20 01 2009

Cartesian Dualism: Atheism II

Posted by: LeaT in Philosophy, Religion, Uncategorized, tags: atheism, Dualism

As a continuation of my other article, I decided to make a follow-up post since while people might be aware or not, Cartesian dualism is one of the primary reasons why we have modern science and consider Atheism to be an equally valid philosophy alongside religion.

To understand why, we must first look into how Descartes defined the universe, namely that of the physical and the nonphysical. Everything we can touch, see, smell, feel and taste are of the physical world, everything else not such as thoughts and ideas. Basically a dichotomy made of the abstract vs the concrete. To consider the universe physical, we must also consider it as an object made for study as we can study the physical world but we cannot study the nonphysical (according to old belief, we now know we can study the mind as proven in Psychology and similar sciences).

In science, we are to reject the nonphysical since it cannot be properly reviewed. We look at the physical world as an object, something which can be rationally understood. Not surprisingly we started to reject Christianity and the Church by the time we also started to believe in Liberalism, in personal responsibility and freedom and that every individual matters in comparison to rather seeing a group of people than a group of individuals. To understand why the development of Liberalism is important we must understand that without a Divine Creator who has laid all the rules for us to follow, the only one being able to take responsibility is oneself. Personal resonsiblity, free will and freedom are the underlying foundations of  Liberalism and Atheism too embraces this idea, since if we don’t believe in a Divine Creator and a Holy Scripture then we only have ourselves to blame for our earthly faults and we must learn how to deal with it. Our morals come from ourselves, not from a Creator Mystique. In summary, one can basically say that by the time we really started to believe in the world as an object and rejected the nonphysical during the Enlightenment Era, Liberalism and then Atheism were later to be born. It is also interesting to see that it was at this point when the church was split between Protestantism and Catholicism, the former believing more on individual responsibility than the latter, thus also rejecting ideas such as Original Sin, which claims that we are to be blamed for the faults of our ancestors, thus rather grouping people up in a huge collective than seeing them as free individuals. This strongly opposes the idea of individual freedom and personal responsibility and was easily solved with the idea of baptism. Drop your head in some holy water and voila, the Original Sin is gone.

With the help of the Enlightenment Era we would soon give birth to Industrialism and it is now science is finally is starting to seriously take a spin. Many huge scientific improvements were made around the 19th century or after that time and in fact we all got monsieur Descartes to thank, making us believe that we can actually view the world as an object. In such a sense isn’t it all also very ironical that we now are rejecting his idea of Dualism given that it was his idea of the physical world that planted the first seeds into developing modern science? Regardless, Atheism rejects anything made of the nonphysical and at least claims that if such a nonphysical world would exist, it too is a part of the physical world but not yet properly understood.

In a sense, we can actually say that the Abrahamic religions were doomed when they first introduced the concept of a soul and a nonphysical world. They in fact, planted the ideas which would later spawn Atheism since Atheism is more or less the rejection of the nonphysical, but such a concept cannot exist unless we are to believe in a physical and a nonphysical world, as later laid out and defined by Descartes.  When Christians argue that Atheism then is a necessary evil, maybe we should try to explain to them that they themselves laid the foundation for such a concept and as they continue to believe in a soul and a nonphysical world, and that they will just help Atheism to spread further as it also of course allows the belief of the opposite, which also is equally amusing when you think about it. Therefore I think it’s pretty safe to assume that Atheism will only cease to exist (as Atheism) when we have completely given up the concept of the nonphysical. I just want to clarify that this doesn’t mean that future Atheists will refuse to reject the nonphysical, but as we move more into a belief of a monistic world, then the concept of Atheism isn’t needed anymore as there is no longer a reason to reject of what we today know as a nonphysical world.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 20th, 2009 at 6:53 pm and is filed under Philosophy, Religion, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

18 Responses to “Cartesian Dualism: Atheism II”
  1. jorrizza says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 8:16 pm - Edit

    Thanks for the clarification. Although I generally agree, I can't help but to play the devil's advocate for a moment. There are a few points I'd like to address. First and foremost, atheism is not a philosophy and it did not pop into existence after some person invented it. It's merely a lack of belief in a god. It doesn't even mean you can't believe in some supernatural metaphysical mumbo jumbo. Buddhism is essentially atheistic too, for example. So atheism exists just as long as some people believe there's a god of some sort. Second, Descartes wasn't the first and he surely isn't responsible for setting the enlightenment period in motion. People like Vesalius and Copernicus predated him, both of them challenged Christian dogma. Galileo had an important impact during the time Descartes published his ideas. Cartesian dualism really took off after his death, in the second half of the 17th century, and people like Spinoza had elaborated on his ideas. Luckily empiricism wasn't far away to set things straight ;)

  2. LeaT says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 11:22 pm - Edit

    I know it's not a philosophy in itself, I just didn't know what else to call it in this context. Maybe I should rewrite the text but you have to call it something if you aren't going to call it religion, amiright? Religious anti-thesis?

    Also, regarding Descartes and Enlightenment, of course, I know he isn't responsible for it alone :) It's stupid to assume otherwise, I am merely explaining why his dualistic concept became important for the Enlightenment Era and the formation of Liberalism and Atheism. Maybe I can rewrite that so it becomes more clear.

  3. Waldheri says:
    January 21st, 2009 at 9:00 am - Edit

    Props to jorrizza for his response, because his critique constitutes mine when I read the text. I do suggest you rewrite it so that it doesn't appear that atheism is a philosophy entailing all kinds of extras. The example of Buddhism as an atheistic religion is spot on and should force you to review your conclusions and the fact that you write atheism with a capital A. ;-)

  4. LeaT says:
    January 21st, 2009 at 10:00 am - Edit

    Well, shouldn't it rather be more gramatically correct?

  5. Waldheri says:
    January 22nd, 2009 at 4:50 pm - Edit

    It's not a proper noun ;-) I have another commentary concerning this topic though. In the ACP forum you say it dives into the origins of atheism. The question you thereby are asking is "What is the origin of not believing (in gods)?" And the answer would be: being ignorant of the concept of gods. Atheism as a clearly defined philosophical position is of course born with the conception of theism.

    Furthermore, it was not really "atheism" that found support and widespread recognition in The Enlightenment, but rather secularism. Of course many secularists were be atheists, but it is not a prerequisite.

  6. LeaT says:
    January 23rd, 2009 at 8:36 am - Edit

    I studied English too long time ago :D I have that grammar book lying around somewhere, but do you mean proper noun here as it's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun#Proper_n...or just a noun which isn't proper?

    Alas, I am confused! Did I make claims or sounded it like I did mean that atheism was supported with the Enlightenment though? Because I mean not prior of course (atheism as a concept existed but few would dare to openly go out and say they rejected any belief in god(s)), but after. The Enlightenment helped to boost free thinking with the help of secularism as you said and the newly formed views of liberalism. While certainly a theistic belief also promotes a belief of the opposite what I was trying to say though that atheism became more accepted and overall widespread thanks to the liberalistic ideas which developed with the help of the Enlightenment and the French revolution. If that didn't become clear either I guess i my revise my whole text!

  7. John says:
    February 6th, 2009 at 3:39 am - Edit

    Greetings and my thanks to LeaT for inviting me to consider this article as a continuation of / corollary(?) to the first Cartesian Dualism article on site here.

    With this newer post, I'm having trouble seeing the continuity in spirit with the CD 1 article, which seemed to me rather unfriendly toward the Cartesian paradigm, at least from the responses, but where I see it being embraced and championed here in CD 2 for a host of reasons.

    So, if I may backtrack a bit, I'm wondering if the fundamental concept touched upon in CD 1 is being glossed-over – that is, the dichotomy introduced by the specifically Cartesian model of ontology. A dichotomy which I personally find troubling (and, ironically enough, find ample empirical evidence of its devastating effects on humanity). And for the sake of clarity, I'm referring here to the 'reduction' of man to simple "cogito" – (thereby setting up the sharp separation in principle between subject and object) – which has ostensibly "opened-up" these vast resources of objectivity – - in other words, the concept of man is being sacrificed (via reduction) as a means to an objective end.

    Therefore, if I'm on common ground in my objection, I would be curious to know if there are any particular forms of ontology y'all might be sympathetic to? . . .

  8. LeaT says:
    February 12th, 2009 at 9:36 am - Edit

    Hello John, glad you checked this one out as well.

    I am mostly interested in the effects and countereffects of CD, not necessarily of its good or bad impacts on our contemporary society in itself. While I don't agree with CD; what I more wanted to highlight was that Atheism most of all, has been allowed as an idea thanks to/due to CD. Good or bad? Up to the reader to decide.

    I think my personal stance (although not openly said) is that we wouldn't need either Christianity in its current state or Atheism, would our worldview be more akin to that of a monism. At least I find that more ideal than what we have today.

  9. John says:
    February 15th, 2009 at 8:18 pm - Edit

    LeaT, you're definitely onto something, but I fear the importance of your insight isn't being adequately acknowledged as yet.

    First, with respect to the commentaries offered above, I wish to address the nominal identity put forward between the "Western" phenomenon of atheism and Buddhist atheism. This identity obscures a radical qualitative difference between the two. One is aimed at transcendence, whereas the other definitely possesses an intrinsic antipathy toward anything which might admit of transcendence.

    So, for practical purposes, let me adhere to the topic and direct my remarks to the "Western" phenomenon of atheism.

    Whence this phenomenon of "anti-transcendence" (if I may refer to it on these terms)? I would argue that a big part of the answer can be inferred from LeaT's articles here.

    LeaT, your premise is essentially an ontological one, and by extension, an anthropological one. Therefore, I pose the question again: How does one adopt an "anti-transcendent" outlook (an oxymoron, I should think) without stepping right into the Cartesian bear-trap?

  10. LeaT says:
    February 16th, 2009 at 10:26 am - Edit

    Yes, your comment that my writings are anthropological in nature is correct, as I am studying anthropology and intending to become an anthropologist in the future :) I would lie if I didn't admit how much my studies do influence me, my thoughts and ideas. Nevertheless, I find anthropology to be quite an overlooked science which has given me a lot of insight.

    To further proceed with your arguments at hand, I think the problem with the very definition of atheism though is that atheism is a WESTERN idea. If you ask a buddhist if they consider themselves atheists they would disagree (as they would say they are buddhists), therefore I think there is a faultry in the definition of assuming that our atheism actually could properly encompass buddhism because there is no belief in a deity. It should also here be noted that many Asian reilgions and philosophies has also adapted a more wholistic world view in comparison to the West.

    And to answer your question properly, I cannot honestly answer to you. However, atheism only defines itself as the lack of belief in a deity, by extension also a rejection of all that is metaphysical, according to a western context. You can however still remain an atheist while being spiritual though, I could myself maybe be considered as such. So I guess the problem itself lies in how we as westerners rather choose to define atheism, where it gets troublesome since CD is so wired into our thoughts, thinking of everything in dichotomonies. So, taking back what I said earlier, one way to properly answer your question could simply be a redefintion of what ahteism truly means and what it stands for, disregarding the common use of the term and in addition of course also, missuse. Atheism by default might not reject all forms of metaphysics, merely that of a deity (which is also originally means in Greek). This also solves the problem regarding whether we can consider buddhism a form of atheism. Then, if you, as an atheist, choose to not believe in any form of metaphysics is another thing. I frankly believe that all unexplained phenomena as we know them today can someday be explained, may they have to be with metaphysics or not. However, that has more got to do with my view of wanting to avoid the dichotomony of the physical vs the metaphysical, as I want to believe they are the same, and that the idea of the metaphysical is in itiself an erraneous concept.

    Therefore I am sure that what you here call "anti-trascendency" shouldn't necessarily be included into the defintion of atheism, and that maybe we simply need to go back to the original meaning of the word where it simply means no belief in any god, with a more open and undefined undertone that you can believe in anything else and yet be an atheist, as long no belief in a deity is involved in those beliefs.

  11. jorrizza says:
    February 16th, 2009 at 7:19 pm - Edit

    Be careful with extending something as inextendable as atheism. The belief system you're referring to is called scientific realism, not western atheism.

  12. John says:
    February 16th, 2009 at 9:43 pm - Edit

    Hmmm… I'm not quite sure I understand your reference to atheism as "inextendable", although I'm guessing the intention is to avoid attributing systematic qualities to it, as you initially observed. Fair enough, although I would counter that an inordinate or indiscriminate appeal to scientific realism is tantamount to an atheism, be it held explicitly or implicitly.

    In any case, we have quite a phenomenon at work in the west, where it's evident people are falling unawares onto one side or the other of the objective/subjective divide.

  13. jorrizza says:
    February 16th, 2009 at 11:12 pm - Edit

    I must admit I've been using the English language a bit freely. Your assumptions about my attempt at wielding it are bang on. And yes, atheism is without question part of scientific realism at the moment. The two are closely linked but not dependant on each other. One can be both ignorant and atheist. If (not when) science finds proof in favor of a god's existence, the link between atheism and scientific realism ceases to exist.

    Is it evident? That in itself is both self defeating and confirming, how funny. Anyhow, I'd argue against the divide. Not a single aspect of one's existence is atomic, if I may use this term in philosophy. A personal philosophy will always lean to one or the other, but it will never entirely be either one. I'm personally convinced this playing field isn't horizontal but vertical, with objectivity at the bottom. Subjectivity is based upon purely objective information. The border between the two appears at the point where objective events are not experienced as such, but abstracted into subjectivity. I wouldn't argue that there's no subjectivity at all. An external entity, say, a neurologist, can take all of a person's subjective experiences and translate them into objective data. This data won't have the same intrinsic value though, but can in theory be used to recreate the same subjective state. I see the human being as a complex Turing machine. See my post about Turing, Moore and dualism for more information.

    But if you have to have to divide the people into groups, I'd say there are three. Those who deny objectivity, those who deny subjectivity and those who support both. So the only divide possible would be the "subjective/objective/both" version. The only people not falling in the latter will be the people who have thought about the subject in an abstract way. The vast majority of the people will be unaware about the entire situation and automatically end up in the "both" section.

  14. John says:
    February 17th, 2009 at 1:12 am - Edit

    I hope you don't misunderstand me – it is the 'divide' itself that I, too, am objecting to. THAT is the "bear-trap" pitting the scientific realist against the ID'er or Creationist (as just one example among many).

    And you're right; the form or "conceptual landscape" at issue is decidedly subtle in its dimensions.

    So, while we are all invoking the name of DesCartes, the significance as I see it proceeds from his simple formulation "cogito, ergo sum". This served as the harbinger and seed-bed for the propagation of a mentality and predisposition ultimately oriented to an 'objective' epistemology that was Absolute in nature (where it found perhaps its most radical and exhaustive proponent in Kant, I might add). This predisposition in turn necessarily disrupted the delicate nature of the relationship between the objective and subjective.

    And while your treatment of the subject-object relationship is appreciable, the Cartesian influence is palpable.

    Also, I did read through your Turing/Moore/dualism post and just a couple of points to mention:
    1) there are a great many dualisms, with the Cartesian form being but one, so you may want to revisit some of the assertions you put forward where it might be getting unduly generalized
    2) if my witness is worth anything, I should hope you would be disavowed of the belief that Cartesian dualism has any place within Catholic/Christian dogma or doctrine

    If you prefer me to take up the points in your post directly, I can do so.

  15. jorrizza says:
    February 17th, 2009 at 9:56 pm - Edit

    No, that's alright. I know where you're coming from. But help yourself if you think this site would miss out without it :)

    The link between dualism and Christianity is quite obvious these days. Since the soul is purely subjective by nature, many Christians often use dualism to somehow prove the existence of the supernatural. That post attacked creationism by defeating the concept of having a soul, and thus dualism by proxy. Compared to the vast differences between scientific realism and creationism, the differences between the various dualistic philosophies in this context are minor enough to generalize in my opinion.

  16. John says:
    February 18th, 2009 at 2:57 am - Edit

    Hi LeaT, my apologies for a belated reply to your ardent and forthright response.

    Anthropology – a noble pursuit! And in this day and age so sorely needed.

    If I may recommend to you a subject of interest which has become near and dear to me, do look up "Carmelite Personalism". You will find no shortage of material for your studies, I assure you.

    You have my well wishes : )

  17. LeaT says:
    February 18th, 2009 at 8:33 am - Edit

    No problem, as I understood it, your opinion about this matter is clarified in your posts you had with Jorrizza, and there is certainly no need to repeat oneself, we aren't that stupid I hope :)

    I will ask my teachers about Carnelite Personalism, let's see what they have to say. And thank you.

  18. John says:
    February 21st, 2009 at 5:12 pm - Edit

    Jorrizza, I believe it's fair to say your concern (at least in the Moore post) is with the posit of a mind-body or soul-body, whereas my concern is fixed upon the nature of the proposition itself (although it's taken me a bit of thrashing about to get to the heart of it):

    "cogito, ergo sum" – what is it?

    Taken as a whole, one can say that it achieves knowledge in a particular manner – it's epistemic.
    On the surface, things seem to flow naturally as far as propositions go.

    Upon further examination we have:
    a) a cognitive function (cogito)
    b) 'abstracted' from an ontology (sum)
    c) and finally fused back into relation with it as its determinant (ergo)

    Obviously, DesCartes was happy to arrive at what to him was a bastion of certitude, but the nuclear dynamic of his proposition begs attention.

    That the thought process should be set apart from, and in a real sense 'over' <being> itself is reason for pause . . .

    The mutation is startling.

    And here I would note; as tremendous a power as the 'ratio' may be, it is a linear process, and hence, although it is capable of pointing beyond itself, it can only comprehend systems. It is inherently systematic.

    Perhaps an analogy to a pot of coffee is apropos. I could boil it down until only the grounds and tar were left at the bottom to discover "Hey, this is powerful stuff!" I might use it to take rust off my car, but I wouldn't want to drink it.

    So, rather than leave uncharitably unexplained the accusation of "Cartesian", it is this deeper sense from which I'm making the judgment.

Leave a Reply