Atheism, Nihilism, and Platonism | Dr. Eric Steinhart

Is atheism inherently nihilistic? Philosopher Eric Steinhart argues in a forthcoming book that the answer is no. In this video, we discuss Steinhart's metaphysically robust, atheistic, Platonic worldview.
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): / majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...
Steinhart’s book is not available for purchase yet, but if you wanna check out the table of contents and chapter abstracts, check out: ericsteinhart.com/atheoplatoni...
My book: www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...
My website: majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

[@maximilianstein7326]

Joe's facial expressions during the section on nothing negating itself are priceless.

[@EmersonGreen]

love Eric Steinhart. absolute king

[@estibensilvamacario6581]

will u ever bring him on to your podcast?

[@tymmiara5967]

"Non-being negates itself" is an equivocation. "itself" is a reference to an existing object of "non-being". But non-being is not an object to which "itself" can refer to. This is nonsense. And that "we can use deduction to figure out why the laws of logic are what they are" is false. The act of deducing is done using logic. You cannot deduce logic without presupposing logic already. No matter how many times he repeats those and synonymous sentences, that doesn't make them any more intelligible.

[@markszlazak]

The part about "non-being negating itself" really stuck out. Unless he means something else then this just doesn't make any sense and ruins the whole section on his foundation for logic. Please help clarify this if there are some misunderstandings going on.

[@demergent_deist]

I think you first have to understand that everything here is argued in a platonic and mystic framework. Platonic nothingness is not the nihil negativum, that is, something of which even the concept is impossible, the utter "non-being" as a mere word, the definition of which can only point to complete absences of everything conceivable. Hegel also thought neoplatonically and suggested that pure being was indistinguishable from pure nothingness: "Hegel points out, however, that as a category being is entirely empty. To say that something is indicates nothing specific about it whatsoever. What, then, is being? In fact, it is no thing at all. And so Hegel claims, famously, that being seems to be indistinguishable from nothing (or ‘not-being’ - in The Science of Logic Hegel allows that ‘not-being’ conveys what he means by nothing). Nevertheless, the mind insists on distinguishing them." (Glenn Alexander Magee - The Hegel Dictionary) Hegel thus also begins his philosophy with indeterminate nothingness. This nothingness is rather to be understood as absolute potentiality or even pure chaos. But platonically seen, it is already "something", pure being. Plotin's One is also outside or beyond being, pure infinite potentiality, describable only negatively, only in an apophatic manner. A guy named Ray L. Hart is going in a similar one direction: "His most important move is to split the idea of God from that of the Godhead, loosely following Meister Eckhart. What we call God refers to everything that is determinate in the universe, including the determinations of infinite deity that are named God. According to Hart, however, God is limited by this determination, so we are forced to posit the Godhead as the indeterminate source of every determination, including the determinations of God. The Godhead is the “nothing” or nihil that generates God and ultimately “creates” every determinate thing, including stars, planets, and people." "The whole of creation, what is not God but is by God, is a trace-footnote to God. Determinate God is a trace-footnote to Godhead. Godhead is a trace-footnote to nothingness, or groundless abyssal potency." Ray L. Hart - GOD BEING NOTHING: TOWARD A THEOGONY By Clayton Crockett The Montréal Review

[@demergent_deist]

By the way, Ray L. Hart's project seems to be very interesting: "Every determinate extrinsic to God is created by God ex nihilo- created, not caused, as causal relations obtain between intracosmic, intratemporal determinates. The standing or bearing of the nihil is one of the two most tasking and troubling difficulties besetting a theory or doctrine of God and creation. Is the nihil “inside” or “outside” of God? The notion of creatio ex nihilo arose in western monotheisms to “protect” God the Creator from a coeval power, while leaving unthought (save in esoteric theologies and pieties on the margins of heterodoxy) the standing of the nihil. Severely qualifying the classical creatio ex nihilo et non se Deo, I shall elaborate and defend the hypothesis: God creates ex nihilo, idem est, ex Deitate ipsa (God creates from the nothing internal to godself). If this hypothesis is sustainable, there arises the second tasking difficulty, that of conceiving or envisioning the eternal self-generation of God the determinate Creator from the abysmal indeterminacies of Godhead; that is, the task of thinking a radical monotheistic trinitarianism in ontogenesis and meontogenesis." (God Being Nothing Toward a Theogony by Ray L . Hart)

[@Paradoxarn.]

This is cool. Many of these ideas are ones I been beginning to consider myself. It is nice to know others are having similar thoughts about these topics.

[@loryugan6574]

Holy crap! What an intriguing conversation. I’ve never given platonism much thought, but this conversation really has me wanting to look into it more. 👀

[@Oners82]

That is such a straw man about oughts from an is. Atheists don't say that we can't derive an ought from an is because, "Hume said", we say that you can't do it as a matter of logic, which is true. If there is no ought in the premises then you cannot validly derive an ought in the conclusion because the argument will contain a formal fallacy.

[@MajestyofReason]

Eric was making a joke about Sean. It was a joke noting a general tendency to be less-than-fully critical of Hume's reasoning there. The point about logic is also not very interesting. Consider that if you have no premises that make reference to porcupines, then you cannot validly derive a claim that makes reference to porcupines in the conclusion. In other words, we cannot derive stuff about porcupines from purely non-porcupine premises. And yet there isn't some metaphysically significant gap between 'non-porcupine' claims and 'porcupine' claims. And so the mere fact that one cannot derive, logically validly, an ought from an is doesn't imply that there is some metaphysically significant gap between is-claims and ought-claims. [Note: my comment here is not taking a stance on the is/ought gap. I'm just arguing that the argument from logical validity doesn't succeed in delivering what it would need to deliver in order to justify a metaphysically significant gap between is and ought.]

[@Oners82]

@@MajestyofReason Okay, strange joke! And I should point out that my post was not a defense of the logic argument, I was merely pointing out that (in my experience) people generally do rely on arguments rather than appeals to Hume. Regarding if there is a metaphysically significant gap, aren't you just shifting the goal posts?! Eric said that he gets frustrated with atheists who claim you can't derive an ought from an is - well, why? It is true that you can't, so why get frustrated when atheists say that? I love your videos by the way, so I hope you don't see my criticism as being combative! :)

[@logos8312]

@@MajestyofReason but wait, doesn't logical impossibility imply metaphysical impossibility?

[@MajestyofReason]

@@logos8312 yes; importantly, though, my comment here isn’t denying this. My comment was pointing that the following proposition, P, doesn’t imply the succeeding proposition, Q: (P) claims of type T do not logically follow from any set of claims that contain only claims of type ~T. (Q) there is a metaphysically significant distinction between claims of type T and claims of type ~T. This is shown, for instance, when we consider the point about porcupines. I could have chosen perhaps doughnuts as a better example. (P) holds true for claims that make reference to doughnuts and claims that don’t, respectively. But we aren’t carving nature at its fundamental joints (between “doughnut facts” and “non-doughnut facts”)

[@logos8312]

@@MajestyofReason hmmm, I guess I don't know what "carving nature at its joints" means. I never thought the is ought gap was all that ambitious to talk about nature, it just seems to me to be talking about syllogisms. Another thing to keep in mind is that donuts and porcupines are nouns (subjects or identifying predicates, i.e. P is a Q). But is and ought are different verbs which build different kinds of predication. So in the old Socrates syllogism. 1. All men ARE mortal. 2. Socrates IS a man. C. Socrates IS mortal The predication matches all the way through. Even induction and abduction require you to transfer a their predication from a premise into the conclusion: 1. I'm pulling marbles out of a jar. 2. If the marbles pulled out are all the same color, likely the marbles in the jar are all that color. 3. Most the marbles I pulled are red. C. Likely all the marbles in the jar are red. 1. There is a jar full of red marbles. 2. I'm pulling marbles from a jar. 3. If I pull all red marbles, the best explanation is that my jar is the all red jar. 4. I'm pulling all red marbles. C. The best explanation is... I can't think of any instances where you can just insert a kind of predication into the conclusion which was nowhere to be found in any of the premises. More strongly, I think you cannot. So I'd make the argument a bit stronger. P. It is logically impossible to use a predicate form in the conclusion that appears nowhere in the premises. Q. It is metaphysically impossible that predicate forms are interchangeable. So there must be a metaphysical gap between different predicates. P is Q P is likely with probability Q P is best explained by Q P thinks he ought Q Are all very different kinds of predication which denote completely different metaphysical states of affairs.

[@demergent_deist]

Entertaining conversation. The idea of the self-negating nothing reminds me a little of Hegel, for whom nothingness and pure being are in a sense the same. Hegel begins his philosophy with indeterminate nothingness or categorial empty non-thinglike pure being in order to be self-grounding and self-justifying. I agree with Mr. Steinhart that theoretical physicists like Sean Carroll should always embrace some kind of Platonism to be logically consistent. But I think Carroll sympathizes with neo-Humeanism. But some like Max Tegmark are very much platonists. There is a very nice and recent conversation between Brian Green and Max Tegmark about this topic. 18:12 Nietzsche must indeed be regarded as a naturalist. For he denies any transcendent.

[@Wahid_4770]

His book (More Precisely: The Math You Need to Do Philosophy) reminds me of Russell's & Whitehead's (Principia Mathematica)!

[@seanyardley]

I can’t see how Platonism could ever lead to or support atheism. You can be a platonist and not believe in which ever particular god you choose not to believe in, but rebranding “the good” that Plato speaks of as not god seems to being choosing a limited conception of what god is or could be. I would say in fact that platonism is the strongest argument for theism that exists.

[@gabri41200]

When we say god, we mean, for all practical purposes, a personal being. If this platonic form has no mind or personality, then there is no point in calling it a god.

[@crushinnihilism]

​​@@gabri41200ancient greek pagans, and germanic pagans, didnt have your Christian idea of mind. Completely absurd to suppose it. thinkers WITHIN the Christian tradition didnt hold to thos personal being nonesense either.

[@gabri41200]

​@@crushinnihilism I am an atheist lol. I know they didn't, but we all know that what really matters in a practical sense is if a personal god exists, because that would imply that all our actions are being seen by someone. If some impersonal being that is the foundation of reality exists, but has no mind and can't understand things, so we don't really give a f*ck if it exists, you know, it would have no practical importance to our lives.

[@crushinnihilism]

@@gabri41200 i dont know what you mean by doesn't have a mind. The one is mind itself. As for ethics, I reject your utilitarian nonesense. I dont take moral actions because its practical. Thats a modern atheist frame.

[@gabri41200]

@@crushinnihilism "the one is mind itself" in what sense? Is it able to think about us? Or is it just some abstract concept of mind?

[@MatheusBenites]

Absolutely fantastic!

[@whitemakesright2177]

Excellent interview. This is the first I'm hearing about Dr. Steinhart's work, and I'm fascinated. I'm agnostic, and the typical Dawkins-style materialist worldview never worked for me, neither intellectually nor personally. This finally made it click why that worldview is such a mess: they just take the Christian worldview and subtract God and the supernatural. No wonder that ends in absurdity. After living as an atheist for a few years, I was so fed up with it that I even tried Christianity again, Eastern Orthodoxy this time, and it was a total dead end. So now I'm in a place of rejecting both Christianity (and the other monotheistic religions, which have the same problems as Christianity) and materialism, and not knowing wow where to go. I think many people are in the same boat. About 1/3 of people under 25 years old in America report having no religious affiliation (the so-called "nones"), and they're the fastest-growing religious group. And those numbers are even greater in Europe. But the interesting thing is that only about 10-15% of the "nones" are actually atheists. I've been thinking for a while that Western civilization needs (and is ripe for) is a whole new paradigm, which accepts modern science as well as meaning, objective value, and metaphysical and moral realism, and provides a grounding for all of the above. Dr. Steinhart's work could provide a foundation for that.

[@theoutsiderhumanist8159]

Joe, thank you so much for doing what you do. There was a lot to chew on in this, as I have at least one strong point of agreement with Dr. Steinhart and so many of vigorous disagreement. Even after watching this, I am a skeptic of both normativity in general and abstract objects, though Dr. Steinhart brings some tough points (wtf is logic) along with some pretty soft ones (if there's no normativity how come you care about stuff). On that point of agreement, I agree that contemporary atheists have done a terrible job of breaking away from theistic assumptions and creating a strong moral and spiritual discourse of their own, though Dr. Steinhart names some notable exceptions I'll have to look into. This is a task I've been working at myself in an amateur capacity for many years. I strongly believe that we can construct meaning and morality in our natural lives, subjectively but adequately, even in an environment of pretty dire philosophical pessimism. For me, the key to doing so is love, which I define as motivation to participate in a being's flourishing for its own sake by supporting, protecting, and appreciating it. I believe attitudes of that description are real and natural, can be applied very broadly both to personal and non-personal beings, and can be a powerful source of meaning, in the sense of holding an intrinsic end that transcends one's own experience. I'm working hard on clarifying and arguing for these positions. Sorry if that was too word-salad-ish, I know I need to work on my comprehensibility. Thank you for posting this very stimulating conversation, and I look forward to annoying you and Eric Steinhart with my atheology of love when I actually get around to making YT videos.

[@InterfaceGuhy]

Vervaeke?

[@theoutsiderhumanist8159]

@@InterfaceGuhy I seem to recall him approaching this sort of thing maybe. Can you elaborate or link me to something?

[@InterfaceGuhy]

@@theoutsiderhumanist8159 oh no just asking if you were already a fan. Seems to be a lot of consonance with what you are saying. Go check out Awakening from the Meaning Crisis

[@diegonicucs6954]

So to be honest, after the pure negativity that negates itself, I enter in a sort of catatonic state.... I not sure what to thinks anymore...

[@MajestyofReason]

I kinda agree to be honest. I don’t think I understand it lol. But hopefully Eric helps clarify it and expand upon it in his book!

[@Swpeloquin]

It has always felt to me as if platonisum is a door way to thiesum do to it asking us to believe in things outside the natural world. I am not sure he makes his case, but now I have to read a new book.

[@GhostLightPhilosophy]

How come this video is unlisted? It’s a good interview

[@MajestyofReason]

It’s unlisted for patron early access🥰 It will be public in a few weeks or so

[@thephilosophicalagnostic2177]

I really relate to this. I believe emergentism is a strong contender against theism and nihilistic atheism. Thanks for the interview.

[@davsamp7301]

Indeed, as another commentator has suggested, the laws of Logic can never be deduced, for they are Genuine and ever Prior to any deduction or thought in General.

[@TheologyUnleashed]

I'm not seeing this nothing negating itself argument as succeeding. Nothing can't do anything I clouding negate itself.

[@anitkythera4125]

@1:00:00 I learned a hundred new things about Bertrand Russell who I've admired since high school. So friggin cool! Also, Platonic atheism. Cool too. Not Bertrand Russell the Polymath British Spy log cabin building journalist cool but cool.

[@ob4161]

I'd love to see WLC debate this guy.

[@Moenarch]

I think that we can have the One not as pure simplicity, but primarily as that which unites all other things in certain ways. So that the One is responsible for my unity, your unity (all our properties are bundled into you and me), maybe that thing also generates all ideas and so on, and by that we can have something which is no *real* distinctions, but maybe some *conceptual* or *transcendental* distinctions. So I would leave the path to showing that "the One" turns out to be God open, although I acknowledge that there are a bunch of arguments between that. Good interview, thank you Joe and Dr. Steinhart.

[@crushinnihilism]

As above so below. We are a multiplicity held together by a seeming unity. Freud and Jung came to this conclusions. Things like Disassociated identity disorder show this quite well.

[@davsamp7301]

The laws of Logic are never deducable, for they are ever Prior. Or as one of my Professors Liked to say concerning the law of non-contradiction: "If you dont get, that it holds, No one can Help you. "

[@metacomputics3013]

Without a mind, there wouldn't be a set theory of mathematics. Without a divine mind, where do these ideas of "Forms" come into existence? (25:40)

[@crushinnihilism]

That was my concern as well. I suspect his answer would be, "that doesn't add anything so who cares."

[@truthseeker2275]

I think it would be needed and possible to ground atheistic platonism in weak emergeance. That logically equivalent or meta-physically indistinct Platonic-like objects emerge out complex associations of weakly emergent phenomena.

[@davsamp7301]

On Joes Question of the Negation of Non-Being, it is indeed Just its contradictory Nature, nothing fuzzy above and beyond it. No Negation of itself, as If it is Something, to do that.

[@DigitalGnosis]

The nothing noths Joe, understand this truth and you will have eternal bliss :)

[@zoliozgamer7008]

Quick question, do you think the teleological argument is valid?

[@Oners82]

There are many different teleological arguments - it is a category of argument rather than a single argument, so it depends which version you are referring to. However generally speaking the problems with these arguments come down to soundness, not validity.

[@MajestyofReason]

@@Oners82 Bingo!

[@Oners82]

@@MajestyofReason Thank you!

[@goclbert]

58:00 I would suspect that his mystical experience was specifically discordant with his conceptions of God born out of Catholicism in the same way that for Steinhart, popular Christian conceptions of God are incompatible with Platonism.

[@jokusekovaan]

Has anyone done any kind of taxonomy of abstract objects? I can name some, but not sure how they relate to each other.

[@crushinnihilism]

I think he's forgetting the one. The universal Beingness. Or what theists call God.

[@bds8715]

The 'You must be' and 'You must not be' that life says (under naturalism) seems pretty absurd, like a bait and switch. Like, make up your mind reality! If my true, ultimate self is nothing, then why interrupt my ultimate self? Why bother doing something as pointless as allowing me in the first place? And people always say while there is no objective importance, that's fine because we create our own importance. Isn't that like saying: Sure, the kitchen is objectively out of flour, eggs, sugar, and milk, but we can still create our OWN cake! You can only create a fictional cake, but then the cake is a lie 🙂

[@eternalbyzantium262]

Based.

[@crushinnihilism]

For someone who is attempting to distangle Christian concepts his idea of mind is awfully Christian. A metaconcious soul thing. Greek and Germanic pagans did not think of the self in the Christian way.

[@eenkjet]

The normative/consistency portion needs work. For any kind of mind or creation to exist we can't just have normative truths. We need laws of nature which must be proofed as algorithm. This is accomplished by a Godel Machine. A platonic Godel Machine would be a god. Similarly for morality/ethics to exist, that normativity is also subject to computability via a Lobian Machine. We can't just look at morality and creation as a byproduct of a bunch of tools and materials on a platonic table. The platonic table is chaos.

[@joshuabrecka6012]

Interesting to hear that Steinhart thinks logic is normative. I don't think this is a popular view but im sure there is a big debate about this. For instance I think Gillian Russell gives some good arguments against the normativity of logic.

[@AStoicMaster]

I was flummoxed by that also. If by "logic"; he means: rules of inference, then I'd agree. But if he's referring to "laws of logic", then I'm not sure how that follows. And, yes, to the best of my knowledge; that is a rather controversial claim.

[@danzo1711]

22:53 Exactly. Thomism identifies the One with the divine mind, which is just absurd.

[@demergent_deist]

"We turn from the One to the second element of the Plotinian trinity, Intellect (nous). Like Aristotle’s God, Intellect is pure activity, and cannot think of anything outside itself, since this would involve potentiality. But its activity is not a mere thinking of thinking-whether or not that was Aristotle’s doctrine-it is a thinking of all the Platonic Ideas (5. 9. 6). These are not external entities: as Aristotle himself had laid down as a universal rule, the actuality of intellect and the actuality of intellect’s object is one and the same. So the life of the Ideas is none other than the activity of Intellect. Intellect is the intelligible universe, containing forms not only of universals but also of individuals (5. 9. 9; 5. 7). Despite the identity of the thinker and the thought, the multiplicity of the Ideas means that Intellect does not possess the total simplicity which belongs to the One. Indeed, it is this complexity of Intellect that convinced Plotinus that there must be something else prior to it and superior to it. For, he believed, every form of complexity must ultimately depend on something totally simple." (Anthony Kenny - A New History of Western Philosophy)

[@nebojsadraksimovic5266]

Remainds me of Reza Negarestani's platonism.

[@yerauldda4909]

Nothing isn't 'pure negativity', or anything else. You can't 'start at zero' if your first step presumes a 'one'

[@sergeysmirnov5986]

Hey Joe, are you a naturalist?

[@omaribnalahmed5967]

No, he's agnostic.

[@Duske3000]

At 7:45, I have to say Eric is misrepresenting alot of atheist. Atheist don't just jump to the conclusion that moral objectivity is dependent on God. They have asked the question, " Would the non-existence of a God mean that objective moral values do not exist?", then they usually either go down the brute fact or moral subjectivist path. It seems as though he thinks he's the first one to think about this thoroughly which isn't the case. I'm surprised that Majesty even acknowledged that atheist play within the sandbox of theist at 14:00 when a lot of YT channels like Tjump and Cosmic have never done so and constantly question theist horizons and "rules" . Perhaps I just haven't come across these kind of atheist. At 30:00, this is a contradiction. Non-being negating itself when there is nothing to negate? It doesn't matter how intense, how can there be a negation or act of negating when there isn't an agent to carry out such an act of negation? If there was nothing, it wouldn't "nothing itself" like he mentioned at 30:30 , it would just be nothing. Even at 30:40 when he quotes buddhism philosophy where the buddhist will empty everything including the emptiness itself ( Nirvana) , i) the act of emptying isn't empty in itself and ii) there has to be someone doing the emptying unless you empty yourself..sure but you had to be a being for such an action to take place. So he hasn't answered the question of why something rather than nothing, he just took an off-route and created a mirage of words. I thought as a doctor he would have shared something more academic, honestly this is like some burning man on lsd stuff instead.

[@jmike2039]

Oh so he can show in propositional logic how to derive value from non value premises?

[@MajestyofReason]

Or perhaps he’s interpreting it not in logical terms, but instead in (say) metaphysical terms - perhaps descriptive facts can ground (metaphysically explain, generate) normative facts. (And this is plausible: facts about suffering plausibly ground, at least in part, certain normative facts, Eg that we ought to alleviate it.) The logical point isn’t, after all, very interesting. For instance, purely from premises that make no mention of porcupines, we cannot validly infer a conclusion that makes reference to porcupines. But this doesn’t imply that there’s some metaphysically significant or special “non-porcupine/porcupine gap”.

[@jmike2039]

@@MajestyofReason it's not that it is special as much as it is a point about deductive logic, we can't derive evaluative standards from non evaluative standards; so any attempt by the realist will just result in the category error. If there's a claim that this can be acheived I'm just interested in seeing it.

[@InterfaceGuhy]

@@jmike2039 Anything come of this? I am a long time atheist recently turned on to Steinhart and Platonism via John Vervaeke

[@pbradgarrison]

I think this guy is about to get saved.

[@dantejager9296]

Non-being negates itself. In other words: Woo bullshit.

[@gideonwiley8961]

Why?

[@ncrewments]

Life IS ultimately "meaningless" -- whatever meaning we as human beings get from it, WE create it, WE manufacture it WE give it significance.. (This does not, for me, mean that it is worthless however)

[@michaelkors2413]

Are you aware that platonism is the opposite of your assertion?. We believe that there are objective abstract meanings surrounding all existence. Also, you are a nihilist.

[@ncrewments]

@@michaelkors2413 In these " objective abstract meanings," Who (or maybe "what") exactly is the "observer"? Is it not "us"? Hardly am I denying the material bases i.e. ,,"that it is there" for us to create from, but what we get from "what is there" has no ultimate significance beyond what we in our imaginations grant it. The universe places no value on such things -- WE DO. BTW (and this IS just a question) is there something "evil" about understanding that WE give a meaningless reality "meaning"?

[@michaelkors2413]

@@ncrewments 1. There is no observer, the realm of forms can´t be known. 2. This is probably a form of circular fallacy, you are affirming nihilism in order to disprove platonism without really proving why nihiloism is true. This is difficult btw, because nihilism is largely an emotional perspective (associated with depression), you won´t find strong rational arguments for it. The assertion "The universe place no value on such things" is incorrect as far as platonism go, see "the form of the Good".

[@michaelkors2413]

@@ncrewments Yes, nihilism is mostly an useless position, and it really doesn´t provide any basis for any serious moral and philosophical discussion

[@ncrewments]

Well, seeing that I am not a nilhlist, no need for me to defend it. You are making quite a few assumptions. Is that your ideological nemesis or something? Everyone else MUST be a nihilist??

[@christiangadfly24]

Atheistic platonism. It's like New atheism except with all the good of religion crammed in ad hoc with no ontological basis.

[@christiangadfly24]

@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco that's exactly what I believed when I was an atheist, so props to you there.

[@christiangadfly24]

@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco I'm not familiar with nominalism. This being the case, I can't honestly tell you whether I am a nominalist or not. I'm an agnostonominalist. A theisticagnostonominalist.

[@anteodedi8937]

Huh!? Funnily enough Christian philosophers like Craig are nominalists, they reject platonism. So what good did he take from religion exactly? 😂

[@christiangadfly24]

@@anteodedi8937 Plato is the opposite of materialism. He thinks the things that are most real are abstractions that ultimately get their ontological basis in God. If you don't believe me read Timaeus. You and I could argue all day about whether Plato was "religious" or not. In my opinion, I think he very obviously was religious and I think that my arguments are based on hard evidence and familiarity with his sources. In my opinion, your arguments are based on ignorance and what you want to be true. No doubt you probably think the same about my position. Instead of shouting our own sides louder and louder, lets just actually look at his writing to see who has an opinion more based in the sources. "I went to one man after another, not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me, the word of God, I thought, ought to be considered first" Stanley Appelbaum, editor, The Trial and Death of Socrates (New York: Dover Publications, Inc, 1992), 23. "And now, Athenians, I am not going to argue for my own sake, as you may think, but for yours, that you may not sin against God, or lightly reject his boon by condemning me. For if you kill me you will not easily find another like me, who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by God; and the state is like a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owning to his very size and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which God has given the state..." Stanley Appelbaum, editor, The Trial and Death of Socrates (New York: Dover Publications, Inc, 1992), 31. “Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy, exhorting any one whom I meet after my manner, and convincing him, saying: O my friend, why do you, who are a citizen of the great and mighty and wise city of Athens, care so much about laying up the greatest amount of money and honor and reputation, and so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul, which you never regard or heed at all? Are you not ashamed of this? Stanley Appelbaum, editor, The Trial and Death of Socrates (New York: Dover Publications, Inc, 1992), 30. “I dare say that you may feel irritated at being suddenly awakened when you are caught napping; and you may think that if you were to strike me dead as Anytus advises, which you easily might, then you would sleep on for the remainder of your lives, unless God in his care of you gives you another gadfly. And that I am given to you by God is proved by this: - that if I had been like other men, I should not have neglected all my own concerns or patiently seen the neglect of them during all these years, and have been doing yours, coming to you individually like a father or elder brother, exhorting you to regard virtue; this, I say, would not be like human nature. And had I gained anything, or if my exhortations had been paid, there would have been some sense in that; but now, as you will perceive, not even the impudence of my accusers dares to say that I have ever exacted or sought pay of any one; they have no witness of that. And I have a witness of truth of what I say; my poverty is a sufficient witness. Stanley Appelbaum, editor, The Trial and Death of Socrates (New York: Dover Publications, Inc, 1992), 32. “And this is a duty which the God has imposed upon me, as I am assured by oracles, visions, and in every sort of way in which the will of divine power was ever signified to any one.” Stanley Appelbaum, editor, The Trial and Death of Socrates (New York: Dover Publications, Inc, 1992), 34. “Some one will say: Yes, Socrates, but can not you hold your tongue, and then you may go into a foreign city, and no one will interfere with you? Now I have great difficulty in making you understand my answer to this. For if I tell you that this would be a disobedience to a divine command, and therefore that I can not hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say again that the greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the live which is unexamined is not worth living- that you are still less likely to believe. Stanley Appelbaum, editor, The Trial and Death of Socrates (New York: Dover Publications, Inc, 1992), 37-8.

[@christiangadfly24]

@@anteodedi8937 Ah, I get where the confusion is. No, just because something is not what Craig or a Christian philosopher believes does not mean that it is therefore not "religious". Your initial understanding was because Plato diverged from Craig he must therefore not be religious or influenced by religion. This is false, there are other religious beliefs than what Craig holds. I think the definition of religion is ambiguous. I actually would classify humanism, communism, nazism, and all sorts of other worldviews, ethical systems, and ways of viewing the world as religions. They seek to answer the most fundamental questions about reality. My quotes and argument are to buttress the claim that Plato believed in God and looked to him for morality. I think everyone is "religious", in a sense. They may just not like to be seen as religious. Even the belief in "materialism" is itself a different beast than the materialist world is proposes.