Building A Tolerance To Cats

REPLY

.
following is the replica of Henri Peña-Ruiz to the "spiritual freedom."
. Background
debate: SPIRITUAL FREEDOM

http://laicismoypolitica.blogspot.com/2009/11/la-libertad-espiritual.html
REPLY CHURCH CASEY WEAVER
http://laicismoypolitica.blogspot .com/2009/12/replica-de-cesar-tejedor.html
RESPONSE OF THE CHURCH CASEY WEAVER
http://laicismoypolitica.blogspot.com/2009/12/respuesta-cesar-tejedor-de-la -iglesia.html
.

ON MY VOCABULARY.
Among defenders of secularism, discussions should be approached from the rigor and intellectual honesty. This means that in no case should fall within the amalgam, the minimalist approach so typical of the positions that criticize or attack the suggestion controversial or biased. With this basic principle I intend to respond to Juan Francisco González Barón (JFGB in text from now), whose great merit is to have played a decisive role in the founding and subsequent implementation of our partnership Lay Europe, so beloved both my right as my heart. However, the terms in which he couches his arguments critical of my vocabulary at least surprised me.

.

first summarize the four main criticisms directed me JFGB, and reiterated again the thread of the publication of the Anthology secular work written with my friend Neil Weaver of the Church in order to provide anyone seeks to defend and promote secularism a manual solid articulating conceptual clarification and reference texts.

.

In his first critique, JFGB accuses me of having used a vocabulary of theological type when I turn to the notions of spiritual choice and spiritual freedom. In his second criticism, related to the first, taken for granted an identity between two expressions are, however, quite different: spiritual freedom and religious freedom. This is a very surprising amalgam and not shown. In his third critique, JFGB accuses me of maintaining a reductive typology of the widest possible range of worldviews, a term which, however, I have not used at any time. She refers in this case the distinction I usually among the convictions in relation to the existence of God, religious belief, that said, the atheism, which denies it, and agnosticism, which suspended the trial. Finally, in his latest criticism, intended to instruct JFGB me about my alleged "complicity" with the notion of religious freedom, a notion which, however, never use, if is not to criticize it as irrelevant. Finally, JFGB seems to say that hardly matters to the end of the day if I think something other than what he gives me to read my words, since they inevitably have consequences he attributes to them. In short, one of two things: either I am an accomplice to the opponents of secularism, or something to explain thoroughly and responsibly do not measure the extent of my vocabulary. Recognize that the suggestion is incisive, and quite unpleasant as it replaces the argument by invective.
.

Thank you, dear JFGB for having tried "to correct" ... but before we know if indeed I do, I have to give some explanations. After to have raised, I'm not sure you need to change my views.
.

The first criticism is, therefore, that the fact of using the term spiritual option would inevitably return to a theological vocabulary, which is unacceptable for a layman. This criticism is clearly a view of intentions, it leaves me dismayed to come from a man as religious as JFGB. I maintain that the notion of spirituality is very different than religion, and that the religious version of spirituality is not just a particular way in which this can be developed. There are non-religious forms of spirituality, despite the fact that religions have tried for nearly twenty centuries of life take over spiritual and monopolize it. First, it is important to distinguish the spiritual life, expressed especially through science, philosophy, art, and all activities of the human conscience, including religious belief, which is only a version of that particular. It should also distinguish the activity of the spirit of what their ontological support. Spiritualists believe that you can only account for this activity if we assume the hypothesis of the existence of a reality distinct from the body, while the materialists claim that matter can think, in its ultimate level of organization, and therefore can explain this spiritual activity (it is the thesis Engels in his Dialectics of Nature, where he speaks of "thinking mind", "supreme flowering of the art"). Neither Marx nor Engels, materialistic well known, leaving the term "spirit" or "spirituality" while making a very methodical philosophical critique of spiritualism. Can we say that they are inconsistent, or even unconsciously prisoners of a theological vocabulary? Hardly. Simply think about the spiritual life does not necessarily mean "spiritual", if by this we mean an assertion of the immateriality of thought. Therefore, it does not mean necessarily subject dualistic vocabulary of religion.
.

Lucretius, materialistic thinker, does not give spiritual life intangible support. Thus, also writes in the third book of De natura rerum that the spirit ("animus" or "spiritus") consists of atoms very subtle movement so fast. Similarly, Diderot sees a carrier material essence of life itself thinking. It is religion that advocates an ontology spiritualist and says a dualism between the body (which has the characteristic of "extension"), and the spirit (which has no "extension"). Moreover, it should be noted to JFGB that the Greek psyche and the Latin word spiritus in the first instance refer to something material, meaning "breath of air." When Hegel says that the pyramids of Egypt or the Renaissance paintings are spiritual works, makes widespread use of the word spirit (geist in German). Grant a monopoly of spirituality to religion is to make a concession unexpected and confirm one of the arguments on the other hand is used to make her believe she was not given any kind of life the human spirit. JFGB could also be read to Spinoza, the great thinker secular advocate of a spiritualist spirituality. The soul (mens) is for him the idea of \u200b\u200bbody, self-awareness. Closer to us in time, as a philosopher André Comte-Sponville has written a book entitled L'esprit de l'Atheism (Editions Grasset, Paris), which explicitly uses the term "atheist spirituality." In short, I vindicate the use of the term "spiritual" without being accused of favoring thus unconsciously to religion! If I had to leave certain terms under the pretext of having been used by religions, then there would have to give even the term "secular" (secular, Laika), used by the Church to refer to who plays no official role in the religious institution, unlike the "clergy." Will there then be called differently in our movement "secular Europe, which would be using and theological vocabulary?
.

The second charge stems from the wording of the first. Intellectually, it is very odd for the request in principle it contains. According JFGB, in referring to spiritual freedom would surreptitiously referring to religious freedom. Here is an amalgam not shown, made authoritatively, between spiritual and religious. For my part, I have never defended the notion of religious freedom. " I have always criticized clearly saying that this "freedom" refers not only to a particular case of the only freedom would be defended, namely, freedom of conscience, which is neither religious nor atheist. I invite JFGB to find a single line in my books that say otherwise. All I have heard in my lectures know very well what I mean: I have always criticized the notion of religious freedom, stating that to the defense of a principle we should not give never a reductionist view, but bring your extension more general. Proof: If religious freedom is the freedom to join a religion, so is to change religion, or not to join any. Would you call then "freedom atheist" freedom of not adhering to a religion? This is the parallel that I often do to invalidate the notion of religious freedom and saying that the only acceptable principle for its universality, is the freedom of conscience, or spiritual freedom. Stress, therefore, that freedom of conscience implies the autonomy of view as the foundation and feeds secular education. As to the notion of spiritual freedom, is of the same general way as that of religious freedom, since freedom requires that every human being should have to dispose of his spirit, his spiritual multiforme. If we admit the irreducibility of spirituality to religion, as I think we should do in view of the foregoing arguments, I do not see any way why the appeal to the notion of spiritual freedom is equivalent to a renewal of the concept of religious freedom. Amalgam and reductive vision are not rational proofs but controversial instruments fit very little to the ethics of thought.
.

In his third critique, JFGB accused me of proposing a reductive typology of possible range of worldviews. However, I've never tried to build such a type, nor have I ever talked of "worldviews," but I'm after an end much more modest. It is not only to mention the different attitudes of men to religious belief and not try to make an exhaustive inventory of the great representations of the world, very general term which includes in fact the multiplicity of elements involved in the design of human existence. As a philosopher and professor of philosophy, I am too aware of the diversity of these conceptions and their wealth as to try to reduce it to a tripartite simplistic. Here again, we are entitled to ask whether JFGB referred to my writings or others for whom he replaces. In fact, the distinction I make usually concerns only to convictions regarding the existence of God, religious belief, which states that existence of atheism, which denies it, and agnosticism, which suspended the trial. Before inventing the reproach of "simplistic", JFGB should ask what I mean when I propose this type. This will avoid holding an appreciation for the less hasty and unfounded.
.

Finally, in his latest criticism, JFGB suggested that maybe I do not think what he gives me, but this is really the effect of my vocabulary, from your point of view contestable. In short, is to say that I would not have measured the extent of what I write, and good a teacher you remember me! I would like to show that its interpretation JFGB forced and biased my views can be defended only from his own reading, and that is not legitimate to invent a chasm between the meaning I give to my terms and that follows from them without my knowing . JFGB is free to interpret things their way, but not to attribute a difference between not accept what I write and what some readers may interpret from what I write. Moreover, JFGB speaks of "complicity" on my part with theology, which means that I would subjectively responsible for the misunderstandings that he envisions, not only objectively. If words have meaning, the "accomplice" is intellectually and psychologically responsible for the representations that he raises for his vocabulary. Hence the question posed JFGB: Am I conscious or unconscious of his trial harmful effects of my speech? In the first case, it would be "difficult." In the second case, would not have enough intellectual domain. Of course, I reject the two hypotheses, not for pride, but simply because of the requirement to observe the utmost rigor. In compliance with this requirement I have developed the preceding arguments.
.

conclude. The controversy precipitated, reductive analysis, and prevent unscrupulous amalgam feed a peaceful dialogue. A true champion of secularism has better things to do than to face another in a manner so little respect from the point of view of ethical reflection. Plato said that the philosophical dialogue is friendship (philia), even within the disagreement and discord not malicious (eris) or combat blind (polemos).

.

SEE THE ANSWER TO HENRI PENA-RUIZ:

http://laicismoypolitica.blogspot.com/2009/12/respuesta-henri-pena-ruiz.html