 
字體：小 中 大 |
|
|
|
| 2018/05/30 11:50:34瀏覽1665｜回應3｜推薦21 | |
請看女哲學家 Geraldine Finn 怎樣解構有神論和無神論者的觀點。Geraldine Finn 有英國英文學士、哲學碩士、加拿大哲學博士的學位。她專攻二十世紀大陸哲學與當代政治、文化、和藝術領域間的關係。
長話短說，請從 27:00 看起，到 42:50。坐穩再開始，因爲高本衲已經傾倒在地，沒法扶你。
以下是該段影音的文字稿：
26:52
what I want to talk
26:55
about today this is not in order to take
26:58
aside in this particular debate to argue
27:02
in favor of one or the other to
27:03
reconcile them or to calibrate their
27:06
respective rights and wrongs but rather
27:08
to shift the focus and hopefully the
27:10
ground of the debate between say ISM and
27:13
atheism by identifying what makes for
27:16
the unity of the field upon which these
27:19
spokesmen of theism of scientific
27:21
atheism do battle with each other the
27:25
contested terrain to which my kind of
27:27
atheism is opposed
27:29
so my objection to both a ISM and what
27:32
I'm calling scientific atheism is
27:34
fundamentally an ethical and political
27:36
critique as much as it is an
27:39
epistemological one its ethical and not
27:42
religious and not scientific and doesn't
27:44
depend on the law I want to make a
27:47
disclaimer here I'm not claiming to
27:49
represent anyone else but myself here or
27:52
speak for any other atheists so this is
27:55
my kind of atheism what I begin with the
28:03
definition of the a of theism which is
28:07
taken from the oxford english dictionary
28:09
theism belief in existence of gods or a
28:13
god especially a God supernaturally
28:16
revealed to man and sustaining a
28:19
personal relationship to his creatures
28:22
now this is a pretty non-controversial
28:24
definition accurately reflected in the
28:28
question we've been asked to debate
28:29
tonight which is God exists and we can
28:33
know him as well perhaps as in the
28:36
presentation by the first speaker that
28:39
is with one or two apparently minor but
28:42
for me significant and disturbing
28:44
differences first that in the question
28:48
we were asked to debate God exists and
28:51
we can know him the belief that featured
28:54
in the oxford english dictionary
28:55
definition has been transformed raised
28:59
you may say or reduced to knowledge
29:02
which is a very different creature and
29:04
raises the stakes of the argument also
29:08
to the singular subject of God's
29:11
revelation to man which is ambivalently
29:15
generic or particular which features in
29:17
the oxford english dictionary definition
29:19
in the question where penis at debate
29:22
has become an anonymous collective we
29:27
some of the implications of these
29:29
changes should become clear as I
29:31
continue so what concerns me about both
29:36
the dictionary definition of theism and
29:38
the thism positive in this debate
29:40
question
29:42
is there consistent explicit exclusive
29:46
and I submit constitutive Andrew
29:49
centricity it is a theorem whether of
29:53
knowledge or belief that posits a guard
29:56
that on the one hand is revealed
29:58
exclusively to man that is men not a
30:03
woman man the traditional
30:05
representatives authorities interpreters
30:08
and agents of this God's will law
30:11
demands they are always men and likewise
30:15
the principle disputants in the current
30:17
debates about atheist theism and the
30:20
place and its place in contemporary
30:22
society the second thing is that this
30:28
God that Reeves revealed exclusively to
30:30
man is revealed exclusively as man not
30:35
woman always and only referred to in the
30:38
masculine as male and by way of the
30:41
masculine pronoun and most essentially
30:44
as the father origin and creator
30:47
begetter of all things an exclusivity of
30:52
man to man which I suggest is
30:55
constitutive of and institutionalized in
30:57
the great theorems the traditional
30:59
monotheism x' squabbling for ascendancy
31:03
today which I suspect has at least in
31:06
part if not in whole motivated a debate
31:09
like this this is the theorem that I
31:12
reject I want no part of it let us call
31:16
it patriarchal theism or perhaps more
31:19
accurately phased it patriarchy for this
31:22
presumption of patriarchal privilege
31:24
priority and power is pervasive and not
31:28
restricted to theism it did not
31:31
disappear with
31:33
or the ascendancy of the authority of
31:35
science indeed it is simply reproduced
31:38
within it nor did it die with the death
31:40
of God but on the contrary is alive and
31:44
well and living in a neighborhood near
31:46
you let me listen some of the principal
31:49
features of theism and what I'm calling
31:51
scientific atheism that oppose that
31:54
opposes it which makes for the unity of
31:57
the field the contested terrain over and
32:00
upon which they are embattled and which
32:02
my kind of theism rejects for reasons
32:06
which are at once both epistemological
32:08
and ethical and then following this a
32:11
list of some of the principal exclusions
32:13
out of which I believe that common
32:16
ground is constructed caveat again what
32:21
I have to say now is necessarily
32:22
schematic it is just the bare bones of
32:25
work I have developed elsewhere in much
32:27
greater detail and in a much more
32:29
nuanced way I know that I'm in the
32:32
process of developing the future so the
32:35
first thing is what makes for the unity
32:37
of the field upon which the faith and
32:39
the scientific atheists are embattled
32:42
first point I want to make is their
32:44
shared interest in desire and demand for
32:48
and aspiration to a certainty which is
32:52
absolute and total icing which Neves
32:55
leaves no room for difference or doubt
32:57
and is therefore death and indifferent
33:00
to the discourse of the other indeed
33:03
often to each other another which is
33:07
either vilified or pathologized
33:10
remember says Hitchens we're examining
33:13
the childhood of our species
33:16
the second thing I believe they have in
33:17
common is a corresponding assumption of
33:20
and insistence upon the logic of
33:23
identity the oppositional logic of the
33:26
excluded middle of either-or somewhat
33:29
which we actually heard in the first
33:31
speech either you are with us or yours
33:34
again or you are with the terrorists
33:35
George Bush you either stand with us or
33:39
you with the child pornographers big
33:41
Jews
33:42
this is essentially a genocidal logic of
33:45
the one a monotone atheism as Nietzsche
33:49
once colder of God the good man reason
33:54
right reality truth beauty justice etc
33:58
which is always dichotomous and
34:01
exclusive of another which must be
34:03
either assimilated or eliminated reduced
34:07
to the same by conversion disavowal or
34:11
denial normalized or simply expelled the
34:17
third point of convergence that
34:19
constitutes the common field of these
34:20
themes isn't scientific atheism is their
34:24
joint reliance on the authority of
34:26
esoteric knowledge and sacred texts
34:29
obviously Bible and scriptures in the
34:32
religious field the language of genes
34:34
stimulations of the brain remote
34:37
calculations by powerful computers
34:39
amongst the science so what they rely on
34:43
is the authority of easy turn of
34:45
knowledge and sacred tense the origin
34:47
legitimation and
34:49
rotation of which is presided over by a
34:52
scriptural elite which is exclusively
34:55
and when challenged aggressively male an
34:59
institutionalized and state sanctioned
35:01
Clara C of University in church the four
35:05
things that they have in common is the
35:08
presumption of a teleological and linear
35:10
history of origins and ends of Reason
35:14
man science nature the universe whatever
35:17
a sociology eschatology and they odyssey
35:22
which offers some determinant purpose
35:25
solution or salvation to the complexity
35:28
and contingency of human existence a
35:31
providential history with or without God
35:34
in this life or in the next natural
35:37
selection reproductive success progress
35:40
heaven unity with the infinite etc and
35:44
this internal legitimizes naturalizes
35:47
the status quo justifies its evils
35:50
rationalizes its inequalities of
35:53
suffering and power and guarantees the
35:55
meaningfulness inevitability of it all
35:59
five fifth point they have in Coram is a
36:02
corresponding assumption of an essence
36:05
of human being which is secured by God
36:08
or by biology and which provides the
36:11
ontological guarantee of what I have
36:13
said above the demand or the affirmation
36:16
of certainty the logic of identity one
36:19
or other the authority of sacred texts a
36:22
providential history of predetermined
36:24
origins means and ends the sixth thing
36:29
they have in common arising from the
36:31
previous five the tendency to dogmatism
36:33
the intolerance of direct difference
36:36
confusion or contestation which is often
36:39
seen as tantamount to apostasy and
36:41
heresy and subject to forms of
36:43
excommunication ridicule rejection
36:47
the negation which is inherent in the
36:50
propositional form the logic of either
36:52
or that their respective knowledge
36:54
claims are made in and finally the
36:58
seventh point a result of all this I
37:00
think is an application of personal
37:03
responsibility for what is claimed to be
37:05
true or done in its name in the name of
37:09
God reason progress or science for the
37:13
dogmatic assertion of a determinant
37:15
objective human essence a
37:17
pre-established harmony of means and
37:19
ends whether by natural selection or by
37:22
God's will effectively denies human
37:25
agency and therefore the responsibility
37:28
with respectable forethought and
37:30
especially towards the action and the
37:33
ends displacing it from the individual
37:35
and the community onto some impersonal
37:38
imminent or transcendent power the
37:42
chemistry of the brain you DNA the will
37:45
of God a Big Bang including the agency
37:48
responsibility of the spokesman of
37:51
theism and scientific atheism themselves
37:54
who present themselves as the messengers
37:56
and purveyors the evangelicals if you
37:59
would of impersonal objective truths
38:01
rather than their propagators creators
38:05
and guarantors so that's so much for the
38:08
unity of the field over and upon which I
38:11
believe the spokesmen of theism and
38:13
scientific atheism battle with each
38:16
other now I'll say a few words about the
38:19
warring parties about what the warring
38:21
parties agree to exclude together the
38:24
shared exclusions out of which the unity
38:26
of the contested feel is kin
38:28
directed again I can only present the
38:31
bare bones of a series of points that I
38:34
have developed in detail elsewhere and
38:36
which are particularly difficult to
38:38
summarize precisely because they are the
38:40
structurally and systematically excluded
38:43
of the traditional authoritative and
38:45
institutionalized discourses of theism
38:47
and science but I will attempt to do
38:50
this here by way of two principal
38:53
organizing and overlapping themes first
38:56
the theme of contingency and second what
38:59
I call the space between by contingency
39:03
I'm referring to the facts and the
39:05
effects of birth death and nurture of
39:08
history particularity vulnerability
39:11
finely-tuned uncertainty chance and
39:15
choice and of course I'm referring to
39:17
the difference that sexual difference
39:19
makes to the truth of human origins in
39:22
the bodies of women not men and the
39:27
origin of their truths in the long arm
39:30
of the mother tongue and not the learner
39:32
discourse of the father which it the
39:35
father's discourse at once assumes
39:37
appropriates descriptives and disavows
39:40
together with what I call the space
39:43
between the space between is another way
39:47
of characterizing a series of exclusions
39:49
out of which the unity of the contested
39:52
field of theism and scientific atheism
39:54
is constituted the space between is the
39:59
irreducible always shifting and dynamic
40:02
space between experience and expression
40:05
between reality and representation
40:08
between existence and the essence which
40:11
is the space of becoming not being it is
40:15
the space in which we live and so is in
40:17
excess of the yonder man between the
40:20
abstract categories of discursive
40:22
thought within which we seek to name a
40:25
frame and
40:26
in it experiences a personal and
40:30
particular singular and unique chaotic
40:33
contingent and concrete they are bound
40:36
to specific people places practices and
40:39
times and they do not come with their
40:42
meanings attached meanings which are in
40:45
turn dependent on local and historical
40:47
specificities of language culture and
40:50
tradition categories on the other hand
40:53
are the product of systematic and
40:55
collective reflection they are
40:58
abstracted from experience and sometime
41:01
they are abstracted from abstractions
41:03
authorized by a scriptural and
41:06
heretofore exclusively male elite and
41:09
return to experience to provide the
41:12
order stability continuity and right
41:14
thinking which will secure the interests
41:17
of established or emerging social powers
41:19
we do not experience the categories of
41:22
experience we inherit them when we make
41:26
them up and we apply them or we have
41:28
them imposed upon us the space between
41:31
experience and the categories and the
41:34
excess of one visa B the other is I
41:37
believe the ethical space it is the
41:40
space of not knowing within which
41:43
decisions as to what to think and how to
41:45
act cannot not be made I put it to you
41:50
that the unity of the field upon and
41:53
over which the spokesman of atheism
41:55
theism and scientific atheism battle
41:58
each other is constituted precisely by
42:01
the exclusion disavow discrediting and
42:05
of this space between sometimes think of
42:09
it as a flight from the flesh and thus
42:11
and thereby their collective abdication
42:14
of the ethical responsibility for what
42:17
is said and done in their name to borrow
42:22
the words of fine deliora juniors
42:25
speaking in another context that is as a
42:27
Native American Indian with reference to
42:30
Marxism the faith and the scientific
42:33
atheists are just another group of
42:36
cowboys of riding around the same old
42:38
rock perhaps I will be able to say more
42:41
about this later
42:42
I hope at least that I've given you
42:44
something to think about
42:46
thank you
|
|
| ( 心情隨筆｜心情日記 ) |
