An interesting article in opposition of God/Spirituality

[Bies]

Read and discuss.
http://www.alternet.org/story/154774/th ... 1#bookmark

[Wyrmfang]

I didn´t find that article very interesting, actually I had hard time reading it through. Expect that the writer concentrates on monotheistic religions, he takes as given an evidentialist conception of religion. This if anything is what we call "uusateismi" in Finland. I think much more interesting critique of religion can be found from classics such as Nietzsche, Marx, Feuerbach and Freud not even to mention today´s most educated and insightful philosophers such as Slavoj Zizek, Alain Badiou or Quentin Meillassoux.

I can recommend two books which have lately seriously challenged my religious conviction:
Slavoj Zizek: The Indivisible Remainder - On Schelling and Related Matters
Christopher Watkin: Difficult Atheism - Post-Theological Thinking in Alain Badiou, Jean-Luc Nancy and Quentin Meillassoux.

On the other hand, keeping in mind what an average "religious" person is, it is great that these Dawkins-like writers keep doing what they do. I don´t believe it does any harm to anyone, but it may benefit a lot someone who has been raised into religious fundamentalism but begins to doubt what he/she has been taught.

[Spirare]

Speaking of Zizek, he does have an interesting viewpoint on relation between christianity and atheism, claiming that the only way to really be an atheist is through christianity (or vice versa, only an atheist can be a true christian). The idea is presented in a nutshell in this excerpt from Pervert's Guide to ideology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tABnznhzdIY

And more verbosely in this essay: http://www.lacan.com/zizbobok.html

The modern atheist thinks he knows that God is dead; what he doesn't know is that, unconsciously, he continues to believe in God.

If I am not mistaken, Zizek sees religions as a form of ideology, and points out that in general people are not immune to ideologies. If someone claims to be an atheist, religion is easily replaced by some other ideologies like hedonism, consumerism, commodity fetishism and so on and so on

[Wyrmfang]

Speaking of Zizek, he does have an interesting viewpoint on relation between christianity and atheism, claiming that the only way to really be an atheist is through christianity (or vice versa, only an atheist can be a true christian). The idea is presented in a nutshell in this excerpt from Pervert's Guide to ideology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tABnznhzdIY

And more verbosely in this essay: http://www.lacan.com/zizbobok.html

The modern atheist thinks he knows that God is dead; what he doesn't know is that, unconsciously, he continues to believe in God.

If I am not mistaken, Zizek sees religions as a form of ideology, and points out that in general people are not immune to ideologies. If someone claims to be an atheist, religion is easily replaced by some other ideologies like hedonism, consumerism, commodity fetishism and so on and so on

Yeah, but as far as Zizek is an atheist himself he of course refers to atheists like the one in the article of the first message of this topic. I think the main point is already contained in this quote from Lacan:

"As you know, the father Karamazov's son Ivan leads the latter into those audacious avenues taken by the thought of the cultivated man, and in particular, he says, if God doesn't exist... - If God doesn't exist, the father says, then everything is permitted. Quite evidently, a naïve notion, for we analysts know full well that if God doesn't exist, then nothing at all is permitted any longer. Neurotics prove that to us every day."

This is explored in more lenght in the book I mentioned, and I believe it´s quite a surprising reversal for many. Zizek´s point is after all to present a true materialist and atheist philosophy:

"This is what Lacan aimed at in his claim that the true formula of materialism is not 'God doesn't exist," but "God is unconscious.'"

One more seemingly classy book about contemporary philosophy of religion (with different stances) which I sadly haven´t yet had time to read:
Anthony Paul Smith & Daniel Whistler (eds.): After the Postsecular and the Postmodern - New Essays in Continental Philosophy of Religion

[Jiva]

In my opinion Žižek doesn't actually seem to be talking about god per se, but rather about ideal morals and the authority with which we claim them e.g. from a paternalistic god, years of evolution or some other construct. In short – and based on his usage of Lacan – some sort of Freudian super-ego.

Speaking of Lacan and the “God is unconscious” statement, in The Psychoses* he seems to refers to a kind of necessary futility in trying to analyse the unconscious, in a way similar to the oneness grounded in difference you mentioned in the 'Oneness/Unity' thread:

A certain mental breathing space seems indispensable to modern man, one in which his independence not only of any master but also of any god is affirmed, a space for his irreducible autonomy as an individual, as individual existence... In a word, the existence of a permanent discourse of freedom in the modern individual seems to me indisputable... Here there is indeed something that merits a point-by-point comparison with a delusional discourse.

* I haven't actually read The Psychoses, these sections are copied from another book where they were referenced, although they were all taken from the same page of The Psychoses.