Peak 022 Natural Attitude

For example, he firmly believes in a natural attitude towards religion, which is that he opposes both atheism and monotheism in Christianity. Therefore, what he proposes is a natural theism.

There is one thing I also believe in, which is that among various religions, natural theology has the widest spread in the world.

——Voltaire's Dictionary of Philosophy

He believes that natural theology has always existed in China. Although there is no religion or a separate religious belief in China, we have our own moral beliefs and traditions, which actually reflect the role of faith. For example, in terms of system, we have the Three Obediences and Five Constants, as well as ethical norms of benevolence, righteousness, and morality.

So, the ethical and moral unity of the Three Obediences and Five Constants has become our belief. When we believe in such things, it becomes the basic pillar of society. In their eyes, this is actually a concept of natural gods.

The viewpoint of the natural god is nothing more than to illustrate that we need to question the essential rules of the existence of all things. If we do not believe in the essence of the existence of things, we have actually become atheists. For example, if you do not believe in the existence of a law in nature, if you do not believe in the existence of something beyond us, if you do not believe in something above us, if there is something ruling over us in the underworld, if you do not believe that we humans must obey certain inevitable requirements and rules, then this person is like a beast.

Because such people lose their beliefs, goals, ideals, and pursuits, they are actually living blindly like animals, just like walking dead.

It's like a pig, sleeping, eating, sleeping. That person doesn't believe in these things anymore. What's the difference between that person and a pig?

Pigs and other animals have no ideals. They are meant to satisfy their natural survival needs. If a person is only satisfied with having enough to eat, then they are really no different from pigs. So, people have desires, and this desire means that I am eating dinner today so that tomorrow's dinner will be better than today's. The direction I am striving for now is to have a better tomorrow than today. This is a longing for pursuit, and it is the support of faith.

If there were no such beliefs, according to Voltaire's understanding, humans would be no different from animals.

So, he believes that atheism is actually a very scary thing. For example, his criticism of atheism is as follows: atheism is terrible, and if human life exists only as a random combination, then it is like animals.

Of course, although we often say that everyone comes into this world by chance, your existence as a person is inevitable because without some innate conditions, you cannot be yours. Therefore, you are inevitable.

So, the ancients said the saying 'I am naturally talented and must be useful', because your inevitability is manifested in the fact that you exist because there are some innate conditions that determine your existence. Without these conditions, you cannot become yourself. Therefore, your existence is inevitable. Your birth is accidental, but your existence is inevitable.

If understood in this sense, if an atheist, they may not believe in everything, they may not believe in a creator in the underworld who makes the world move, they may not even believe that human intelligence can be different from the human body, and they may not believe that there can be an idea that transcends the human body. However, such people are very frightening. So, when facing Westerners, never say that you are an atheist, as this is a very bad thing.

So, in the 1920s, Russell himself wanted to write a book to prove why I don't believe in God, because not believing in God is not a theist. In their eyes, it is a terrible thing, and in the West, it is a great sin. At most, they say that the God I believe in can be different.

He will think that you don't believe in religion or God. This kind of person is very scary because you can be lawless, because whatever you say makes sense, and all the power to speak is in your hands, not in the hands of higher "wisdom" or "creation" beyond humanity.

So, in the eyes of Westerners, atheism is a terrifying phenomenon that they do not accept.

So, when communicating with Westerners, it is important to pay attention to this issue. Do not intentionally tell them that you are an atheist, even if it means pretending. Otherwise, after hearing this, they will be unable to communicate and may even attack you. Because when you say that you are an atheist, he completely despises you, and you are a heretic or extremist among humans.

And then, if you say anything else below, they won't believe it anymore, because anything you say later, in their eyes, is a deception.

Why is there a sentence printed on the US dollar, In God, We Trust， That's the truth.

He believes that you are deceiving him because you are dishonest, because you do not believe in the existence of something beyond human beings, that is, you cannot be Honest anymore. You do not believe in honesty, and everyone can deceive. When everyone in society believes that anything can be deceived, think about what society will become.

Of course, this Be Honest is not about being honest with each and every one of us, but about being honest with God, the 'Creator' of something higher than humans.

So, when praying, it's not about praying to people; But they are praying to 'God'. When they go to redeem themselves, they are not redeeming themselves from people, but from God. Your honesty is not to be honest with anyone, but to God.

This is the basic concept of Westerners. If you don't have this thing, they find it scary and difficult to understand.

So, let's think about how we can verify that we don't need theism and we're not scary at the same time?

We have previously introduced some basic information about Voltaire, mainly related to his criticism of atheism. I request everyone to read Voltaire's relevant works, including his "Dictionary of Philosophy". In fact, the "Dictionary of Philosophy" is some of the entries Voltaire wrote when compiling the "Encyclopedia" for Diderot.

He independently published a collection himself. It should be said that this "Dictionary of Philosophy" basically represents some of the main contents of Voltaire's philosophy. However, we often say that there is a big difference between Voltaire as a philosopher and Voltaire as a philosopher, just like Diderot as a philosopher and Diderot as a philosopher. Therefore, we truly understand the essence of French philosophy, not in what he said or what description he gave us, including his expression of his thoughts; What is more important now is to ask what kind of inspiring ideas he may provide behind his words, or what the motivation behind it is, as well as the problems that exist in his expression. This is actually the issue that we need to emphasize when we talk about French philosophy.

Why do people think that French philosophy has a rare passion among philosophers in the past, but it lacks the profound thinking of German classical philosophers?

On the one hand, it may express an emotion of universal concern for humanity, but at the same time, it lacks a metaphysical argument from a philosophical perspective. This is an impression given to us by French philosophers.

So, in general, our overall feeling and thinking of French philosophy are very beautiful. The so-called 'beauty' refers to the ability to provide us with a picture of a future that people envy endlessly. On the other hand, it also shows a weakness in innovative ideas, as it does not pose any philosophical questions for later philosophers to constantly reflect on.

Or rather, it did not provide us with some philosophical theories that truly convinced us, especially later philosophers. It can even be said that their philosophy is basically based on their observation of the world. Instead of being based on reflection on the world.

Everyone can have an observation of the world. Rousseau can observe, Diderot can observe, and everyone today can observe, although Diderot, including Rousseau, has provided descriptions of the basic methods of philosophical research, namely observation, reflection, and experimentation, which provide the fundamental ways of philosophy.

However, to be honest, these methods are not fully functional in their actual actions, especially in terms of philosophical reflection, which does not constitute the core content of their philosophy. Viewing the world solely through observation has become an important feature of French philosophy.

In fact, since Bacon, the entire modern philosophy has been based on observing nature. So, the understanding of the experiential world constitutes the core content of modern philosophy. Therefore, whether we read Bacon, or even Descartes, the philosophers of the rationalist tradition, we can find that the observation and understanding of nature actually constitute the main content of modern philosophy.

Therefore, in this sense, French philosophy is nothing more than a continuation of the entire modern philosophy as a way of conducting philosophical research. It is merely a conception of a holistic grasp of the world at the level of observing it.

It should also be noted that when we talked about Montesquieu earlier, we talked about the inherent contradiction of his philosophical ideas. This inherent contradiction is that they are always unable to fully combine their understanding of individual things with the formation of a universal concept. In fact, they try to replace the establishment of a universal principle with personal experience. Conversely, they even regard a certain universal principle as the starting point for understanding all specific experiences.