Jacques Derrida On 'Atheism' and 'Belief'

[hatzel]

r3fScS2cnB0
Here, at the 2002 Toronto 'Other Testaments' conference, Derrida responds in audio format to a question about his supposed atheism... 'paradoxically,' he states, the 'true believer experiences atheism' because the object of prayer - G-d - is 'beyond' the usual metaphysical notions of 'being' (e.g., presence, essence, ouisa) - thus, to believe in that which by definition is 'beyond being' implies believing as an atheist... claiming that one is solely a 'believer' or an 'atheist,' is deemed 'ridiculous' - binary oppositions of this sort engage in a near constant reversibility... within this 'atheism' of the 'believer,' true faith appears (a postmodern rendering of Kierkegaard)...I'm interested to see what others have to say on this statement. I'll hold out on commenting for the time being, if you don't mind, and come in a bit later on, once others have thrown an idea or two into the ring...

[Revolution starts with U]

Is he saying, we're all atheists... just some people reject their atheism?

[ZeroNowhere]

That sounds like Hegel gone mad.

In any case, yes, God is supposed to be beyond the finite category of being, which simply means that God is not supposed to exist in the same way as a chair does. It is true that much of modern atheism does essentially consist in the denial that God exists in the same way as a chair does (or, I should say, there's 'no evidence for it'), but that's the fault of modern atheism and does not apply to all views which deny the existence of a God. In other words, yeah, God is to be the universal subject and not a particular object, meaning that they are beyond finite being, but that doesn't make theists atheists, and more than idealists are materialists (which is not to say that all atheists are materialists, it's simply a comparison of a 'binary opposition'.) It merely means that it's a matter of philosophy and that scientism is therefore as inappropriate as it is ludicrous.

[Ose]

So Derrida's definition of atheism is the acknowledgement that God does not exist in the same way in which things in the world exist? I'm sure this applies to most people, be they theist or atheist. The difference between theists and atheists is that theists believe that this thing 'beyond being' (God) exists in a way that is objectively relevant to us, and atheists do not. After all, what does 'atheist' mean if not the opposite of 'theist'? In the context of this (very real) dichotomy, his definition reduces the word almost to meaninglessness. That's just not what atheism means.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I prefer this:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." --Sir Stephen Henry Roberts

In other words, god-botherers use special pleading and doublethink to explain why their particular God exists and all the others don't, despite there being similar levels of evidence for every case.

[Franz Fanonipants]

"new" atheists are too stupid to know anything about postmodernism. the end.

e. "new" atheists - working for the heritage foundation

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"new" atheists are too stupid to know anything about postmodernism. the end.

Why should I bother knowing that it's anything other than a load of pompous bullpats? Plenty (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=880&q=personal+relationship+with+god&aq=4&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=personal+relation) of theists claim to feel the presence of god/s or have a personal relationship with them. Gods to them aren't some metaphysical abstract concept. Fuck, some theists claim to have communicated (http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=god+speaks+to+me&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=eacf3a5995e6ca4&biw=1920&bih=880) with god/s. That's leaving aside claims that god interferes with the material universe on the behalf of believers or to punish sinners.


e. "new" atheists - working for the heritage foundation

How many? You got reliable figures? Otherwise what you're saying is just a sweeping generalisation. Do you think I work for the Heritage Foundation? In case you're wondering, I don't. To think that people like you wonder why "New Atheists"* can be so caustic.

*(How "new" is Bertrand Russell?)

[Franz Fanonipants]

Why should I bother knowing that it's anything other than a load of pompous bullpats?

idk bro because for some reason post-structuralism basically is rational and p. scientific if you know what you're talking about.

obvs. you don't so

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

idk bro because for some reason post-structuralism basically is rational and p. scientific if you know what you're talking about.

obvs. you don't so

"The true believer experiences atheism" - no amount of philosobabble will ameliorate the absurdity of this statement. Atheists by definition lack belief in deities. A "true believer" of any theistic religion cannot be an atheist.

If that kind of extreme watering-down of otherwise well-defined terms is typical of post-structuralism and similar nonsense, then it's not scientific or rational in the least.

Unless of course, Derrida is simply talking out of his arse.

[ComradeMan]

Why should I bother knowing that it's anything other than a load of pompous bullpats?

Why should we look through that telescope Mr. Galileo? We know it won't work anyway.... :lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

Except when you look through a telescope, you're actually seeing something that you can point someone else's eye to. You can never show me the presence of God, nor I you. A person has to feel it themselves.

Overall on that statement... I give a 1/10. I'd give it a 2/10, but I'm sure no one ever said that to Galileo.

[ComradeMan]

Except when you look through a telescope, you're actually seeing something that you can point someone else's eye to. You can never show me the presence of God, nor I you. A person has to feel it themselves.

Overall on that statement... I give a 1/10. I'd give it a 2/10, but I'm sure no one ever said that to Galileo.

Well, so much for padody. But you can possibly listen to people's philosophies, even if you don't agree, without closing your mind like a bigot....

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, so much for padody. But you can possibly listen to people's philosophies, even if you don't agree, without closing your mind like a bigot....

If they're saying shit like "the true believer experiences atheism" why the fuck should I take anything they have to say at all seriously? Nobody has answered that question.

Here's a free tip for all philosophers or would-be philosophers - when philosophising, don't make stupid sweeping generalisations or drop massive logical clangers like "the true believer experiences atheism".

I think ComradeMan is so open minded his brains have fallen out.

[ComradeMan]

If they're saying shit like "the true believer experiences atheism" why the fuck should I take anything they have to say at all seriously? Nobody has answered that question.

Here's a free tip for all philosophers or would-be philosophers - when philosophising, don't make stupid sweeping generalisations or drop massive logical clangers like "the true believer experiences atheism".

I think ComradeMan is so open minded his brains have fallen out.

I know what Derrida means, even if I may not agree. It's like the true non-smoker being the person who has smoked but doesn't as opposed to the one who has never smoked at all.

[hatzel]

Just thought I'd let you all know that the pertinent line in all this which seemingly everybody is just outright ignoring is:


I know that the great mystics are experiencing this, they are experiencing the death of G-d, or the disappearance of G-d, or the nonexistence of G-d, or G-d as being called nonexistent.:)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I know what Derrida means, even if I may not agree. It's like the true non-smoker being the person who has smoked but doesn't as opposed to the one who has never smoked at all.

If you don't currently smoke, then regardless of whether you have smoked in the past or not, you are not a smoker, IE you are a non-smoker. A non-smoker who has smoked in the past might have more knowledge of what it is to be a smoker, but that is absolutely non-essential to actually being a non-smoker, the only requirement for that being that one does not smoke.

Same thing with atheism. I don't need to have ever been religious in order to be a "true" atheist, whatever the fuck that actually means at the end of the day.


Just thought I'd let you all know that the pertinent line in all this which seemingly everybody is just outright ignoring is:

:)

Oh he knows, does he? Why should we believe him? Apart from his ability to impress fanboys of overblown Continental philosophy with his turgid maunderings?

[Revolution starts with U]

I grew up an altar boy in a catholic school... and we helped set up Bingo....
Does that make my non-belief more valid?

[hatzel]

Oh he knows, does he?

Well, the Zohar was written in, what, the 13th century? And pretty much every text in kabbalah since then has happily called the pure g-dhead 'sans', 'the nothingness,' has claimed that G-d is, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent. Within Sufism, ibn Arabi said, again in the 13th century, 'in my knowing Him, I create Him;' as early as the 9th century, Bayazid Bastami had said of himself 'I am G-d, there is no G-d but me, so worship me.' So what he said is a pretty accurate representation of mystical teachings (or, of the basics, of the first step, of explicitly calling G-d nonexistent, which is inherent in the teachings of the mystics he refers to), and I think it's fair to agree with him, and admit that he does, in fact, know what they teach.


Why should we believe him?Presumably because he was actually familiar with the mystical traditions, and happily acknowledged the similarities between elements of his philosophy and elements of kabbalah. He was also clearly influenced by Heidegger, who was influenced by Meister Eckhart, and the Eckhartian elements of Derrida's philosophy, particularly his approach to prayer and belief as 'the suspension of certainty' (compare Eckhart's 'only those who have dared to let go can dare to reenter'), are abundantly clear. So, once again, I think we can believe that what he says about the teachings of the mystics is a fair representation of the teachings of the mystics. If we don't believe him, we could consult the books ourselves, and we would find that his statement was accurate.


Apart from his ability to impress fanboys of overblown Continental philosophy with his turgid maunderings?And still you seem to be labouring under the false illusion that he came up with this. That it was his idea, and that nobody had ever said it before. This whole thread seems to just be 'aaaaah, crazy postmodernists, what will they come up with next?!' Therefore we all seem to be ignoring the fact that he is specifically claiming to draw direct links between what he is saying and pretty ancient traditions. That is to say, traditions which predate postmodernism by a good seven centuries, if not more, and traditions which are explicitly religious in nature, which would also argue, as Derrida does, that 'the true believer experiences atheism,' that prayer is 'the suspension of certainty,' and which would find a lot of common ground between their teachings and what he's saying. The line I just referenced was intended to remind us of this, and to stop us pretending that the ideas he outlined were a product of post-war French philosophy or whatever we're claiming, but that they are inherent in religious teachings. As this thread is posted in the religion section, I thought it would be suitable for such a discussion of religion to be undertaken at some point...

[manic expression]

I prefer this:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." --Sir Stephen Henry Roberts

In other words, god-botherers use special pleading and doublethink to explain why their particular God exists and all the others don't, despite there being similar levels of evidence for every case.
That´s an interesting quote. However, what of pantheistic religions? When one believes in all gods as an expression of god, that avoids the doublethink you pointed out, no?

[ComradeMan]

If you don't currently smoke, then regardless of whether you have smoked in the past or not, you are not a smoker, IE you are a non-smoker. A non-smoker who has smoked in the past might have more knowledge of what it is to be a smoker, but that is absolutely non-essential to actually being a non-smoker, the only requirement for that being that one does not smoke.

It doesn't work like that.... :lol: If you have never smoked then you don't know what it is like to be a smoker, you are not a non-smoker, i.e. someone who chooses freely not to smoker but rather an anti-smoker.


Oh he knows, does he? Why should we believe him? Apart from his ability to impress fanboys of overblown Continental philosophy with his turgid maunderings?

I wondered how long it would be before the Anglo anti-continentalism creeped in, in a discussion about Derrida.
:lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, the Zohar was written in, what, the 13th century? And pretty much every text in kabbalah since then has happily called the pure g-dhead 'sans', 'the nothingness,' has claimed that G-d is, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent. Within Sufism, ibn Arabi said, again in the 13th century, 'in my knowing Him, I create Him;' as early as the 9th century, Bayazid Bastami had said of himself 'I am G-d, there is no G-d but me, so worship me.' So what he said is a pretty accurate representation of mystical teachings (or, of the basics, of the first step, of explicitly calling G-d nonexistent, which is inherent in the teachings of the mystics he refers to), and I think it's fair to agree with him, and admit that he does, in fact, know what they teach.

So why don't these mystic types call themselves atheists? Is it perhaps because they aren't actually atheists and Derrida is merely talking shit?


And still you seem to be labouring under the false illusion that he came up with this. That it was his idea, and that nobody had ever said it before. This whole thread seems to just be 'aaaaah, crazy postmodernists, what will they come up with next?!' Therefore we all seem to be ignoring the fact that he is specifically claiming to draw direct links between what he is saying and pretty ancient traditions. That is to say, traditions which predate postmodernism by a good seven centuries, if not more, and traditions which are explicitly religious in nature, which would also argue, as Derrida does, that 'the true believer experiences atheism,' that prayer is 'the suspension of certainty,' and which would find a lot of common ground between their teachings and what he's saying. The line I just referenced was intended to remind us of this, and to stop us pretending that the ideas he outlined were a product of post-war French philosophy or whatever we're claiming, but that they are inherent in religious teachings. As this thread is posted in the religion section, I thought it would be suitable for such a discussion of religion to be undertaken at some point...

I believe "the true believer experiences atheism" is actually a verbatim quote of Derrida's.

The mere fact that he appears to be considering that kind of mystical crap as anything other than a curiosity is sufficient to call his intellectual competence into question.


It doesn't work like that.... :lol: If you have never smoked then you don't know what it is like to be a smoker, you are not a non-smoker, i.e. someone who chooses freely not to smoker but rather an anti-smoker.

Nonsense. Regardless of whether one has smoked in the past, one is either a smoker or a non-smoker, depending on one's choice.

If you're saying that people have different reasons for not smoking, that's fine, but in neither case is one a "true" non-smoker.

As it is with atheism.

In any case, the claim wasn't that one had to have had believed at one point to be truly atheist. The claim was made that "true believers experience atheism", a claim that has not been supported by anyone in this thread, but those who have leapt to Derrida's defence have been quick to indulge in hair-splitting and muddying the waters. See below.


I wondered how long it would be before the Anglo anti-continentalism creeped in, in a discussion about Derrida.
:lol:

I hate obfuscatory crap no matter where it comes from or who espouses it. Show me me an "Anglo" engaging in the same kind of activity and I will not hesitate to pour scorn and derision over them.

[ComradeMan]

I hate obfuscatory crap no matter where it comes from or who espouses it. Show me me an "Anglo" engaging in the same kind of activity and I will not hesitate to pour scorn and derision over them.

As if they would care. You make a fool of yourself because you close your mind first without considering things. Learn to look with your intellect and not just your eyes.

obfuscatory = I don't understand

:D

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As if they would care. You make a fool of yourself because you close your mind first without considering things. Learn to look with your intellect and not just your eyes.

obfuscatory = I don't understand

:D

You still have yet to explain how Derrida's words make any sort of sense, yet you have plenty of time to call me names, split hairs and generally be a trolling ass.

Put up or shut the fuck up.

[bcbm]

please try to keep the discussion civil guys

[ComradeMan]

You still have yet to explain how Derrida's words make any sort of sense, yet you have plenty of time to call me names, split hairs and generally be a trolling ass.

Put up or shut the fuck up.

Oh shut up. Your basic tactic on any discussion which is at all philosophical or religious/spiritual is to disregard everything from the outset and call it all bullshit from the beginning... it's quite narrow-minded.