Dear Banjo,
thanks for taking the time to read it. Freud is someone I admire very much, and as you say his prescience is remarkable, including on the Marxist question (which I try to assess impartially and in context). It's popular these days to say (late) Freud was a pessimist (the same is said of Foucault), though our present reality suggest he was a realist, and that's for us to address--our reality. I also recommend Freud's "Civilisation and its Discontents", a short but penetrating diagnosis of the human condition. In fact Freud's important ideas should be common parlance, but their the subject of common ignorance instead, what's worse, in deference to ancient superstitions that prevent us from learning anything. Freud eschewed illusions and hubris; he'd have applauded Foucault's observation apropos a world full of it: "Man will be erased like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea".
I prefer existential dignity to fawning fabulation anytime.
But Banjo, aren't you playing the Devil's advocate here? I thought you were a believer?

.

Dear Squeers,

.

The larvatus prodeo of Descartes suits me better than even the most flattering of labels which invariably make me feel like I am turning into stone.

Also, I try to keep my beliefs to a strict minimum. They are veils that blur my vision and I usually try to see as clearly as possible.

I hope that answers your question.

Thank you for recommending Freud's "Civilisation and its Discontents". I shall see if I can find it at the library.

.

Dear david f,

>> I found it easier to just treat the collection of narratives in the Bible as something of interest that is largely irrelevant and applied to a past society.<<
I understand this, and would understand your protestations even more had I tried to convert you (to Christianity, to Judaism, orthodox or not). This was certainly not my intention and I apologise if my post gave you that impression.

The existence of God (in the Abrahamic or other presentation) is indeed disputable, however not the existence of the multifaceted PHENOMENON of religion. My quotes from Toynbee and EB (many people observed this exemplification of the complementarity between the Western and Eastern images of the divine) addressed the latter.

I value your contributions here also because I have always thought that you - in distinction to many others - understood the difference between discussing possible approaches to world-view matters, and explicitly barracking for one of them (while denigrating the alternative) with the intention (often subconscious) to make converts.

You certainly know that no thinking Christian or Jew will take Genesis verbatim. The same is true about “becoming as little children”: it is “usually” taken in its moral, not intellectual, sense. For an “unusual” appeal to the simplicity of mind (“humble spirit” in OUG words) see e.g. the 14th century “The Cloud of Unknowing” or De Docta Ignorantia (Of Learned Ignorance) by Nicolas of Cusa), as well as numerous Buddhist and Taoist sayings and writings

Hi Oliver,

I am probably too old to know what/who is Biggy. I suppose, by “indwelling in scriptures” you mean those who take them literally.

You can ask “Does god exist?” as well as “Does existence require God?” provided it is clear what you mean by “exist”, “existence”, “God”. Therefore I preferred to start with Sagan’s maxim that emanates from the concept of “(physical) reality investigated by science” that is easier to universally agree upon what it means.

“God is a contender. One contender, that is.” is not what most theists understand by God. We already had here a discussion (with relda) about God and existence as Paul Tillich understood the concepts, (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9564#157122) though it is not easy to understand Tillich.

I agree that Christianity, seeing Jesus as the God Incarnate, is not the only version of theism. As I tried to explain elsewhere, it is the third step (leap of faith, if you like) from atheist to Christian, the FIRST being the nonSagan alternative, the SECOND being the basic assumption of theism, namely that this irreducible Something has properties of a person whom one can communicate with, and the THIRD being that of the Christian understanding, or model of this Person, including Incarnation etc.

So you are right, there are many possible deviation on the way from atheism to Christianity, all of them as little objective (i.e. compelling to an outsider) as the steps leading to Christianity. The “justifications” for e.g. Christianity’s “truths” lie in the realm that combines the objective with the subjective (consciousness, individual and collective), where culture and psychology reside.

The only thing I am trying to maintain is, that none of these three “leaps” - that to an outsider might (must?) look as superfluous and arbitrary - goes AGAINST reason and scientific insights … well, unless kept on an intellectually very simple, although psychologically often comforting, level.

I am not sure whether I made myself clear enough, and whether you can read it as relevant - not contradicting - to what you wrote. I hope this is still a dialogue, not a competition of monologues.

Severin,

> How can you stand by and watch a fellow Christian make such an idiot of himself, leaves me speechless.<<
Could you please suggest, what you think I should do beside having tried to explain to him that science, notably evolution, are compatible with a Christian outlook? It is hard, since there are others, like Dawkins, who keep on persuading him of the opposite.

AJ Philips,

I am sure, I never mentioned you (at least not recently) in my post to Oliver.

I am sorry, but I do not think I could satisfy you if I tried again to react to your post line-by- line. So we just have to leave it at that. Of course, I cannot prevent you from having an opinion about me that you have.

Dear Squeers,

>>He sets up a powerful challenge to your position particularly, George.. I'd be interested in you're thoughts?<<
I have to say I have been flattered that you were after my thoughts. I presume not about Freud, since I am not a psychologist, let alone psychoanalyst - although, as far as I can understand it, I prefer Jung and Frankl to Freud - but about his Weltanschauung, which is a challenge.

I have to start with saying that Weltanschauung (world-vision) is a term that people in the Germanic and Slavic cultural environments grow up with (e.g. the Russian “mirovozzrenie” is also a concatenation of “world” and “vision”) and I had a “feeling for it” before I understood many other abstract words.

So I was surprised that Freud - apparently writing in German - needed to explain (redefine?) the concept, originally introduced by Kant. I had to reread his definition to understand what he meant. I prefer the definition in the German version of Wikipedia, but even the one in the English Wikipedia is closer to what I see is commonly understood by the term. For instance, in the extensive entry for Weltanschauung in the German version of Wikipedia there are many names, but no mention of Freud as an authority on the concept. (ctd)

(ctd)
Freud mentions a couple of time “The” scientific world view, which of course rings a bell for somebody educated in Marx-Leninism: they also called their world-view (an expansion of Freud’s) THE scientific world view. Besides, here “science” is probably the translation of the German “Wissenschaft” which has a broader meaning than science in English, where it usually means only natural science. In Germanic or Slavic languages it includes also social science and humanities.

I do not want to criticize Freud’s "scientific world view", it is a legitimate (and today rather standard for many) position, except for his “totalitarian” claim to represent the only world-view compatible with how science, notably physics, understands the material world, not to mention that this understanding has changed a lot in the almost 80years since the article was written.

Also the understanding of possible approaches to the relation between science and religion (theology) has changed. So he can be excused for writing “Of the … forces which can dispute the position of science, religion alone is a really serious enemy”, which represents the lowest - and most naive - level in the by now classical Ian Barbour’s typology (conflict, independence, dialogue, integration).

I also noticed that at the end he has the sentence “A (i.e. not “the”) Weltanschauung based upon science has, apart from the emphasis it lays upon the real world, essentially negative characteristics, such as that it limits itself to truth and rejects illusions.” Depending on what one means by truth, there are a few “world-views based upon science” that are different from Freud’s.

Well, I am not sure whether this is what you wanted my thoughts on.