of new antibiotics and new antiretroviral drugs is not assisted AT ALL by “evolutionary theory”.
If there were such a thing as a creationist scientist he would not be any less effective as a scientist for his creationism unless his science were Darwinism. Darwinism is supported, like theoretical physics, by tuition and taxes.
Equating anti-Darwinism with anti-science is moronic, but common.
The real opposition is between stupid religious people and scientism. This is a false dichotomy.
Theologians and atheists both thnik of God as something which may or may not exist. A thing may be said to said to exist or not. God is not a thing.
It might be a criticism of Heidegger that his Sein may be replaced by God. That’s right.
God is the possibility for every thing which is to be. God is not a physical thing or an abstract thing. He is not a thing among other things in the world, nor a thing outside the world. He is the possibility of the world or of any world if there be more than one.
Once one “gets” the difference between Being and beings, the ontological difference, all theology and naturalism become infantile. Schleiermacher at best sees “through a glass darkly” what Heidegger saw “face to face”.
Love this episode guys. I listened to it driving up the coast, and found it put a lot of what I am going through into words. This is exactly what I was hoping for when I got into PEL – access to new thinkers, new thoughts, and a challenging escape during my commute.
I particularly enjoyed the discussion in the podcast around why don’t we hear more of this type of Christianity? Why do only the nutcase intelligent design types jump on the megaphone? It was correctly pointed out that those that fit more into Schleiermacher/Tillich camp don’t really find it compatible with their faith to jump into the limelight and slate everyone who disagrees with them.
Unfortunately this can have a distorting effect in how people view the prevailing views of the religious and gives ammunition to the point of view that religion is for the unthinking and unreflective.
I really do like the idea of the overlap between Taoists and the Romantics. God couldn’t exist in the sense that a creature exists, since that would make God created…
Keep up the podcast guys, I am really enjoying it.
Thanks, KC. (Readers should check out Kid’s blog here: http://www.outsideofeden.com/, where I see he covers Paul Tillich and Tim and Erik in successive posts.)
What surprised me was the complete lack of mention of the turmoil in France, or the French Revolution, which had occurred 10 years before the original publication Schleiermacher.
France had been the most prestigious and powerful country in the world, and the overthrow of the Ancien Régime by “Rationalist” forces. This was followed by the official religion in France being changed from Christianity to the worship of Reason. The Goddess Reason was installed officially.
In the years preceding the French Revolution, Deism had become fashionable, and was considered to be the only acceptable form of religion by the “bien pensant” in Europe. The “Founding Fathers” of the United States were Deists.
So one of the problems was how to maintain social respectability in confessional states, while appearing to be acceptable to the bien pensant. This one of the reasons for secrecy in Freemasonry.
That this did not enter the discussion was surprising. It would also be helpful if those in the discussion acquainted themselves more with Christianity, in particular the more mainstream forms, before commenting (inaccurately) about it.
I believe in Meditation I S. is very dismissive of both France and England (where deism was especially fashionable) as being ill-suited for receiving his wisdom, with France in particular because they at that particular point were much too dismissive of tradition (which is why on his account post-revolutionary France was so directionless and apt to fall prey to both the Terror and Napoleon). So while you could make a historical argument that w/o the French situation S.’s thought wouldn’t have been possible, his specific audience was Germany, making discussion of France a bit beside the point. That said, in a single discussion of a longish work, there are always going to be angles that we don’t think to address, which is one of the reasons we have this forum so that you listeners can help us and other readers out.
What in particular would you like to supplement/correct re. our account of Christianity?
Hi Mark,
Uh, thanks for the mention, I guess, at apprx 40 minutes in. But I’m disappointed that you either misunderstood my gripes on the K-episode, or misrepresented it.
My gripe had nothing to do with you assuming atheism as a default position. (wth?) My gripe, if you recall, was over the amount of wasted time on a hyper-concern over how non-theists can understand K, or how K can be understood apart from his Christianity, which in my opinion came at the expense of understanding K better. And I pointed out that no such concern for theists exists on episodes such as Nietzsche (and I was not advocating there should be a concern for theists, either, I was simply pointing out a double standard and the assumption that theists *should be* schooled by atheists like Nietzche, but no such assumption exists that non-theists *should be* schooled by theists like K). My gripe was also with, as I put it, the “village atheist” interjections that seemed to derail the discussion. In your replies, you seemed to follow along and comprehended what my gripes were, so, what the heck?
Anyway, good episode regardless, but I really don’t understand how you could misunderstand/misrepresent my gripes the way you did. :/
Hi Ace,
My wife likes to point out to me that in East Asian cultures, it’s the responsibility of the listener to understand what the speaker is trying to say, whereas in Western cultures, it’s the primary responsibility of the speaker to clearly express himself to the listener. Let’s compromise and assume that we both have a role to play here.
Neither Mark nor I have any interest in deliberately misrepresenting what you said in your e-mail. It’s not like any listener who cared couldn’t just go back and evaluate your e-mail and make up their own mind.
I must be misunderstanding you as well, because Mark’s comments didn’t seem so far off point to me, and I feel like you’re reinforcing his point with your comments above.
I did my best to decipher what you meant by “how K can be be understood apart from his Christianity” in the earlier thread. The interpretation I posited seems to have been incorrect according to you, but you’re not helping us understand you better if you don’t take more effort to explain your points. To wit,
1. Please give an example of what it means to understand Kierkegaard together with his Christianity.
2. Please give an example of what it means to understand Kierkegaard apart from his Christianity.
3. Please explain the practical difference between the two.
4. Please explain why one understanding is more helpful or provides a better understanding than the other.
I can understand if taking that time is more effort than it’s worth. But speaking for myself, at least — if you really want us to avoid us misunderstanding your comments, you’ll have to put the work into more carefully explaining your objections. Simply expressing your disappointment that we failed to “get” you isn’t helpful. If it bothers you that we aren’t properly characterizing your objections, then you bear at least some responsibility to better explain them.
Hey, Ace, I was elliptically referring on the episode to some of your comments here: http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2010/11/21/episode-29-kierkegaard-on-the-self/#comment-31820, specifically: “I perceive there is an underlying assumption or an expectation that Christians/theists should get schooled by atheists, and that they should seriously consider their views, regardless of whether or not Christians/theists find atheists or their atheistic philosophies particularly interesting or useful. It’s just expected, it’s a given. So it’s not even worth asking. Yet it’s not expected or a given when it comes to secularists getting school’ed by theists such as Kierkegaard. Why not? The seeming double-standard there was very irritating to me…”
This point, and the context of that overall comment where you were apologizing for being hypersensitive to perceived anti-Christian bias, resonated with me, and I thought it was worth bringing up, as so much of the “new atheist” debates is about decorum and perceived burden of proof, and is generalizable to philosophical discussion in other areas. Specifically: when you think you’re right about something, and you think that thing is well established, yet countervailing opinions persist, in what contexts and to what degree do you give lip service to the opposing view? What does “respecting” the opposing view entail in terms of taking the time to seriously engage it ad nauseum? To what degree is dissing such a view dissing the people that hold that view, and to what extent does the fact that they’ll perceive it as dissing them make this a moral issue and not a purely intellectual one?
This seemed to me the heart of your objection, and the one behind the letter writer I referred to on this post: http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2011/05/21/does-p-e-l-aim-to-alienate-conservatives/: feeling not respected, and this notion of respect, rather than what strategy we felt was natural to pursue on the K. episode, is what I’ve been mulling over.
Hi Bear,
Well, to begin with, I don’t quite accept your historical account. Schleiermacher was a kind of reformed Moravian, not a deist, and that didn’t result in his exclusion from the “bien pensant” that defined Berlin’s intellectual elite (which is the only “bien pensant” relevant to a discussion of S.’s “On Religion”).
Sure, deism was a popular trend voiced by certain intellectuals at the time, but it wasn’t an organized movement. And the anti-clericalism of post-revolutionary France was not nearly so relevant to the protestant German states, for what I assume to be obvious reasons. Schleiermacher took the time to explain that he was not a deist in “On Religion,” but he was speaking at least as much to atheists as to deists. We covered this in some detail on the show, and Mark correctly pointed out that many of the atheistic objections S. described then remain relevant today. So how much more light would a review of deism’s history have shed on S.’s arguments? I would think Schleiermacher’s nationalism (and the nationalism of the German Romantics generally) would have been no less relevant to discussing “On Religion”, but there are only so many hours in the day.
In any event, I don’t know what you mean when you say “one of the problems was how to maintain social respectability in the confessional states…” Whose problem? It doesn’t seem to have been Schleiermacher’s problem, nor that of any of those within his circle in 1799. After all, his circle was meeting in the salon of Henrietta Herz, and she was Jewish! So I really don’t see how the forces you describe impacted Schleiermacher’s agenda, or that of his audience.
Mark and I already had a minor debate in the blog on some of the historical trends you cite above. But by the time we recorded the show, it seemed more interesting and more useful to talk about Schleiermacher’s continued relevance today, rather than trying to simply situate S. in his time. There are only so many angles one can cover in a 90 minute show. I’m not sure it’s a failing of the program that we didn’t cover all the historical angles you found more interesting, _unless_ you can explain how our failure to do so resulted in us mischaracterizing S.’s argument or impact.
Finally, if you think any comments we made about Christianity or Schleiermacher (or Heidegger or Kant!) were inaccurate, then you’d be doing us (and perhaps the audience) more of a favor to point out and correct those inaccurate comments. Simply making vague allusions to us not being sufficiently well-read on the subject isn’t particularly helpful or persuasive.
Daniel,
I don’t care if Mark or you or Wes are atheists or assume atheism (I presume you would if you are atheists).
Instead of me answering what it means to understand K apart from his Christianity or with his Christianity, why don’t you explain what it means since you guys were trying to do the former and avoid the latter out of a hyper-concern for non-theist listeners. To me it seems nonsensical that anyone could understand K better that way, and it was you guys, not me, who thought it worthwhile to understand him apart from his Christianity for some reason. Given the lack of fruits in that attempt, it is you, not me, who should explain what the heck it means to understand a vocal Christian apart from his religious identity.
If you don’t think that’s a nonsensical venture, then try making a similar effort to understand Nietzche apart from his atheism out of concern for your theist listeners.
This experiment was your guys’ experiment, not mine. I voiced my gripes, and they were understood by both you and Mark before, so I don’t understand the game of coy you’re playing now.
I am not an atheist.
Wow!
Then why do you so often claim in the podcasts that you ARE an atheist?
As luck would have it for me, you even said you were an atheist in THIS VERY EPISODE! Which is it?
I’ve always felt that these recurring claims of yours of agnosticism (in the incorrect sense of the word) or atheism were a facade and it seems that I was right given your categorical and unambiguous statement above.
You are forever defending religion, going after the new atheists etc. and you even said in one episode that you were actively seeking religious experiences. So come on Wes, no more of the disingenuous claims of atheism on the podcasts. You’re a theist from head to toe.
I’ve only just listened to this episode Ace but I would say that Daniel and Wes are both a long, long way from being atheists. Mark would qualify on what I’ve heard of the podcasts to date. Wes claimed that he IS an atheist in the podcast and below claims that he IS NOT. I’d say he is being candid in print and not so candid on the podcasts. Many God-leaning people claim atheism as a way of seeming more authentic and less ridiculous. It is becoming more and more embarrassing to be seen to believe in such nonsense.
Hi Russell,
I believe Wes said on the episode that whether he was an agnostic or an atheist was up for grabs, but with respect to a personalized God, he was an atheist. I pretty much share those sentiments.
By the same token, I suspect you’re an atheist with respect to Odin or Osiris or Baal. I don’t see any contradiction here.
Rather than accuse folks of being disingenuous, perhaps consider the possibility that you’ve misunderstood them? Anyway, I think it’s more productive to focus on the arguments than on the people making them.
Hi Daniel.
Your first sentence sums up fairly well what Wes said, although he also began by saying that he was “… not religious”. As i pointed out above, this contradicts the fact that he has actively sought after religious experience. Why would anyone do that if they were not religious or aspiring to be so?
You’re right about me – I am certainly an atheist with respect to Odin, Osiris and Baal – pick any god you like. The contradiction you say you don’t see is in the fact that he says in this post (above) “I am not an atheist” but says in many of the podcasts that he IS an atheist. How is that not a contradiction and how don’t you see it?
If someone says “A” here and then “Not A” there, disingenuousness springs to mind as a definitely possibility don’t you think? In general I agree that it is more productive to focus on the arguments but not solely when the people making them are doing so by misrepresenting an inherent bias. When Wes says categorically in this post that he is not an atheist, then his atheism should hardly be something that is “up for grabs” on the podcast. He should say just as clearly on the podcasts as well that he is not an atheist. He is forever defending the religious worldview and criticizing the new atheists etc. His position is obvious and should be stated rarher than disguised.
Hi Russ,
I’m reluctant to speak much further on Wes’s behalf, but suffice it to say that I see no contradiction. Capital-A “Atheism” of the Dan Dennett variety differs from the lower-case “atheism” of disbelieving the divinity of Jesus, Jehovah, Jupiter, etc. Schleiermacher and Spinoza were themselves accused of atheism, but they wouldn’t consider themselves atheist in same way that Richard Dawkins considers himself an atheist.
Similarly, seeking after religious experience does not necessarily make one religious. It’s all a matter of definitions. I suspect yours may differ from Wes’s or mine. Thus, no, it need not be the “A/Not-A” dichotomy you suggest. There are other possibilities to consider, like terminology confusion. Why jump to the one least sympathetic to Wes?
Hi Daniel,
After saying again that you see no contradiction you go on to talk about what you see as different types of atheism. But none of that has anything to do with the claimed contradiction – I didn’t make the claim that Wes said he was one type of atheist and then said he was another. So what is your purpose in distinguishing Dennett from Spinoza? It’s beside the point and is verging on a straw man logical fallacy.
To put it in your parlance, what he implied in this podcast is that he was a “lower-case atheist”. He has done this repeatedly over the history of the podcast and not always in the “up for grabs” sense. Then he said categorically in the Blog that “I am not an atheist”. I’m sorry Daniel, but Wes cannot be both (a) not an atheist and (b) an atheist in some sense. That’s Contradiction 101.
In terms of your second paragraph, I’d be very interested to hear you flesh that out. What does seeking after religious experience make one if not religious, or at the very least religious-minded? How can your definitions of “religious” differ from mine? It’s a word – like “atheism”. They have their meanings. You or I can’t just make up our own definitions of words with pre-existing meanings, can we?
Maybe I shouldn’t have used the word “disingenuous” – that was probably too strong. Let me say “inconsistent” instead, but the contradiction claim stands.
Hi Russell,
Most of us make up our own definitions of words that supposedly have pre-existing meanings. Meaning — and nuances of meaning — vary from time to time, place to place, person to person, you and I included. Once one picks up on that, then many apparent contradictions can fall away (though the hard work remains of discerning what different people mean when they use the same word in discourse.)
As long as we can agree that the word “disingenuous” is inapt here, then I think we can agree to disagree on the rest!
Hi Daniel.
Wow!! Really? I don’t make up my own definitions of words and I don’t know anyone else that does that either. So you can make the assertion that “most of us make up our own definitions of words …” but that doesn’t make it true and there would be no way for you to know that it was true even if it was.
The problem with what you are saying is that it CREATES the “hard work” you refer to. There would be no hard work involved without it. When people redefine, for example, “God” to mean “Universe”, and then say “I believe in God in that sense”, that’s just nonsense – smoke and mirrors. There is already a word for “Universe” – it’s “Universe”! So just say “I believe in the Universe”.
It’s interesting that your response completely ignored most of my points, so agreeing ” … to disagree on the rest” seems a very convenient way to finish the post for you but rather unsatisfying for me with all my points left unanswered …..
You ignored my first paragraph and didn’t answer the question posed in it. This referred to what I think is a variation of a straw man argument, or do you disagree? If so, how would you say that pointing out something that had nothing to do with my oringinal contention was a valid form of response?
You ignored my second paragraph which makes it clear that there is a contradiction. Whatever you make up as your definintion of “A”, saying (a) I’m “A” and then (b) I’m not “A” is a contradiction. Do you disagree with this reasoning? If so, why?
When two people are debating an issue, it is only fair that they each address the other’s points, not just sweep them under the carpet. Please don’t get offended. I’m not accusing you of deliberately doing so, but that’s the upshot.
And I’m not trying to be a jerk or anything, nor do I want to derail this comment section to be about another show either. But when I tuned in today I wasn’t expecting that my gripes on the K episode to be used as an example by Mark for something I never argued.
Hi Ace,
No worries, you’re no jerk; we’re all just a bunch of strangers trying to understand each other online.
Hi Ace,
Well, again, I think the problem is that I don’t know what you mean by “understanding him apart from his Christianity.” So, it’s kind of hard to respond. I already made my attempt to get at this in the last thread, but you simply asserted that I misinterpreted you, without doing anything more to explain your position.
It’s not so difficult to understand a vocal Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist apart from their religious identity, or lack thereof. Muslims have no particular trouble understanding Kierkegaard, and Christians have no trouble understanding Nietzsche. One can understand and appreciate Nietzsche without being an atheist, and one can be an atheist and while thoroughly rejecting part or all of Nietzsche’s conclusions (or even his premises). But the arguments and the conclusions support themselves. Just read what the person wrote; and if they have written well, then you can understand them.
Again, I’m trying to work with you here, but the discussion might be more productive if you can explain what it means to understand someone “apart from,” as opposed to “together with,” their religious identity. One can understand Kierkegaard’s philosophical arguments, and take value from them, without accepting K’s peculiar Christian vision (which most of his Danish Christian contemporaries didn’t share), or any Christian vision, for that matter.
Mark,
I referred to what you quoted from me in my first reply on this page, in case you didn’t see that. But you never replied to my “apology post” on the other thread which you snipped
that quote from, so I guess you didn’t understand the point I was making in that respect, and I likely wasn’t clear since my reply was a mishmash of expressing my irritation with
internet atheists in general, and my irritation with show’s hyper concern for non-theists on the K episode. 2 different gripes, one is unrelated to the show (but related to my
apology for hypersensitivity at Mark) , the other was related to the show (the part you snipped). Be that as it may…
I gather you’re mulling over whether to give lip service to an opposing view if you think you’re right and believe your opinions are well-established, right? Uh, well, yeah, you
should. Since you would expect the same from people who don’t agree with you, would you not? And isn’t it arrogant and presumptuous to dismiss the “countervailing opinions”
just because you think your view is well established? If most people disagree, then your certainty about your opinions matters little to anyone besides yourself and the minority of
people who happen to agree with you.
Just because you assert that the Bible is stupid doesn’t make that so, and just because K reminds you of American Christian fundies doesn’t mean he is like American Christian
fundies. If you’re going to do a show on K, then your assertions about the Bible and K are irrelevant, and not “well established” in anyone’s mind but yours, and are only
distracting noise.
You’re a funny and entertaining person, don’t get me wrong, I don’t dislike you, but the above attitude is exactly what “triggered” me into a rant about internet atheists and their
love affair with their own insulting bigoted opinions that they assert to be facts.
And even if we pretend for a moment that your opinions are well-established facts and the majority of the human race just hasn’t had access to the same heightened gnosis as
you, what does disrespecting the majority of the human race accomplish? If you recall the whole reason I missed the few valid objections you raised in the K episode was
because your insulting attitude throughout made me not particularly open to anything you had to say. So if you plan on enlightening anyone to see that your opinions are “well-
established” and “right” then you were definitely taking the wrong approach. Nobody is shaking in their boots out of fear that you’ll look down on them for not seeing things as
you do, but that is the common ill-logic of people who threaten others that they’ll being perceived as idiots if they keep believing what they do, in the vain hope that will motivate
people to stop believing what they do. (Which makes me wonder if those who use such tactics are the one’s who are moved towards their beliefs more by fear of what people will
think of them if they believe otherwise than their actual truth value)
As far as your question: “To what degree is dissing such a view dissing the people that hold that view, and to what extent does the fact that they’ll perceive it as dissing them make
this a moral issue and not a purely intellectual one?”
You’re a fan of music, let me ask you what you would think if a co-worker went out of his way to voice his hatred of your favorite band? He knows it’s your favorite band, that
you’ve been to as many of their concerts you could go to and got the t-shirt and posters, and yet this co-worker of yours makes a point of insulting this band every time the
opportunity presents itself, insulting its musical value, and their skills, and even the fans of this band, and then claims it’s just his “humor” and he’s not insulting you. He is. He is
insulting you. He’s actually not insulting the band (or being funny), he’s insulting you and your ability to apprehend what’s skillful music and what isn’t. So when you assert that
the Bible is stupid, you aren’t just putting forward an innocent personal opinion, you are in fact insulting billions of people like me who think the Bible is a library of profound
literature (You’re also unwittingly insulting yourself, in my opinion, but I won’t get into that). If you were to assert that theism is stupid, that is no innocent personal opinion, you
would be insulting theists. And if you were to assert that atheism is well-established, then you would be insulting everyone’s intelligence and calling your own intelligence into
question.
And there’s a difference between disagreeing, making light, or poking fun at some peculiarities of people’s beliefs and behaviors and the ironies that come with it (which I have no
problem with), and downright alienating people. And before you ask me how to distinguish between the 2, my pre-emptive answer is follow the golden rule!
Whether this all is a moral issue or an intellectual issue, I have no idea, it seems to me to be a tact issue. Maybe your co-host (I forget his name, he’s been absent the past couple
of shows) can give you some pointers.
I hope I was able to answer your questions to your satisfaction. Probably not, though, but I’m not a philosopher! 🙂
Ace, in talking about “when you think you’re right about something,” I was speaking hypothetically (i.e. generally about any kind of view, abstracting from the specific issue of religion) and rhetorically. My actual position is more nearly hinted at via the newer post: http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2011/06/20/prima-facie-weirdness/.
Look, there are always going to be times when you need to discount others’ weird (in your eyes) views just to get on with your conversation, or else you have to stop and qualify everything forever and can’t actually say anything. If you’re having a conversation about rock music, and you have some friend that just insists that it’s all uncivilized trash (meaning classical or jazz is better), then even if you think there’s something to that person’s arguments, you kind of have to forget about it while you’re talking. A podcast is a weird forum where we’re talking to each other, but yet we have this audience listening in, who are going to have so many different and contradictory opinions that you’re just not going to please everyone.
I didn’t and don’t see much merit in your objection to the way we conducted the K. discussion, and encourage you to find a podcast or lectures by a committed believers if you think that would give you a more balanced and fruitful picture. I was glad you seemed in that thread to see that you were being too harsh, but ultimately I can’t be too concerned about that.
However, partly in reaction to your words, I did make a good attempt during the Schleiermacher podcast to be more sensitive to who was listening and overall to take S’s position. (I’ve been reading more of the Reitan book and enjoying it as well: http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2011/06/15/eric-reitan-in-the-atheism-debates-a-pox-on-both-your-houses/) This definitely isn’t the last we’ll talk about this on the show (heck, I’d be open for doing something on an actual chunk of the Bible if we felt we could get enough actual philosophical content out of it… secondary literature like Schleiermacher is probably more fertile ground for us, just as in Buddhism we had to search pretty hard for Nagarjuna and still, the really juicy part of that episode for me was in the Westerhoff secondary source (http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2010/10/25/westerhoff-on-nagarjuna-on-metaphysically-basic-elements/).
If I’ve casually referred to the Bible as “stupid” in some past episode, that was just snark, and yes, if you’re not the type that would find that in context funny or cathartic, then oh, well, I guess I missed you on that one. I too find the unending wallowing in hatred of religion that the new atheists engage in mostly sickening, not so much because I don’t agree with their attack, but because it’s just tedious and intellectually unfruitful. I’ve now done my time with Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens in preparation for our new atheists episode, and I really couldn’t get through that much of it… it’s occasionally amusing but mostly just a lot of unpleasant anecdotes that don’t add up to much.
In wading through the mass of literature available to us, it’s unavoidable that you discount whole swaths of it, at least temporarily, as being irrelevant to you. In music, I’m pretty open minded regarding genre, but there are still masses of stuff (e.g. most rap) that just aren’t on my radar. Now, in certain moods, if you ask me about rap, I’d reach out and say what little coherent I have to say about it, and recall those times when I’ve gotten into individual songs. In other moods, and certainly when talking with some friends, I’d dismiss it all as crap. So, again, a live issue for me is whether to treat the podcast like a classroom, where of course I wouldn’t be as flippant about certain things, or like a group of friends, which likely makes it more fun to listen to. By extension, what I was referring to in my previous post is not my position but (for instance) the dilemma facing the confident atheist who sees his rejection of the more obviously implausible tenets of Christianity as a matter of finally, after 2000+ years of Christianity dominating Western culture, contributing to pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes. Dawkins, for all he’s characterized as vitriolic, is not particularly frenzied: he just calls it like he sees it, and he sees real harm coming from some Christian doctrines, particularly when foisted on children. So should he just shut up and live and let live? Is there something rude about engaging in the battle of ideas in the way he does? If so, who’s a better model of someone with that kind of view, who’s not so venomous, but yet has been as successful in getting what he thinks to be an important message across?
As far as in my opinion, what constitutes something that religious people tend to buy into but which I think is pretty well established as incoherent, I’ll just point out the divine command theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory). I used to teach a week on Plato’s Euthyphro about this, and the Christian students in my class often just couldn’t get it, despite the fact that many many respectable Christians recommend it as wrongheaded and in fact undermining the foundations of morality. We’ve not gotten to have an episode on this (and I’m not sure if we will), but I encourage you to do a bit of research. This kind of specific doctrine is what I think it profitable to have back-and-forth argumentation about, not really about some religion as a whole or something even more amorphous.
I agree with much of what you said here, and understand that you’re torn on how to have a friendly discussion with friends while at the same time not ticking off viewers who could potentially get upset about anything. And point taken on how you might respond when asked your opinion on rap depending on the company you’re in, or the mood you’re in.
I read Sam Harris’ The End of Faith when I was agnostic and it was fresh off the printing press, I was testing the waters of the “New Atheism”, but after reading it I walked away thinking Harris was a psychotically deranged individual masquerading as a rational and articulate intellectual, his beautiful vocabulary and eloquent presentation didn’t fool me into believing he wasn’t batshit insane. And I give him full credit for putting an end to my flirtation with full blown atheism. Whether that was a rational decision on my part or not, I can’t say, all I know is Sam Harris scared the crap out of me and gave me the creeps and I didn’t want to be anything like him.
I haven’t read Denette, Dawkins, or Hitchens, but I’ve seen them in debates and seen enough of their quotes by atheists to feel like I’ve read them. I like Hitchens most, he’s offensive but charming also, so it’s hard to stay angry with him for long. Dawkins, don’t care for him, he’s pretentious and condescending, and I don’t get from him that he understands his opposition. Taking on creationism is one thing, but taking on theology, the pope, and Aquinas? He hasn’t impressed me.
Divine command theory: I don’t know much of the philosophical debate over this, so I can just give my opinion on how I view “divine commands.” Whatever promotes truth, love, human dignity, and the value of human life = do that, fight for it, and avoid hypocrisy in the process. Whatever degrades truth, love, human dignity, and human life = don’t do that, fight against it, and avoid hypocrisy in the process. Whether the stories or commands in the Bible actually happened or whether they simply serve as illustrations of making this most basic moral ethic plain to the reader (or hearer), we can’t say for certain, but I can’t doubt the ethic, and it does seem to follow that idolatry of kings, kingdoms/states, and creation and devolving into a base selfish nature which makes one ripe to be oppressed does seem to be the consequences for doubting the ethic and calling it into question.
Anyway, it’s late, and I’m tired. Sorry if this reply doesn’t address all points in your reply. I’ll try to respond to Daniel tomorrow and if I think there’s more I could add to this reply tomorrow then I will do so.
G’night guys.
Wes – apologies.
Daniel,
I don’t know what it means to understand him apart from his Christianity either, but that’s what you guys said you were doing on the show.
And I agree it is possible that anyone can understand and appreciate anyone else despite religious differences. But that’s different than trying to divorce someone from their religion to make them more paletable to people of different beliefs:
A Christian can understand and appreciate Nietzsche without assenting to atheism, but how can a Christian understand or appreciate Nietzsche if his views are “Christianized” to make them more palatable to Christians? This difference isn’t a semantic one.
I agree that non-theists can get something out of K, but I don’t believe they can get anything out of him when you divorce K from his Christianity and “secularize” him. I mean, why not just let the non-theists figure out for themselves how to get something out of K instead of re-creating K for their sake? Why I keep bringing up Nietzsche is to serve as a contrast so you will see that you wouldn’t think of doing the same thing to him for the sake of Christian listeners that you did to K for the sake of secular listeners. Your guys’ effort to secularize K for the sake of your non-theist listeners means that you, not me, made the assumption that they’d have to accept Christianity to appreciate K for what he really was, hence your guys’ effort to re-create him, hence my problem with the show.
I can’t make myself any clearer, if you don’t get it by now, then you’re never going to get it. Sorry. 🙁
Hi Ace,
Well, I’m not sure why you have a problem with us “secularizing” Kierkegaard (and by extension any philosopher who also had a religion, whether that be Spinoza, Locke, Kant, Lao Tzu, etc.). I only see you stating that it just can’t be or shouldn’t be done.
I disagree: Kierkegaard had some interesting insights that are really quite separable from his tyrannical view of God. That’s why he’s discussed on philosophy podcasts as well as theology podcasts. Same thing goes for Kant — it’s really quite easy to separate Kant’s religious views from his philosophical arguments. You might not appreciate the effort, but that doesn’t mean that others will share the same view.
Why do it at all? Because I would not want people non-Christians (or those with a different Christian vision) to be so turned off by Kierkegaard’s weirdness that they would avoid considering his otherwise valuable philosophical insights. And they might not take the time to figure it out for themselves if they never read him. We’re not alone in performing this move, by the way: Camus, Sartre, Heidegger, etc., all usefully divorced Kierkegaardian concepts from the whole “Kierkegaard package.” This goes on in philosophy all the time; we didn’t invent the practice.
To take just one example: Schleiermacher was greatly influenced by Spinoza, but that doesn’t mean Schleiermacher had to accept the whole “Spinozan package”. Schleiermacher “divorced” (your term) Spinozan concepts from Spinoza’s Judaism, and to great effect. Schleiermacher did so for the same reasons that some of us on the Kierkegaard episode advocated: to separate what was interesting and original about Kierkegaard from what was less interesting and less original.
Or look to Kierkegaard himself: K. greatly appreciated the writings of that famous atheist Schopenhauer, despite Schopenhauer’s virulent attacks on Christianity. That’s partially because Kierkegaard sympathized with Schopenhauer’s critique of contemporary Christian practices and dogmas. But more generally, it’s because K. thought Schopenhauer had some neat ideas that could be appreciated within the context of Kierkegaard’s own Christian vision, and “divorced” from Schopenhauer’s atheism. To the extent Kierkegaard had a problem with Schopenhauer, it’s because he thought Schopenhauer was a hypocrite on the subject of ascetiscm. But Kierkegaard fully understood and appreciated Schopenhauerian concepts while “divorcing” them from Schopenhauer himself. So, K. “Christianized” Schopenhauer’s own critique of Christianity, in a manner quite similar to our attempts to “secularize” Kierkegaard.
In short, I think we’re in good company in trying to separate and isolate philosophical arguments from the philosopher. Perhaps it’s not to your taste, but I don’t know that works as a criticism of our approach.
Dude, them’s fightin’ words. Public Enemy’s “It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back” was the most important record of the 1980s!
Hi Daniel,
I should have been clearer.
My first observation that the French Revolution escaped all mention: it was the biggest historical event of the time and certainly would have shaped the commentaries, particularly on Religion. It is as though one wrote a great treatise on Islam today, and completely ignored the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the events in New York in 2001.
Schleiermacher himself in his personal letters wrote extensively about the French Revolution — expressing support for the revolution, but a bit of horror of the murder/execution of Louis XVI. So this was certainly on his mind.
I should also be clearer: I did not mean to imply that Schleiermacher was a Deist: however, Deism was the most influential movement at the time. As for it not being organised, the Freemasons are essentially Deists. The system of lodges would indicate a degree of organisation.
The conversation seemed to imply that the “Cultured Despisers” were Spinozist, which would be surprising since this was very much a niche opinion. I suspect that most of them would have been Deism, and since Schleiermacher’s work is essentially apologetic, it would need to embrace or have an awareness of the major trends in religion and answer them. The fact that Schleiermacher discusses Deism in France and England indicates that it was on his mind, and on the mind of his audience. Schleiermacher’s views on religion is almost an accommodation to the Freemasons
As for your comments about Christianity, I apologise for not being more specific, and I do not have time at the moment to listen to the episode again to go through the comments. One that I seem to remember was a distinction between Christians who use ritual and those who focus on doctrine, ignoring that the vast majority of Christians focus on both.
Upon reflexion, I think I was rankling against a pervasive Anglophone prejudice about Christianity. To correct this it is worth noting that Protestantism is very much a minority view in Christianity: the large majority of Christians belong to apostolic churches – which include Orthodox Christians, Catholics and the Church of the East. The largest group outside of this is the “Anglican Communion”, the majority of whom are African.
Since the Orthodox, Catholics and Church of the East have a common belief, any comments about Christian belief should reference their believes as normative.
Hi Bear,
Thanks for the clarification. I think we can agree the French Revolution was “on Schleiermacher’s mind,” in the sense that every educated European knew of the French Revolution by 1799. We needn’t look to diaries or letters, etc. to grant that point, and anyway it’s not the issue. I can only assume you were surprised that we didn’t mention the French Revolution because you thought understanding France was necessary to understanding Schleiermacher’s arguments in Speeches One and Two. If you agree that the French Revolution _doesn’t_ really help illuminate Schleiermacher’s arguments, then I’m surprised you were so surprised we didn’t mention it. If, however, you think Schleiermacher’s arguments can’t be properly understood outside the context of the French Revolution, you’ll have to more explicitly draw the connection between the French Revolution and the arguments of On Religion. Because S. himself didn’t, and he had the best opportunity to do so.
However, S. only gave passing mention to France in the First Speech, and did so only to criticize how impoverished the French (deistic) religious outlook was:
We did explain in the episode that Schleiermacher’s great move was to navigate between (1) out-and-out atheism, and (2) the “highfalutin'” deism/natural religion that was popular at the time. Beyond getting that out there, I’m not sure how much better one will understand Schleiermacher’s arguments through an extended discussion of French history.
As to your latter point: I can sympathize listener frustration that we took an Anglophone bias toward Christianity, but my guess is that we have an Anglophone prejudice toward _all_ matters discussed on the blog and the show. But as to whether it’s appropriate to distinguish between orthodoxy and orthopraxy within religions (whether that religion be Christianity or any other), I’m not sure I take your point. Certainly, we never presented it as a matter of strict polar opposites. Schleiermacher was navigating between religious ritual and doctrine throughout _On Religion_, so it seems natural to comment upon it. And certainly most Catholics/Orthodox types tend to assert that Protestants are less into orthopraxy.
Whether Protestantism is to be considered an “outlier” form of Christianity, and treated as such, seems a bit odd in the context of discussing Schleiermacher, as he was himself a Protestant. Further, the Protestant legacy culturally dominates not only most religious discussions, but also most cultural and political discussions within the United States, where we happen to live. I’m not sure we need to be particularly learned in all aspects of Christianity globally throughout time to comment upon those aspects of Christianity we encounter in our day-to-day realities here.
That said, if you can identify any specific misstatements we made during the show, I’d be keen to learn of it.
Thanks, Bear,
Certainly a works v. faith discussion would be nice at some point if we read something amenable to that. You’re right that the paradigm of Christianity around our vicinity to which we were reacting emphasizes the latter, which is particularly rankling, given that it damns to hell all the nice-acting folks of the world who don’t happen to hold some particular metaphysical view of the divine. When I think of the alternative, Judaism comes most readily to mind just given my personal experience, but Orthodox churches work just about as well to make the point.
I think I remember one correction: in the mocking of the proofs of the existence of God, you mixed up the Cosmological argument and the Ontological arguments. You were ridiculing the Ontological argument but called it the Cosmological argument.
It seems unlikely to me that we made that mistake, but perhaps we were less than clear. We discuss the ontological argument pretty thoroughly, if I remember correctly, on the Schopenhauer episode, and likely the cosmological argument there too. They come up in passing periodically, but we’ve not yet done a really comprehensive treatment of them… which as of a planned August recording will change: we’ve tentatively agreed to cover J.L. Mackie’s “The Miracle of Theism” (1982), which is regarded by both atheist and pro-religion sources we’ve read as being a definitive account of those traditional arguments; he covers them through discussion (and I’m sure extensive quotation) of their famous historical instantiations, so we can make clear, e.g. the differences between Anselm’s and Descartes’s versions of the ont arg. (In the actual Descartes episode, we did a particularly brief and pisspoor introduction of that argument, as we were aiming to cover only meditations 1 and 2, and it just came up in passing in adumbrating the embarrassing direction that the Meditations take after that point.)
I don’t think we’ve explicitly denied that a lot of historical Christianity takes reason and theology to be completely compatible (and that these sentiments persist today in many traditions), but by Schleiermacher’s time, I think (according to his own analysis, following Kant) it had been pretty well established that using reason to ground theology just doesn’t work, so S. wasn’t concerned with refuting that… just with providing an account of religion that didn’t rely on what he and his audience took to be an intellectually bankrupt approach. There’s much more to say about the issue, of course, and in that Mackie episode and likely in some future Aquinas episode we’ll try to spell it out better.
However, it should by now not at all surprise me that whenever we do anything related to any living religion, I get contacted by someone who thinks we fundamentally misunderstand the basic tenets because we’re not emphasizing the parts central to his faith. (I had a very earnest Buddhist contact me about ep. 27 just recently.) This is the risk we take treading on sacred ground, I guess.
1. Everyone makes mistakes and slips of the tongue. It is not the end of the world.
2. Thanks for dismissing me in your last paragraph.
Not dismissing you… merely saying that the criticism “you don’t know anything about religion and shouldn’t be talking about it” is not in itself helpful. We do our best, and if I can find a future guest participant with some more scholarship in this area, I’ll invite him or her on. Message received. The show format, however, is not such that we feel the need to get a die-hard advocate of the view in question on with us; on the show, we’re trying to make sense of a text, not hosting a debate (though I’m happy to do that on this site). To see if a text has anything to offer us, we by design reflect on our own experiences and past reading, which will inevitably fall short of our listeners’ in some areas.
When we started this podcast, I had absolutely no desire to even get into Western religious issues, because I think that ground has been more than sufficiently stomped on over 2000 years, and it’s not been very fruitful in helping me understand any of the philosophical questions that drive me. Nonetheless, we found ourselves drifting into this area in discussing figures like Descartes and Spinoza, so it seemed worthwhile to revisit it more formally, and I’m generally enjoying it this time around: the Schleiermacher reading especially.
So I don’t mean to be defensive here, but I’m inviting you to contribute some concrete thoughts to the debate (which I’ll then keep in mind in our upcoming related discussions) rather than merely being offended by what you perceive as our mischaracterizations of Christianity. [edit: And now I see you replied to me more specifically in the “weirdness” thread, so thanks for contributing!]
We didn’t confuse the Cosmological and Ontological arguments (if I’m wrong and you can point me to the specific part of the podcast, I’ll (un-verifiably) eat my hat on air next time and issue you a personal apology); and as far as mocking goes — we may have made some jokes, but I remember saying explicitly that while these arguments have problems, they are informative and should be taken seriously. (I had been doing some heavy reading about the arguments that week).
I think you referred to Kant’s claim that one of those arguments could be reduced to the other (I can’t recall which).
right Kant claims the cosmological can be reduced to the ontological.
Daniel,
The problem I had with secularizing K, as I said in my very first post on that episode, was that I walked away not having learned anything about K. And this I attributed to your trying to understanding him apart from his Christianity, which left me not understanding him any better than I did prior to listening.
Re: “Why do it at all?” So because you don’t want to turn off non-Christians, then you’d have no problem doing an episode where you Christianize Nietzsche, then? Perusing through the blog section, I see I’m not the only Christian listener here, far from it, (though in these exchanges with you and Mark, I would have thought I WAS the only Christian here!) and it only seems fair that you should try to make Nietzsche palatable to your Christian viewers, so we’re not turned off by his tyranical atheism.
Or…better idea yet, you could just present the philosophers as they actually are, and let us all take from them what we will.
And I don’t follow your argument about philosophers taking what they will from others philosophers and adapting them to formulate their own ideas. If you talk about K, it seems sensible to talk about his influences and how he adpated their ideas to create his own. What doesn’t seem sensible is to do a show on K, and adapt his ideas to create your own. If that’s what you want to do, then the show should be on your own philosophy in that case, not K’s. K can just be someone you can mention who influenced your own philosophy. But the show wasn’t on “Daniel” it was on “K.” So your argument here doesn’t make any sense to me.
I’m sorry you don’t agree with or understand my criticism, all I’m telling you is I didn’t learn anything about K from that episode, and if your goal was that people would learn something, then something went very wrong. I put forward my opinion on what it was, take it or leave it.
Hi Ace,
To reduce confusion, I’ll try to take break this out:
If you learned _nothing_ about Kierkegaard after listening to the episode, then I’m not sure you would have benefited from hearing K.’s arguments “together with” his Christianity, either. Kierkegaard’s arguments to a Christian audience were pretty explicit and obvious in The Sickness Unto Death; it required no particular explanation by us. And it’s not like the Kierkegaard episode didn’t explain K.’s solution to the “Sickness Unto Death” (despair) in detail — that took up the bulk of the episode. However, explaining how Kierkegaard’s arguments might be relevant to people with _other_ religions (i.e., Judaism), or no religion at all, is not obvious, and would require work to explain.
To reframe my earlier question: did you also learn nothing from the Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, or Chuang Tzu episodes as well? Their philosophies were also presented without much, if any, focus of their religious beliefs or background. Alternatively, did you feel you learned something more from the Freud, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer episodes, because their arguments were discussed apart from Christianity?
Correct – that’s exactly a tack I would attempt! And not just for the benefit of the audience, but for my benefit as well.
That’s probably exactly why I would attempt to Christianize Nietzsche, yes. But also because it would be a fun and interesting thought experiment.
But what was tyrannical about Nietzsche’s worldview was his elitist infatuation with aristocratic nobility, not his atheism. To be honest, I’m not that taken with Nietzsche, and don’t find him quite as interesting as the PEL guys do. But I would also attempt to view Schopenhauer through a Christian lens, so your point still stands.
Anyway, I fear you misunderstand what was tyrannical about Kierkegaard’s God. K’s God was not tyrannical for being a Christian God. It’s that Kierkegaard’s peculiar, domineering, authoritarian God was essentially a stand-in for his peculiar, domineering, authoritarian father. Again, we talked about this on the show. Kierkegaard’s God was pretty scary and unfamiliar to many Christians, then as now. That’s exactly what Kierkegaard’s mission was: to inject a little more fear-of-God into his more easygoing “Sundays-at-church” Danish Christian contemporaries. Again, we talked about this on the show, and I suspect that may have been information many people didn’t have before they listened.
I think it’s not a better idea for two reasons:
First, PEL has always been less about presenting the philosophers “as they actually are” — whatever you might mean by that — and more about explaining and assessing the value of the arguments they present in a particular book. Isaac Newton was a Christian mystic with a penchant for alchemy. But I don’t think learning that fact would help you better understand his calculus or his theory of gravity.
Second, we’d be deluding ourselves to try. All explanations of someone’s arguments inevitably involve an interpretation of those arguments. That’s true for both the speaker and the listener. So, there’s no way to explain Kierkegaard’s arguments in _The Sickness Unto Death_ in the same way that one can explain trigonometry. There’s no particular “right” or “wrong” answer when describing someone’s philosophy. However, there are arguments which are better supported, and better reasoned, than others.
That philosophers are influenced by their predecessors is not so much _my_ argument as an uncontroversial fact. Descartes influenced Hume. Hume responded, and doing so influenced Kant. Kant responded, and doing so influenced Hegel. Hegel responded, and doing so influenced Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard responded, and doing so influenced Sartre, Heidegger, etc.
Or, referring back to the Schleiermacher episode, Schleiermacher was influenced by Spinoza’s immanent conception of God, responded by adapting it into his Moravian Christianity, and developed something new and interesting and kind of beautiful.
But we did talk about that. As we discussed on the episode, Kierkegaard was influenced not just by Hegel, but equally and perhaps more importantly by Socrates. It’s noteworthy that K. earned his PhD by studying a pagan philosopher in great detail, and was valuable fact content we discussed on the show. (Valuable because it gives insight into K.’s ironic technique.) So, if Kierkegaard’s two great influences, Socrates and Hegel, were not something you learned after listening to the show, I’ll have to assume you already knew it, or that you missed it.
I find that an impoverished way to talk about philosophy and philosophers. All of the PEL episodes first describe the arguments, and then assess the arguments. Sometimes, the guys find the arguments persuasive and compelling. Sometimes they don’t, or in any event make internal or external critiques. The Kierkegaard episode was no different. PEL isn’t a history show and it’s not a book report. It is more of a book club. And what book clubs do is allow people to discuss what they thought about a book. Even if PEL were a boring “just the facts” show, most of the “facts” would be simply an _interpretation_ of the book. So all books and discussions on any writer must necessarily be flavored by the philosophical outlook of the interlocutors.
All of PEL’s shows have been just as much about the people discussing him, “Wes,” “Mark,” “Seth,” or even “Daniel”, as they are about the books in question. If Seth hadn’t pointed out that his Jewish religion kept him from accepting the premises of many of Kierkegaard’s arguments, that’s an interesting and valuable insight. That all of PEL’s episodes have been just as much about the PEL-ers as the books they discuss, helps explain how PEL has found an audience.
No need for apologies, Ace. Actually, I understand your criticism just fine. I simply didn’t understand what you meant by presenting Kierkegaard “apart from”, as opposed to “together with,” his Christianity. But you chose not to answer the questions that would have unpacked that comment. So be it…I’ve tried to discuss this with you on your terms as best I can!
In any event, given:
(1) the episode’s lengthy breakdown and explanation of TSUD’s chapters, including Kierkegaard’s biography, and
(2) the PowerPoint presentation we uploaded, which broke down each section and subsection of TSUD, and
(3) the subsequent follow-up summaries we provided you after the episode, summarizing TSUD’s entire argument
…I can only conclude you learned _nothing_ about TSUD (or Kierkegaard himself) because:
(a) you already knew a fair amount about Kierkegaard and TSUD before you started listening (which is hardly a failing of the show), or
(b) you stopped listening to any of the fact content we presented in the show.
That’s fine, of course, and I’m a little relieved that I better understand your problems with the episode. After all, I don’t much like Steven Spielberg’s movies, Led Zeppelin’s records, or Thomas Pynchon’s books. But I don’t attribute my dislike to any failing on their part. I understand that my not appreciating their work says more about me and my own tastes.
Mark,
To follow up to my reply to you last night, which I cut short because I was incredibly tired:
I’m admittedly relieved to hear that the unending wallowing in hatred of religion is sickening to you. But I disagree it’s unfruitful, since these atheists have, in effect, awoken the sleeping giant of Christendom by it’s continuous poking it with a stick, the claws and fangs of this giant have finally come out to play after a long hibernation.
Another fruit is that it’s gotten both believers and even non-believers interested in Christianity and even reading the Bible learning about other religions, and studying history!
So, that’s something! 😀
I don’t think Dawkins has to shut up, but him and his pals extreme characterizations (“religion is child abuse”) only hurt their cause. I also see new atheism more like a sect of protestantism, they’re just another sect of western Christendom that thinks they’re right and wants to argue that everyone not of their sect is evil. In a way, like most protestant sects, they are united under their favorite heresy they deny to be a heresy, and that is “God doesn’t exist.” So, in the many branches of heretical thought in Christendom, that heresy represents just one branch among many for Christians to sharpen their claws on. Like the Calvinists are united under their heresy, arguing with them sharpens the claws of Christians to intellectually figure out why Calvinism is wrong. If that makes any sense.
Anyway, sorry about my tired reply last night and all.
Have a good night.
I like it! Claws and fangs!
Yes, I agree that drumming up the debate is good, though only if it leads to actually seeking truth on the part of individuals rather than people retreating to their respective camps and preparing for battle. I did feel weird reading the Dawkins book that it was much like one of those Christian pamphlets: “Here’s how to respond to unbelievers attacking your faith.” On the other hand, being aware of the arguments available is kind of fun.
I think seeking the truth is a consequence of engaging in debate or learning about the opposition, both sides take the risk that the other side may present something to them they never thought of before and that might turn their whole world upside down.
I think that risk is part of the reason that the people who aren’t willing to engage or consider the other side are viewed as insecure in their beliefs. I also think that’s the reason for demonizing the other side to fellow believers of whatever, to arouse uninterest and prejudice among people in considering anything the other side has to say.
In my own limited experience, I find it hard to believe that anyone looks at the arguments (about anything and whatever) without already coming in being at least somewhat partial to one side or the other. I think most people seek confirmation for what they already believe to be the case, but the risk is that by exposing themselves to the counter-views they may walk away with their beliefs completely shaken. A risk that is good for anyone who values truth.
And yeah, I think Dawkins may be responsible for why his atheist disciples are being accused of being religious. 😛
Daniel,
This long drawn out exchange is making my criticism seem much larger deal than it actually was. And looking at your last reply, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t feel overwhelmed at the thought of replying to all of that.
So a few points:
1. I said what I knew of K in the other comment section. Not much but enough to respect the way he thinks. My exposure to a mass market book of K’s parables and a few pages on him in philosophy books (and a few youtube videos) is hardly enough to think I came into this podcast knowing “a fair amount” about K.
2. You keep putting it on me to explain what it means to understand K with or without his Christianity, as if you don’t know what it means, even though you do know what it means since you are defending your move to secularize K out of concern for your secular listeners. So I feel like this series of questions is just a move to get me on the defense by your pretending you don’t know what it means when you evidently do know what it means since you’ve been defending your guys doing it throughout this exchange, and even argued that K with his Christianity might turn off your secular listeners. So, I don’t see why you want to me explain something to you that you evidently already understand unless its just a tactic to get yourself off defense, and since that’s the only reason I see behind your request, then that would be a waste of my time to explain something to you that you already understand.
3. I look forward to the episode where Nietzsche is Christianized.
Peace.
Hi Ace,
I don’t share your religious views but I have to say that I empathise with you insofar as this long, drawn-out debate of yours is concerned.
Daniel has adopted this same a la carte debating style with me as well, ignoring key points, raising “straw men” and generally trying to “pull the wool”, much like you describe in your point 2.
I notice that in your case he is continually requesting that you answer some questions that he posed early on. In my case the roles were reversed and he has failed to answer my questions, raising irrelevancies instead and effectively sidestepping the key points.
At the end of the day an inability (or unwillingness) to respond properly or fully (or not at all) in a debate situation can speak volumes.
By the way, I think your suggested Nietzsche episode would be great!
And I apologize for not having a flair with expressing myself charitably in text, I read my replies and they come off so much harsher than I intend them to!
I heard philosophy is supposed to help greatly with good writing and communication, so please forgive me for not expressing myself as charitably as you guys are able to. I have no ill-will towards anyone here so please bear with me and remember your groundrule that you assume your listeners aren’t philosophers! 🙂
It’s all good!
Wow! You guys certainly get interactive feedback from your audience.
For the record, I enjoy all critiques of theism – from all angles. For a belief to be sustainable, criticism either strengthens it – or makes it fade away. Both of which are positive outcomes.
Hi KC,
Nice, thanks! One thing I like about Schleiermacher’s approach in O.R. is that he helps provide a path to a religious belief immune to rational criticism, because it envisions religious belief as grounded outside the realm of reason (or even of action, which can also be criticized). Maybe in some sense that “weakens” religion as something that can be objectively defended (or transmitted to your friends or family, which is why I think Hegel hated it). But the benefit is that one’s subjective religious feelings become impervious to outside assault, and I mean that in a good way.
plz do foucault (me) plzzzz. I recommend Discipline and Punish or The Order of Things! I will have much to say in response.
I just wanted to let you know that I was walking to Central Park last Thursday, listening to this podcast, waiting for some mushrooms that I took to kick in. I hadn’t planned on sticking with the podcast once I started tripping, but this turned out to be perfect! I can tell you that I was directly relating to the discussion on piety, seeing the world with a full sense of awe and wonder!
Usually I really enjoy the podcast in a more conventional state of mind. Thanks!
You wondered why Schleiermacher’s philosophy, even though superior to the fog of religion isn’t being practiced – well it is. Anyone who has experienced the bliss of feeling “at one with the universe” as Schleiermacher describes sheds immediately and effortlessly any former beliefs/religion/ideology that are contrary to the truth. They are able to practice effortlessly without any need for churches, priests, congregations or lists of rules, because the truth has indeed set them free. Who are they? I’ve found a few on various sites on the internet, otherwise they’re a fairly quiet lot (if indeed it is a “lot”). Two things I know for sure: 1. The experience seems random – there’s no recipe. It can happen to anyone at anytime.
2. If you think you “might” have felt what Schleiermacher describes – then you haven’t. There are no “ifs” or “buts” about it. You absolutely know.
Below are a couple of sites where people describe what are also called “peak experiences”. The descriptions are always the same.
http://www.meetup.com/brights-150/messages/boards/thread/3913925
http://nationaldiaryarchive.wordpress.com/a-peak-experience/
http://www.spiritual-experiences.com/real-spiritual-story.php?story=200
Hi Shiralee,
This is great, thanks for the links! I mostly agree with all of this!
That said, I don’t think any of us said Schleiermacher’s view on religion wasn’t held or practiced by anyone today. I did wonder aloud whether Schleiermacher had done much to change religious discourse in a lasting way, and in particular the radical way that On Religion would suggest.
Certainly, no one disputes that there are Christians who are more attracted to the idea of religious experience rather than doctrine. (Similarly, there are Christians who are more attracted to religious praxis over doctrine or experience.)
But Schleiermacher was trying to actively convert atheists over to Christianity. He seems to have had some success within his immediate circle, and indeed throughout the 19th century. But even Schleiermacher became more doctrinal and conservative in his later writings. And “liberal protestantism” as a movement seems to have lost out to fundamentalism, starting around the 1920s. I guess my question was “why is that so?”. I think Wes had the best answer by suggesting that different people are looking for different visions of God. And most folks who choose to be religious prefer to believe in a personalized God who punishes the wicked and rewards the good, whether in this life, the next, or both.
I think you make an important point as well: Most people simply aren’t capable of experiencing a religious feeling the way Schleiermacher describes. Most folks won’t base their religion on an experience they’re unlikely to have. By contrast, far more people can experience satisfaction by adopting a religious doctrine, with all the opportunities for interpretation and re-interpretation it allows). And anyone can choose to adopt a religious practice and take satisfaction from joining a religious community.
I don’t think Mark and Wes accept my framing of the argument. Their response is that liberal protestants simply don’t call as much attention to themselves, and therefore they seem smaller in number than they are. That may be true, but I’m skeptical. I’m sure there are surveys, studies, statistics, etc., that could resolve the empirical question.
I just stumbled onto this podcast. Really anticipate catching up and learning a lot from it.
I started out with Schleiermacher. Done research on him recently, for a chapter coming out soon from Wipf & Stock, on Schleiermacher’s influence upon American theologians.
His “religious” side may have gotten some short shrift, and while it is risky these days to go public and say that one is religious, Schleiermacher helps me to do that. He concentrates on religious experience, and second-rates the rationalized, analyzed and armchair theologies of the uninvolved … i.e., the speculators.
If you want a theologian for the social justice crowd, then FS is your man! Where do you find God? In the midst of it all, in the Occupy-ers, with those on the margin trying to scrape things together.
One thing you have not yet mentioned, as you are a philosophy-centered podcast, is that every week of his adult career, he oscillated between the seminary classroom and the pulpit. His philosophy and his theology are inter-mixed, leaking into each other like two flavors when you cook. Thus, it is difficult to separate his philosophical views from his theology of experience.
Thus, for me, he is a model of how to do both, so that one does justice to the other, and so you don’t walk around on one leg (or see (less) with only one eye). For him, and for me, it is important to walk with a philosophical leg and a religious experience leg.
Marc
Glad you found us. I have found myself referring back to this ep/reading maybe more than any other since we recorded it. I think we’ll get around to religious experience (eg the James book) at some point, and we did touch on having incommunicable experiences a la why Aquinas stopped writing in part 2 of our Wittgenstein discussion (ep 56, to be posted next week or so).
I was introduced to Schleiermacher in a Western Christian Heritage course, and very drawn to his thinking. It is interesting that in the early Jewish movement, before Christianity became a religion, “the first rule of faith” was experience trumps scripture –when the Jewish Christians were reconfiguring texts (which was normal) in trying to figure out how the Jewish and Gentile Christians would worship together according to the Torah or Jewish law. This was a family fight within Judaism.
Similarly, it seems to me the central trust in Schleiermacher’s writings arguing with his friends’ (both atheists and Christians) concerns: metaphysics and morality or maybe better-put contemporary emotional response and ridged doctrine (you pick-up on this at 57. minutes)—a family fight within Christianity. It is interesting that his father was a reformed Calvinist military chaplain.
In any event, I think by intuition or experience, Schleiermacher means direct perception transcending rational thought, which parallels the original early movement within Judaism, wrestling with predestination theory, the power and liberty of God, found in Calvin and Luther’s thinking and of course in this historical period, the concept of piety. How does one live one’s life and what is sanctification? Nicholaus Ludwig Count von Zinzendorf (experience instead of doctrine) was a central figure in the Romantic Movement and Moravian church. And, Schleiermacher would be very familiar with his arguments.
Here’s what I find fascinating about Schleiermacher and what is referred to as “hyper rational ways of knowing” – what we say is feeling (direct perception) is where Schleiermacher argues true knowledge or real (not the same concept as reality) is where religion comes from. His argument is this is the essence of religion and people mistake morality and metaphysics for religion…this is not religion says Schleiermacher!—putting moral actions with religion. Religion is good by definition and morality and metaphysics aren’t bad but it’s not religion. Why? According to Schleiermacher, metaphysics does the reasoning and morality is the boundary, but religion is freedom. As soon as one forms a doctrine, on experience or feeling (direct perception), one is no longer dealing with truth or what is real. It is radical thinking indeed, and I wish I could have spent a year in this course instead of a trimester.
I very much enjoyed the podcast, reflecting, and like how you drew on similar thinking in Taoist philosophy! I find myself drawing from Schleiermacher reading papers in the Philosophy of Physics group.
I think “The immortality of the soul as a condition of realization of the good which is lacking in the life down here” is an idea of Rousseau before being of Kant.
I’m so glad to discover these discussion.
thank you a lot.
‘you will BE grandma in heaven.’ hilarious!