Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Magisterial Lectures | Agustin Martin Rodriguez PhD - The Necessity of Atheism for Human Flourishing
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 сер 2020
- In this lecture, Doc Guss discusses atheism from a philosophical perspective: tracing its origins and explaining how humans came to embrace it as a response to the absurdity of their own existence (don't worry, it isn't as bad as it sounds). He then poses the question-is the 'atheist' human truly flourishing?
The full learning packet (transcripts, slides, etc.) will be available on arete.ateneo.edu/connect/magi... in the coming days.
Agustin Martin G. Rodriguez is a professor of the Department of Philosophy. He also served as chair of the Philosophy Department from 2009-2015. He obtained his Master of Arts in Philosophy and Doctorate of Philosophy in Philosophy from Ateneo de Manila University. His research work has been mostly on the rationality of the marginalized, specifically on issues like human rights, democratic governance and grassroots empowerment, and on such thinkers as Scheler, Habermas, and Derrida.
The Magisterial Lecture series is a collection of selected talks from Ateneo classes, delivered by some of the University’s most respected faculty members. They are produced and shared for the benefit of learners everywhere. Magisterial Lectures will be available on Arete’s UA-cam channel for free.
Magisterial Lectures is an Arete Production done in partnership with The Department of Communication, Loyola Schools and the Eugenio Lopez Jr. Center for Multimedia Communication.
About Us:
As the creativity and innovation hub of the Ateneo de Manila University, Areté provides the space and freedom for groups from different fields and persuasions to create, collaborate on, and share knowledge, skills, and practices.
Follow us on social media!
/ areteateneo
/ areteateneo
/ areteateneo
Doc Gus you da man! Best Philo prof ever! I miss my college days...
A part 2 will be highly appreciated 😊👍🏻
:) so far what we need as theists is to let people see that human fullness/ flourishing, and giving meaning on life is achievable on our side. Well on what dimensions? It is a very difficult task to be inclusive especially with all the pluralisms. But if we can find God in all things, why not? Right?
I agree that it is progress in science which gives rise to monotheism; and what science has produced is a new brand of theism. I do not think that science has led humanity to atheism. Rather, it has just modified or changed our understanding of the word "God". For me, a true atheist is he/she who smashes all the idols that science, metaphysics, and theology have erected; and, so we need atheism for human flourishing.
This somewhat reminds me about the term "relative autonomy" or I can also say it may be our "free will" we all have this. But If Atheism will bring about change will it eradicate "evil" in the universe? Or at least on earth? How can Atheism do that? What direction will it take? Can Atheism go beyond human kindness? How kind? Can it love even those whom we may consider as enemies? Well these are just questions in my mind after the lecture in this video... It was really interesting. And if we are Homo deus what kind of god are we becoming?
Regardless of atheism's utility, it's about what is actually true. The universe has only been shown to have a beginning, in the Big Bang. Ideas like the theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point or Henri Bergson's élan vital or the Stoics' pneuma are only just-so stories in favor of a deterministic universe with its own telos, insofar as nothing in math or science suggests that the universe has a predetermined single ending, ergo there is no teleology, no ultimate purpose, but rather that purposes evolve into being, which the existentialists like Albert Camus, pessimists like Arthur Schopenhauer and Philipp Mäinlander, and atheists such as Graham Oppy and Daniel Dennett have suggested. A universe with a teleology may possibly allow for extreme randomness in its component systems, e.g. random mutations, asteroid collisions, solar storms, signal errors, etc. But it would be clear that in such a case, the One (to use a Platonic term) would be amoral and will follow a telos by all means. It is, however, more likely that either the One does not exist or the universe is left by the One to its own devices.
Too short huhu more on this pls!
"There is no god but human", If that's the case, by what standard then are we to know what is right & wrong?
amen doc gus
great job gus!
“All thinking men are atheists.” ― Ernest Hemingway
Congrats, doc. Very edifying!
henyo🙌
Id just say we have to be careful not to conflate "i don't believe in a god" (not a worldview) with secular humanism (a worldview common amongst atheists )
Philo of Man
Providing a genealogy of theism doesn't refute it. And modern science's rise is not a "discovery" of atheism. What the professor is doing, and understandably so because many others hold this with him, is making the non sequitur of starting with a method (modern science) that is a priori designed to discover only the mechanistic features of the world to the misplaced conclusion that modern science "discovered" that the mechanistic world-picture is exhaustive. It's like using a magnet and leaping from the fact that magnet can't attract paper, ergo paper doesn't exist.
Atheism is indeed necessary for human flourishing if it corresponds to reality. But it doesn't, and the arguments for it raised in this lecture are mostly non sequiturs.
The presumption that the sola-mechanistic world picture has been proven by the rise of modern science led to the error of atheistic existentialism, which the professor discussed near the end.
"Ideas have consequences."
An error in the beginning leads to vast errors in the end. And that perfectly describes this lecture.
The theism-atheism divide is to be settled, at least in principle, by a philosophical battle between arguments for theism and atheism, and not whether each of them is "useful" be it for human flourishing or for any other end. Whether it's useful or not is not what's ultimately relevant. What's ultimately relevant is whether which side is "true" in the sense of corresponding to reality. Reality matters, not mere utility.
"Atheism is indeed necessary for human flourishing if it corresponds to reality. But it doesn't"
Can you explain further how you're able to claim that atheism does not correspond to reality?
"'Ideas have consequences.'
An error in the beginning leads to vast errors in the end."
Can you say the same can be said about the 'error' of idea that things had spirits?
@@jpaul13 Philosophical demonstrations prove the existence of God. Certain formulations for the five ways are strong, for instance.
@@jpaul13 No, because it's not an error. Because hylemorphism is true, substances indeed have forms, and creatures with life have souls.
@@markstevenpandan890 The strength of St Anselm's and St. Aquinas' formulations are actually debatable, if that's what's you're referring to. Hume and Kant have very strong arguments against them.
I thought St. Thomas Aquinas was going to roll on his grave lol😂
If heaven is true, the man who invented the first wheel has more chances of being saved than the highest pastor who did nothing but just talk.
W hat a lousy lecture.