OK I have formulated some of this before, but here I want to add another level in order to approach an understanding of the most interesting type of atheism around today. Please note that these are thoughts in process.
Anselm basically notes that something can exist in one of three ways (each of which is progressively better, and thus the third represents God’s level of being),
1 That which exists in the mind but not in reality (like a painting which I have not yet put onto paper)
2 That which exists in the mind and in reality (like the painting once it is finished)
3 That which exists in reality but which cannot be contained in the mind (i.e. God)
First off I think this is a very helpful schema when thinking about existence in relation to God. The first level broadly represents the naïve atheism we see today in the work of Dawkins and Harris among others (that which has been christened ‘the new atheism’, but which is really a very old, pre 19th century, atheism). It can also broadly represent the place of liberal theology as influenced by Feuerbach.
The second level broadly captures the conservative evangelical and Fundamentalist theologies influenced by modernity and the scientific paradigm (we make a mistake if we think Fundamentalism is anti-science, more on this in a later post).
Both the first and second levels place the human in a central location as the one able to understand, to bring to mind the reality or unreality of God as a rational idea. Both centre the human.
The third level of understanding represents a place of decentring the human by placing God at a level in which, even in the presence of God, God is never rendered into an object for us to dissect. However, this third level is far from a simple advocacy of God as that which exists. For today we could perhaps split this third level into a further three,
3.1 That which exists as/in the subconscious and expressed in the superego or Big Other (‘below’ the conscious mind but influencing it – the inhuman – that which is in us more than ourselves)
3.2 That which exists in nature but which can never be grasped because our desires, language and sensory organs influence what we see (the inherent mystery of nature)
3.3 That which exists as an entity utterly beyond the realm of nature, but which founds it (the extra-human)
For Anselm God as a concept would represent the latter (for it would represent the greatest of the three). However, the main point I wish to draw out here is that perhaps the more potent and interesting atheism around today is that which operates at the level of 3.1 rather than that of level 1. In other words, we have an atheism which decentres the subject in a similar manner to radical and mystical theology. This is perhaps the difference between Dawkins and Zizek, who both own the term atheism (which are different from Heidegger’s and Derrida’s atheism).
Posted at 07:48 |
Link to this post
Comments:
I'm reading your book "How (Not) To Speak of God" right now. Very refreshing and insightful. Thanks all the way from Malaysia. Brian McLaren is visiting us in March. Hope you can be next. :-)
Posted by: Sivin Kit
on 18/01/07 at 16:39
Hey Peter... just wanted to say I have really enjoyed your books, and have felt stretched in some really good ways through reading it. I am a PhD student in the states (in organization behavior) and as a result my studies have come into works from psych, sociology, anthropology, and economics... typically addressed towards understanding individual or organizational behavior in societies and organizations. Wondering your thoughts on the atheism of Zizek that you express in point 3.1... and how is that teased apart from what the cognitive psychologist, sociologist or others in the positivist tradition would argue are solely permutations of the reflection of the environment in some fashion. How is this "below the conscious mind" bit teased apart from the implicit attitudes paradigm suggested in psychology... or is it the same thing?
Posted by: Peter Boumgarden
on 18/01/07 at 21:46
Thanks Slvin for the generous feedback... would love to make it over to Malaysia some day! Thanks Peter for the comments and question. I am no expert in general psychological theory, rather my interest here is in psychoanalysis and Lacan. I think Lacan might say that just as there is a current fundemental paradox between quantam mechanics and general realativity (one is broady mechanistic while the other is not) so too there is a tension between the idea of the unconscious as the site of our desires and the id as a product of the environment. He would of course ultimitely see us as products of our environment (or rather a product of nothing), however he has a complex view on the idea of freedom and nessesity.
On a different point, although related, Lacan says that the true cry of the atheist is not 'god is dead', but 'god is unconscious' - See 'How to Read Lacan' for a great insight into all this.
Posted by:
on 21/01/07 at 11:21
hey pete,
how's things.
you just got mentioned on andrew sullivan's blog. i don't think he's so well known in the UK, but people like him round here. i find he's often got a good thing to say anyway.
hope this finds you well,
jdd
Posted by: david dark
on 01/02/07 at 02:47
Your starting trichotomy here is falacious:
The problem starts in proposition #2: No single "thing" can exist in the mind and in reality. The painting that is your example only exists in reality. The idea of the painting exists in the mind, the actual painting exists in only reality or the actual painting doesn't exist at all. So, there are no things that qualify as #2 because an object, and the concept humans have of that object, are not the same thing.
The problem with proposition #2 tranfers directly to #3 and renders it a trivial truism: No actual object can be contained in the mind because only ideas of objects can be in the mind, not the objects themselves. Thus mushrooms, soup spoons, and the Pope are all objects of the same class as God based on the description of #3.
This issue is a basic semantic/metaphysical error that fundamentally undermines the Ontological Argument that Anselm is so well known for. It also fundamentally undermines the thinking behind this entire post.
Since you labeled Dawkins and Harris as having a "naive atheism", should we call yours an "ignorant theism" since this basic problem with Anselm's thought has been well known since the lifetime of Anselm himself?
Posted by: kipp
on 01/02/07 at 02:59
sorry about the triple post (my point wasn't that good!). The problem is that refreshing this page to see if there are more comments caused my old comment to re-post.
Posted by: kipp
on 01/02/07 at 03:28
Pete, with all due respect, this argument is just worthless. If first of all demands adherence to a particular metaphysic and theology which is by no means compelling, and then secondly insists that we believe in a SPECIFIC thing outside the human mind.
If something cannot fit in the mind (i.e., its too fancy for arguments), then tough luck for it. That makes it even less reasonable to believe in, and those that do so then become guilty of a glaring lack of imagination (since the number of things inconcievable to the human mind are probably near infinite).
Nowhere is any good reason presented, nor any foundation for good reason, that there is an all powerful ground of being with a personality that crafted the planet and listens to our prayers, let alone commits suicide in order to appease itself.
Posted by: plunge
on 01/02/07 at 07:09
Hey Kipp. I actually agree with you regarding number2. My point is only that this is Anselm's view: a view which is useful to understand the claims of some evangelical groups. My point is that it is problematics when thinking about God (but fundamentally I agree that it is problematic in relation to all reality). I am well versed in the linguistic turn and the turn to consciousness (as well as phenomenology), but know that this didn't come across. However, more fundamentally I am hinting at the idea that God is not an object in the world like table or a chair, but that God is given beyond being.
Hey Plunge. In relation to your post some of the above relates, also, according to the questionable metaphysic one could argue that the being beyond conception is not infinite, but must be one. I also agree with what you say at the end... I have to go... taxi here
Posted by: Pete R
on 01/02/07 at 19:11
Hi Pete,
Some of the stuff in your last comment reminds me of Tillich, are you a fan of any of his thought?
Posted by: Rob B
on 02/02/07 at 11:16
Pete, another question, sorry that it is unrelated to the post. I really enjoyed reading your book, but was curious as to how the theology and philosophy of section one has affected the personal and communal spiritual development of those involved with Ikon? I realise that for many reasons this might be a difficult question to answer. But I suppose what I want to know is, how do you endeavour to be more than âarmchair artists who spend their time creating images of a better worldâ? (Great story by the way)
Posted by: Rob B
on 02/02/07 at 12:01
Hey Rob. I have read some Tillich and find him interesting and at times inspiring (eg in his sermons). However I am not keen on the idea of religion as giving meaning to our ultimite questions (if that is a correct reading of Tillich).
Great question about how what ikon does affects the life of concrete people. Its a big question, too big for here... but I will say a few things
1. It is always hard not to be or become armschair theologians, and we in ikon are often guilty
2. However the emphasis in ikon is always on 'transformace art', that is artistic expression which seeks to faciliate real transformation
3. We try to emphase the place of truth as made manifest in transformed lives
4. There are concerns by some within ikon that we need to get more pro-active about mutual accountablity etc. (I am hoping we can move forward on this front soon)
5. We get some tourists at ikon but generally the people who stay are committed to using the space as a tool for change
These are just off the top of my head. Hope they provide some insight!
Posted by: Pete R
on 02/02/07 at 13:19
+ Post your comment
