it's not eventually yet?
“He who knows others is learned. He who knows himself is enlightened.”So my latest theory of self: I strongly identify with Judaism in the cultural sense, and only indirectly, through my cultural values, do I identify with Judaism religiously. Which at first may seem in contradiction with my upbringing, but when thought about in the right context, it actually fits pretty well.—Lao Tzu
And my latest theory on others: (Well, on atheists in specific. And well, it’s not really a new theory, but my opinion on the matter has gotten a lot stronger recently.) I have concluded that for one to declare himself/herself an atheist requires an extreme level of pompousness. That is, to argue atheism from intellectual perspective* is to disrespect thousands upon thousands of scholars, not only in this generation, but in hundreds of generations of the past as well. When an atheist pleads his/her case, what I hear is mostly: I’m part of a very small minority of people who are more enlightened and see things that everyone else is missing. The rest of the world is simply not smart enough to see the truth, and most people are just falling prey to a whole bunch of hogwash…
*Those who argue from an emotional perspective are more forgivable. Not that I necessarily make personal judgments about people based on their beliefs one way or another…I'm just saying they're pompous :).
posted by Goldie @ 8:10 PM
8 Comments:
I think you would have to agree that according to your latest theory, Avrohom Avinu,the father of monotheism in a generation of polytheism, must have been an extremely pompous person...
Umm...I guess in a way...Though the context is quite different in a number of ways. For one thing, if Avrohom actually saw G-d, would he still be considered pompous for believing in Him? (And for those who don't believe that Avrohom actually saw G-d, it would probably be more accurate to call him delusional as opposed to pompous...)
Just like Avrohom would not be considered pompous if he actually saw God, so would an atheist not be pompous if he could intelligently explain his atheism.
My point is that judging ideas according to their popularity (even if it is popular amongst "thousands of thousands of scholars etc") is not the intelligent way of judging ideas.
I'll bring another example from another Jew to prove my point - Was Einstein pompous by claiming his relativity theory, which was against what "thousands upon thousands of scholars etc" thought?
But of course Einstein was pompous!! One would have to be really sure of his intelligence to propose any outrageous theory that contradicts thousands of scholars that came before him.
And who's judging ideas? I was only commenting on the confidence with which the atheist presents his beliefs.
No, Einstein was not pompous. He was smart. He didnt just propose his theory. He proved it too. Therefore, he was confident in his theory, although thousands of scholars before him thought differently.
So can an athiest be confident about his beliefs (or "ideas" if he is not a believer at all) if he can explain why he believes so, and why he thinks the thousands of scholars before him were wrong on this subject.
If a person cannot explain why he believes what he believes, than he is an idiot even if in what he believes, millions of scholars believe too.
Just so we're being consistent regarding the definition of pompous:
1 : excessively elevated or ornate
2 : having or exhibiting self-importance
According to definition 2, a person could very well be smart and pompous at the same time.
So can an athiest be confident about his beliefs (or "ideas" if he is not a believer at all) if he can explain why he believes so, and why he thinks the thousands of scholars before him were wrong on this subject.
I have no problem with that, but he's still being pompous in my book (regardless of whether he's right or wrong).
If a person cannot explain why he believes what he believes, than he is an idiot even if in what he believes, millions of scholars believe too.
I disagree. Not everything in life has a logical explanation and not everything can be proved. Philosophers continue to debate rational versus intuitive thought, as they have been for over 200 years, with neither side being able to prove one is superior to the other. And I think belief, of all things, is hardly a rational process to begin with, that is, I don't think belief in atheism, in G-d, or in any thing else can actually be proven, at best it could be explained in intuitive terms...
If an atheist can explain to himself why atheism is right, and why the thousands of scholars before him were wrong on this subject, how can you say he is pompous for being an atheist?!? He is just plain true to himself.
You are right in saying belief cant be proven. For this reason it would be smart to be agnostic.
how can you say he is pompous for being an atheist?!? He is just plain true to himself.
Why are you insisting on squashing my opinion on this matter? Is it really so prosperous of me to think of a person who is under the impression that he knows better than thousands upon thousands of scholars, many of whom are smarter than him as well as knowledgeable in his theory of atheism, as being pompous?
On the other hand, if one is being true to himself in the sense that he doesn't argue from the perspective that his theory is necessarily any more intellectually sound than the theory of theism (and theists are not just missing something), but just "feels" that there couldn't possibly be a G-d. That's different. As I wrote in my post, "Those who argue from an emotional perspective are more forgivable."
Post a Comment
<< Home