the case against the religious and religion

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby Ichthus77 » Sun Dec 26, 2021 3:26 pm

Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 26, 2021 3:33 pm

K: the view I take is simple, we ought to take religion seriously or drop it....
religion must be an engagement with god, old school engagement..
as a way of life, not just an hour a week visiting friends, church as a social event,
instead of being what it ought to be, a commitment to god.. as disclosed
by the bible...if we are to be religious, then let us commit to being as is
found in the bible.... people didn't commit to god half ass in the bible....
it was all or nothing.... I say, if we can't commit fully and completely to god,
as a way of life.. then end this sham of pretense that religion matters..
unless it is a 24/7 commitment, it is a sham.. and we must end that pretense....
It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

It won't be for most people and it probably should not be.

Balance and moderation are important.

You don't need to exercise all day to get the benefits of exercise. A little bit can substantially improve your life.
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 13131
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby Ichthus77 » Sun Dec 26, 2021 3:48 pm

phyllo wrote:
K: the view I take is simple, we ought to take religion seriously or drop it....
religion must be an engagement with god, old school engagement..
as a way of life, not just an hour a week visiting friends, church as a social event,
instead of being what it ought to be, a commitment to god.. as disclosed
by the bible...if we are to be religious, then let us commit to being as is
found in the bible.... people didn't commit to god half ass in the bible....
it was all or nothing.... I say, if we can't commit fully and completely to god,
as a way of life.. then end this sham of pretense that religion matters..
unless it is a 24/7 commitment, it is a sham.. and we must end that pretense....
It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

It won't be for most people and it probably should not be.

Balance and moderation are important.

You don't need to exercise all day to get the benefits of exercise. A little bit can substantially improve your life.


On the one hand God loves us despite our crap. On the other, if you appreciate regularity, it helps to be consistent with diet and exercise etc. I am a hypocrite either way you look at this, but start over.

“Subjectivity is Truth” - Kierkegaard

It means if you ain’t livin it, you know squat about it.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 26, 2021 3:57 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:Phyllo, a bit of context:
https://www.facebook.com/10000369670299 ... 90679/?d=n


I still don't see how you want to apply "the crowd is untruth" to the specific points raised in this thread.

You posted it after I wrote that the majority does not see the relationship with God as PK describes it.

Are you saying that the majority is wrong and PK is correct?
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 13131
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby Ichthus77 » Sun Dec 26, 2021 4:07 pm

I meant it doesn’t matter if the majority is correct. It’s the wrong place to start.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 26, 2021 4:11 pm

It means if you ain’t livin it, you know squat about it.
If you're involved in it, then you know something about it.

In general, the more involved, the more you know ... until you are so involved that you become short sighted and you lose the perspective of the bigger picture.
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 13131
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 26, 2021 4:15 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:I meant it doesn’t matter if the majority is correct. It’s the wrong place to start.
And what is the right place to start concerning the relationship with God?
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 13131
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby Ichthus77 » Sun Dec 26, 2021 4:21 pm

ummmm no. Incorrect reading of what he meant. It is another way of saying practice what you preach or you don’t actually believe what you’re preaching (better: If you believe it, it will show). He and Nietzsche both had the same issue with church leadership. Unlike Nietzsche, he did not defect. He was more like Luther. Pushed out despite loving the church and wanting to improve it.

The right place to start with God is something like, “Thank you. How can I be involved?”
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 26, 2021 5:09 pm

The right place to start with God is something like, “Thank you. How can I be involved?”
This seems to be about how one starts a relationship with God.

But I'm talking about how one describes the relationship with God and what kind of relationships people have with God. And if that relationship is valuable to them.

Most people are not going to become monks. Most people are not "wrestling with God".
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 13131
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby Ichthus77 » Sun Dec 26, 2021 5:22 pm

phyllo wrote:
The right place to start with God is something like, “Thank you. How can I be involved?”
This seems to be about how one starts a relationship with God.

But I'm talking about how one describes the relationship with God and what kind of relationships people have with God. And if that relationship is valuable to them.

Most people are not going to become monks. Most people are not "wrestling with God".


It def ain’t a one-off. It’s like any other relationship (it grows when tended), but orders (or should) every other relationship. A key difference is he is perfect. Any toxicity in the relationship will be one-sided.

I’m not sure if that’s what you’re asking.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby felix dakat » Mon Dec 27, 2021 3:59 pm

Do you base your assessment on reason? Faith in reason is the trust that the ultimate nature of things lie together in a harmony which excludes arbitrariness. Faith in reason presupposes that at the base of things there isn’t just some arbitrary mystery. Faith in the order of nature makes the expansion of scientific theory possible.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby Lorikeet » Mon Dec 27, 2021 4:07 pm

Religion is metaphysics for the masses.
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods

-Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
Lorikeet
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby Ichthus77 » Mon Dec 27, 2021 4:22 pm

felix dakat wrote:Do you base your assessment on reason? Faith in reason is the trust that the ultimate nature of things lie together in a harmony which excludes arbitrariness. Faith in reason presupposes that at the base of things there isn’t just some arbitrary mystery. Faith in the order of nature makes the expansion of scientific theory possible.


I’m not sure if you’re asking me, but — the harmony is this weird three-“horned” triunity between …. ok, I have not had coffee yet. *spits coffee of the future everywhere” See? I’m silly before coffee.

Anyway…. hm. Order tames the wild of us love… shows it by its restraint. It was not through his order that he reached me. And the words, “Rules without relationship bring rebellion” (blue, red, yellow) are … instructive. Rules ALONE misses the POINT (harmony). That’s why nature is (we are) wild—free to love (or not). Love restrains it to show it. Harmony requires apparent other-than. Otherwise there’s just one note… music theory peeps understand this doesn’t play out.

All seeming contradictions are merely apparent. We are co-creators, but only because he allows it. From his whole perspective it begins complete—and every moment is in the making (and we help make every moment we’re in). I have addresses others elsewhere & it may cover more than the scope of your question (already).

I recommend more ordered approaches, or simple ones I (apparently) wasn’t built for, not the one where the hound of heaven hunts you down and your mind pops like Humpty Dumpty, but I’m grateful he did/does.

The study of Christian Apologetics helped put me back together again, but… don’t leave out the other two spheres. That’s why there’s a whole field called … well … I think they call it Imaginative Apologetics, or Creative Apologetics. C.S. Lewis & the Inklings were the … well, they didn’t start the fire … it’s always burnin …

Coffee. Stat.

Sorry Lorikeet. I’ll look later.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby Bob » Tue Dec 28, 2021 7:03 am

As the Renaissance was reinvigorated by its recurrence to the world of Ancient Greece and Rome, so the post-Enlightenment world was reinvigorated by its recursion to the Renaissance, particularly by the rediscovery of Shakespeare, a vital element in the evolution of Romanticism, not just, or even especially, in England, but in Germany and France. It yielded evidence of something so powerful that it simply swept away Enlightenment principles before it, as inauthentic, untenable in the face of experience. It was not just his grandeur, his unpredictability, his faithfulness to nature that commended him. In Shakespeare, tragedy is no longer the result of a fatal flaw or error: time and again it lies in a clash between two ways of being in the world or looking at the world, neither of which has to be mistaken. In Shakespeare tragedy is in fact the result of the coming together of opposites. And Maurice Morgann’s brilliant essay of 1777 emphasises the importance, in individuality, of the context dependency of personal characteristics, struggling to express the concept of the Gestalt nearly two hundred years before its time.
McGilchrist, Iain. The Master and His Emissary (S.355). Yale University Press. Kindle-Version.

I think this describes a little bit (there is more in the book) about the fact that a purely “enlightened” understanding of the world is seriously insufficient, and that only if one can grasp the co-operation of opposites, as perspectives that provide a 3D picture if you like, does life transpire. In fact, words spring to life and characters on a stage are more lifelike than many people you would meet on the street. This is impossible for people who are exclusively rational minded, and it is the explanation for why humour is becoming an area in which people are deeply offended and cancel culture tries to silence humourists like John Cleese.

It is also the reason we fail to understand myth and metaphor, and attack them unremittingly, because they challenge our rationality and force us to transcend.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
When you are out of touch with reality you will easily embrace a delusion, and equally put in doubt the most basic elements of existence. If this reminds you of the mindset of the present day materialist science and philosophy establishments, as well as of the loudest voices in the socio-political debate, we should not be particularly surprised, since they show all the signs of attending with the left hemisphere alone. I live in the hope that that may soon change: for without a change we are lost.
McGilchrist, Iain . The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (S.562). Perspectiva Press. Kindle-Version.
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4217
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby Ichthus77 » Tue Dec 28, 2021 8:48 am

So. Aesthetics (beauty) is why/message. Philosophy/science (truth) is what/medium/channel. Ethics (good) is how/form/translation/encode/decode.

You need all three in harmony for meaningful correspondence.

Make sense?
Attachments
C970C3A0-D7B8-4D59-9317-F3A462E86C8D.jpeg
C970C3A0-D7B8-4D59-9317-F3A462E86C8D.jpeg (90.48 KiB) Viewed 439 times
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby Ichthus77 » Tue Dec 28, 2021 9:08 am

Scientific method starts with a question/hypothesis in aesthetics (why), designs an experiment in “what”, runs the experiment & interprets data in “how”, and returns with an answer back in Why until there are no further questions.

This is also how philosophy & religion work, though a bit differently for each.

Unfortunately it is usually always unbalanced & out of harmony.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby Bob » Tue Dec 28, 2021 9:16 am

Ichthus77 wrote:So. Aesthetics (beauty) is why/message. Philosophy/science (truth) is what/medium/channel. Ethics (good) is how/form/translation/encode/decode.

You need all three in harmony for meaningful correspondence.

Make sense?

Sounds good to me ... :-D
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
When you are out of touch with reality you will easily embrace a delusion, and equally put in doubt the most basic elements of existence. If this reminds you of the mindset of the present day materialist science and philosophy establishments, as well as of the loudest voices in the socio-political debate, we should not be particularly surprised, since they show all the signs of attending with the left hemisphere alone. I live in the hope that that may soon change: for without a change we are lost.
McGilchrist, Iain . The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (S.562). Perspectiva Press. Kindle-Version.
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4217
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby Ichthus77 » Tue Dec 28, 2021 9:18 am

If only everything we discovered in nature (finite or infinite), and everything we created/invented using art, science, philosophy, ethics… were in harmony with each other (why, what, how) (beauty, truth, goodness) (aesthetics, science/philosophy/metaphysics, ethics) (be/character/virtue, do/conduct/behavior, end/consequences/teleology) etc etc etc
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby Bob » Tue Dec 28, 2021 9:39 am

Ichthus77 wrote:If only everything we discovered in nature (finite or infinite), and everything we created/invented using art, science, philosophy, ethics… were in harmony with each other (why, what, how) (beauty, truth, goodness) (aesthetics, science/philosophy/metaphysics, ethics) (be/character/virtue, do/conduct/behavior, end/consequences/teleology) etc etc etc

I think the point that McGilchrist is making is that our brains translate the input that we receive, and it is the exchange between the hemispheres that provide us with different perspectives. If we tend towards one hemisphere, we lack the ability to see things in context. This means that one could completely dissolve at the aesthetics of a poem that had absolutely no connection with reality, but was purely rhetorical, or, said another way, we can dig into the particulars of something without seeing its connection to the whole. Or we can wonder at the larger picture, without inquiring further, and fail to grasp the detail. We need an exchange of both hemispheres to gain a whole picture.

This should, then, harmonise as far as we are able to gain all components, and confirm that we have in fact assessed something correctly. Normally, people rely on others to confirm or refute their perception, albeit done in a discreet way. However, it is often the failure to find harmony that teaches us the most, which is often the role of comedy.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
When you are out of touch with reality you will easily embrace a delusion, and equally put in doubt the most basic elements of existence. If this reminds you of the mindset of the present day materialist science and philosophy establishments, as well as of the loudest voices in the socio-political debate, we should not be particularly surprised, since they show all the signs of attending with the left hemisphere alone. I live in the hope that that may soon change: for without a change we are lost.
McGilchrist, Iain . The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (S.562). Perspectiva Press. Kindle-Version.
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4217
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby Ichthus77 » Tue Dec 28, 2021 10:14 am

Neuroscience would def have stuff to say about this and how the brain is structured to facilitate the harmony (and what interrupts it) - but … choice enters … spirit enters … this is not a “matter” of bare mechanics.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby Bob » Tue Dec 28, 2021 10:52 am

Ichthus77 wrote:Neuroscience would def have stuff to say about this and how the brain is structured to facilitate the harmony (and what interrupts it) - but … choice enters … spirit enters … this is not a “matter” of bare mechanics.

That is an issue that McGilchrist takes up in his book, which is in the second half more a review of history showing how choice caused a lack of balance at times and led to narrow-mindedness and all the consequences of that. Obviously, the opposite, choosing to ignore the details also has consequences. I think there are indications that the brain is a "sorting place" where stimuli of all kinds come together, the inspirational perhaps being the least graspable, and most ephemeral.

I think that if you read his book, which covers a vast area, you would see that he does try to get away from "mechanics", but at the same time, the functions of the brain that have been discovered do indicate the tendencies he has listed. As I have said elsewhere, his combination of literature and psychiatry does broaden his scope considerably.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
When you are out of touch with reality you will easily embrace a delusion, and equally put in doubt the most basic elements of existence. If this reminds you of the mindset of the present day materialist science and philosophy establishments, as well as of the loudest voices in the socio-political debate, we should not be particularly surprised, since they show all the signs of attending with the left hemisphere alone. I live in the hope that that may soon change: for without a change we are lost.
McGilchrist, Iain . The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (S.562). Perspectiva Press. Kindle-Version.
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4217
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby Ichthus77 » Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:17 pm

Thank you for the recommendation. I am partial to Kierkegaard’s stages.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby Ichthus77 » Wed Feb 02, 2022 5:54 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:So. Aesthetics (beauty) is why/message. Philosophy/science (truth) is what/medium/channel. Ethics (good) is how/form/translation/encode/decode.

You need all three in harmony for meaningful correspondence.

Make sense?


The image prolly didn't attach, so scroll up for it. Think I messed it up. Think this fixes it:

message/sender (encode love)
medium/channel/messenger (sign/symbol) - like death on a cross, rising from the dead (transmit "I love you")
message/receiver / ears that can hear, eyes that can see (decode love)
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby shotgun » Sun Mar 27, 2022 10:34 pm

There's far too much here to warrant a line-by-line response. Instead, a few programmatic responses:

1. I'm one of those detested "conservative" "fundamentalist" "right-wing" (insert moniker of choice) Christians and, as such, my perspective might be interesting to the thread.

2. People who claim to be biased against "religion" and/or of "being religious" are often (at least, speaking anecdotally) some of the most dogmatic religionists out there. Given prevailing notions in the English-speaking world, however, they're often naive about their own dogmas, in most cases being completely blind to them.

3. Building on 2, it seems most humans have the tendency to accept beliefs if those beliefs are taken for granted by the society in which they were raised. Consider this example:

If asked whether or not the Earth orbits the sun, most people will adamantly suggest a heliocentric model.

Moreover, if asked to give an account of this belief, most will have no idea, off-hand, how to argue for it. Very few have ready access - on the tip of their tongue as it were - to some sophisticated mathematical account. Rather, what we'll get - if our question is taken seriously at all - are a series of off-the-cuff appeals to audacity or, more likely given the millennial mindset - attempts to Google some quick blurb or response they might pass off as their own.

(This may not be the case here at ILP given most of us enjoy thinking, discussing, and forming arguments for our views - but in general, this holds).

Is it "weakness" to accept herd-based views prima-facie? Without critical reflection?

If so, then maybe accepting Christianity in an age of rampant skepticism and ridicule from pop-culture, is the "strong" position after all?
User avatar
shotgun
Thinker
 
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: NC

Re: the case against the religious and religion

Postby Bob » Wed Mar 30, 2022 10:05 am

shotgun wrote:There's far too much here to warrant a line-by-line response. Instead, a few programmatic responses:

1. I'm one of those detested "conservative" "fundamentalist" "right-wing" (insert moniker of choice) Christians and, as such, my perspective might be interesting to the thread.

2. People who claim to be biased against "religion" and/or of "being religious" are often (at least, speaking anecdotally) some of the most dogmatic religionists out there. Given prevailing notions in the English-speaking world, however, they're often naive about their own dogmas, in most cases being completely blind to them.

I think you forget that many people who have been here, and are still here, have a past in which they have belonged to various religious organisations or been brought up in a “Bible Belt” or in families with strong adherence to traditions they feel comfortable with. But there are those who have “grown out” of their communities, often as a result of more information, different encounters, and personal experience. None of these people have “the” concept that could silence the others, but their knowledge/experience has changed the way they see the world.

Each of us has biases, which can be either good or bad, helpful or destructive, caused by attraction to or repulsion from what they have experienced. There is also the question of trust, which can only grow with experience of something or someone who is trustworthy or be destroyed by the awareness of unreliability in what someone says or does. Many have lost their trust in the church as an institution but have retained a faith in the underlying truth to be found in the message of the church, or at least in the perennial wisdom that the church claims are its own. The whole situation is a mess, I’ll give you that, but it is not least the fragmented, contradictory nature of the church that has contributed to or even caused the chaos. People who have found themselves at odds with the church have been left trying to make sense of it all.

shotgun wrote:3. Building on 2, it seems most humans have the tendency to accept beliefs if those beliefs are taken for granted by the society in which they were raised. Consider this example:

If asked whether or not the Earth orbits the sun, most people will adamantly suggest a heliocentric model.

Moreover, if asked to give an account of this belief, most will have no idea, off-hand, how to argue for it. Very few have ready access - on the tip of their tongue as it were - to some sophisticated mathematical account. Rather, what we'll get - if our question is taken seriously at all - are a series of off-the-cuff appeals to audacity or, more likely given the millennial mindset - attempts to Google some quick blurb or response they might pass off as their own.

The understanding that I have gained from talking to many people I know is that they rely on what they call “common knowledge”. We all do to the degree that we allow ourselves to be informed through the channels that are available. The problem is that “common knowledge” is very often particular to a certain mindset and very different depending on what bloc you live in in the world. Western “common knowledge” is very diffuse, often partisan, whereas in countries for example under Russian influence or Chinese influence it is often streamlined to state dogma.

There is also the aspect of applied knowledge as researched and applied in psychology, psychiatry, sociology, social work, therapy groups, and related fields that reveal a malignant social interaction in some groups, a group dynamic in which the behaviours, attitudes, opinions, and experiences of individual members are collectively influenced by individual group members. Appreciation of psychological studies in church groups is low, as I have personally experienced, which is particularly revealing when tensions within the group negatively affect individuals. All of this affects the way people respond to a critical assessment of their "common knowledge."

shotgun wrote: (This may not be the case here at ILP given most of us enjoy thinking, discussing, and forming arguments for our views - but in general, this holds).

Is it "weakness" to accept herd-based views prima-facie? Without critical reflection?

If so, then maybe accepting Christianity in an age of rampant skepticism and ridicule from pop-culture, is the "strong" position after all?

I think that what I have said applies to ILP as much as to any other group, especially considering that most are incognito here. However, I have time because I am retired, but many are not and generally people have no time to check up continually on facts. Christianity is so diverse in different parts of the globe that I wonder really whether we actually talk of Christianity per se, but instead must look at the various sects and factions, churches, communities and groups, who differ greatly and above all, are sometimes hostile towards each other.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
When you are out of touch with reality you will easily embrace a delusion, and equally put in doubt the most basic elements of existence. If this reminds you of the mindset of the present day materialist science and philosophy establishments, as well as of the loudest voices in the socio-political debate, we should not be particularly surprised, since they show all the signs of attending with the left hemisphere alone. I live in the hope that that may soon change: for without a change we are lost.
McGilchrist, Iain . The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (S.562). Perspectiva Press. Kindle-Version.
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4217
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users