Dostoevsky's characters reflect a man with many contradictory perspectives. — darthbarracuda

Dostoevsky was a believer in God, a firm believer in fact. He was very critical of the Ivan type of atheists.

Sure, if the majority was unable to repress, the human race wouldn't exist. — darthbarracuda

How is this a repression?

Are you trying to pull an ontological argument here? — darthbarracuda

No, this would be an argument from desire.

How is this a repression? — Agustino

I am speculating is that theism is a form of psychological repression that has origins not only in the economic structure of society but also existential crises surrounding death and annihilation.

No, this would be an argument from desire. — Agustino

Can you spell this out?

Can you spell this out? — darthbarracuda

Someone gave me this awhile ago, and I've become a lot more sympathetic to it over time than I was at first.

I am speculating is that theism is a form of psychological repression that has origins not only in the economic structure of society but also existential crises surrounding death and annihilation. — darthbarracuda

But on the contrary, why would death be a bad thing on atheism? As Epicurus illustrated, if atheism is true, death is nothing to us. So why would there be any kind of existential crisis surrounding death whatsoever? I think that quite the contrary, death anxiety is a manifestation of theism - namely you are afraid of what comes after death, as Hamlet put it in his soliloquy.

As Epicurus illustrated, if atheism is true, death is nothing to us. So why would there be any kind of existential crisis surrounding death whatsoever? I think that quite the contrary, death anxiety is a manifestation of theism - namely you are afraid of what comes after death, as Hamlet put it in his soliloquy. — Agustino

But we need not be Epicureans if we are atheists, and in fact this Epicureanism is the same sort of thing that Hume is complaining about - it doesn't actually help in reality. Perhaps because it attempts to rationalize an irrational scenario. Epicurus' principle does not explain why people so desperately cling to life, nor does it help alleviate their suffering. It is just another mantra.

The Epicurean principle that death is not a harm is very counterintuitive. Most people, even if they are swayed by it, nevertheless will believe that it's not ideal. Death may not harm us in any empirical sort of way, but it surely does still hurt us in the form of annihilation. Losing one's identity, having one's projects foiled by the inevitable échec, our downfall, that is bad. We cannot stand thinking about a world that is not illuminated by our lights.

The charge that the fear of death is theistic is thus false, however I could retort that the continuation of existence is atheistic in that the person does not have enough trust or faith in God to expect deliverance after death. God, predictably, has commanded everyone to live and breed, so maybe that criticism doesn't work. But you get the idea.

I'm agnostic, by the way. Perhaps there is a redemption to be found, somehow. Philosophers have proven time and time again that just about anything can be presented in a manner so as to make it seem plausible. I have yet to find a theodicy that adequately explains evil to me, and if the current trend in theology and philosophy of religion is to be followed, then it's decidedly anti-theodicy and more and more based on a pure leap of faith. The failure of theodicy forms a key aspect of God's mysterious ways.

But we need not be Epicureans if we are atheists, and in fact this Epicureanism is the same sort of thing that Hume is complaining about - it doesn't actually help in reality. — darthbarracuda

LOL - then why did Hume think that death is nothing to be feared, and died in a very peaceful & calm manner, such that even his enemies were impressed? Clearly, Hume did not think the Epicurean position was anything abstract at all - at least not in practice.

Epicurus' principle does not explain why people so desperately cling to life, nor does it help alleviate their suffering. It is just another mantra. — darthbarracuda

It does - because people are irrational.

Death may not harm us in any empirical sort of way, but it surely does still hurt us in the form of annihilation. — darthbarracuda

An Epicurean would ask - what is there to annihilate? As would Hume.

Losing one's identity, having one's projects foiled by the inevitable échec, our downfall, that is bad. — darthbarracuda

That happens even within life.

I could retort that the continuation of existence is atheistic in that the person does not have enough trust or faith in God to expect deliverance after death. God, predictably, has commanded everyone to live and breed, so maybe that criticism doesn't work. But you get the idea. — darthbarracuda

That's not the only issue. Suicide is prohibited almost universally across the different religions. It is up to God to decide when to call someone back. As for why a theist would be sad upon death, it is merely because they will be temporarily separated from the people that they love who remain behind in the world.

The failure of theodicy forms a key aspect of God's mysterious ways. — darthbarracuda

What about the Book of Job?