Apophasis: The atheist was almost right

[Thomas]

What follows are extracts from Robert Fortuin's Substack. The first essay is free, the rest behind a paywall.

I thought this apposite with regard to a discussion @TheLightWithin elsewhere about ignosticism.

The Christian theologian Denys Turner, in a debate at Bristol University, made a wager with the audience. Give me five minutes, he said. Let anyone here explain his reasons for being an atheist, and if I cannot then guess correctly the Christian denomination in which that person was raised, I will buy him a pint.

He was not being arch or clever, he was making a significant point (one I've referenced before by the atheist philosopher John Grey) that most principled atheisms (ie thought-out, reasoned positions) are mirror-images of a theism. They fall into roughly the same categories as the theisms they deny. When someone tells you why they do not believe in God, they tell you which God they were handed.

There was a time (let’s say around the late nineteenth century) when everyone knew what it was to affirm the existence of God, and therefore everyone knew what it was to deny it. Aquinas, following Aristotle, had a phrase for this: eadem est scientia oppositorum. Affirmations and their corresponding negations are one and the same knowledge. Know what you are saying yes to, and you know exactly what you are saying no to. In those days atheists knew what they were denying, because Christians knew what they were affirming, and the two of them were arguing about the same object.

When the radical deconstructionists of the last century (those who had assumed that their atheism represented the outer limit of intellectual daring, that after Nietzsche there was nothing left to demolish) encountered the 'negative theology' of Eckhart, or Dionysius the Areopagite, they got nervous. Jacques Derrida, father of the philosophy of deconstruction, circled the question of negative theology for years, unable to leave it alone, unable to absorb it. Because a suspicion had arisen, and it was not a comfortable one: that in point of sheer radicalness, they had been outflanked.

The suspicion that the theologian of Christian apophasis, 'negative theology', the Via Negativa, 'the Way of Unknowing', is not denying less than the atheist. Or even the same as the atheist. They are denying more.

The days of 'deconstruction atheism' are long gone, because the theologian has out-marched them.

 

[Thomas]

Meister Eckhart, a Dominican friar of the fourteenth century, was preaching a sermon at mass. It was based on the Mass reading for that day, St Paul's Letter to the Ephesians: "Be renewed in the spirit of your mind" (4:23). It was a sermon, preached in German, to the lay congregation.

"God is nameless, because no one can say anything or understand anything about him... So if I say, "God is good", that is not true. I am good, but God is not good. I can even say: "I am better than God"... If I say "God is a being", it is not true; he is a being transcending being and [he is] a transcending nothingness... [So] do not try to understand God, for God is beyond all understanding."
(German Sermon 83, Renovamini spiritu)

Set that beside the atheist's flat "there is no God", and tell me which of the two has said the more devastating thing.

'God is not good'. 'God is not a being'. 'I am better than God'. 'Do not try to understand God'. This from a Christian preacher, in a church, speaking to the faithful. What he has said ... exceeds anything the village atheist has ever managed. The atheist says there is no God. Eckhart says that whatever you understand, that is not God; that whatever you name, you have named an idol; that the word "good", which you thought was the one safe thing to say, is false when said of God.

Does one then not end up at a God so philosophically refined that there's nothing there?

If your God cannot be described, cannot be named, cannot be understood, cannot even be called good, then in what sense is there anything there at all?

Turner made the observation that most philosophical atheists, "far from rejecting too much from the Christian point of view, reject all too little."

Atheism, Turner says, is an arrested apophaticism.

The atheist says: God does not exist. And a Dionysius, a Bonaventure, an Aquinas, a Meister Eckhart, a host of Christian exegetes all say: 'yes, quite so, in the sense you mean it, he does not. There is no such thing as the God you are denying'.

There is no enormous invisible person, no bearded old man sitting on a throne, or reaching out from the clouds of heaven, no supreme item in the inventory of the universe, no maximally impressive being standing at the top of the list of beings. That God is an idol. That Goes does not exist, and theology has been saying so for fifteen hundred years.

The atheist negation is correct. What has gone wrong is that it stopped there. The negation of an idol is not the end of theology. It is, one might say, clearing the ground so one might begin.

Most atheisms are too limited in their negativity because they respond to Christian theisms too limited in their affirmativeness.

+++

Turner holds that Christians need to be every kind of atheist possible, in order to deny every kind of idolatry possible.

The reverse case, of a theism shaped by atheism, like Young Earthy Creationism, is equally as bad. Equally idolatrous. You end up with a God who is one cause among causes, which is an idol among the idols. The fact that it's a reverent idol does not mitigate the error.

 

[Bloodshot]

This resonates with me. I think the atheist part of my life was triggered (age 5ish) by a horrified recoil from what I saw as the fickle, needy contradictory God described in the bible. I was too young then to know that other lenses were available, and they certainly weren't ever mentioned at school.

 

[wil]

significant point (one I've referenced before by the atheist philosopher John Grey) that most principled atheisms (ie thought-out,

Absolutely...until either is reconciled by evidence and the "other" is will be in my agnostic nontheistic follower of my elder brother and wayshower, attend seders, sanghas, dances of universal piece and borrow the parts that resonate from any religion that helps me to work with and accept the people around me.

At 69 years old the afterlife is of a little concern, maximum enjoyment this one for as many as possible while impedingthat on as few as pssible is top of the barrel

 

[Thomas]

That classifies, I think, as divertissement.

 

[wil]

That classifies, I think, as divertissement.

Absolutely! When it comes to relationships, dealing with people on an equitable basis, eating and sustaining my life and other's, taking care of family, neighbors and friends.

Even Maslow agrees that religion is just about the last thing we focus on after all our "real" needs are met.

And all my "real" needs are met, and I am not beholden to any indoctrination prescribed by my family or my country, no fear of getting ostracized or banished (can you imagine if that is what is required to keep many in a "belief" how good and valuable they must think n the belief is ??)

I am not required or coerced nor desire to just put meat or potatoes or bread on my plate...i can eat at the buffet which has every exotic fruit and vegetable in a variety of preparations.... i can pick and choose whatever dogma or scripture titilates my taste buds..... if you choose to refer that as a simple distraction or amusement...i suppose that has some validity....it is obviously something I can do without....but based on our time here...it is not completely true for wither of us and partially true, more for me than you. As I could care less about the afterlife and I feel you give it greater import despite it being completely unexplored and unknown by any in this realm (again despite many who have come.here claiming they knew which have been dismissed by folks here who claim they know...

...now THAT is entertainment!

 

[Thomas]

Absolutely! When it comes to relationships, dealing with people on an equitable basis ...

This doesn't really relate to the topic under discussion.

Even Maslow agrees that religion is just about the last thing we focus on after all our "real" needs are met.

Actually that's incorrect.

According to my browser, Maslow "originally placed community and belonging (which includes religious community) at the third level, not the last. However, in his later years, he introduced self-transcendence above self-actualization, which he explicitly linked to spiritual and peak experiences, effectively placing religion or spirituality at the apex of human needs."
(Emphasis mine)

Also, research studies find that people care about the "higher" and "lower" needs simultaneously, challenging the idea that one must wait until all basic needs are met before focusing on spiritual or transcendental goals, so he was mistaken there.

+++

I'll pick up some threads which actually do relate:

Below are extracts from an essay on the Light-En.org website on Maslow's Published work. Any criticism I offer is aimed at the essayist – I'm not sure how accurately they reflect Maslow's work.

"While he agrees with scientific critiques of mainstream religion, Maslow believes that atheists often throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, losing sight of a spiritual encounter that is available to the atheist and theist alike and which can be documented and studied in the same way as any other scientific phenomenon. He calls these encounters peak experiences."

"Peak experiences are moments when our full potential is unlocked..."
Here, unwittingly, is a further example of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater', because it seeks to conflate the two ideas, by simply emptying one of them of any content. There is no recognition or acknowledgement of what constitutes an authentic 'spiritual experience' – an encounter with the Transcendent.

So, precisely in line with Fortuin's point above, Maslow's 'Peak Experience' is correct according to its own measure of a common phenomena, but where it goes wrong is that it stops there.

Compare Maslow's 'peak experience' with the theists' 'spiritual experience' and there are enough significant differences to make the two incompatible.

"These peaks are the secret ‘oomph’ that gave the historic religions whatever experiential credibility they have. Yet such moments are also available to the atheist, for the source of this experience is not some transcendent deity, but the joy and power that lies within ourselves and the simple miracles afforded by the natural world."

The emphas is mine. The experiences are made the same, by denying the substance of the other.

"Therefore, what counts is ... whether you are willing to open yourself up to these types of experiences or would rather drown them out in scientific skepticism or mindless religious rituals."
And it would rather appear the author has opted for scientific skepticism in dismissing religion as 'mindless rituals'.

+++

... i can pick and choose whatever dogma or scripture titilates my taste buds..... if you choose to refer that as a simple distraction or amusement...i suppose that has some validity....it is obviously something I can do without....

It's akin to what Hart refers to as "custom-fitted spiritualities", "gods of the boutique", in which spiritual concepts are "aesthetic choices rather than lived truths". Nick Cave, as I posted before, regards religion as "spirituality with rigour", and the missing element, that rigour, is the challenge to self that runs deep. Living a religion embraces and confronts both belief and doubt.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I thought this apposite with regard to a discussion @TheLightWithin elsewhere about ignosticism.

Thanks for the new insights

The Christian theologian Denys Turner, in a debate at Bristol University, made a wager with the audience. Give me five minutes, he said. Let anyone here explain his reasons for being an atheist, and if I cannot then guess correctly the Christian denomination in which that person was raised, I will buy him a pint.

I'd love to see a whole book about this. Did he write one? This would be great. He must know more about denominations than the guy who runs the Ready to Harvest channel on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/ReadyToHarvest

Know what you are saying yes to, and you know exactly what you are saying no to

I think that's definitely where Ignosticism comes in. My understanding of ignosticism in simplest terms is that the ignostic feels they cannot confirm nor deny the existence of G-d without a solid idea of what G-d actually is or must be. Not just denying dogmas because different faiths contradict one another. Nor is even claiming to be uncertain legit, uncertain about the existent of G-d if you don't know what G-d truly is. Too many believers have different ideas about what G-d is. Thinking it thru, I thought the ignostic position was at least plausible. Say if you thought you were a believer and then you find out what G-d is supposed to be and you're like, oh no, I don't believe that. Say you were an atheist or thought you were, but then you found out the correct or accurate definition for G-d and then you were like, oh I do believe that! Or an agnostic who claims to not be sure, but then when faced with the accurate definition changes their position to either theism or atheism. Hypothetically, everyone from theist thru agnostic thru atheist could find they change their self-label when a clear cut definition comes to town.

The days of 'deconstruction atheism' are long gone, because the theologian has out-marched them

I'm not sure what you mean?

There is no enormous invisible person, no bearded old man sitting on a throne, or reaching out from the clouds of heaven, no supreme item in the inventory of the universe, no maximally impressive being standing at the top of the list of beings. That God is an idol. That Goes does not exist, and theology has been saying so for fifteen hundred years.

Well, some theologians may have been, but millions of workaday believers have been saying "Is too!" Stomping pouting and shaking their fists! For at least as long!

The atheist negation is correct. What has gone wrong is that it stopped there. The negation of an idol is not the end of theology. It is, one might say, clearing the ground so one might begin.

If only we the people had the guidance to see that instead of only having the hyper-vigilant hardline fundies screaming at us morning noon and night and giving us the gimlet eye in all times and all places.

Most atheisms are too limited in their negativity because they respond to Christian theisms too limited in their affirmativeness.

This sounds like a great opening line to a really great essay or book.

This resonates with me. I think the atheist part of my life was triggered (age 5ish) by a horrified recoil from what I saw as the fickle, needy contradictory God described in the bible. I was too young then to know that other lenses were available, and they certainly weren't ever mentioned at school.

I was lucky enough to have been raised with mixed messages about religion - all 3 adults at home had different ideas about it and the only thing they all agreed on was that regular mainstream religion had it all wrong, all wrong.

 

[Thomas]

Thanks for the new insights

I'm relaying the work of Robert Fortuin, an Eastern Orthodox theologian. Like Hart and Armstrong and others, he helps shape and form my sometimes incoherent musings ...

I'd love to see a whole book about this. Did he write one?

No. No his thing. It's just something that came out of his insight into atheists.

I think that's definitely where Ignosticism comes in. My understanding of ignosticism in simplest terms is that the ignostic feels they cannot confirm nor deny the existence of G-d without a solid idea of what G-d actually is or must be.

Is that not agnostic?

Ignosticism, as I understand it, is the position that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the term god has no coherent and unambiguous definition – "the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of god"

An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether they are theist or atheist until a better definition of theism is put forth, without which the term 'god' is meaningless. An agnostic accepts a definition, but cannot be sure either way.

(Ignosticism and theological noncognitivism are generally considered synonymous.)

Philosopher Paul Kurtz "the father of secular humanism", regards ignosticism as compatible with both weak atheism and agnosticism.

In Language, Truth, and Logic, A. J. Ayer, a logical positivist, said one could not speak of God's existence, or even the probability of God's existence, since the concept itself was unverifiable and thus nonsensical. Ayer wrote that this ruled out atheism and agnosticism as well as theism because all three positions assume that the sentence "God exists" is meaningful; atheists judge it to be "false or probably false" and agnostics consider it to be inconclusive until further evidence is met.

A simplified maxim on the subject states "An atheist would say, 'I don't believe God exists'; an agnostic would say, 'I don't know whether or not God exists'; and an ignostic would say, 'I don't know what you mean when you say, "God exists" '."

Thinking it thru, I thought the ignostic position was at least plausible.

Then you would have to allow, as philosophical critics of logical positivism argued, that if 'god' is meaningless, then by the same measure a host of other terms also have no cognitive meaning, like 'love' or 'consciousness' or the colour 'blue'.

An ignostic declares the definition as meaningless in the first place, so one cannot be an atheist, theist or agnostic, because they are all responses to a definition.

I'm not sure what you mean?

It's a comment on a moment in the historical process. Philosophically, 'deconstruction' is the interrogation of the relationship between text/language and meaning. The idea was introduced by Jacques Derrida, and is a profound and far-ranging thesis across many fields of study.

In the context of the above, it refers to a period in the last century when the 'deconstructivists' argued, following Nietzsche, that "God is dead" because of their remorseless critique of the affirmative language of religion. They thought their position was unassailable, and then they came up against apophatism, negative theology, and there is where their argument falters.

Well, some theologians may have been, but millions of workaday believers have been saying "Is too!" Stomping pouting and shaking their fists! For at least as long!

Oh, for sure, but then that falls under the critique of weak theology, or weak theism.

I can argue quite strongly, from the standpoint of metaphor and symbol, for a 'view' of God as an old man sitting on a throne atop the clouds. It makes accessible certain concepts of metaphysics which otherwise seem too obscure or too abstract – where it goes wrong is in believing God actually is an old man sitting, etc ... but then the Latter Day Saints believe that God actually is a physical being, with a wife, in heaven.

If only we the people had the guidance to see that instead of only having the hyper-vigilant hardline fundies screaming at us morning noon and night and giving us the gimlet eye in all times and all places.

Well the guidance is there if you look for it. The people you reference are extremists, by nature loud, aggressive, angry, etc. The Christian way is not that.

This sounds like a great opening line to a really great essay or book.

John Gray (Good grief, I've been spelling his name wrong all this time) wrote "Seven Types of Atheism" arguing that modern atheism, far from being a rejection of theism, is in fact a continuation of monotheistic thinking, either setting up Straw Man notions of God they can easily knock down, and/or replacing God with secular surrogates, such as 'science', 'humanism' ...

I was lucky enough to have been raised with mixed messages about religion - all 3 adults at home had different ideas about it and the only thing they all agreed on was that regular mainstream religion had it all wrong, all wrong.

Lucky based on certain assumptions which, again, the basic premise of this thread perhaps challenges ...