Selection, Round 2, comments...

Jonathan Brooks8 said:What really grinds the gears of atheists is when believers start acting as divine spokespeople—deciding what God thinks, what He’d say, or what He finds distasteful—and then treating atheists like some sort of lost souls in need of a rescue mission.

If we want to understand how a thinker like Hegel viewed God as a believer, our only real recourse is to ask Hegel himself... Arguing over interpretations is a losing battle. Of course, believers seem convinced they'll eventually get their chance to ask Him directly, whereas for atheists, the window might have already closed.😁

Well, he put his thoughts out there for the world to see. Anyone can pick up the book and read it.

James Lee77 said:But wait, it wasn't like he was teaching some high school religion class. These were philosophy of religion lectures at the university in Washington, D.C.—which was basically the most important university back then. It was actually pretty common for professors from other departments to just show up and sit in on those philosophy lectures. So, yeah, he was lecturing to the smartest minds in Europe at the time, not some kids in a classroom. These talks happened in 1821, 1824, 1827, and 1831. Those last ones? Well, he was actually the university president by then (starting in 1830), so I don't think anyone was gonna come up to him and say, "Hey, go teach some teenagers about religion."

If that's the case, why didn't he ever put out a book on the philosophy of religion? Honestly, he probably felt too embarrassed by it. He clearly reserved his energy for what he considered truly worth publishing, which is why we have Phenomenology and Logic.

I mean, he passed away before that anyway.

James Lee77 said:I mean, he passed away before that anyway.

What, did he start teaching philosophy of religion and immediately drop dead?

I’d suggest checking out this thread over in another section:

Amanda Jackson5 said:Well, he put his thoughts out there for the world to see. Anyone can pick up the book and read it.

Exactly. Giving a public lecture—especially if you keep doing it over and over—that's basically publishing.

Amanda Jackson5 said:The thing about Hegelian philosophy is that it’s aggressively self-critical and essentially starts from scratch without leaning on any preconceived notions. Because of that, I don't see how it could possibly link up with religion, unless you count deriving the existence of God through some sort of logical deduction within a metaphysical framework—but frankly, I’ve yet to encounter a formula that actually pulls off a logical proof for God. It seems pretty clear to me, though, that this intense drive some believers have to "prove" God or make Him fit into a "logical" box probably just stems from their own underlying doubts.

But he does address God in his work... interpreting him, or at least attempting to... critiquing and refining the concept... In that sense, there isn't really a hard line separating his philosophical pursuits from his engagement with religion. Isn't that just part of being human? It serves as proof of his authenticity and his sincerity...

James Lee77 said:Exactly. Giving a public lecture—especially if you keep doing it over and over—that's basically publishing.

Alright, let's get to the heart of what you're actually getting at here. Are you suggesting that Hegel somehow provided a definitive proof for the existence of God? Honestly, looking through the books he actually put out and the way his entire philosophical system is structured, there isn't much of a mystery regarding his stance on religion or where he fits it all into his framework.

Sandra Murphy33 said:I would argue he was a believer who carried a seed of doubt in his heart—a doubt that ultimately served as the foundation for his entire philosophy. 🙂

We pulled that particular quote, along with several others, from ZL, where he offers various critiques of Christian theology.
As for his assertion that philosophy is theology, I actually went ahead and bolded and somewhat exaggerated that point in my previous post regarding 😬
In reality, what he is doing is replacing Christian theology with philosophy itself.

He wasn't the first Christian to think outside the box, and he certainly won't be the last. There have always been people who looked at how institutions interpret the mind of God and decided to push back. You see it all the time with reformers, reconstructionists, and those unorthodox movements that just refuse to follow the status quo. People have always challenged the establishment.

Sandra Murphy33 said:But he does address God in his work... interpreting him, or at least attempting to... critiquing and refining the concept... In that sense, there isn't really a hard line separating his philosophical pursuits from his engagement with religion. Isn't that just part of being human? It serves as proof of his authenticity and his sincerity...

In the phenomenology of spirit, he explains that religion is just one of three ways the absolute spirit expresses itself—though, truth be told, it's inferior to philosophy because only philosophy provides a truly accurate, complete, and rational account of the absolute spirit. As for the science of logic, his magnum opus, God isn't even mentioned except in the preface.

Or, like I mentioned earlier in a different thread:

"It’s honestly kind of laughable to try and shove your own biases and desires into Hegel's mouth based on some Wikipedia summary rather than actually reading the man himself. Hegel was a much more profound intellect than you're giving him credit for.
According to Hegel, religion communicates through imagery. What religion refers to as God, philosophy identifies as the Absolute or the Absolute Idea. Religion, philosophy, and art are all just different modes through which the absolute spirit manifests—ways in which the human spirit, the collective consciousness, or whatever label you prefer, relates itself to the whole, to the totality. The peak of existence, the ultimate stage of nature's dialectical development, is the self-knowing spirit engaging in philosophical reflection, which exists solely as embodied human spirit (which is what the story of Jesus symbolizes). Religions don't express themselves through philosophical reflection, but through symbols and feelings, which is why they perceive that spirit as a transcendent 'other.' That is the core of Hegelian thought on religion. It's not some petty, small-minded rambling about whether Hegel 'proved' God's existence. Should I start pasting excerpts from the phenomenology of spirit here?"

"Why is Hegel such a big deal?", post #45

Amanda Jackson5 said:Alright, let's get to the heart of what you're actually getting at here. Are you suggesting that Hegel somehow provided a definitive proof for the existence of God? Honestly, looking through the books he actually put out and the way his entire philosophical system is structured, there isn't much of a mystery regarding his stance on religion or where he fits it all into his framework.

Nah. I’m just saying Hegel definitely knew about the fate of Aristotle from Stagira, whose unpublished lectures basically turned into one of the absolute pillars of philosophy—you know, metaphysics. So, I guess it’s pretty likely he wouldn't be surprised if his own lecture notes—covering everything from his philosophy of religion to his aesthetics, history, and the Encyclopedia—were seen as a core part of his whole philosophical project. Honestly, that’s pretty much how everyone else views Hegel, except maybe you.

James Lee77 said:Nah. I’m just saying Hegel definitely knew about the fate of Aristotle from Stagira, whose unpublished lectures basically turned into one of the absolute pillars of philosophy—you know, metaphysics. So, I guess it’s pretty likely he wouldn't be surprised if his own lecture notes—covering everything from his philosophy of religion to his aesthetics, history, and the Encyclopedia—were seen as a core part of his whole philosophical project. Honestly, that’s pretty much how everyone else views Hegel, except maybe you.

Look, I’m not out here claiming that personal notes—letters, scraps of paper, whatever—aren't an "integral part of the whole" or someone's life story, but you can't just cherry-pick them to prove he was some religious apologist or pretend those little scribbles carry massive weight. We all know what actually matters when it comes to Hegel: the science of logic. Or maybe the phenomenology of spirit, which basically serves as the primer or setup for the logic anyway. And we already know what his take on religion is in those texts. But in the science of logic? There’s nothing there. That’s common knowledge for anyone who actually spends time with Hegel. But hey, you aren't really into it, so I guess you don't have to know.

Paper can take a lot of abuse, but hermeneutics? That takes it to a whole new level.

Gerald Jackson48 said:He wasn't the first Christian to think outside the box, and he certainly won't be the last. There have always been people who looked at how institutions interpret the mind of God and decided to push back. You see it all the time with reformers, reconstructionists, and those unorthodox movements that just refuse to follow the status quo. People have always challenged the establishment.

What I am pointing out, and what everyone seems to be ignoring, is that in that period, he couldn't have been anything other than a Christian.
An American in the late 18th or early 19th century was defined by that social fabric in the same way a citizen is defined by their contemporary society...
And that is fundamentally different from being a Christian today.

His "alternative view of God" is functionally identical to someone today proposing an "alternative view" where God isn't the Christian God, but rather something like the Field, or Consciousness, or some other morphological concept.

To put it bluntly, the gap between his reasoning and actual Christian thought is much like the modern gap between Christianity and so-called pseudoscience.

That is my assessment.

As for his philosophy: if we strictly decouple it from his persona and his life—much like how modern science attempts to separate "personal belief" from professional expertise—then the two published works mentioned by Sigmund don't actually engage with theology at all.
Though, one could certainly debate just how feasible such a rigid separation really is.

James Lee77 said:Nah. I’m just saying Hegel definitely knew about the fate of Aristotle from Stagira, whose unpublished lectures basically turned into one of the absolute pillars of philosophy—you know, metaphysics. So, I guess it’s pretty likely he wouldn't be surprised if his own lecture notes—covering everything from his philosophy of religion to his aesthetics, history, and the Encyclopedia—were seen as a core part of his whole philosophical project. Honestly, that’s pretty much how everyone else views Hegel, except maybe you.

Besides, I haven't seen anyone else out there talking about this supposed split between a "real" Hegel and a "fake" one. Most people pretty much agree that when it came down to it, Hegel was a conservative through and through in his personal worldview.

Amanda Jackson5 said:God and the absolute are two different things. Especially not according to Hegel.

Exactly. By the end of his logic science, Hegel argues that art, religion, and philosophy are just different ways the absolute idea perceives itself. Philosophy is the highest path, though—simply because it operates through pure concept.

Sandra Murphy33 said:What I am pointing out, and what everyone seems to be ignoring, is that in that period, he couldn't have been anything other than a Christian.
An American in the late 18th or early 19th century was defined by that social fabric in the same way a citizen is defined by their contemporary society...
And that is fundamentally different from being a Christian today.

His "alternative view of God" is functionally identical to someone today proposing an "alternative view" where God isn't the Christian God, but rather something like the Field, or Consciousness, or some other morphological concept.

To put it bluntly, the gap between his reasoning and actual Christian thought is much like the modern gap between Christianity and so-called pseudoscience.

That is my assessment.

As for his philosophy: if we strictly decouple it from his persona and his life—much like how modern science attempts to separate "personal belief" from professional expertise—then the two published works mentioned by Sigmund don't actually engage with theology at all.
Though, one could certainly debate just how feasible such a rigid separation really is.

I’m not sure how you define "Christian thinking" regarding God, especially when it comes to His essence (or Her essence? There was a debate about gender once, though I can't remember if anyone brought up gender identity 😁), but it really isn't as one-size-fits-all as you seem to think. Whether it's the idea that God is separate from the material world or somehow involved in it through "revelation and action," or how much He is anthropomorphized versus being incomprehensible to the human mind—it's not like Hegel just popped out of nowhere with a totally alien concept of God that had never been touched by institutional or non-institutional Christianity or any other global spiritual tradition. Sure, you can talk about Hegel's original ideas, but he built a lot of it on top of predecessors and contemporaries like Spinoza and Boehme. Besides, the whole notion that humans created God (instead of the other way around), along with all the skepticism and philosophical debates about the true nature of the Divine, goes all the way back to ancient Greece. Those questions about the nature of "God" have popped up throughout the entire history of Christianity, Judaism, various Eastern traditions, and pretty much everything else.

Terry Martinez10 said:I recognized the quote immediately yesterday because I had actually scribbled it down in my Hegel notebook under aesthetics, but if you're saying it isn't there, then perhaps I made a mistake when I was transcribing it.
I suppose I'll spend some time working my way through the lectures on aesthetics today just to verify everything once and for all.

If you track it down, let me know. I'm genuinely curious—maybe I totally missed it.

ruggedraven36 said:Exactly. By the end of his logic science, Hegel argues that art, religion, and philosophy are just different ways the absolute idea perceives itself. Philosophy is the highest path, though—simply because it operates through pure concept.

Let's try to "shake things up" a little bit here

ruggedraven36 said:Besides, God himself has to carry every single lie within him—otherwise, he'd be missing something entirely. By definition, the absolute can't have anything existing outside of his own being.

So, we're talking about different modes, even if they're labeled with different names here—you even put that distinction in parentheses yourself, just so we wouldn't get
lost in translation
😉)

steelridge58 said:Let's try to "shake things up" a little bit here

So, we're talking about different modes, even if they're labeled with different names here—you even put that distinction in parentheses yourself, just so we wouldn't get
lost in translation
😉)

The reason I used parentheses is because in this specific quote God represents the absolute. If you swap out "God" for "the absolute," the whole meaning stays exactly the same.

"Only the absolute represents the true correspondence between the concept and the reality of all finite things—but all finite things carry a layer of untruth, possessing a concept and an existence that fails to align with how they are perceived."

gentlerider7 said:Besides, I haven't seen anyone else out there talking about this supposed split between a "real" Hegel and a "fake" one. Most people pretty much agree that when it came down to it, Hegel was a conservative through and through in his personal worldview.

You can split the whole thing into what people call metaphysical versus non-metaphysical interpretations, but honestly, the mere fact that you can even draw that line shows just how much Hegel towers over the debate; he’s operating on a level of universality that makes those distinctions feel pretty small by comparison.

gentlerider7 said:Besides, I haven't seen anyone else out there talking about this supposed split between a "real" Hegel and a "fake" one. Most people pretty much agree that when it came down to it, Hegel was a conservative through and through in his personal worldview.

It’s always a bit surreal when you run into a conservative who claims that spiritual growth is basically just an ongoing journey toward a deeper awareness of freedom, especially when they insist on celebrating the anniversary of the French Revolution every single year. It’s such a strange contradiction to witness.