November 3rd, 2009 20:17 EST
Nihilism and its Cultural Implications Part IV
Having sketched out the hidden nihilism of religion in Part III it is time to critique the nihilism of the reverse of this ilk of people. The nihilism of the atheists, and the anti-religious will be assessed based on this groups own philosophical problems. This article will also delve into theology and forms of which can be compatible with scientific grounding. By so doing, a dialectic will be formed and these forms of theology will form the synthesis.
Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, are two opponents to mainstream religion today. While many of their arguments are valid and correct, even to the level of the seamless logic of Bertrand Russel, the logic of these iconoclasts is inherently flawed. First, I must admit that I admire the iconoclasm of Dawkins and Hitchens. I find them daring and somewhat powerful. Yet what they do is not completely convincing to me as true and correct. My main critique of today`s secular atheist, is that they presuppose some things, even though these analytic schools of philosophy and philosophy of science so readily attack any sort of presupposition through their air tight logic schemas.
What the atheist of today lacks is belief in any sort of spiritual knowledge. They lack any sort of belief in anything imperceptible to the five basic senses. Thus, astrology is impossible, Buddhist enlightenment is impossible (although Buddhism is essentially atheistic), and many other things are impossible, even those that fall far outside the Pauline Christian framework of nihilism and empty designators. What secular atheism accomplishes is a different form of nihilism.
Clearly, secular atheism is more authentic in structure than the hidden nihilism of the Pauline Platonic beliefs and hidden devices. Yet, the nature of this nihilism is still potentially destructive in nature. With no spiritual knowledge possible, there is nothing to believe in other than one`s own fragile existence. Although I might write frequently about the absence of anthropomorphic God(s) and after lives in the real world, I do not deny the inherent truths in human nature that make beings thrive. There is a compatible theology for science as a whole, and there is more to human existence than the five senses!
Pantheism is the belief that God literally is everything. In this theology, enjoyed by Brahmins, Native Americans, Taoists, Spinoza, Qabbalists and others, God`s presence is both negative (unknowable) and yet still perceptible through the presence of its great totality. To be more specific, it is completely compatible with science, yet completely renewing and powerful. The universe as a whole is seen as God " or Being as a whole. This totality of existence is unknowable only in the sense that we cannot as of yet understand the universe as a whole completely. However, it can be proven that considering the fact that all the matter and energy of the universe created our very existence, that this being as a whole is our creator.
Furthermore, as the sun, moon and gravitational forces elsewhere effect and nourish the earth, they are with us always as was God supposed to be. God cannot be anthropomorphic "that would be complete nihilism of a false being in a false world external to our God and reality. Yet, this spiritual " sense of connectedness, awareness and power is something the nihilism of the secular atheist has neglected in their own beings."
Nihilism and its Cultural Implications Part III
Nihilism and its Cultural Implications Part II
Nihilism and its Cultural Implications part I