k-punk
Spectres of Mark
OK, so this thread arises out of discussions between Infinite Thought and k-punk following our trip to the Meaning of Theism conference at the weekend.
(If you want to follow the trail, here it is, backwards:this, which was a response to this, which was a response to this.... (I could go yet another one back, but the key quotes from my original piece are included in the Infinite Thought response).)
Any way, the issues seem to me to be the following:
1. What is non-theism?
2. What would a non-theistic religion look like? Is there any point continuing to use a concept like 'religion' at all?
3. What role might Badiou, Zizek and Lacan play in the theory and practice of such a religion?
My own view would be that the actual term 'religion' is of no importance, but the concept of a 'collective devotion' is, or could be, enormously significant. To that extent, I agree with John Haldane: philosophy is missing something if it ignores or imagines that it substitutes for practice. Religion, like politics, are the two most obvious ways in which philosophy is not 'completed', as Haldane would have it, but - and I am not particularly fond of this term, either - 'lived'.
While there have been many Spinozist theorists, it is not clear that there has ever been a religion practised along Spinozistic or non-theistic lines. Might this be because 'devotion' always implies worship of a personal entity?
So, yes, the metaphysics might be sorted out lol, but the question of what a non-theistic religion would look like is indeed an open one.
As for how such a non-theism could be modern, I think this is answered by IT's other question: namely, what role would the concepts of Badiou, Zizek and Lacan have in/ for this non-theistic religion?
No credible modern theological position can afford to ignore psychoanalysis. Freud's masterpieces like Moses and Monotheism and Lacan's exorbitant 'commentaries' upon them clearly have enormous contributions to make to any radical theology. Lacan's remarks on religion are far from being trivial or 'passing'.
As for Badiou and Zizek: Zizek is less a religious or chirstian theorist than a theorist of religion/ christianity, but as such, his work would have to be dealt with in any serious modern non-theistic theology. It is not even clear that Badiou is even a theorist of religion; it is of course only the lazy who infer from the fact that Badiou writes about Paul that he is a religious thinker, or that he is even interested in religion at all in the way that Zizek is. Nevertheless, his work must have implications for religion, and it is those that I think it would be interesting to explore.
(If you want to follow the trail, here it is, backwards:this, which was a response to this, which was a response to this.... (I could go yet another one back, but the key quotes from my original piece are included in the Infinite Thought response).)
Any way, the issues seem to me to be the following:
1. What is non-theism?
2. What would a non-theistic religion look like? Is there any point continuing to use a concept like 'religion' at all?
3. What role might Badiou, Zizek and Lacan play in the theory and practice of such a religion?
My own view would be that the actual term 'religion' is of no importance, but the concept of a 'collective devotion' is, or could be, enormously significant. To that extent, I agree with John Haldane: philosophy is missing something if it ignores or imagines that it substitutes for practice. Religion, like politics, are the two most obvious ways in which philosophy is not 'completed', as Haldane would have it, but - and I am not particularly fond of this term, either - 'lived'.
While there have been many Spinozist theorists, it is not clear that there has ever been a religion practised along Spinozistic or non-theistic lines. Might this be because 'devotion' always implies worship of a personal entity?
So, yes, the metaphysics might be sorted out lol, but the question of what a non-theistic religion would look like is indeed an open one.
As for how such a non-theism could be modern, I think this is answered by IT's other question: namely, what role would the concepts of Badiou, Zizek and Lacan have in/ for this non-theistic religion?
No credible modern theological position can afford to ignore psychoanalysis. Freud's masterpieces like Moses and Monotheism and Lacan's exorbitant 'commentaries' upon them clearly have enormous contributions to make to any radical theology. Lacan's remarks on religion are far from being trivial or 'passing'.
As for Badiou and Zizek: Zizek is less a religious or chirstian theorist than a theorist of religion/ christianity, but as such, his work would have to be dealt with in any serious modern non-theistic theology. It is not even clear that Badiou is even a theorist of religion; it is of course only the lazy who infer from the fact that Badiou writes about Paul that he is a religious thinker, or that he is even interested in religion at all in the way that Zizek is. Nevertheless, his work must have implications for religion, and it is those that I think it would be interesting to explore.