marg wrote:I did a quick look at a bio on William Ockham and he didn't appear very religious to me, particularly for the times he lived in. Without getting into it, keep in mind that in his day one couldn't express heretical views without severe negative ramifications. He apparently had many views which didn't sit well with the religious authorities. Given what I read, I do think if he was alive today he'd have been an atheist.
Let me direct your attention to this
Considering that the razor is often wielded as an argument against theism, it is somewhat ironic that Ockham himself was a theist. He considered some Christian sources to be valid sources of factual data, equal to both logic and sense perception. He wrote, "No plurality should be assumed unless it can be proved (a) by reason, or (b) by experience, or (c) by some infallible authority"; referring in the last clause "to the Bible, the Saints and certain pronouncements of the Church" (Hoffmann 1997). In Ockham's view, an explanation which does not harmonize with reason, experience or the aforementioned sources cannot be considered valid.
The reason I said he didn't appear religious is that he appeared to be very logical, placed great importance on sense experience, and I believe he promoted the notion that the metaphysical can not be reasoned by argument into existence. His philosophy from what I could gather seemed to be the beginnings of the scientific method. That's why I suggested that if he were alive today, living in a society in which one is free to believe or not without significant negative ramifications I doubt he'd be religious.
It's not particularly ironic that Ockham was a theist, most philosophers were then. And he didn't name or claim the concept. He apparently frequently used it, as did other philosophers, without giving it any particular name. It simply makes sense that if there are 2 equal competing theories to explain a phenomenon, the one with the least explanation and data required is all that's necessary.
Not only was William of Ockham a theist, he believed that the ultimate ontological category was God and that everything else was contingent upon him. His use of parsimony was the simple idea that one's ontological categories should not become needlessly bloated. But, happily, God is but one ontological entity and the prime one. Marg, without apparently being minimally aware of what she is commenting on, doesn't seem to realize that Ockham was not only a religious person, but that much of his work is theological in nature. For a man who believed that one acts morally by conforming one's motives to those of the will of God, it seems pretty absurd to suggest he was only nominally religious or secretly not so. But why does Marg think such a thing? Because he seems logical. And, in Marg's world, seeming logical is antithetical to being a believer. So you end up with a preposterous situation where one of the most famous theological thinkers in western history is thought not be all that religious.
He apparently had many views which didn't sit well with the religious authorities. Given what I read, I do think if he was alive today he'd have been an atheist.
He denied the absolute authority of the Pope in matters of State. That doesn't make him likely to be an atheist in modern times anymore than John Calvin or Joseph Smith.
He apparently had many views which didn't sit well with the religious authorities. Given what I read, I do think if he was alive today he'd have been an atheist.
He denied the absolute authority of the Pope in matters of State. That doesn't make him likely to be an atheist in modern times anymore than John Calvin or Joseph Smith.
Sometimes I suspect that Joseph Smith was an atheist.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:He denied the absolute authority of the Pope in matters of State.
Not quite. William of Ockham was charged with heresy for advocating Apostolic Poverty. He was then asked by the head of the Franciscan order, Minister General Michael of Cesena, to review the papal decrees of Pope John XXII and past posts, where William concluded that the Pope was a heretic and openly said as much. Da Pope wasn't thrilled with that, so William and Michael both got excommunicated.
Wasn't until after his excummunication that William of Occam started making any actual headway with political thought.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:He denied the absolute authority of the Pope in matters of State.
Not quite. William of Ockham was charged with heresy for advocating Apostolic Poverty. He was then asked by the head of the Franciscan order, Minister General Michael of Cesena, to review the papal decrees of Pope John XXII and past posts, where William concluded that the Pope was a heretic and openly said as much. Da Pope wasn't thrilled with that, so William and Michael both got excommunicated.
Wasn't until after his excummunication that William of Occam started making any actual headway with political thought.
Yes quite. That was one of Ockham's most famous, contraversial views. He felt the Pope ought not intervene in matters of state unless to protect the Church or to provide for the common good when no secular institution has done so. I listed a view of William of Ockham representative of his conflicts with religious authority of the day. He had disagreements with the Catholic Church. That hardly makes him an atheist canidate. What you wrote can be easily found in sources like the SEoP.
E.G.
In 1327, Michael of Cesena, the Franciscan “Minister General” (the chief administrative officer of the order) likewise came to Avignon, in his case because of an emerging controversy between the Franciscans and the current Pope, John XXII, over the idea of “Apostolic poverty,” the view that Jesus and the Apostles owned no property at all of their own but, like the mendicant Franciscans, went around begging and living off the generosity of others. The Franciscans held this view, and maintained that their own practices were a special form of “imitation of Christ.” Pope John XXII rejected the doctrine, which is why Michael of Cesena was in Avignon.
Things came to a real crisis in 1328, when Michael and the Pope had a serious confrontation over the matter. As a result, Michael asked Ockham to study the question from the point of view of previous papal statements and John's own previous writings on the subject. When he did so, Ockham came to the conclusion, apparently somewhat to his own surprise, that John's view was not only wrong but outright heretical. Furthermore, the heresy was not just an honest mistake; it was stubbornly heretical, a view John maintained even after he had been shown it was wrong. As a result, Ockham argued, Pope John was not just teaching heresy, but was a heretic himself in the strongest possible sense, and had therefore effectively abdicated his papacy. In short, Pope John XXII was no pope at all!
A Light in the Darkness wrote:As a result, Ockham argued, Pope John was not just teaching heresy, but was a heretic himself in the strongest possible sense, and had therefore effectively abdicated his papacy. In short, Pope John XXII was no pope at all!
As a result, Ockham got excommunicated for being right. History repeats itself. Comforting thought, that.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:Yes quite. That was one of Ockham's most famous, contraversial views. He felt the Pope ought not intervene in matters of state unless to protect the Church or to provide for the common good when no secular institution has done so.
Yup, and all of that came about AFTER William of Ockham starting harping on about ecclesiastical poverty. Once he had been excommunicated by the Church, William no longer felt he had to keep any of his other views to himself.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:I listed a view of William of Ockham representative of his conflicts with religious authority of the day.
Religious authority and not political authority. In a way that made him a secularist in that he thought the church should keep it's nose out of politics.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:That hardly makes him an atheist canidate.
Can you show me where I ever said William of Ockham was an atheist? Marg said that, not me. I know full well that William was a harcore theist. Hell, he even violated his own premise for Occam's Razor by dictating that "god" was a self-evident entity without ever giving a reason why (adding entities needlessly or without establishing a reason for them).
A Light in the Darkness wrote:I listed a view of William of Ockham representative of his conflicts with religious authority of the day.
Religious authority and not political authority. In a way that made him a secularist in that he thought the church should keep it's nose out of politics.
Exactly? Is English your first language? Marg pointed out that Ockham conflicted with religious authority of his day to support an argument that he would be an atheist today. I gave a typical example of what constituted that conflict to show this is an unjustified conclusion. He had a problem with specific views of the Catholic Church authorities. That doesn't translate into atheist anymore than Martin Luther's conflicts with religious authorities of his day means he likely woudl've been an atheist today. Marg is claiming the man was nominally religious, perhaps secretly nonreligious. She's claiming this of a person who wrote volumes of work on his theology and personal belief in God. What's next? Marg's seminal thesis that Thomas Aquinas really was a Buddhist?
A Light in the Darkness wrote:That hardly makes him an atheist canidate.
Can you show me where I ever said William of Ockham was an atheist? Marg said that, not me.
You're not following this conversation well, are you? Slow down. Take a deep breath. Read. Slowly.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:Exactly? Is English your first language? Marg pointed out that Ockham conflicted with religious authority of his day to support an argument that he would be an atheist today. I gave a typical example of what constituted that conflict to show this is an unjustified conclusion.
Do you understand english at all, dumbass? This is the SECOND time you've ascribed Marg's possition to me. I never said William of Ockham was an atheist or would have been an atheist today.
Go change the bulb in your flashlight, moron. You're still burning dim.