This is the edition that I will be using for our reading group.
Just trying out this online course software.
One of those who attended the PhiloSophia meeting on this topic was Greg who submitted this preliminary “final word” on the subject under discussion:
The “all” (I think) are religions and philosophies where very many people have complete “faith” that they are “right” in their understanding of the details of their fundamental beliefs. For them, not only do they not see the zero as part of the all, they of course, do not see any other religion, or philosophy as part of the all. But, the religions’ leaders/administrators (particularly) are aware that in the older technologically advanced countries the senior level educated classes are increasingly drifting away, many to the zero. And, I think, many are going to one, or another of a number of the versions of the zero, and this is also significant regarding measuring up to the scientific community’s scrutiny and power. In my view, of course the zero belongs to the all, but it is a long, long way from being “there yet”, so how do the people of “the zero” (the atheist, anarchist, and deist philosophically inclined, too?) and those who are “religious” – get it there? I have a view on this, but I am unable to do it justice, at this point.
My own response to this is that Greg is using the word “faith” with a particular meaning that is different from the one that is accepted within serious academic religious studies. In fact, he is using “faith” where (dogmatic) “belief” would be more correct.
I would direct him (and any others interested in this distinction) to the following resources:
- William Cantwell Smith: Faith and Belief: The Difference Between Them, 1979/98. (A little of the text is available online via the “Look Inside!” feature.)
- CBC radio: After Atheism: New Perspectives on God and Religion, Part 4 (note: podcast not available, click on “listen” to hear the original broadcast)
- James P. Carse: The Religious Case Against Belief, 2009. (A copy of the book is currently on loan to a member of PhiloSophia: when she’s finished with it, you might like to read it yourself.)
My own brief summary or paraphrase of what Smith and Carse are saying in their books would be the following:
Faith is really more of a commitment or an expression of love/devotion. For example, I have faith in truth and justice. Belief originally had this meaning – the “lief” in it is related to “love” – but it has developed a meaning closer to “belief that (a proposition or statement)” rather than belief (faith) *in* some ideal. In other words, “belief” has now come to mean “I am convinced” rather than “I am committed”.
I would invite further comments (below) after some acquaintance (at least) with the CBC radio interview.
Topics and (my own) comments on Alasdair MacIntyre have been posted on a special page for the purpose: MacIntyre @ philcom.
In my recent research among Smith’s writings I’ve looked around for the word “atheist” (or “atheism”) and have found it elusive. He does write of the “secular”, the “humanist” and the “rationalist”; as well as (my own favourites) the “confused” and the “eclectic perplexed enquirers” (of the “New Age”?). So far, the only clear reference to atheism that I’ve found occurs in Smith’s Faith and Belief: The Difference Between Them. Indeed, he has there a whole chapter titled “The Buddhist Instance: Faith as Atheist?” from which I’ve taken the following excerpt (p22) available through “Look Inside!”:
I don’t (yet) have a copy of this book but I would like, one day, to read it in its entirety.
I have been researching the writings of WC Smith for the purposes of the coming PhiloSophia meeting on “The Zero Within the All”. I came across an essay dating back to 1984 and titled “Philosophia as one of the Religious Traditions of Humankind”. The essay appears as a chapter in Smith’s Modern Culture from a Comparative Perspective (Ch 3) and also in editor Kenneth Cracknell’s Wilfred Cantwell Smith: A Reader (Ch 8).
I have made this essay/chapter available to PhiloSophia members as well as some friends who are not members. The casual reader might like to look at the partial preview available via Amazon’s “Look Inside!” feature at Smith’s Modern Culture …
I would invite anyone who reads this – and especially who likes this – to comment here.
Howard Philips was a horror write who is now viewed with the same esteem as Edgar Allan Poe or Steven King. His works are highly distinctive and share intertexual references to a series of ideas that have been named by others “The Cthulhu Mythos”. These ideas have spread widely with other authors carrying on his mythology and it has inspired occultists, been the base for multiple roleplaying games and has even shown up in childrens cartoons like the Ghostbuster and Justice League.
H. P. Lovecraft received what others would call Enlightment. But for him enlightement was not a positive experience. He looked beyond the ordinary world and saw nothing but fear and despair. The ability to see beyond the ordinary showed him not a universe of joy and purpose but cold hostile universe without hope. Lovecraft believed that the ordinary social world we live in was just an illusion to hide this truth about the universe from ourselves so that we could stay sane and happy.
These ideas would mix with his own intrests to create the Cthulhu Mythos. He would write horror stories not about violence or human flaws, but about unknowable secrets and unfathomable extra-dimensional alien lifeforms set in a universe were humanity is insignificant by nature. This story tone would be known as ‘Cosmic Horror’ and different ideas from it would be used by range of authors as well as occultists and other thinkers.
Below: Azathoth the Cosmic Sultan, the ” blind idiot god” who created and sustains the universe in the Cthulhu Mythos.