Purism

IF 0.4 0 PHILOSOPHY Secular Studies Pub Date : 2020-11-16 DOI:10.2307/806491
Primus
{"title":"Purism","authors":"Primus","doi":"10.2307/806491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article presents an ontological proof that God is impossible. I define an ‘impossibility’ as a condition which is inconceivable due to its a priori characteristics (e.g. a ‘square circle’). Accordingly, said conditions will not ever become conceivable, as they could in instances of a posteriori inconceivability (e.g. the notion that someone could touch a star without being burned). As the basis of this argument, I refer to an a priori observation (Primus, 2019) regarding our inability to imagine inconsistency (difference) within any point of space. This observation renders the notion of absolute power to be inconceivable, a priori. I briefly discuss the moral implications of religious faith in the context of Purism: a moral rationalist paradigm. I conclude that whilst belief in God can be aesthetically expressed it should not be possessed as a material purpose, due to the illogicality of the latter category of belief and/or expression. With this article I provide conceptual delineation between harmless religious belief and expression—which, I argue, should be protected from persecution, as per any other artistic expression—and religious belief and expression which is materially harmful to society. Whilst I aim to protect religious freedom of expression on one hand, I duly aim to reduce instances of material faith in God(s) on the other. Finally, I aim to bring hope in the possibility for human salvation via technology—such that they should exist indefinitely as ‘demi-gods,’ defined by conditional, relative power over their environment.","PeriodicalId":29677,"journal":{"name":"Secular Studies","volume":"473 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Secular Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/806491","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article presents an ontological proof that God is impossible. I define an ‘impossibility’ as a condition which is inconceivable due to its a priori characteristics (e.g. a ‘square circle’). Accordingly, said conditions will not ever become conceivable, as they could in instances of a posteriori inconceivability (e.g. the notion that someone could touch a star without being burned). As the basis of this argument, I refer to an a priori observation (Primus, 2019) regarding our inability to imagine inconsistency (difference) within any point of space. This observation renders the notion of absolute power to be inconceivable, a priori. I briefly discuss the moral implications of religious faith in the context of Purism: a moral rationalist paradigm. I conclude that whilst belief in God can be aesthetically expressed it should not be possessed as a material purpose, due to the illogicality of the latter category of belief and/or expression. With this article I provide conceptual delineation between harmless religious belief and expression—which, I argue, should be protected from persecution, as per any other artistic expression—and religious belief and expression which is materially harmful to society. Whilst I aim to protect religious freedom of expression on one hand, I duly aim to reduce instances of material faith in God(s) on the other. Finally, I aim to bring hope in the possibility for human salvation via technology—such that they should exist indefinitely as ‘demi-gods,’ defined by conditional, relative power over their environment.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
纯粹主义
这篇文章提出了上帝不可能存在的本体论证明。我将“不可能性”定义为由于其先验特征(例如“方形圆”)而不可想象的条件。因此,上述条件永远不会变得可以想象,因为它们可以在后验不可想象的情况下(例如,有人可以触摸一颗星星而不被烧伤的概念)。作为这一论点的基础,我引用了一个先验的观察(Primus, 2019),关于我们无法想象任何空间点内的不一致(差异)。这种观察使得绝对权力的概念是不可思议的,是先验的。我简要地讨论了宗教信仰在纯粹主义背景下的道德含义:一个道德理性主义范式。我的结论是,虽然对上帝的信仰可以在美学上表达,但它不应该被作为一种物质目的而拥有,因为后一种信仰和/或表达是不合逻辑的。在这篇文章中,我对无害的宗教信仰和表达——我认为,它们应该受到保护,不受迫害,就像任何其他艺术表达一样——和对社会有害的宗教信仰和表达进行了概念上的界定。一方面,我的目标是保护宗教言论自由,另一方面,我的目标是减少对上帝的物质信仰。最后,我的目标是通过技术为人类的救赎带来希望——这样他们就应该以“半神”的身份无限期地存在,以对环境的有条件的、相对的权力来定义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Commentary on Urban Secularism by Julia Martínez-Ariño Revisiting Urban Secularism Preface to Special Section about Julia Martínez-Ariño’s Urban Secularism Why a Lack of Secularism Contributes to Underdevelopment in Many Muslim Countries Urban Secularism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1