Thursday, July 23, 2009

Unpalatability

Gaw directs me to the Times obit of Leszek Kolakowski, which includes this summation of the philosopher’s views on the question of God:

Kolakowski offered a critical analysis of a wide range of arguments for religious beliefs. He sought to understand them through their historical, anthropological and cultural backgrounds. In Christianity, for example, he saw the development of God from a basis in early Greek philosophy of the One, later merged with the Jewish concept of a loving God. Thus he maintained a cultural and human conception of religion...

He also held that rational inquiry could never settle religious questions such as whether or not God exists….

His approach was, ultimately, unpalatable to both religious believers, whose faith he explained culturally, and scientists, whose knowledge he thought was ultimately based on faith.


Nobody knows nuffink. Perhaps good philosophy is the business of accepting this obvious truism but still finding stuff to say.

7 comments:

Peter Burnet said...

Nobody knows nuffink. Perhaps good philosophy is the business of accepting this obvious truism but still finding stuff to say.

If militant atheists could see that also applies to good science, they might stop offering themselves up as such delicious low-hanging fruit. Then where in hell would we be?

David said...

I'm always puzzled by people, believers or non-believers both, who think that some biological or social scientific explanation of "why" we believe in G-d tips the scales towards G-d's non-existence.

Gaw said...

I enjoy how he pissed both sides off, undoubtedly enjoying it himself.

Hey Skipper said...

He also held that rational inquiry could never settle religious questions such as whether or not God exists….

God's existence, or lack thereof, is not a religious question.

You would think a philosopher of K+9's stature would have figured that out.

Of course, you would also think someone that smart would have smoked Marxism from the git-go.

Brit said...

you would also think someone that smart would have smoked Marxism from the git-go.

All about context, Skipper. Any idiot born into the US or UK middle-class can diss communism from the git-go. Takes real brains and courage to change your mind.

Peter Burnet said...

God's existence, or lack thereof, is not a religious question.

Wha..???

musn't hijack Brit's site,
musn't hijack Brit's site,
musn't hijack Brit's site.....

Hey Skipper said...

Brit:

Any idiot born into the US or UK middle-class can diss communism from the git-go. Takes real brains and courage to change your mind.

Undoubtedly it takes brains and courage to change one's mind.

The question here, though, is not the ultimate changing, but rather the initial making.

How is it that K+9 (acting as a proxy for so many academic intellectuals), fell for Marxist tosh in the first place?

Peter:

God's existence, or lack thereof, is not a religious question.

Wha..???


The answer to your question is in this question: Presuming I was to decide God exists, to which religion do I belong?